Posts Tagged ‘manipulation’

Insane Information Creates Insane Action

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Inevitably the internet was going to increase the flow of data across the world. The important aspect of this flow is the exchange of communication between individuals. Other individuals witness these exchanges, and make deductions based on what they see, which then become information upon which they rely when making decisions.

In this decentralized medium, no one can regulate the conversion between data and conversation. Tech companies realize that people act on information they perceive as reliable and important. They filter the exchange through “community standards,” fearing what happens when the masses attribute the information to a reliable organization and have it shape their worldview.

This means that, as with mass media before the internet, all information has some form of bias. It has been said that Trump is a great persuader, but it has also been said that mainstream media is a great manipulator.  So when someone raises his hand to say that: “hey, politicians are now more talked about than Hollywood stars,” then you realize that information flow is going crazy.

And it is insane, because that is not how it was intended to be by our financial overlords. The typical Western “group-think” is that the masses like images of their favorite “stars,” which are used by advertisers to sell products. This is called manipulation, where intelligence agencies combined with media and film corporations are making fortunes from creating and maintaining their own celebrity “bubbles.”

Scott Adams explained how to know when you are in a mass hysteria bubble. If you are not in this bubble, you are persuaded, but if you are within it, you are being manipulated.

It’s quite clear that millions of people are still manipulated, meaning they fall outside the “current popular group” as it were.  There is also no doubt that some people are psychologically susceptible to suggestive manipulations, where media and political “suggestions” include mass violence (assassinations) against the “persuaded” individuals. There is ample evidence of correlation between political statements and street violence in South Africa if such reference is required.

From this it is obvious that the second these masses realized they were not part of the popular group (anymore), they went crazy. But the manipulators including mass media and intelligence agencies as coordinated by the jilted political representatives, exacerbated the natural violent response to unpopularity to such an extent, that crazy information became crazy action.

It’s almost a perfect storm: the combination of greedy corporations and their political sycophants manipulating liberal masses have created a positive feedback loop that is bound to, and may already have hit critical mass. Their public address loudspeakers are at their limits resulting in a squeaking crescendo that chases away supporters rather that invite them, because it is insane noise.

Its sanity accelerates. Each group has found a way to reach maximum intensity, and now has nowhere else to go. SJWs are dressing up like vaginas, defeating any notion that they can be outdone. The bike-lock Professor can’t be outdone. The Charlottesville antifa dress better than SWAT teams and can’t be outdone. There is no more to be done; they have hit their limits.

At this point, the masses are in the process of persuading themselves. This creates circular reasoning, where the group rewards any who express its biases, and then amplify those biases by repeating the information to one another. The more this happens, the more each group withdraws into its own simulation of reality, filtered through its assumptions as if they were truth.

This is the endgame of modern democracy. We have created a pluralistic echo chamber, where each group is diverging rapidly from the rest. This radicalizes them and their competition (“opposition” and “enemies”) at the same time while increasing the speed of the change of events. The information that once controlled people has now made them chaotic and insane.

Our only option for healing this wound is counter-intuitive. The way to encourage these masses is actually to increase their crazy information flow and encourage their crazy actions because it will expose them, meaning break them outside of the bubble of manipulation, and in doing so persuade them that the system of information exchange itself has become broken.

It seems crazy to think such action could work. Then again, what we have now is also crazy, and getting more insane by the day. When the information bubble pops, people will no longer trust any forms of authority or any groups of other people, and will have to rely on gut instinct and immediately observable events and attributes of reality.

At that point, humanity will be closer to its actual nature than it has been for the past century of mass media — newspapers, radio, television, social media — manipulation, and with the fall of the idol of mass information itself, will be immunized to ideology and become weaponized in favor of common sense.

Civilization Depends On Lack Of Control

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

Stop me if you have heard this old joke. A drunk Soviet citizen takes a box labeled TURNIPS to his neighbor and offers it for sale. They open it up, and it is full of stones. “If the Party says they are turnips, they are turnips, comrade,” says the drunk. “Unless you want me to report you for calling the Party a liar?”

All human groups — civilizations, church clubs, businesses, rings of friends — collapse the same way: they become successful, and to regulate themselves, set up rules and procedures which then become more important than the intended results of those rules and procedures. The letter of the law wins out over the spirit of the law. After all, you can either call the stones turnips or become an enemy.

These internal systems can be called control, which is the habit of making people into a fungible commodity so they can be forced to obey the same instructions, mainly for the defensive purpose of keeping them from destabilizing the group. Control, like any good virus, quickly escapes its masters and becomes dedicated only to itself, addictive like the power of the One Ring in Lord Of The Rings.

In that story, the ring represents a force that is seductive to men and then takes over their minds. It grants them great power, including invisibility, but the more they use it, the more their will is bent to its own. This is a metaphor for control, which is the trap into which most civilizations fall.

William S. Burroughs wrote extensively about the nature of control:

[W]ords are still the principal instruments of control. Suggestions are words. Persuasions are words. Orders are words. No control machine so far devised can operate without words, and any control machine which attempts to do so relying entirely on external force or entirely on physical control of the mind will soon encounter the limits of control.

…When there is no more opposition, control becomes a meaningless proposition. It is highly questionable whether a human organism could survive complete control. There would be nothing there. No persons there. Life is will (motivation) and the workers would no longer be alive, perhaps literally. The concept of suggestion as a complete technique presupposes that control is partial and not complete. You do not have to give suggestions to your tape recorder nor subject it to pain and coercion or persuasion.

…Consider a control situation: ten people in a lifeboat. two armed self-appointed leaders force the other eight to do the rowing while they dispose of the food and water, keeping most of it for themselves an doling out only enough to keep the other eight rowing. The two leaders now need to exercise control to maintain an advantageous position which they could not hold without it. Here the method of control is force – the possession of guns. Decontrol would be accomplished by overpowering the leaders and taking their guns. This effected, it would be advantageous to kill them at once. So once embarked on a policy of control, the leaders must continue the policy as a matter of self-preservation. Who, then, needs to control others but those who protect by such control a position of relative advantage? Why do they need to exercise control? Because they would soon lose this position and advantage and in many cases their lives as well, if they relinquished control.

Burroughs may err slightly in that he sees control more as a physical state, and not a psychological one. As Plato points out, it is possible to have a strong leader whose intent is noble and whose intelligence is realistic, thus he accomplishes (mostly) what he aims for. This leader has “control,” but it is not really control. It is leadership, a variety of something covered later in this essay.

For example, consider a lifeboat full of eight dangerous schizophrenics and two leaders. The leaders will need to force the others to row because there are only two leaders, and many relatively expendable people; this way, the boat will reach its destination and the highest number will survive. Even more, since sanity is more valuable than insanity, it is important that the two get there, as a future is found in them but not in the schizophrenics, whose condition is highly correlated with genetic inheritance.

This shows us the essence of control: it is not power itself, but the desire to use power for no purpose other than itself or those who wield it. As Burroughs shows with his metaphor, those who use power for no purpose except themselves are soon thrown into a defensive role, at which point they must enforce control in order to avoid being destroyed.

Tolkien’s metaphor is portrayed most powerfully in the movies, where the ring seduces those who encounter it with words that reveal to them simultaneously their doubts about themselves and the world, and promises easier answers than the obvious and challenging task before them. Men are destroyed by wanting to use the ring to solve their problems instead of actually solving the problems directly.

In this way, the power of language is revealed. Words have a stunning power because they are tokens that evoke images in the minds of those to whom they are spoken, and there is no guarantee that those images correspond to those in the mind of the speaker. This occurs through the power of symbolism, or the ability of one detail to stand for the whole. The word can mean a single detail excluding others, and speaker and listener often have different sets of those details that provide the image in their head, meaning that the listener is blind to many of the properties that are implied. There are also lies, which may be the oldest and worst of human vices.

As is frequent on this blog, a citation from Tom Wolfe completes the circuit:

Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

…No evolutionist has come up with even an interesting guess as to when speech began, but it was at least 11,000 years ago, which is to say, 9000 B.C. It seems to be the consensus . . . in the notoriously capricious field of evolutionary chronology . . . that 9000 B.C. was about when the human beast began farming, and the beast couldn’t have farmed without speech, without being able to say to his son, “Son, this here’s seeds. You best be putting ’em in the ground in rows ov’ere like I tell you if you wanna git any ears a corn this summer.”

…One of Homo loquax’s first creations after he learned to talk was religion. Since The Origin of Species in 1859 the doctrine of Evolution has done more than anything else to put an end to religious faith among educated people in Europe and America; for God is dead. But it was religion, more than any other weapon in Homo loquax’s nuclear arsenal, that killed evolution itself 11,000 years ago.

Worse than simply being manipulative, language has utility. In doing so, it allows those who could not succeed to learn from others and so endure despite lacking the understanding behind the words. This creates a rich environment for manipulation, because then there is a mass that does not understand depth, only the surface comprised of the simple images in their minds evoked by language.

If anything marks the transition between the last century and the present, it is a gradual rejection of the power of language to control. People are recognizing that words do not have inherent meanings, which means they are only meaningful insofar as speaker and listener have the same mental images, and this depends on who they are, and cannot be “educated” into them.

Through this mechanism, humankind returns to something like the order of nature. Language is useless, so instead we agree on a goal which cannot be transmitted through language, like the amorphous idea of a great civilization rivaling that of the ancients. Then, we rely on people to reach that goal by independent action, reflecting their ability and therefore where they belong in the hierarchy.

Contrarian to this large evolutionary step, the doctrine of egalitarianism serves as the basis of control. It establishes what cannot be said by making a rule that all people must be equal, so anything above equal becomes taboo. Wherever humanity is held back, you will find control saying that we cannot get ahead of ourselves, because not everyone is up to speed yet.

The latest from the forces of control is “political correctness,” a type of speech code that shapes thought toward egalitarianism and therefore prevents critique of the failing 1789-2016 programs which implemented egalitarian ideas as policy. The backlash against political correctness is beginning with fervor, and may have elected the current president of the United States:

According to the website—the project of mathematician Spencer Greenberg—believing “there is too much political correctness in this country” was the second most reliable predictor of whether a given person intended to vote for Trump. The only better predictor was party affiliation: despite an abnormal campaign featuring an abnormal candidate, it remained the case that the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for the Republican candidate, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the Democratic candidate.

But being anti-P.C. correlated more strongly with being pro-Trump than just about anything else: it beat out social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration as predictive tendencies.

“Nowadays, as the right sees it, the left has won the culture war and controls the media, the universities, Hollywood and the education of everyone’s children,” Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at New York University, told Politico in the recent article that made me aware of Greenberg’s survey data. “Many of them think that they are the victims, they are fighting back against powerful and oppressive forces, and their animosities are related to that worldview.”

Political correctness represents the attempt by the dying egalitarian Establishment to hold on to power after it has lost the hearts and minds of its people.

Egalitarianism promised “freedom” from the “tyranny” of the monarchy, and instead delivered a string of ideological wars beginning with the Napoleonic Wars and extending into World War Two. Since that time, the West has fought a cold war against egalitarian totalitarians, and divided itself between different shades of egalitarianism among its own political powers.

The point of political correctness is to prevent the criticism of egalitarianism by noticing certain facts that egalitarianism will not acknowledge, and so quickly became a war on truth itself. As in witch-hunts, political correctness gives power to the people making the accusation, which is assumed to be true because no one wants to in turn become a target of the inquisitors.

In turn that creates a situation where necessary truths are denied, forcing ordinary people to become extremists once they realize this system is designed to perpetuate a lie and suppress truth:

In January 2014, the commander of a French military academy rejected the master’s thesis of an elite German army officer under his charge for its extremist argument that human rights could lead to the genocide of Western races.

“If this was a French participant on the course, we would remove him,” he told the young officer’s German superiors.

An academic hired to review the thesis told senior officers in the German army, the Bundeswehr, that it included racist and radical nationalist content, but they chose not to formally discipline the man as they did not want to jeopardize the career of a high-flying recruit.

Societies that suppress potentially truthful observations because those observations may threaten control are by nature totalitarian societies, no matter what methods they use, including “peaceful” ones like ostracism. You either obey control, or your life is destroyed by obliteration of your career, reputation, livelihood and chance to have friends and meet potential mates. The forces of political correctness are using natural selection to “weed out” people with unconventional opinions.

As a result, the West now has created a situation where it is pursuing a path to doom and has eliminated any ability to notice that this doom is upon us. This gives us a binary choice: we either fight this system, or accept our own destruction. We are going to go out just like the Soviets, unwilling to alter a failing direction because of our pretense of being correct according to control:

Totalitarianism has nothing necessarily to do with violence (as Aldous Huxley perceived in his Brave New World of 1932 – and to equate totalitarianism with violence was an error by Orwell). For totalitarianism ‘whatever works’ is the guide.

Thus we now, in the West, live in a highly totalitarian society, in which most people’s thoughts are controlled most of the time – by a combination of indoctrination during childhood and youth, the unified-linked bureaucracy of the government and the workplace, the mass media and its addictiveness, and a legal system which explicitly includes thought crimes (what else are ‘hate crimes’?).

Those who wish to resist this totalitarianism have made a fatal error. Instead of demanding an end to control, they have chosen a false target through an ersatz opposite to control. They choose “freedom,” which is a form of egalitarianism, which means that as soon as control is overthrown, it will be reinstated through the manipulation that produced it the first time.

The opposite of control is not liberty, but cooperation. Cooperation requires a purpose and principles, so that people can measure their actions by how they help to achieve that goal. With cooperation, people take on unequal roles toward the same end for the benefit not of individuals, but of society as an organic whole, as if it were an organism.

Without cooperation, people go in many different directions at once, and this opens the door to manipulation. Since the chaos impedes life, people will begin manipulating one another with language. The virus will spread, and soon everyone will manipulate each other, which makes manipulation the only way to have power, and by natural selection elects to leadership those who are the best manipulators.

Vicarious Existence

Friday, May 26th, 2017

When a society is new, everything has purpose in the physical world. Defeat the barbarians. Grow these foods. Build a sewer. Clear these fields.

As a society grows, social purpose replaces actual real-world purpose. The real-world goals are mostly vanquished; now, one must convince others to do things. Some do they because they are necessary, and others become individualists, who act for personal power and wealth at the expense of others, the organic society, and that intangible and fragile world of principles which sustain civilization.

When the concept of “equality” arrives, as it always does when one wants to pacify a group, the methods of motivating people through authority fade away. What replaces them is an open market and social scene, and then symbolism takes over from reality. The appearance of being good and friendly becomes essential to interact with others, and have them do things for you or pay you for services.

This symbolic reality quickly replaces all other vectors to success. Those who want to succeed must learn to manipulate it, and in so doing adopt it as their way of interacting with the world. This reduces all of society to a question of control: how to coerce and bribe others into doing what you want by presenting pleasant illusions instead of harsh realities.

At this point, the society becomes dominated by merchants or at least those who think like them. (Much of Europe’s outrage at Jews can be explained by the identification with Jews as merchants, and therefore the blaming of Jews for Europeans converting themselves into a society that uses exclusively mercantile logic, as happening following The Enlightenment™).

Control demands that there be one central authority, ruling others through direct command or indirect methods like guilt and ideology, and it too spreads as a mentality. Society becomes competitive on a personal level for who is able to rule over others not by mutual interest, but as a form of using those others as a means to an end, with that end being the interest of control in maintaining itself.

In a control-based society, control has no goals except itself because being in control enables one to freely partake in the wealth and power of that society. The controller needs nothing more than to achieve control, which requires constant assertion of dominance, and then any other decision is contingent upon that control; society becomes the tool of the individual who is motivated to control.

The problem with control, as Fred Nietzsche noted in his controversial and misunderstood series of observations of “slaves and masters,” is that it makes the controller dependent on the controlled. This causes the controller to live through others, engaging in a vicarious existence where the experiences of others become more significant than those of the controller.

This is how tyrants become lonely, introverted, and sad. It is also how anyone of above-average ability, in a control-based society, destroys themselves. Appearance leads to manipulation, manipulation leads to control, and control leads to all — including the controller — becoming tools of the control. The cart comes before the horse, and the tail wags the dog.

As part of this, the family is shattered. Parents must dedicate their lives to work, either in control or under control, and they take this mentality home. They both attempt to control their children, and live through them. This leads to a mentality of ownership in which parents project themselves into the lives of their children, who they treat as symbols:

And yet, making real estate decisions solely for the sake of your kids can be a recipe for regret that can actually undermine your family’s happiness.

“People get idealistic and sometimes irrational when they choose the home they plan to raise their kids in,” says Holly Breville, a McEnearney Associates real estate agent in Washington, DC.

The parents become idealistic and unrealistic because they are not thinking of real needs of their children, but how the parents want to visualize themselves as successful parents. This involves a slaves-and-masters calculation: in order to appear in control, the parents allow themselves to be controlled by the opinions of others, living through those others as through their own children.

Controlling parents ruin their children by planning life too exactly for them. Such parents want a child to act out what the parent secretly desires, and so they shape the life of the child, making decisions for them and wrestling control over the life of the child from that child when something goes wrong.

By doing so, they raise children who are unable to make their own decisions. The explosion of hipsters — mostly the children of successful parents — demonstrates this: never having been able to make decisions and get them wrong, and having been made dependent on the parents by parental intervention, the children exist in a perpetual present tense of indecision, which they supplement by adding adornments to their lives to appear in control, despite having given up on many important areas of life.

The horror of the modern time is not limited to external forces like institutions. Much of it arises from the craziness of people: neurotic, unstable, vindictive, petty and most of all, manipulative. Control is a mental virus that infests a society and ruins it from the inside out, leaving behind a wasteland of confusion.

OMFG The Alt Right Is Racist (Hide Your Daughters, They Love This Stuff)

Thursday, September 1st, 2016


Cue the media catch-up because a term they did not originate has taken over the airwaves.

The National Review writes that the alt right = pure racism:

There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.

They seem to have missed the point that for the last 70 years, bashing white people — and using that as an excuse to demand subsidies from them — has been the modus operandi of the dominant left-wing parties. The putative conservative parties have done nothing to arrest this, but instead in an attempt to be popular by following bandwagon trends, have endorsed it.

The alt right is the pushback. But not just against anti-whiteness; against the decline of Western Civilization at large. For Western Civilization to survive, and reverse its collapse, however, its people must survive: those who are genetically Western European, which is what most of the world means when it says “white.”

Funny about that National Review article, because (theoretical) enemy of the Right Hillary Clinton says the same thing:

The alternative right, commonly known as the alt-right, is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center (an organization that tracks hate groups), as a “set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”

In other words: This is not conservatism or the Republican Party. This is a movement that fosters anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-multiculturalism, and anti-women rhetoric. This is a white supremacist movement, and one that Trump has not only refused to denounce—it’s one he actively courts.

If you oppose multiculturalism, you are a racist, in the view of both mainstream right and left. What does this tell us? The only permissible view is to accept the importation of many foreign people, eventually obliterating the native population. No leader who cares about the wellbeing of his people does this, and yet we have voices from both sides of the imaginary aisle demanding it.

This outlook follows the pathology of Leftism: it is not reflective of reality, but of humanity. It wants what humans wish were true. This leads to illusion, and is how every human society self-destructs, but because popular things produce immediate rewards, the illusion — what our ancestors called “evil” — is always chosen, like dogs drinking antifreeze and becoming poisoned. This is the challenge of civilization.

The alt right constructs itself around a simple ideal. It suggests that we do what is real, not what is popular. This launches us into a reality-first assessment that sees biology as more important than intentions, education or politics. From that, we find ourselves arriving at ethno-nationalism, or the idea that a nation is its people, specifically the genetically founding group.

The advantage of nationalism, in addition to the fact that homogeneous societies are the most stable and happiest, is that it does away with the need for government, and with it politics and “systems” of elaborate rules designed to make evil (illusion-dependent) people equivalent to good ones. People rule themselves by cultural standards, and that way, when they ostracize someone, it is for an actual transgression.

An eternally popular human illusion might be stated as “we are all one.” In this illusion, all people are the same everywhere, and so with the right rules, we can make them do good even if they are not good. This way, no one needs to be looked into to see if they are evil, and if they do an evil thing, they are automatically forgiven and still part of the group. This anti-Darwinian and pro-evil stance results in civilization decay.

In one of the more penetrating articles of the week, Ricardo Duchesne asks why multiculturalism has spread across the West so rapidly:

But while it is generally known that these factors are interconnected, there is still no cohesive explanation for the almost simultaneous adoption of immigrant multiculturalism across the Western world.

He explores a number of theories, and invents a few terms, but ultimately, finds no answer. Here is the answer: multiculturalism spread because it is a variant of the “we are all one” idea, which is popular because it enforces the idea of equality, which is in turn popular because with equality, the individual is accepted regardless of his abilities or evil acts. Equality is created by individuals through the group, but it protects the group only as a way of protecting the individual; its actual goal is to weaken the group, so that the group cannot ejecting low-performing or evil members. Equality is the anti-Darwin. Equality is also the eternally popular illusion.

All of Leftism — class warfare, diversity, sexual liberation, socialism, big government, etc. — arises from the idea of equality. Since equality is not-real (evil) it must be enforced. The best way to do that is to destroy everything but equality in the minds of the people, which requires deconstructing (destroying) culture, heritage, the family, personal integrity, history, art and love.

Diversity is an arrow in this quiver. With diversity, the heritage and culture of the host nation are destroyed, and it is unable to state any standards but those presumed to be universal, which are something like this: “All people like to eat and drink, and be safe, and have jobs, and not be interfered with unless they are committing grand theft, murder, rape or assault.”

This is why it spread like wildfire: it is a version of the ideology which had already spread like wildfire, Leftism, and so people adopted it as the latest means of making Leftism more powerful, thus protecting the individual from judgment.

That particular illusion manifests in “magic dirt” theory, described quite elegantly by Lawrence Murray:

Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!

Name the theory above: it is a system. Instead of choosing the right people, you choose universal equal people, and have the right rules to shape them into perfect replicas of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is why the dirt must be magic. When you get them here, into our system, they are transformed like raw materials in a factory. That universal human set of desires — eat, drink, safety, no oversight — becomes a series of incentives through which these people are manipulated. Then, they see the wisdom of our ways, and become Us, or at least something that carries on Our ideology.

If you are thinking that ideology behaves like a virus here, you are correct. Much like fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps, the ideology of equality hijacks human brains and turns them into zombies, destroying them to propagate itself. This may be one of the few universal rules of the universe: all ideas seek to replicate themselves. (This also makes a handy theological argument: if the basis of the universe is ideas replicating, all life is a replication of the essential idea of life, which fits the profile of God.)

Systems arise from equality. Without equality, there is no need for systems, because people are known as they are by their acts. When we cannot hold people responsible for their actions because they are equal, we need a nanny state to guide them every step of the way, and because it uses a utilitarian approach, it begins its activity by assuming that all people are equally screwed up and so they have to be treated like retarded children.


In contrast, reality says that genetics trumps all of our best intentions, as revealed by this periodically strikingly realistic article in Foreign Affairs:

But recent evidence suggests that, in reality, social mobility rates are extremely low. Seven to ten generations are required before the descendants of high and low status families achieve average status. Thus in modern Sweden the descendants of the eighteenth-century nobility are still heavily overrepresented — 300 years later — among higher social status groups: doctors, attorneys, the wealthy, members of the Swedish Royal Academies. In the United Kingdom, the descendants of families who sent a son to Oxford or Cambridge around 1800 are still four times as likely to attend these universities as the average person. Social mobility rates have also been relatively impervious to government policy. They are no higher in societies like Sweden, with generous interventions in favor of the children of disadvantaged families, than in the more laissez-faire United States. For that matter, they are no higher in modern Sweden than in eighteenth-century Sweden, or medieval England.

This reverses the magic cult of equality.

Equality requires that we presuppose that human intent is more important than who those humans are, inside, including innate traits like those passed on by genetics, which is — no giant surprise here — nearly all of them, or by a conservative estimate, 80% of all of them. (I point interested readers to The Blank Slate or the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, in which twin studies feature prominently.)

With human intent, we can design systems. We can break out the carrot-and-stick and manipulate people by appealing to their reason. This denies the fact that reason, like everything else, is unequally distributed among every population. If it was evenly distributed, the group would have only two states: unison or complete disorder. Unequal distribution allows the group to move in waves rather than binary states.

When we turn to genetics as the basis for human behavior, we are suddenly looking at a situation where human intent is almost all nonsense, cover stories, justifications, rationalizations and manipulative lies; people do what they do because they are wired to do those things, and if we demand an appeal to their reason, they just do what they were going to do anyway and then make up ad hoc excuses for why it was important, contributing the mental equivalent of spam to the discussion.

However, this is an antisocial truth. To be social, people must trust one another through the symbols they use to communicate. The biology-first anti-equality view of life says that not only is that not necessarily true, but that relying on it encourages lying and deception. Oops.

This brings us back to “racism,” which is a Left-word for people wanting to associate with those like themselves.

Like other natural instincts, which are acted upon but cannot be articulated, our desire to associate with those like ourselves is a force multiplier. Having a group that does not require an expensive committee of oversight, otherwise known as government/police, achieves a great efficiency: all the effort that would have previously been spent disciplining (white) human monkeys can now be devoted to other things, like art, learning, architecture, etc.

Originally our societies had almost no government. There were committees of old men to judge matters brought before them at the local level, and kings who were more war and religious leaders than those who “preside” or attempt to shape society toward ideological goals, and then helpful people like local pastors and philosophers who could make sense of complex things and give advice to both individuals and the aforementioned leaders and judges.

In order to uphold equality, we need government, police, psychologists, lawyers, bureaucrats and others who essentially take wealth from the group and use it for their own purposes. Society goes further into breakdown.

Of course, here we hit an iron line: equality is social, and anti-equality biology-first thinking (one facet of realism) is antisocial for the reasons mentioned above. People want to think they can control the world through symbols, image/appearance and manipulation. In reality, that only works in the short term.

This is another reason why the alt right endorses racism: it is imperative that we shatter the illusion that only that which is social is good. Thus, we embrace “social evil” — or that which is antisocial but true — so that we may fight actual evil, or that which in reality has bad consequences but in the human mind seems appealing.

In this view, every human effort fails not because it makes uniquely wrong choices, but because it makes the same wrong choice, which is to be social. When it becomes social, it gets sold out, and then whatever it had that was unique is destroyed and replaced by the same illusions that fail every other time.

For this reason, establishment conservatives and global Leftist elites are doing our work for us. They are calling us evil, in social terms, and by doing so, are signaling that we are right in reality because we have denied social taboo with nothing personal to gain from doing so.

Your daughters love this kind of masculine, violent and realistic approach because it makes them know they are safe, instead of temporarily feeling safe when swayed by the words of hipster manchildren or feminist studies professors. It creates a knowing deep within them. The alt right are the 2010s equivalent of leather jacketed bad boys on motorcycles except that this time, it is not hype. They are here to destroy illusions, and that is why they are feared.

Why this blog will never be popular

Friday, June 26th, 2015


You may find yourself wondering why all of the mainstream news and opinion seems to be variants of the same idea.

So you took a trip on the wild side, to the underground. At first, it seemed different — at least, it talked about different things. But then the similarity began to appear. The same underlying theories were there: rights, equality, institutions and laws.

The best type of opposition is captive opposition after all. It repeats what its controllers want, but in a form that looks different, and so a new addition to the hive-mind is formed.

What kind of conspiracy could launch this?

The answer you fear: none.

News and opinion writing, video and audio form a market. People purchase — sometimes only with their attention — products that confirm what they wish to believe is true. And therein is the rub. Capitalism is democracy in that there is no control on truth. If people want to believe that legalizing transgender brony rainbow incest is more important than having a functional society, no one should tell them otherwise because they are equal as individuals. That is the essence of The EnlightenmentTM.

Humanity, in the absence of putting the smartest and noblest in power, falls into an ego-emotion cycle. People look for information that makes them feel good about their lives, purchase it with their attention and dollars, and this encourages the production of more of the same. Soon it replaces everything else because it is simply a better product. The ego demands something to feel better about itself, and is served it, then sees nothing but that and concludes that it is true. Then the emotion kicks in: seeing only information which avoids the actual problem, namely the degeneration of Western civilization and its internal collapse, the ego assumes that everything is just fine except for those few issues. These it tunes into through emotion, which in this case means the type of near-autonomic kneejerk responses that make the person feel alive because they are having an intense reaction. Instead of being unselfishly altruistic, people weep over sad stories and delight in outrage because it makes them feel important, powerful and connected. Like the cycle itself, a smaller cycle exists within: the ego sees the emotional reaction, and then uses that as evidence that the ego is in fact well-meaning and thus, good, and thus, important. It is a closed-circuit self-confirming bias in favor of the ego.

For this reason, people go looking for writing which is emotional. Unfortunately for writers, this type of emotion is surface-only; it does not involve, say, the change in a character through learning, but a world in which we take gestures and reactions as literal. Emotion — honest emotion — comes from within at the end of an analytical process, what we might call “realization.” Surface emotion comes from our inner monkey which reacts to surface details so that it does not need to use its intellect to look beneath. That means that emotional writing limits itself to distractions and must deflect from any deeper truths, which require analysis and thus effort by the reader without the nice, settled, pat, compact and solid feeling given by a simian emotional reaction. — under my guidance, as Managing Antagonist — has gone in the opposite direction. For the most part, it distrusts emotion because it is manipulative, and focuses instead on logical analysis. This limits its audience to very few and makes reading it more of a process like work than the easy enjoyment of breezing through some flattering fluff. For that reason, this blog will never be popular, but perhaps — with your help, Dear Readers — it can be influential.


Why the left is obsessed with race

Monday, August 11th, 2014


For years they kept it under wraps by accusing anyone who mentioned the topic of being a “racist.” Simultaneously they concealed their own intent toward topics regarding race by giving them pleasant names. But now the leftist agenda stands revealed as it becomes clear that their policy is exclusively racial, and aims to replace the American white population with a third-world group.

But this is not new. Leftist movements since the Enlightenment have sought to obliterate national boundaries and make people “citizens of the world.” Leftists for decades have advocated world government and the free movement of citizens. Under its most tyrannical dictators, the Soviet Union expanded its multicultural policy to include not just non-Christian religions (Christianity was demonized) but other races. The pursuit of racial equality, a proxy for racial comingling, has been a leftist policy since the birth of leftism.

Why is the left obsessed with race? We know they speak in code because we have seen how duplicitous their acts of the past have been. Their coding about race disguises another agenda which they hope to use their race policy to achieve, which is the reversal of natural selection so that there can be no social standards or other impediments to the freely raging ego.

Imagine the leftist ideal. There are no borders; everyone is equal and equally welcome everywhere. This means that everyone from poor areas will move to rich areas and inundate those. It means that every country on earth will have the same mix in roughly the same frequency of black, white and Asian. It means that humanity’s diversity will be replaced by a new uniformity in which all unique traits — especially those won by people who broke away from the herd and evolved separately in harsher climates — will be destroyed. In fact, all will be destroyed, and replaced by a uniform faceless gray cultureless mass of humanity. But that mass will fit the liberal desire for equality and malleability, since the secret of liberalism is that it is egotists using “equality” to turn the herd into their private army.

Their actual goal is the obliteration of all social standards, because social standards constrain the egoistic individual. What does an egoist want? A chance to be dramatic, to appear different. This clashes with the idea of conservatism, which is that we learn how to do something well and keep doing it that way, but improving upon it generation after generation. The liberal does not care about effects; they care about feelings. Their feelings. They use their social group to gain approval for their egoism so that if challenged, they can summon social disapproval on anyone who dared to restrict them to sanity.

We can see this in their movies. Every leftist movie from West Side Story to Napoleon Dynamite shows the same parable, that of Revolution: the misfits are alienated, so they band together and defeat the natural winners, and then create a social order based on accepting differences. This lets everyone be unique, which means that (in fact) no one is unique, and creates total dysfunction, but the movies never show you that.

Humans do not like to acknowledge that most of life is conformity not for conformity’s sake, but because there are relatively few ways of doing known tasks. We all put our socks on roughly the same way because there is no efficiency or advantage in doing it another way. We eat roughly the same stuff, no matter how much we disguise it with garnishes and exotic techniques. We all have jobs, families and hobbies. The myth of non-conformity arises from those who wish to differentiate themselves but have nothing to offer. Generally this implies that the people differentiating themselves are in fact the opposite of “different”; they are highly conformist but have nothing to offer, so they “fake it” with outlandish acts and social approval. This same impulse drives them to want to destroy whatever historical majority exists and replace it with an ethnic, cultural and values-level motley so that being different for pointless reasons is acceptable.

The insecure modern person wants this motley to hide their own deeds. When most people act sensibly, stupidity and uselessness stand out and can be discriminated against. When everything is chaos, the ego can reign as it pleases because useless ego-drama fades into the background noise. The third world operates on this system; individualism is highest, social standards are lowest, and the ego has most liberty. But as a result, civilization does not function well and most of an individual’s time is spent working around the dysfunction of others. They are able to manipulate others using social methods like guilt, but the consequences remove the unspoken object they wanted to control. Such is the condition to which America and Europe — the West — heads now.

Liberals are obsessed with race because it allows them to destroy any constraints on themselves. They want to destroy the majority, but they also want to destroy minorities. Their goal is a future of people who are so mixed that no culture, values or different abilities remain. In their minds, which seek only control, the result will be like an army of department store mannequins spray-painted brown and obedient to liberal Ideology, which removes all social standards and gives the individual permission to be as dramatic as it pleases. They do not consider the destruction they cause because that is outside of themselves, and since they worship themselves, it is not relevant to their decision.

Don’t “adapt”

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014


That something is true or good does not mean its opposite is false or bad. Humility is good and so is pride. Being adaptable is good and so is being steadfast or resolute.

Today, the concept of adaptation is well-spoken for. However, the opposite, steadfastness or resoluteness, is just as vital. In fact, given the context of the here and now, I believe it is much more vital. If you think about it, the words ‘steadfast’ or ‘resolute,’ are not words we hear often. I actually had trouble thinking of what the opposite of adaptation is. I believe that says something about the social environment we have created for ourselves. Steadfastness, resoluteness, and faith have become slandered as stubborn, obstinate, and lazy. We have become carried away with adaptation and change.

I’ll never forget when they explained in middle school why we had to learn a foreign language. I had no interest in learning a foreign language. But this will look good on a resume. There were going to be a lot more Mexicans in our future and communicating with them was an opportunity we wouldn’t want to miss. We could all be translators, apparently. Imagine a world full of translators. It would be like a commercial for Apple products come to life.

If I was an evil genius, and I wanted to manipulate someone, demoralize them, and keep them malleable, I would constantly be shifting their environment and landscape, so that they constantly had to adapt to it. They could never relax or get comfortable. They could never master a skill or body of knowledge deeply. They would have to dance to my tune. If they objected, I would claim that they were stubborn, they were going to be left behind, this is the future, adapt or die.

The rhetoric of adaptation is often nothing more than manipulation. He who adapts to the other is weak, he who forces the other to adapt is strong. A translator only has a job because someone more important than them has something interesting to say.

I think people give in to adaptation because not adapting is the bigger gamble. They can’t wait that long and they crack under the pressure. They now spread the word of adaptation so that others will join them and so they don’t have to second guess themselves that maybe they gave in too soon.

When we tell people to adapt, we are not telling people to adapt to reality. In fact, we insult reality when our best advice to each other is to adapt to our own man-made social environments. Biology and millennia of evolution have already adapted us to reality in the most important sense of reality, the work has been done for us, and there’s hardly any way we could improve upon it.

I suppose it is all a matter of strategy. A good coach will have two strategies, the long term strategy, and the short term strategy. The short term should be flexible, like a coach making adjustments at half time; it can “adapt.” But it is absolutely a mistaken strategy to easily lose faith, and constantly change and “adapt” at the drop of a hat. That is exactly what your opponent wants you to do; you are putty in their hands at that point. They are leading the discourse, not you. You don’t game plan for an entire week only to throw it out the window at the first sign of a hiccup. It makes you the weaker party.

We should not teach people to get with the program; we should teach them to understand how reality works fundamentally. One word can be translated into many languages, but the meaning of the word is always the same. This “sameness” is what reality truly is.

Understand those aspects of communication that are universal, not the mechanics, but the meaning behind the language. Adaptation is like translation, it has its use, but the real substance of reality is not moved by it. We should encourage our children to write the masterpiece that must be translated, not to be the translator of someone else’s masterpiece. While everyone else is adapting in a panic, he who does not adapt, stands out from the crowd and signals confidence and strength.

From beyond

Tuesday, January 7th, 2014


The global liberal movement which seized power in 1789 in France has applied a perverse and subversive sense of guilt to the population as a means of control.

Control is an external force. It manipulates people through the perception that negative consequences exist for disobeying. Unlike self-discipline, where the individual analyzes a problem and, based on the desired outcome, selects a method from the past known to achieve similar results, control requires the individual to think of effects on the individual.

Where healthy thinking thus proceeds from cause to effect, the type of thinking that control induces proceeds from effects on the individual to cause. The individual is instinctively playing a game against the controller, and therefore things not of how events will play out, but how the intent and personality of the controller will apply itself to the individual.

This causes the same type of narcissism that social behavior does. There is a mediator between cause and effect, and that is the perception of others. This must be controlled; in fact, the only effects we care about are in the perceptions of others. This puts reality into second place and in fact, creates a disincentive to know reality.

The problem with this is that we have entirely reversed thought, and called it rationality. The individual judges the world by effects on the individual. These are however determined by others. Now there is nothing but human personalities manipulating each other.

In a society of this nature, it is common for people to vote into place absolutely disastrous programs and not care. If they vote in free health care and it bankrupts the country, they don’t care — they beat the controller. If they back out of a war and the country loses prestige, they don’t care — they don’t want to be obligated to participate. On and on it goes until the only thing they support are government “bennies” and freebies and passing the debt bomb on to the next generation.

The West has been in the grips of this individualistic mentality for several centuries now. It is a natural outgrowth of equality, where all of us are equally insignificant substrates upon which the collective acts. We are the collective, but we are also individuals, and the individual takes his revenge on the controller.

Ultimately however the controller wins. When societies decay, there is nowhere to go but to more power. The controller loses, and loses again, but then the social chaos takes revenge on the individual. Soon they are begging for SWAT teams, hit squads, drone assassinations, government surveillance, and anything else that can protect the individual from social chaos.

In the end, like the house in Vegas, the controller always wins. He wins by negative thinking. He can never have society when it is beautiful. He must degrade it first. He can never have a beautiful life, because he has no beauty in himself. He in fact will never be a good member of society because he is an outsider, an external controller. What he can do is tear everything down and rule the ruins. There alone his ego is immaculate.


Sunday, June 30th, 2013

mysteries_of_the_nightRoots conservatism is a baffling thing. It doesn’t fit at all into what we think of as “politics.”

In our modern knowledge, politics means a three-step process: how to decide on a policy, create a governmental arm to administer it, and then monitor it.

Instead, roots conservatism is about individuals and the moral choices they face. This at first seems baffling. How does this integrate social institutions? What kind of ideology is this? How will it be enforced?

Over time, it becomes clear that those questions are irrelevant. They only apply in a single model of government, which is the post-French Revolution model. In that view, the citizenry have taken over government, and now need regulation because they cannot regulate themselves.

The conservative model on the other hand is based on self-regulation because it knows that enforcement is a fallacy and a vestige of equality. Without equality, each person has a role and a place; they are either capable of this role or not. There are not vast masses of anonymous purposeless people committing crimes.

However, this offends the ego, in inverse proportion to achievement and ability. Those who are capable don’t need ego trips, but those who are living in constant confusion, achieve nothing, etc. are always “compensating” by claiming they are more important than they are.

When enough of these gather, they join hands — anarchists unite! — to demand the equality of all people. This means whether you achieve or not, you get the same reward, which benefits the non-achievers.

All of this is pretty well known at this point, here, but not known beyond these virtual walls. It’s too much realism in a single dose for most people. What’s not known is the true wages of equality: a society where all acts and words are contrived.

When we are all equal, the only action happens when people agree. To get them to agree, you tell them what they already think or think should be true. If you tell them the truth, you’re dependent on them being able to hear, understand and internally accept what you’re telling them. That filters out all but the mature; success comes from filtering as few people as possible.

This sets up a situation that calls for what Billy Mays used to do: sell the product. That requires you to quickly cut people’s thinking down to size, but arbitrarily. You pick the handful of factors that work in your favor, and come up with some plausible story about why the obvious disadvantages are unimportant, and then you can sell them the product.

All that matters is that 51% of them like it enough to agree, and it will happen. This puts you on the side of contrivance, but even more, of reduction. You want history to recede into the distant past and be irrelevant; you want to reduce the number of things they find important from (say) culture, language, heritage, values, history and religion to one: will this make a more comfortable middle-class lifestyle?

By now even the dumbest voters are in full recognition of the Barack Obama presidency. It was an election on racial grounds, in which the American Mandela was elected because he was black and for no other reason; he has the fewest qualifications of any president ever elected. And we the people put this man into the office knowing he couldn’t do it, and thus decided to cover that up.

Since that time, the press and the people have been busily in denial of not only the incompetence but the Chicago-style Irish gangster politics coming out of that office. We’ve ignored the racial undertones to nearly every act, and the Social Marxist/Frankfurt School anti-majoritarian rhetoric. But even ignorance only goes so far.

But now we’re facing a broader question.

Do we want to live in a society of contrivance? As long as we insist on equality — and remember, the demand for equality is what separates leftist politics from all others — we are insisting on a society of contrivance, where we are all salespeople, begging and bribing and fearmongering each other into compliance. Expect constant internal conflict.

Why was it that we liked liberal democracy anyway? Oh yes: it is inert. It does nothing. Almost as good as no government, in which place culture and common sense take over, it is the neutralized government. Or so we thought. Instead, it turns out that it rears its head and takes over as years go by.

If you wonder why our people are so self-destructive, try this: you can’t have a soul in the empire of contrivance. Everything you do must be calculated by what other people think, and worse than specific other people, the generic “other people” who might judge you on anything. Thus you self-censor, pare back, and conceal yourself.

This drives your personality into a tiny box from which it cannot emerge except when it finally explodes outward as fetish and self-destruction. Why do people drink and have sex so much? They don’t seem to be enjoying it all that much, since they repeat it and it never seems to heal them.

Even more, it creates an outward face for you. A face of contrivance. A face by which you manipulate the world and, you hope, it does not manipulate you. From the innocent notion of letting everyone do what pleases them comes a totalitarian society where we are afraid of displeasing anyone. Thus the mighty fall, not by war, but by their own hand.

Things That Are Burned, And Things That Are Living

Monday, July 21st, 2008


The mania for the new bleats from every news source and gaping mouth: the old has failed, let’s find something new, and maybe it will wrap up all of the trendy memes — in self-help books, on talk shows, in politics — into some convenient handle so we can tell people, “Well I believe in X,” and then go about doing what we were doing.

In a time where ideas are defined by who participates in them, the past is burned, and all the past labels for things are burned. You’re a libertarian? Like those other guys? Well… not really, but kind of. That invites the other person to one-up you with some new and trendy thing, even if they make it up on the spot. “How quaint. I’m an anarchosyndicalist Raelian.” Much more unique, much more important; clearly this is the superman walking the earth.

We burn labels as we wander through them, no more sincere with the next than the last, because like pilgrims we’re looking for the hand of God to reach us through a Word and somehow deliver us from a primal state of ignorance. We all see the situation is calamitous, but how to put a solution in a few words? Give up, and find something that sounds good instead. “I’m a revolutionary phrenologist.”

My cynical conservative friends call such thinking New Age because it’s like soup. You pick and mix and match from some existing beliefs, rope them together with a universal (“all you need is love,” “life belongs to the aggressive”) and then use it as a self-empowering, or if we’re honest, self-justifying, mantle of authority. I am right because I am something new, something that bypasses all these old burned things… I’m a transcendental alluviator.

Things that are burned:

“Think for yourself.” What a nice sentiment… and that is all. The average Homer Simpson thought this made a greater justification for being selfish, and took the exhortations of every speed metal band from the 1980s to heart. Now he does the same things but has a handy retort to critics.

“Think of others.” It’s a great idea if you like tokens. In our inner hearts, most of us are sick to death of others. They crowd us, most of them are stupid, and the ones that aren’t are so manic with a desire to escape that they’ll push us under to get a few inches above. But, if once a month we think of others by working at a soup kitchen, we feel vindicated in continuing our slothful, selfish, slovenly behavior the other 29 days.

“Think of the children.” The only people who really take this to heart are the pedophiles. It’s a great way to force other people to be sympathetic to whatever you’re doing. We need nuclear weapons — think of the children! Like pointing out someone’s fly is open, it only functions to take wind from their sails, not goad them to something productive.

What never gets burned are the things you can’t sum up in a catchphrase. Like thinking of what is realistic and pragmatic. Thinking of what will be true in all situations. These things don’t burn because they aren’t tangible and yet open-ended at the same time. They require interpretation, and that interpretation is not universal, so they’re garbage as memes. But as guides to life, in a time when everyone else is drowning in the burned-out? They’re superior.

Recommended Reading