Posts Tagged ‘misanthropy’

After Equality Comes Mass Murder

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

Bryan Caplan finds himself confused by the link between recognizing the importance of IQ and wanting most of humanity dead. He argues for acceptance of fact without rancor, but seems perplexed by the vitriol expressed (h/t Outside In):

My fellow IQ realists are, on average, a scary bunch. People who vocally defend the power of IQ are vastly more likely than normal people to advocate extreme human rights violations. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a One-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate a No-Child Policy for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forced sterilization for people with low IQs. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate forcible exile of people with low IQs – fellow citizens, not just immigrants. I’ve heard IQ realists advocate murdering people with low IQs.

…If someone says, “I’m more intelligent than other people, so it’s acceptable for me to murder them,” the sensible response isn’t, “Intelligence is a myth.” The sensible response is, “Are you mad? That doesn’t justify murder.” Advocating brutality in the name of your superior intellect is the mark of a super-villain, not a logician.

Generally, his point is agreeable, but that is mostly because human groups require a span of IQs to cover all of the roles in society. Every general needs soldiers, and every soldier needs a cascade of leaders in order to give him guidance so that he is not left alone and confused to make decisions he has no hope of getting correct.

However, as one of the misanthropes he describes — or as we might call it, a “human quality control advocate” — I can attest to the power of wanting to purge the weak. This comes more from the conditions of our time than an innate will to do harm based on this realization.

Let us look at the factors involved:

  1. Overpopulation. There are too many of us, and too few good ones, especially in power. The urge to purge the excess and pare away the useless is great because daily, we see many people whose absence would make life better.
  2. Idiocracy. The herd rules us. When we look at the products available and the decisions made by our leaders, it is clear that mass opinion sways the day, and like a demonic compass it always points toward full retard.
  3. Stupidity. Our time is stupid. The cities are ugly, the jobs moronic, the culture idiotic. We want a war on stupidity and bad decision-making, and associate it with the stupid people we see among us.

We also live in a time of lies. IQ is denied, as well as most other natural and intelligent things. When people “wake up” from the stupor of egalitarianism, they react as does any consumer who has been defrauded: with injured rage.

The temptation is to make a continental mass grave to remind future humans not to go down this path because it ends badly. This arises as much from the perception that all decency and truth are lost on this world, and that all is futile, which produces a suffocating rage.

A more sensible view is that we could divide the useful from the useless. A janitor who does his job in a conscientious way and does not live like a degenerate is necessary just as a rocket scientist is, but people of any intelligence level who are given to evil merely thwart the realization of the good.

This would be done informally, in a natural method, if applied intelligently. A hierarchy of natural leaders would be set up; they would decide who to retain, and send the others away. Those who could not find a place would have to relocate to easier places to live, like the third world.

Anti-Evolution

Tuesday, December 13th, 2005

modernity_daily_life

As a nihilist, I recognize only the order of nature. That is literal physical reality to which I must adapt if I wish to survive. Because I’m not an idiot, like the “nihilists” who are essentially fatalists who believe nothing can be done and thus throwing up their hands and caring about nothing is a legitimate course of action, I tend to prefer survival with comfort and honor over the option, which is living like a mange-ridden flea-bitten stray dog, hopeless of ever bettering itself. Because I like being alive, and recognize that life gets better the higher one aims, I am a Romanticist, including being a Nationalist.

Nationalism says that a nation is defined by its original ethnic population, e.g. Germany for Germans – those who are ethnically, culturally and linguistically German. This means if you move to Germany from Zimbabwe or China or Ireland, you’re not a German, even if you speak the language and adopt the culture, just as if you’re a German who lives according to Zimbabwean or Chinese or Irish culture, you’re not a German. Go somewhere else – the rest of the world is open to you. Nationalism is a natural phenomenon, in that it reflects evolution in serial (species advancing over others in intelligence) and parallel (species developing according to specialized rules, simultaneously and in different areas). If you flood Germany with non-Germans, you obliterate “Germanness” and the culture, language and heritage of Germany – for example.

Nationalism, however, is not a clubhouse. Because I am a nihilist, and a naturalist, I champion evolution. Most “nationalists” would like to create a clubhouse, whereby if you can claim being part German, or liking Germany, you’re OK, welcome in, and in exchange for your membership dues or swearing loyalty to us we promise to make you equal and one of the Chosen Few.

I see that kind of “nationalism” – and really, it’s patriotism and not nationalism – as being completely against evolution. If you want strong Germans, you’re going to have to kill the ones that are bad DNA, or simpler less-evolved DNA. This doesn’t happen through a simple mechanism such as loyalty to state (Communism) or earning money (Capitalism). It’s far more complex. Modern society is set up to be anti-evolution, and a clubhouse in its own right, and thus it degenerates Germans as well as others. Bottom line is: if you want a strong German nation, you’ve got to be prepared to weed out the weak Germans and drown them in swamps. By “weak” I mean possessing no distinctive balance between mental, moral and physical characteristics, thus being either mutts of differing tendencies (caste-mixing), hybrids (race-mixing) or simply one of nature’s genetic experiments that is unstable and thus, in an intelligent environment, is not allowed to breed.

I would kill most people on this planet for being the kind of useless DNA that can only survive if it has a job to go to, instructions to follow, a TV to watch and places to buy pre-prepared food. These people are both generalists, in that they have no specific abilities, and super-specialized, in that without the conveniences of modern society they are lost. They are generally well meaning, but because the judgment skills are excremental, they can be counted on in any situation to do the lowest common denominator thing, and by weight of numbers, to enforce that on others. I would kill most “white” people for being of this type, recognizing that by doing so, I would raise the overall and individual quality of “white” people, including Germans.

The idiot form of “nationalism,” like the idiot form of “nihilism,” has more in common with democracy and consumerism than with ideology. Its basic statement is that you can have it your way, no matter how stupid that way is, as long as you swear loyalty to a dogma or fit a bureaucratic set of requirements. This “nationalism,” like consumerism, breeds nations of domesticated sheep who will screw up anything they touch. As our species is about to commit ecocide, and our best mathematics suggest that a half-billion highly intelligent people could live well on earth instead of having seven billion in mostly near poverty, I see it as the moral choice to kill the inferior among us and to replace them with better people through selective breeding – not greed (capitalism) or dogma (communism).

This brings us back to my form of Nationalism: the values that determine who should survive in German society do not transfer to any other society, as those have evolved in parallel. If you mix everyone on earth together, and apply German rules to them, you will end up killing people who would be otherwise fine in their own cultures. The greatest reason of all perhaps for Nationalism is that it enables us to separate people by specialized heritage, and thus for each heritage-group to weed out the weak as they see fit.

Russia

One of the greatest screwups in history can be found in the tale of Russia. A small elite ruled over an unwieldy mass, who then rose up and overthrew the elite when, lacking competition, they degenerated into useless people. The masses, being useless and prone to making the wrong decision every time, then murdered the quality aristocrats and intellectuals along with the misguided, misinformed and degenerate. Consequently, Russia downbred itself to the point where its citizens were basically idiots, and Communism seemed like a good idea to them since, being idiots, none of them had anything and therefore they were willing to believe that killing and taking from the better people among them would somehow make them all comfortable.

Seventy-two years later they found out the truth. The society of those who could not manage the affairs of a peasant without becoming unstable and starving, instead of being a kingdom of equality, became a giant kleptocracy where the most vicious predators ruled while assuring the peasants that the future would be better. Adhering to dogma, and vigorously repeating it, became the qualifier for succeeding, and as this was linear and did not measure the quality of people or their DNA, idiots soon ruled and ran the country into the ground. As the Russian peasants had murdered those with the intelligence and willpower to actually restore the country to European status, it became and remains a destitute, ignorant, Eurasian toilet of third world proportions. Russia has utterly failed as a society.

Before you smirk, Americans and Europeans, remind yourselves that the same fate awaits you. Oh yes, it will take longer in Europe, because of the better education and higher quality of breeding of most Europeans. Yet you like morons are following the same path as America, inviting consumerism into your countries and believing that pluralism – the art of never reaching an answer – will somehow find an answer for you. What are you, retarded? The same path that America follows lies before you and, while you may have a fifty year cushion, it will catch up with you and turn Europe into America, Junior, at which point the whole world will mock you for being utter fools. European superiority is a joke. Were it true, the Scandinavians and Germans and French and Swiss would not be slowly descending into the funnel of American-style thinking. First come the thoughts; then the actions; then suddenly a crowd of idiots dependent on those thoughts and actions, and smart people, they will outvote you and outfight you – even though they are fools, there are more of them, and each casualty you inflict upon them they will view as a mortal offense, no matter how many die.

America is like Russia in that, where in Russia preaching state dogma got one ahead, in America earning money and living like a consumerist idiot gets one ahead. Being inoffensive is essential to getting ahead at work, including the stolid mindset by which one never becomes irate no matter how stupid the surrounding people, rules and situations. You are being domesticated. Your “success” is controlled by others and like the rules in Russia, is really an allegiance test. Some of you will earn great fortunes but these will not last long in your family, because your descendants will be foolish and spoiled. They have no task or role as the aristocracy had, and they lack the quality breeding the aristocracy had. Their trust funds will run out within three generations, and they’ll be idiot proles again.

In Russia, you had to repeat the lies of communism. In America, you repeat the lie that you are happy while devoting ten hours per workday to your job, commuting through ugly plastic cities, and consuming garbage food, garbage culture and garbage politics. Why is it you don’t notice? For starters, you never had a culture to begin with, since your country is pluralistic and thus can never definitively say, “We want X over Y”; pluralism is by definition saying that X and Y must coexist, even if they are diametrically opposed. Further, you’re misinformed by an endless stream of people who repeat dogmatically what they see on TV, hear on the radio, read in the newspapers or get sent by the government, not realizing that all of those media are for-profit entities with no motive toward actual truth.

While capitalism succeeded in the short term over Communism, it was mainly owing to the higher quality of the American population and its industriousness, not its motivation by greed. That lead only lasts so long, as it only has another fifty years in Europe, and then the same kind of decay sets in as happened under Communism. But how could this happen? say the Americans – we had good intentions. Good intentions don’t count in this world. Only results do. The result of setting up a “culture” based on the whim of the individual, and the insatiable lust for material wealth that empowers it, creates a civilization divided against itself in competition for resources, and because this competition is linear and not natural, it does not produce the best but the most vicious, the most narrow-minded, and the least likely to trouble themselves with existential issues.

Good work, modern humanity: you’re raising a bumper crop of sadistic idiots while slowly funneling your society into third world status. Why don’t you just nuke each other and get it over with quickly? Maybe the Chinese will reform you when they invade, because they don’t have delusions of individual grandeur and are therefore more focused on reality, more ruthless and more practical. America and Europe don’t stand a chance, and their elimination will be, quite honestly, a form of natural selection. Destroy the inferior and replace it with something that has its mind on reality and isn’t so caught up in its personal drama that it detaches from that knowledge.

Design

But how can I say that people are bad DNA, or more specifically, that some DNA is better than others (within a national context, as this is where serial evolution can be fairly measured; comparing people across nations yields inaccurate results)? All computers are made from silicon. Some work better than others, and can process more instructions or go longer without crashing, or returning erratic results like a Macintosh. What makes computers different is a matter of design.

More advanced designs work better, but more advanced does not necessarily mean “more intricate.” It means more adapted to the task at hand, with the least amount of energy and fewest instructions devoted to non-necessary work. The same components – silicon, metals, plastic – that make a garbage computer can be re-configured to make a smoothly working and powerful one. By the same token, the software that runs on that computer can be inefficient and clumsy or sleek and streamlined, and the latter works better; both programs use the same language, and work in the same general way, but the second type has a superior design.

When we compare all people, say, all Germans, we can see that some are of better designs that others. They are made from the same material – meat, bone, brain, gut – but those whose brains are better organized will function faster, more thoroughly, and more honestly, since there is a certain mathematical advantage to selfless honesty when measured on the scale of the whole of a population. This is before we load software (education and experiences) onto them. A better design will run the software better than a poorer design. Can we compensate for a bad design with more software? No – it will always run less efficiently and less accurately.

If there are thousand places in a town for people to live, each idiot is that is allowed to exist replaces a potential non-idiot. Further, each idiot will breed, and through the silly decisions of young people, some idiots will breed with non-idiots, producing half-idiots, who will possess the wisdom of an idiot but the ability of a non-idiot, and will thus be twice as destructive as an idiot. If a town of one thousand people, of which seven hundred were idiots, was to kill all of its idiots, it would be a smaller town, but only for the next two generations. The non-idiots would breed to fill the town and while through the random mutation factor of nature some non-idiots would breed an idiot or pervert among their brood, the removal of those in turn would assure a population of higher quality.

If you like life, why not aim for its highest level? Select the best people and kill the rest – we won’t even remember them in a generation, and we certaintly won’t miss them. Through education and heroic acts and practical learning, the civilization can raise its own standards constantly, always getting better. That is a non-fearful attitude toward life, as it does not fear death or inadequacy, but focuses on what is best for the civilization as a whole even if individual lives are lost. In modern society, we live by guilt and pity, because we as individuals are divorced from any collective culture, and thus fear most for ourselves, because there is no plan in common and since we are surrounded by idiots, we are paranoiac regarding the judgment and will of others.

I like life. I like it so much I’d have no problem murdering 86% of the planet so that its best could continue forward without committing ecocide or living in a plastic hell that most do not notice because they are idiots. This is a more loving action than preservation of useless life which clots our society, and a more farsighted one as well, because it provides that each future generation is better than the last and thus no longer has to fear inadequacy. Death to the idiots!

Television

Looking deeply into the question of television, it is clear that there are three basic problems with it:

  1. It is a passive activity, e.g. sit on butt on receive transmission without sending response.
  2. Moving images approximate the state of dreams and memory, and can be easily confused with the same.
  3. It is an inclusive activity, in that any idiot can do it just as well as a genius (no feedback from user = thoughts of a genius contribute no more or less than those of an idiot, since no one is measuring thoughts in response to programs so dumbed-down that even a genius will not have much to say about them).

Television is the loneliest way to spend your time possible, in that you return nothing to the world by watching it, and are left alone with your thoughts, which are not even your own, since you are receiving a broadcast in the same form as your interpretation would take, thus shortcircuiting the need for you to interpret it. It is like being fed from an IV line. You do not chew, and whether you like it or not, no one cares. Your only task is to absorb it, and that does not even require a brain.

Drugs are illegal, but most people like television for the same reason hardcore drug addicts like drugs: you can turn off your brain and sit, and your time is spent in a way that while not impressive is not offensive. When you’re forced back into reality, you can spend time with your friends talking about television so that you can pretend you’re back in unreality again. Some time, somewhere in the far-off and probably not real future, you will die. We can all wonder whether as you’re dying you will regret the years you spent doing nothing but absorbing the thoughts and marketing of others through your television.

Misanthropy

Wednesday, February 9th, 2005

We live in an age where there is almost no philosophy; yes, academics joust over whether the verb “to be” has made us feel uncharitable toward the dispossessed, but there is no assertive discussion of philosophy as a means of assessing values systems, because to discuss such things would mean that someone in the audience finds his or her values are seen as illogical; then not only is tenure threatened, but future book sales are hovering near dubious. As a result of this aphilosophical thought structure, most of the terms we could use to describe certain aspects of a worldview are not only without definition, but have been loosely associated with such absolute, kneejerk behavior as to make no sense.

One good example is “nihilism.” This originally described a frame of thought where nothing was seen to, pre-existingly, have any value; it had both active and passive examples, with the latter ranging from stoicism to fatalism. In our current time, even the educated have trouble comprehending nihilism as something less ominous than “evil,” as their minds work through absolutes, in which case even the verb “to be” is threatening: nihilism = no value, no value = (“therefore”) no values; in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, nihilism = really bad, like “evil” but more scientific.

This runs in contrast to the healthier values of the ancients, who believed that if you looked deeply enough into any system of thought, you could find where it approximated the same set of eternal truths and values, things which did not “exist” but were perceivable and thus, although “subjective,” were consistent. The modern disease is to like a machine see categories as impassable divisions, and thus to miss this, in part because our society grew up believing in gods in other worlds who sorted every object, person and idea into exact, immutable categories like “good” and “evil.” This is the false absolute that persists today; when we have enough data to associate an idea with an existing extreme, we assume that it must “equal” that extreme and thus discard all of its contextual thought.

Obviously, this is defective, as it has us imposing barriers where none exist, such as between “subjective” and “objective.” We assume that subjective is one polar extreme of thought such that all subjective things are arbitrary, and not only do not need to correspond to reality, but are “choices” and not analysis, interpretation, or logic. This shield of the subjective helps us tolerate the neurotic and schizoid ideas of others, as we gaily say, “Well, that’s subjective,” and thus approve of no analysis being applied to belief which is seen as entirely separate from thought. Similarly, we take it for granted that anything “objective” – usually statistics, scientific categories or digital output – is not at all influenced by the arbitrary beliefs of its human handlers, and is thus an absolute truth which rules our world. It hasn’t occurred to these people that all perceptions are subjective, even those filtered through scientific instruments, but that as all subjective knowledge is interpreted from a consistent world, if the subject is not insane or in the grips of some insanity like absolutism, the subjective data can very accurately describe the world.

In a time like this, it’s thus nearly impossible to categorize one’s own belief. If you say you believe in what is ancient, the braindead mob begins chanting that it wants something new, as what is past has failed. If you say you believe in something from the future, the braindead mob starts agitating for “proof” of an “objective” nature that what you say will work, which if you look past the smokescreen of their bad psychology is more likely a demand for inaction, because inaction offends no one. Inaction affirms that what exists now is just fine and that everyone in it is fine and no one will be seen to be in logical error, because after all, their arbitrary life choices – taking heroin, spending all their free time playing video games, having lifestyles based around recreational shopping – should be “subjective” and beyond criticism. In the light of this chaotic and broken mental state, it is important we analyze misanthropy.

Many great thinkers are said to be misanthropes, usually because they did not embrace all people around them as the greatest thing since sliced bread (which is actually a terrible thing: it massively reduces flavor if you keep it more than a day, which the shipping process by very nature imposes). This enables us to write off their opinions as “subjective,” with an airy wave of our hand and the all-knowing proclamation, “You know he was a misanthrope” or “Her misanthropy kept her from knowing the good in humanity.” This dismissive outlook is designed to protect the meek among us, who might be offended by the knowledge that recreational heroin use is actually a somewhat illogical outlook (to avoid absolute categories, we say “for most,” since for some people, dying of heroin addiction is the best solution). Misanthropy goes into the file with evil, terrorists, hackers, Nazis, pot smokers and Montana cabin-dwellers – people who have rejected society, and thus cannot be trusted.

Whenever one looks deeply into the definition of the word, there is always some loudmouthed segment of the crowd that can be found pointing a stubby finger at a book and saying, “No. You’re wrong. It says right here that misanthropy is ‘hating humanity,” as if that settles the issue. They view the dictionary as an absolute, just as they’ll view the words of a scientific proclamation as an absolute, without looking into the categorical structure of that scientific thought; declare that birds are closer to reptiles than mammals, and these types will call birds reptiles and scream at anyone who does not obey the same simplistic thought. It is profitable however to break “misanthropy” from this mold, and realize that instead of meaning “hating humanity” it implies a generalized hatred of how humanity as a mass behave. Misanthropes rarely dealt with no people, meaning absolute zero, but they were selective, and this is a sin to the voting public.

It is offensive behavior because it bridges the subjective/objective line that has been established by popular consent for the purpose of protecting each individual from criticism. This is how you form a crowd – tell them that they can be individuals because the crowd protects the absolute form of the individual, and then in order to secure that individual “right” and “freedom,” the crowd will turn on any who do not obey such a division. In crowd-logic, all choices are “subjective” and all data is “objective,” because this makes personal choices immune to criticism. Selectivity means that you refuse to socialize with some people, and in fact judge them as destructive, by their “lifestyle choices,” and that you esteem others more highly for intangible things like character, intelligence, and emotional outlook. As with any belief that ranks some above others, this is offensive to the groupthink entity of “individuals,” who would prefer that absolute barriers exist toward criticism of any individual choice.

Misanthropy is thus, like nihilism, something that initially seems like a blanket condemnation of a category – humankind or values, respectively – but turns out to be a highly selective system of finding only the meaningful in those groups by denying their objective absolute status as law. Some would call this “elitism,” but what is elitism except a form of meritocracy – picking the best and holding them up as an example to the rest? The crowd is fine with that when you pick the best by wealth, or looks, but when you start picking them by character, they feel threatened. They should. For several thousand years now, our society has made the assumption that people of any character can be shaped by external rules and made to function as a social machine. Now that civilization is fully plunging into its self-created abyss, the few thinkers who haven’t been killed by the crowd are looking more critically at that idea, and instead electing once again to esteem the internal values that, a long time ago, made our civilization reach for higher concepts. These higher concepts have been dragged into the mud by the fear of the crowd, and it is selective and cynical philosophies like misanthropy and nihilism that oppose this.

Are you a misanthrope?

Friday, November 12th, 2004

the_majesty_of_the_night_sky

It’s tempting to identify with misanthropy. After all, the agents of the travesty on earth – the human species devolving into self-obsessed, destructive, thoughtless whores – are humans. However, after contemplating this topic for some time I have to say I’m not a misanthrope.

First, I don’t exist via “anti” sentiments, such as hatred or broad dislike. To the contrary, I enjoy being alive. I like people. I identify with a certain American comic who said, “I’ve never met a (human) I didn’t like.” This is true for me. Of all the people I’ve met, I’ve found something redeemable in all of them, even the ones I loathe with a passion. Ariel Sharon might be a scumbag, politically, but he’s a funny and affable guy when you read his commentary. George Bush is likable, as, once you get past his nerdliness and emasculation, is John Kerry.

However, part of loving life is to love what makes it great. In my experience, that is a form of architectonic structure like that of nature. This structure encourages intelligence, and thus among other things, I love intelligence. Any astute observer will note that to love something is to hate its opposite, and clearly I detest stupidity. However, detesting a symptom is a far cry from hating its agents.

Stupidity is upsetting, but it is one aspect of every human being. Even the dumbest person on planet earth has something to recommend them. That can’t get in the way of recognizing that they’re not designed for creating valid opinions on certain topics. It also can’t interfere with the knowledge that, since we’re overpopulated and it makes sense to keep the best among us, I’d shoot a lot of these people in the forehead with hollowpoint bullets (I favor a world population of a half-billion, preferrably of high intelligence, character and ability). These aren’t emotional decisions, as misanthropy would be, however; they’re pragmatic ones.

On the same level, if someone breaks into my apartment or brandishes a weapon at me, I have no problem taking that life, then eating a big meal, drinking a beer and getting a good night’s sleep. In that case, what I would have done is natural: killing a threatening predator. That doesn’t mean I disliked the person, or had an emotional response; rather, I did what I needed to for my own survival and the bettering of the population and nature as a whole. Chances are, if me and the burglar sat down for a beer and chatted, we’d hit it off. But one must do what one must do.

Part of the reason I can do this is that I have infinite trust and faith in nature. For every life that’s lost, or every tragedy that occurs, nature keeps going and produces more of the wonderful things that make life as divine as it is. If someone I know who is of high intelligence and character, distracted by the beauty of life, wanders across a freeway and is turned into pasta sauce by an eighteen wheeler, it is sad, but the sadness passes: much as a strand of trees still exists if you cut down one, the good aspects of the human species continue.

The only thing that threatens this is stupidity, specifically, devolutionary stupidity.

When people care more about emotions, and individuals, than the whole, the focus shifts from the strand of trees to the individual tree. At this point, the threat of a lone woodsman becomes remote, and the threat shifts toward the strand itself: will too many trees in an area of limited size choke each other with their roots, block out sunlight and drain the soil of nutrients? To care so much about any one tree that none are allowed to die is to doom the strand. That would be, in my view, stupidity.

Most of the people who provoke ire in me to the point that, were I emotionally out of control, I’d grab a .45 and put a lobotomizing bullet through their upper lobes, are merely in the grips of stupidity. This is often compounded by a natural disinclination (and lack of ability) for the type of thought that would help them see that the strand as a whole is an organism, and the trees within it, more like its cells.

Many people make a Big Deal of the left/right divide in politics, but for me this is a misnomer. The question isn’t finding which “side” is “right,” but in finding a workable solution. And honestly I find as much inspiration among the left as the right. I like people who are radical Greens, and who believe that society should act collectively. The basic assumptions of the left make sense to me, until we get into crazy Utopianism, at which point I then say something like “a Utopia requires dystopic elements, or it suffocates itself.”

However, this doesn’t change the fact that most people’s opinions are ignorant and or crazy, and that if allowed, they’d implement those opinions and destroy humanity by focusing too much on the individual. The stupidity that that would entail most probably awaits us, and will result in humanity being transmuted into a species of weak individuals who are dependent upon technology. If we don’t end the stupidity, that is our certain future, and it will involve a loss of most good things in life, including our natural environment and the highest capacities of humankind.

Yet it’s not wise to swallow your anger, and nurture it; it’s better to give it a clear object and not strike at symptoms, but causes themselves. This is why the Greek myth of the Hydra saturated their culture. The idea of a creature with many heads but one heart describes most complex problems. If a roaming animal attacks, it is a simple problem, but anything inside of society or the human mind is more complicated, and will have many visible manifestations (symptoms) and a single source (cause).

In the case of modern society, which is a deathmarch into being less capable beings dependent on technology much as unhealthy old people need laxatives, the Hydra is stupidity, and its many heads are the people who parrot or invent stupid things because they cannot do otherwise. Hating them, or declaring oneself a hater of all people, is emotionally gratifying but factually incorrect, and thus a part of stupidity itself.

As the ancient Greeks also knew (but Christians and Jews do not), sublimating your anger is a one-way ticket to becoming passive and helpless, striking out at something you don’t believe you can change. In this mode of psychology, the individual attacks with cruelty and snideness, but is incapable of heroic action, and thus becomes what he detests. This is why in our modern world those who are misanthropes or outright bigots become swallowed by the same impulses that manifest themselves in what they detest.

The way I look at it, fighting stupidity without emotional reaction is the only way to achieve a lasting victory. Sure, you can murder the heads of the Hydra, and slash away at symptoms or even kill every stupid person on earth, and it will bring short-term relief. But until the cause is removed, the problem will keep regenerating itself, and ultimately those who oppose it will be defeated.

Are you a misanthrope?

Friday, November 12th, 2004

It’s tempting to identify with misanthropy. After all, the agents of the travesty on earth – the human species devolving into self-obsessed, destructive, thoughtless whores – are humans. However, after contemplating this topic for some time I have to say I’m not a misanthrope.

First, I don’t exist via “anti” sentiments, such as hatred or broad dislike. To the contrary, I enjoy being alive. I like people. I identify with a certain American comic who said, “I’ve never met a (human) I didn’t like.” This is true for me. Of all the people I’ve met, I’ve found something redeemable in all of them, even the ones I loathe with a passion. Ariel Sharon might be a scumbag, politically, but he’s a funny and affable guy when you read his commentary. George Bush is likable, as, once you get past his nerdliness and emasculation, is John Kerry.

However, part of loving life is to love what makes it great. In my experience, that is a form of architectonic structure like that of nature. This structure encourages intelligence, and thus among other things, I love intelligence. Any astute observer will note that to love something is to hate its opposite, and clearly I detest stupidity. However, detesting a symptom is a far cry from hating its agents.

Stupidity is upsetting, but it is one aspect of every human being. Even the dumbest person on planet earth has something to recommend them. That can’t get in the way of recognizing that they’re not designed for creating valid opinions on certain topics. It also can’t interfere with the knowledge that, since we’re overpopulated and it makes sense to keep the best among us, I’d shoot a lot of these people in the forehead with hollowpoint bullets (I favor a world population of a half-billion, preferrably of high intelligence, character and ability). These aren’t emotional decisions, as misanthropy would be, however; they’re pragmatic ones.

On the same level, if someone breaks into my apartment or brandishes a weapon at me, I have no problem taking that life, then eating a big meal, drinking a beer and getting a good night’s sleep. In that case, what I would have done is natural: killing a threatening predator. That doesn’t mean I disliked the person, or had an emotional response; rather, I did what I needed to for my own survival and the bettering of the population and nature as a whole. Chances are, if me and the burglar sat down for a beer and chatted, we’d hit it off. But one must do what one must do.

Part of the reason I can do this is that I have infinite trust and faith in nature. For every life that’s lost, or every tragedy that occurs, nature keeps going and produces more of the wonderful things that make life as divine as it is. If someone I know who is of high intelligence and character, distracted by the beauty of life, wanders across a freeway and is turned into pasta sauce by an eighteen wheeler, it is sad, but the sadness passes: much as a strand of trees still exists if you cut down one, the good aspects of the human species continue.

The only thing that threatens this is stupidity, specifically, devolutionary stupidity.

When people care more about emotions, and individuals, than the whole, the focus shifts from the strand of trees to the individual tree. At this point, the threat of a lone woodsman becomes remote, and the threat shifts toward the strand itself: will too many trees in an area of limited size choke each other with their roots, block out sunlight and drain the soil of nutrients? To care so much about any one tree that none are allowed to die is to doom the strand. That would be, in my view, stupidity.

Most of the people who provoke ire in me to the point that, were I emotionally out of control, I’d grab a .45 and put a lobotomizing bullet through their upper lobes, are merely in the grips of stupidity. This is often compounded by a natural disinclination (and lack of ability) for the type of thought that would help them see that the strand as a whole is an organism, and the trees within it, more like its cells.

Many people make a Big Deal of the left/right divide in politics, but for me this is a misnomer. The question isn’t finding which “side” is “right,” but in finding a workable solution. And honestly I find as much inspiration among the left as the right. I like people who are radical Greens, and who believe that society should act collectively. The basic assumptions of the left make sense to me, until we get into crazy Utopianism, at which point I then say something like “a Utopia requires dystopic elements, or it suffocates itself.”

However, this doesn’t change the fact that most people’s opinions are ignorant and or crazy, and that if allowed, they’d implement those opinions and destroy humanity by focusing too much on the individual. The stupidity that that would entail most probably awaits us, and will result in humanity being transmuted into a species of weak individuals who are dependent upon technology. If we don’t end the stupidity, that is our certain future, and it will involve a loss of most good things in life, including our natural environment and the highest capacities of humankind.

Yet it’s not wise to swallow your anger, and nurture it; it’s better to give it a clear object and not strike at symptoms, but causes themselves. This is why the Greek myth of the Hydra saturated their culture. The idea of a creature with many heads but one heart describes most complex problems. If a roaming animal attacks, it is a simple problem, but anything inside of society or the human mind is more complicated, and will have many visible manifestations (symptoms) and a single source (cause).

In the case of modern society, which is a deathmarch into being less capable beings dependent on technology much as unhealthy old people need laxatives, the Hydra is stupidity, and its many heads are the people who parrot or invent stupid things because they cannot do otherwise. Hating them, or declaring oneself a hater of all people, is emotionally gratifying but factually incorrect, and thus a part of stupidity itself.

As the ancient Greeks also knew (but Christians and Jews do not), sublimating your anger is a one-way ticket to becoming passive and helpless, striking out at something you don’t believe you can change. In this mode of psychology, the individual attacks with cruelty and snideness, but is incapable of heroic action, and thus becomes what he detests. This is why in our modern world those who are misanthropes or outright bigots become swallowed by the same impulses that manifest themselves in what they detest.

The way I look at it, fighting stupidity without emotional reaction is the only way to achieve a lasting victory. Sure, you can murder the heads of the Hydra, and slash away at symptoms or even kill every stupid person on earth, and it will bring short-term relief. But until the cause is removed, the problem will keep regenerating itself, and ultimately those who oppose it will be defeated.