Posts Tagged ‘narcissism’

How Individualistic Parents Destroy Their Offspring

Friday, December 8th, 2017

Modern society broke from traditional society with the advent of individualism. This philosophy says that the individual places his desires first, before any kind of natural law or social order, and individualists usually demand universal rights for everyone so that the self-centered acts of the individualists vanish into a background of everyone else doing the same.

They fear losing social rank for being self-centered, and because this self-centeredness is their primary personality trait, they are aware of it and perpetually seeking to conceal it, where ordinary people are oblivious to this need nor have this fear. As a result, ordinary people take universal rights at face value, and fail to suspect the deception.

Now the individualism — we often use terms like solipsism, narcissism, and egoism for this — takes over because in order to compete with the individualists, ordinary people have to get individualistic, or they get left serving as a clean-up crew for the individualists. Society falls apart.

In consequence, people begin to use each other, which is how individualists treat other people (or nature, civilization, ideas, even emotions) as a means toward their own gratification of their desires. To parents, their children are visual objects which make the parent seem more important, altruistic, profound, insightful, wise, loving, empathetic, or any other thing that is generally agreed upon as “good” in the lowest common denominator of social circumstances.

Maybe this began with a specific generation. More likely it was always a behavior that some people engaged in, but once the intellectuals decided they wanted more “freedom,” it took over and become the norm. Now humanity acts it out generation after generation, getting weaker each time, in a repeating pattern of treating children like fashion accessories:

Davis and Merrill finally divorced in 1960, much to Hyman’s relief. But after that she claimed Davis became more possessive.

She wrote: ‘She focused all of her hopes for emotional fulfillment on me, proclaiming that I was the most talented, brilliant, beautiful being on earth.’

Hyman added: ‘[Hyman] was to be the fantasy daughter of the world’s greatest mother and the presents she lavished on her would know no bounds.’

This girl hates her mother. She was angry enough to write a tell-all book that made her mother look like a lunatic, and then fled into the relative wilderness of rural America, conservative Christianity, and conventional housewife living. She wanted to sever herself from the narcissist that she viewed her mother as being.

For the remaining five nines of Western humanity whose parents are not celebrities, a lesser path awaits. We know that we were intended to make our parents look good, so we have a fundamental inability to trust them. In addition, the psychological damage done by this narcissism tends to shape our lives into our 60s, depriving us of opportunities and joys.

Even more, we know that our society has changed to be arranged around the idea of people using everything else as a means toward their own individualism. This creates a “race to the bottom,” and leaves us without much hope that we can escape. To hold back from individualism is to place ourselves at a disadvantage.

However, this gap can possibly be bridged. Most of what this society has to offer would have been seen as superfluous a century ago. We need enough wealth, and perhaps just enough to avoid paying much tax into the sick system, and fewer gadgets. For most of us, dropping the TV and going down to one computing device would work well enough.

Already we are seeing signs of this de-gadgetization. Many people are opting for simpler phones, eschewing the smartphone for a device that is less distracting. The new hip way to use the internet is to be never on it. Anonymity has become more important than social media notoriety. People are disconnecting to find something more relevant to do in their physical worlds.

In other words, they are connecting to something else instead of the individualist culture. It is more fun, in the end, to reach out to others and to things bigger than ourselves which can be sources of meaning. For us to do that, however, we must possess a sense of love for life itself, and a sense of purpose that is larger than ourselves.

These come from being willing to have faith in this world that something good can come of it. Much we can reconnect with individualistic parents by being willing to love them without being victimized by them, we can reconnect with our civilization by realizing that despite its recent history of error, it has a greatness within that we can bring out again.

Why One Should Approach Politics As Philosophy

Monday, October 16th, 2017

Most people possess little analytical ability and so approach the world through a process of rationalization by which they seek to contort their minds in order to explain what is happening around them in such a way that it does not threaten their mental state.

This can be both submissive and combative; for example, someone may decide that most people are good and therefore deserve subsidies, but that because our government does not do that, it is evil and we must wage war against it.

While they may convince themselves that they believe these things, belief can be a crutch, and what they have actually done is to tell themselves a story about the world in which there is a way for their role to make sense and for them to be important and relevant. Their primary act is biological, that of pre-emptive self-preservation by filtering out scary thoughts.

To avoid this, long ago people invented philosophy, which is the science of our minds and our world, understood at an abstract level where facts and logic must be in parallel. This forces us to think, not from the individual, but from the world, and then to explain the place of the individual within it. That mostly avoids rationalization.

The only sensible approach to politics is through this method. Without it, the cart goes before the horse as people rationalize what they want to believe as true, and explain everything else as some sort of evil witchcraft. This rationalization proves more popular because it is centered on the present day and the concerns of individuals, where philosophy is more timeless and focused on either truth or civilization.

Martin Heidegger, in his Introduction to Metaphysics, Chapter 1: The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics, gives us more:

Philosophy is essentially untimely because it is one of those few things whose fate it remains never to be able to find a direct resonance in their own time, and never be permitted to find such a resonance. Whenever this seemingly does take place, whenever a philosophy becomes fashion, either there is no actual philosophy or else philosophy is misinterpreted and, according to some intentions alien to it, misused for the needs of the day.

Philosophy, then, is not a kind of knowledge which one could acquire directly, like vocational and technical expertise, and which, like economic and professional knowledge in general, one could apply directly and evaluate according to its usefulness in each case.

But what is useless can nevertheless be a power — a power in the rightful sense. That which has no direct resonance in everydayness can stand in innermost harmony with the authentic happening in the history of a people. It can even be its prelude.

What this means is that philosophy, like travel or even one too many glasses of wine, can give us a sense of our world by removing us from it, intellectually, and then approaching it as strangers, and those revelations can show us a potential option for our future which, because it becomes clear and appealing, then triggers that next part of the historical cycle.

Although rationalization gives us a better personal story about the world, as it begins and ends with our own lives, it fails to give us a story of meaning, whereby a small species evolves, becomes powerful, and then finds a way to be better so that it is connected with its world and finds purpose within it.

Fantasies of universal purpose — some inherent goal or innate value that is accessible to everyone — tend to be forgeries, and rationalization relies heavily on them because universal purpose suggests an inability to act otherwise by the individual, and therefore a compulsion to rely on that values system, which takes away the possibility of being wrong in the assessment of values made by the individual, since the individual does not need to assess values at all, only go along with what is allegedly as universal as sunlight.

This perception of universality allows people to believe that their perceptions are not self-serving, and therefore, that self-serving behavior is justified in pursuit of the validation of those perceptions. This leads to a sense of narcissism, a variety of individualism marked by self-worship, which arises from the general hubris of anyone who believes it is justified to act in self-interest where it conflicts with the logical, natural order of human life.

Ultimately, the rationalization view, because it is self-centered and thus individualistic, leads to a self-aware narcissism:

How exactly do narcissists maintain such positive self-views despite others’ dislike of them? Carlson proposed a few interesting ideas. First, narcissists might believe others are just too stupid to see how amazing they truly are, or they may believe others’ negative views are simply the result of jealousy. It might also be the case that narcissists, aware of their deteriorating reputation, cut off long-term friendships and instead, maintain a flow of new acquaintances that see them as the charming and likable person they believe they are. The process by which narcissists retain their positive self-views remains an interesting and important question future work should address.

The mental process is a form of rationalization: they must believe good about themselves, so they contort their understanding of how the world works in order to support that self-view.

This leads to them using other people as objects that reinforce that rationalization, much as in a mob the individual uses others as a means of escaping accountability, or as in a totalitarian state, the ruling powers use others as means of achieving an ideological or political set of goals. This is why Leftism is based in individualism, not “collectivism,” because the collective is a device of the individual for enforcing individualism as a universal standard.

Manipulation of others in order to enforce a certain non-realistic perception of the world is the classic attribute of control. Control is invisible to most because they cannot see where the ideology or commands from above diverge from reality, but for those who can see, control is both unnecessary and destructive because it is unrealistic, or based in human preferences and rationalizing from those, as opposed to based in perception of the world and oriented toward human self-discipline to adapt to the logical consequences one can anticipate from the knowledge conveyed in that perception.

Differences between Leftists and conservatives can be explained by this schism of perspective.

Under the influence of Leftism, which boils down to individualism enforced by a collective through “equality” which essentially reduces the power of those who are more competent and promotes the lowest common denominator instead, our society has steadily become more narcissistic in its daily behavior:

Darlene Lancer, a therapist writing at Psychology Today, offers up a tidy list of behaviors narcissists often employ in their interactions with people. Here is her list (with some abridged definitions):

1. Verbal abuse: Verbal abuse includes belittling, bullying, accusing, blaming, shaming, demanding, ordering, threatening, criticizing, sarcasm, raging, opposing, undermining, interrupting, blocking, and name-calling.
2. Manipulation: Generally, manipulation is indirect influence on someone to behave in a way that furthers the goals of the manipulator. Often, it expresses covert aggression. Think of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
3. Emotional blackmail: Emotional blackmail may include threats, anger, warnings, intimidation, or punishment.
4. Gaslighting: Intentionally making you distrust your perceptions of reality or believe that you’re mentally incompetent.
5. Competition: Competing and one-upping to always be on top, sometimes through unethical means. E.g. cheating in a game.
6. Negative contrasting: Unnecessarily making comparisons to negatively contrast you with the narcissist or other people.
7. Sabotage: Disruptive interference with your endeavors or relationships for the purpose of revenge or personal advantage.
8. Exploitation and objectification: Using or taking advantage of you for personal ends without regard for your feelings or needs.
9. Lying: Persistent deception to avoid responsibility or to achieve the narcissist’s own ends.
10. Withholding: Withholding such things as money, sex, communication or affection from you.
11. Neglect: Ignoring the needs of a child for whom the abuser is responsible. Includes child endangerment; i.e., placing or leaving a child in a dangerous situation.
12. Privacy invasion: Ignoring your boundaries by looking through your things, phone, mail; denying your physical privacy or stalking or following you; ignoring privacy you’ve requested.
13. Character assassination or slander: Spreading malicious gossip or lies about you to other people.

Lancer rounds out her list with violence, financial abuse, and isolation (isolating someone from other people in their lives).

If we could describe the modern West, the above list would be a good place to start. Individualists pursuing their own goals and then rationalizing them have as a consequence both discarded any concern for the future of humanity or our environment, and in the process, have made themselves into narcissists; then, their standard of behavior becomes the norm as others compete.

All of this can be easily perceived if one takes a philosophical view at life, rather than a personal view. Most humans, however, are wired for exactly that personal view, and once they go down that path, fear the philosophical view as it will reveal how much of their lives have been manipulated and wasted. That in turn will cause a crisis of self-confidence for them, so they persist in the lies.

As the rising Right turns to combat the decline of Western Civilization, one of the biggest weapons in its tool chest is to shift our perspective from self-focused to history-focused, so that people can take the philosophical view and see for the first time how existentially unsatisfying and suicidally destructive our modern society has turned out to be.

Narrative Fallacies

Friday, September 15th, 2017

Your internet clique — whichever one you have joined — is a joke.

No one is going to convert the world to their own idiosyncratic agenda.  Even if you can get a few thousand people to listen to your podcast, you still won’t have the same effect on the world that an obscure Baptist church in the middle of nowhere has.  A few thousand people showing up for a baseball game on a Wednesday night is considered a small crowd, so do try to keep things in perspective.

And why should anyone privilege an online community as being more serious for discussing politics?  The world would be a better place if people with too much time on their hands spent their free time raising chickens, fixing old cars and making rifles instead of pumping out half-baked manifestos featuring their preferred scapegoat and scheme for bring about utopia.

The common thread between the SJW activist arguing that all the world’s problems are because of white men, the socially alienated NEET who blames the Jews, and the super concerned religious person who thinks it’s the homosexuals is that they’re all falling for narrative fallacies

A narrative fallacy is any story or explanation that portrays the world in simple terms of good and bad where we, the masses who voted for all this insanity, are innocent.

There really isn’t a bad guy pulling the strings in a dark tower somewhere.  The world is a place we didn’t evolve to understand, but to survive as hunter gatherers fighting with other hunter gatherers.  People simply take a few random threads and work together a tapestry of a narrative that helps them to make sense of reality, but is in fact not reality at all.  Nothing good comes from following a map while ignoring the actual facts on the ground.

The problem with narrative fallacies is that “all roads lead to Rome,” and in this case Rome is the type of individualism that makes people both narcissistic and paranoid. Most people take the red pill only so that they can create a new narrative where they get to play the victim card, which is a simpler, easier and more convenient idea than actual analysis, so it quickly takes over any right-wing group.

What can anyone do then?

Tell the truth.

The great power of /pol/ is not in playing capture the flag with idiot celebrities or promoting any particular political agenda, but in providing a forum where information can be ruthlessly reviewed.  The value is not the funny memes, but having a place to get data about what’s actually going on.

Twisting things for purposes of propaganda doesn’t help anyone.  No one cares about your pet conspiracy theories except for your own personal social media clique.  And the only real result of your social media clique is to get into flame wars with other cliques you agree with 75-90% of the time, but with whom you disagree on as little as one minor point of political theology, so an Encyclopedia Dramatica article can be inspired.

Tell people the facts.  Call out liars and charlatans.  Don’t get sidetracked with personality cults or agendas.

We do not need conspiracy theories or narrative fallacies to explain what is going on. In fact, we need the opposite: people relentlessly tearing down the illusions until all that is left is the truth, and then we can set aside our personal drama and work together toward a realistic solution.

But that will never be as popular as the lottery of personalities that the game of cliques provides.

“Racism” As A Concept Dies As Nationalism Rises

Saturday, March 11th, 2017

From The Financial Times, an intriguing article entitled “White self-interest is not the same thing as racism: Accepting that all groups have legitimate interests fosters mutual understanding”:

Modern liberals tend to believe that preference for your own ethnic group or even your own nation is a form of racism. Conservatives regard it as common sense and resent being labelled as racist.

…The question of legitimate ethnic interest is complex. Multiculturalism is premised on the rights of minorities to maintain certain traditions and ways of life. But liberals have usually been reluctant to extend such group rights to majorities.

…As Eric Kaufmann argues in a new Policy Exchange paper, accepting that all groups, including whites, have legitimate cultural interests is the first step toward mutual understanding.

The barrier wall constructed of the illusion that racism is the ultimate bad, that any majority self-interest is racism, and that nationalism is unacceptable has now permanently fractured. The concept of “racism” has died, just as the notion that diversity can work has disintegrated. There is no longer any faith in these ideological concepts.

The “we are all one” attitude of Leftism led to a tragic norming where any outliers beyond the average were smashed down in order to create “equality.” This included mashing races together into a “beige horizon” which was cultureless, vapid and pathologically ideological, as the example of Bush/Obama-era America shows us.

Instead, people are realizing that patriotism will kill you but nationalism will give you what you really want: to live around people like you, ending the constant neurotic internal dialogue of a society with divided power and a divided population. People are seceding from the “melting pot” and withdrawing into tribal enclaves.

None of this shows anything except a return to historical norms. The W.E.I.R.D. industrialized world got wealthy, gave proles power and by that motion vaulted itself into Leftism and now something resembling Full Soviet living, and its occupants — like those who lived under Communism in the past — are now rebelling against this sure path to self-destruction.

Our future then consists of one of Balkanization into tribes (“patchwork” as the Neoreactionaries call it) followed by reformation of nations based on ethnic interests. There will then be some short, furious wars as the West re-asserts its own order, and then the rest of the world jockeys for place, culminating in an epic conflict like West versus East Part II.

If anyone asks, they should be reminded that this is the high, high price one pays for individualism, which is presumed (without honesty) to be a victimless crime if not a really good thing by the credulous bourgeois. Individualism means social breakdown through divided power and factionalized population, and from it comes the decay in which the West finds itself.

Starting in 2016, the sleeping West has roused itself and demands now that it not be obligated to commit suicide just because it was acting suicidally oblivious for the past ten centuries or more. Instead of a demand for more rules and proxies like the racism/egalitarianism binary, people are striving for logical fact and commonsense health, and realizing that they will never find that in Leftism, individualism, narcissism or any of the other associated wishful thinking of the innately neurotic human mind.

Divorce Creates Intense Solipsism

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

Those who follow this blog know that its fundamental argument is that civilizations die by hubris, which we call “individualism” in a modern context: the pathology of the individual which considers itself more important than reality.

Hubris is a form of the cognitive bias we call “solipsism” which occurs when people think the world either exists for them, or is a subset of their own minds. In order to deny reality, one must be solipsistic.

Solipsism spreads like a virus because once one person gets away with it, others realize they are at a disadvantage by acting toward a purpose larger than the individual. They give up and choose a self-centered life as well.

A trap emerges but most people tragically do not realize it until their later years. Living for oneself is a path to emptiness because meaning is found in the connection between self and reality, including but not limited to others. Living for principles and purpose such as is synthesized in the transcendentals like “the good, the beautiful and the true” creates meaning; egoism destroys it.

One writer pointed out how solipsism creates emptiness and a type of low-grade but fanatical sociopathy through his essay on why never date a woman from a broken family:

I have seen too many men have their heads handed to them, regardless of all this daydreaming about compatibility, equality, success, adventures, whatever. It all goes right out the window when Herself gets pregnant, and suddenly she is the center of the universe, those are HER children, and a guy can attend as many parenting classes and change as many diapers as he is humanly capable of doing, but she is from that time on looking for something she never had, something she has spent her childhood longing for and rationalizing away why her mother did whatever it was she did to deny to her, something that doesn’t exist: The Perfect Father. And she will keep right on looking, using “her” children as bait to try and trap one, man after man after man.

And I have seen very, very few exceptions to this formula for guaranteed heartbreak, summary dismissal and a future of painful and impoverishing litigation for too many good and decent men: women without fathers seem utterly incapable either of allowing any man to parent children in his own manly way, or of searching their own souls deeply enough to recognize that children are both distinct human beings and future adults, rather than their own personal property, pets and projects of empowerment.

The virus of self-centeredness causes people to be unable to understand others as real, since for the self-centered person, everything that exists in the world is there to serve a purpose for the self alone, and is only useful as a means-to-an-end. This makes them manipulative, controlling and most of all, willing to destroy others for their own convenience.

Every aspect of modern society bears the stamp of this solipsism which, if not actual metaphysical evil, certainly acts like it.


Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

We are familiar with the scales of justice, but what about the scales of attention? Few of us analyze what our brain spends its time processing; we respond to stimulus, which is easier, and allows us to reserve more of our thought process for ourselves. As a result, life is not tiring at all because we are only halfway awake.

For those who study the brain, informally (which is better above 120) or formally (better below 120 IQ points), it becomes clear that mental state is a zero-sum game. During any span of time, the brain can process only so much, and so adopting more of one thing over others displaces those others. This leads to several interesting revelations:

  1. Self-world balance. The more the brain thinks about itself, the less it studies the world. And so, for those who focus on the self or are driven by the impulses of the self, less is known of the world. Conversely, the more one studies the world, the less time is available for the self and its impulses, which become seen as a means to the end of studying the world.
  2. External-internal balance. When strong authority is present, people must spend less time thinking about their choices and worrying about the risk of getting them wrong. For this reason, the stronger the authority, the less thoughtful that people are. Conversely, truly weak authority like anarchy causes people to think too much about repetitive and commonsense questions, producing the kind of neurosis that causes society to die out.
  3. Present-future balance. As we think more about the future, we exclude the present to that degree. This means that the converse is true: the more we think about the present, the less we think about the future. Since the present is a moment passing, this amounts to a backward-looking bias against the future.

Essentially, the more that we focus on our selves in the here and now, the more we miss out on what life is about beyond the self. This leads us into a condition called solipsism, where we believe that our minds are the world, and that the world therefore can be changed by intent alone, expressed through ideology.

The scales of attention show us that our consciousness is the ultimate resource. We can regulate our experience to make it more meaningful and more realistic, with the latter leading to the former because it filters out more of our own background hum of desires, impulses, emotions and reactions. But most of humanity will choose otherwise, which is why life in civilization (ideally) is a competition for who gets to clarity first, and can then lead the others.

We Have Reached Peak Individualist

Friday, November 4th, 2016


So how does Dow Jones the Average fight back against the SJW Empire? He hits the Off Button. Block the signal. Turn off the noise. They have to sell. You don’t have to buy. When it all gets too disgusting, you also can join a new and burgeoning social movement. You can support Peak Individualism. It is happening all around us.

The salad days are seemingly over in Hollyorc.

The autumn box office is falling, down about 16% from the same period last year, according to the tracking service comScore.

Post-summer moviegoers have shelled out $807 million at the box office since Sept. 6, including $24.7 million this weekend for Ben Affleck in The Accountant. In a record-breaking 2015, the box office brought in a robust $960.8 million for the same period (Sept. 8 through Oct. 18).

Target retail stores are having to spend $20 Million to replumb all of their stores as a result of their disastrous bathroom policy.

Target, a popular retail chain, has announced it will spend $20 million in the coming months to add single-stall bathrooms to hundreds of its stores — a move that comes following furor over the store chain’s transgender bathroom stance.

The NFL is getting thrown for a loss. It’s going about as bad for them as it was for Colon Kaepernick vs. The Buffalo Bills yesterday. Stephen L. Carter describes the entire league-wide four touchdown loss below.

…as Peter King of Sports Illustrated pointed…Ratings are down 13.4 percent, far more than the usual election year drop-off.

Carter acknowledges this could be “Kaepernick Effect.” He then backs away from this truth and gets into peculiar problems besetting the NFL and football in general. He shouldn’t have backed away from “Kaepernick Effect.” I have yet to meet an Alabama or Auburn fan that has walked away from football. It’s one league in particular suffering the current decline.

Instead, he should have extended it without loss of generality. This is not Peak Football, Peak Hollyorc or Peak Target. This is Peak individualism and it is a recurring and growing social phenomenon. I described peak individualism back when Target initially launched its execration.

It happens all the time with “successful” activism. Lefty always wins the argument. They get progress. People who consider it regress instead don’t raise their voices. They just stop coming around.

Peak Individualism is a classical form of pacifism. It is the commonly decent, civilized human being’s defense mechanism athwart SJW converences. It’s the only thing that ultimately works. Cut off their money and they run out of butt fuel. Let the narcissists whine. It’s what they typically do when they fail to produce.

You just avoid people who deliberately ruin places so you feel unwelcome there. You do not have to watch things that are deliberately gross or offensive. You do not have to enrich companies that participate or who advertise with the assholes. They can’t stop you. They can’t even detect you until they finish early counting the till. Then they have a problem.

It’s at this point where the poisonous solipsist has to clean up or be permanently shunned. It’s sad when something has to be permanently shunned but it happens. Toxic deenerates can kill anything they infect, but they do have to be starved if you want to stop them. In most cases, the narcissist-infected entity recognizes their problems and de-rectums. Then the civilized society gets their activity back again.

Just be patient and continue to passively avoid these people. They starve without you. You lose nothing without them. Never let self-interested, disingenuous SJW types convince you that it is your duty to support a parasite load. And that, in the end, is what Peak Individualism — I use another word for “individualists” in private — is.

It is the point where society gets sick of SJW parasites and opts instead to tune them out until they attention-starve, or better, put them on helicopters to the third world where their passive-aggressive selfish behavior will fit within the background noise of the dysfunctional norm. They do not belong among first-world people.

Why Modern Children Are Such Brats

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016


From now-classic article in the Wall Street Journal:

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren’t at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. “For me, the evenings are for the parents,” one Parisian mother told me. “My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it’s adult time.” French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

…The French, I found, seem to have a whole different framework for raising kids. When I asked French parents how they disciplined their children, it took them a few beats just to understand what I meant. “Ah, you mean how do we educate them?” they asked. “Discipline,” I soon realized, is a narrow, seldom-used notion that deals with punishment. Whereas “educating” (which has nothing to do with school) is something they imagined themselves to be doing all the time.

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don’t pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep. It is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat.

What is really being discussed here?

A trio of related concepts: hierarchy, roles and purpose.

In non-cultured societies (a.k.a. multicultures) there is no culturally-defined purpose to the family, so the only purposes that are acceptable are individual self-interest and political collective goals.

But with culture, the family itself has meaning, like culture and sometimes religion, because there is an archetype of a higher goal than mere self. In particular, people want to find a place within the social hierarchy based not on money or politics, but on upholding the traditions of that culture.

From that comes the sense of roles, as in the idea that children serve the family. They are not the focus of the family which competes with the parents for attention and resources, as in America, but members of the family with a specific role: to grow up, do what is right, and uphold the traditions.

As multicultural liberal democratic society winds down into ruin, we have to consider that our most basic assumptions could be based in lies. The lie of individualism is the starting point: there can be no singular focus on the individual because the individual is always part of a larger group — family, local area, nation — and needs to believe in larger motivations than individual self-interest, such as culture, faith, values and honor.

I’s On The Prize

Thursday, July 14th, 2016


“I’ve1 seen how inadequate words can be in bringing about lasting change,” Obama said. “I’ve seen how inadequate my own words have been.”

If President Septimius Severus wonders why he can’t change things other people think or believe, he should ask himself2 how often he’s actually spoken with anyone other than himself. He should also listen to what he says to himself and run a regression analysis between his words and operative reality. If the r2ADJ is low, and the only audience is the one in the mirror; than he really shouldn’t expect his words to have any impact beyond what usually happens when you bullsh!t yourself.

You see I think that my view of Obama’s presidential shortcomings is vastly important to the entire internet world. And not just because I thought of it all by myself. At least Narcissus was honest enough to cultivate true love. President Severus just has a solipsism which could very well be the self-worshipper’s form of casual sex. He’s the first self-victimizing PUA I‘ve ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes on.

According to Septimius, it’s easier for a teenager to get a firearm than it is to get a computer or a book. That’s why I hang loose at Barney Noble’s: latte and firepower. What could go wrong? Where other than Best Buy would you go to stock up on your back-to-school RPGs? And he wasn’t through lying yet either.

You see Micah Xavier Johnson, the guy who shot up the cops in Dallas, Texas specifically stated the following.

“The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Brown said during a press conference on Friday. “He was upset about the recent shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect said he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

President Severus responded with “I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.” That I was only one of forty-five references to himself in his speech, which makes that speech more about him than its ostensible topic. He treats the presidency the same way: as a chance for self-promotion, and consequences? Those are for little people.

Maybe I should give him three guesses as to the shooter’s motive. I’ll call it affirmative action and not even make the first two count. After a couple of warm-up pitches, I‘m certain that Harvard intellect will kick into high overdrive. It totally confuses me that he hasn’t already figured it out. He’s got smart people like John F. Kerry advising him every day.

But enough of my silly fvckery. I laugh at this man-taco we elected President not once, but twice only to avoid crying for the beloved republic. He amazes me with the total and awesome contempt he has for his audience. But then again, he only talks about the things he actually cares about with the people that matter. Those discussions stay between him and his mirror. That makes me plenty happy. Our current President is an empty suit from a cheap, dying shopping mall, with nothing of substance to say.

1 I-nalysis of this blog post found it to be self-referential a total of 14 times in 490-some words. That’s a Net Arrogance Index (NAI) = 0.0286. Presidential material –- even if I say so my own self…

2 The only guy he seriously spoke with in Dallas, Texas yesterday.

Anatomy Of An Individualist

Thursday, June 23rd, 2016


If you still refuse to believe that the disease of civilization decline lies in “We The People” and not some external force, consider the case of a typical individualist who took her pathology to the next level by making it highly public:

The San Diego woman documented her art on rock features on social media as she traveled across the US.

Over a 26-day period in 2014 she damaged formations at seven national parks by drawing or painting on them with acrylic paint and markers, signing her works with her social media handle ‘Creepytings.’

In one post from the time, she wrote: ‘It’s art, not vandalism. I am an artist.’

The modern egotism insists that each person be described in superlatives. Functionality is not enough; one must be a sage, a prophet, an artist, a visionary. Even though very few are, and especially very few who scrawl their works on public surfaces.

Art is a condition of the mind, a communication rendered into some form. Vandalism is what happens when communication is put in the wrong place. She conflates the two, just like leftists confuse method for motivation, because it is convenient for her to do so, so that she may achieve her actual goal — being an attention whore and demanding attention to her ego.

When we create “equality” as a political value, it turns people into attention whores. They have been reduced in value and the means of measuring actual value — moral, character, intelligence and fidelity — have been adulterated. As a result, all that remains is doing “stunts” and drawing attention to oneself.

Not surprisingly, they do so at the expense of others, as our graffiti-scarred cities and spam-ridden internet show us. Why would they do otherwise? People have nothing in common except obeying the rules to have money, pay taxes, and allow other people to be attention whores in the hope that someday each of us gets our fifteen minutes of vandalism fame.

Recommended Reading