Posts Tagged ‘neurosis’

Expunging Nonwhite Supremacy from the White Psyche

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

The West is sick.  Westerners have seen their once-great empires fall and their once-great cultures dissipate into inert materialism cloaked with decadence, and have become demoralized and despondent.  

A miserable rot has grown in the Western soul that fills them with self-doubt.  Under the guise of being morally critical of their actions and their history, whites have developed a self-loathing that colors their thinking from deep within an unacknowledged crevasse in their psyche.  This depression has left many whites with a feeling that bad things will happen to white people, and they will deserve it.

Like seeing the chemo-ravaged body of a terminal cancer patient or a listless mangy dog, observing a man stricken with white guilt is revoltingly tragic.

One way this sickness manifests is in attitudes towards mass nonwhite immigration.  Many whites either dismiss mass nonwhite immigration as natural and neutral, as simply allowing people to do what they want, to travel and live on any part of the globe they want and think no further than that.  Others actively advocate for nonwhite immigration as a means of being “nice” by allowing foreigners a chance to participate in Western wealth.  Both of these attitudes require a myopic refusal to consider consequences beyond the immediate.

The reality is that space on Earth is limited.  There is a finite and unchanging quantity of land around this planet upon which to live, to cultivate, to extract resources from, and to simply enjoy.  When one individual uses a portion of land in a given way, that limits how others can use that land.  That these limits are not hard — homes can be made smaller and stacked higher, agriculture could be intensified — does not mean that they do not exist.  That they are not immediately visible — a city-dweller may wander into the countryside, look at an empty field or a forest, and only see more room for humans to live — does not mean that they do not exist.

Because of these limits, every instance of allowing one individual to use a portion of land, whether directly or indirectly, necessarily means that others cannot use that land to the extent they could in that individual’s absence.  Other factors may be at play to make it a net benefit, but denying the existence of these limits or ignoring them is delusional.

Mass nonwhite immigration to white nations means that whites in those nations become more limited while the nonwhites benefit.  Beneath the flimsy myopic rationalizations, in order for a white mind to believe this is a good thing, there must be something within their psyche that prefers benefiting nonwhites.  Something in their mind is causing them to act in favor of nonwhite supremacy.

Once a nonwhite population has accumulated in a Western nation, we see an even more blatant manifestation of nonwhite supremacy in affirmative action and related practices.

What is causing this sickness, and how can it be cured?  Simply exposing it and bringing it into the open air of sustained conscious thought is a large first step.  Beyond that we can suggest these possible causes along with their remedies.

A skewed understanding of history: Someone who is told exclusively ideologically selected and exaggerated anecdotes of their peoples’ history will tend to internalize a bias towards that ideology.  A bias towards white inferiority and nonwhite superiority (two inseparable sides of the same coin) in public education and mass entertainment is clearly visible to those not under their unthinking spell.

The remedy here is simply to read more plain history.  It may be tempting to administer this historical learning through a counter-bias that seeks to show only the nice aspects of the in-group’s history and vilifies the out-groups’, but this will not rectify the underlying problem, which the belief or feeling that if one’s group has historically done bad things, then that groups deserves punishment.  In reality, all groups have done bad things–slavery and conquest are the historical norm.  This realization arises naturally out of a mind that has learned broadly and deeply the history of many groups.  From there, history becomes not a source of guilt and depression, but a source of data that informs a better understanding of how civilizations can work, and a source of inspiration and meaning through understanding the lives of great men.

Social posturing: The current cultural climate in the west glorifies abasing whiteness and rewards praising nonwhiteness, and this partly arises out of a mindset that equates victimhood with righteousness, which requires viewing nonwhites as eternal victims.  While insincere adherence to this social standard is technically possible, and some whites may simply mouth the required platitudes without true belief, we can observe that this adherence is more effective at increasing social standing when it is sincere, and engaging in nonwhite supremacy is easier and more mentally comfortable when truly believed.  In practice, within the morass of fleeting fragmented thoughts arising chaotically between long stretches of distraction that constitutes the modern mind there may be no clear answer to what is truly believed and what is simply repeated and imitated.

If we accept that, particularly during modernity, for the bulk of humanity the norm is to prioritize alignment with prevailing social currents above rational thought or spiritual guidance, then we see that attacking this problem directly will not work.  The best logical arguments and the most glorious appeal to a beautiful cosmic order don’t stand a chance against fear of ostracism and the ecstasy of social acceptance and elevation.  But this psychic toxin is not entirely incurable: rather than try to convince the masses to push against the social currents, change the currents themselves.  This means not focusing on the great mass of social followers, but on those who they follow, which is necessarily a smaller, more manageable and replaceable group.

Curing this sickness will be a vital step towards a population that has the self-confidence and clear thinking needed to restore Western civilization, and is unapologetic about the greatness to which it aspires.

Cold, Ice Cold

Saturday, April 22nd, 2017

Philosopher Nick Land talks about the transition that the West is currently experiencing as a shift from being nice to being more realistic. “Nice” is like bourgeois values: offend no one, befriend everyone, and always gesture vividly toward your acceptance of all people, behaviors and ideas.

Naturally, this niceness is fatal to any group because it opposes the idea of standards, as well as the basic notion of finding some things to be true and others not, therefore unacceptable as answers to certain questions. To be nice, one must believe that all people are basically the same and thus are “universal,” or uniformly good for the most part.

The problem with nice is that it is a form of competition. If your neighbors are nicer than you, you are seen as a less desirable business partner, mate, customer, friend, coworker and seller. When one person on the block goes down the path of nice, the others must “keep up with the Joneses” and virtue signal their niceness as well.

This psychology originates in the bourgeois ideal of being a mercantile middle class. You are not responsible for leadership directly, and yet you have a duty to earn money and keep up (including the Republican “work hard and go to church” mentality) and so you adopt nice as a means of marketing yourself.

When every man is a shopkeeper, he must always think that any person around him is a potential customer. So when it comes time to act, standards are out as these will alienate someone; nice is in because it enables anyone to be a customer, and who cares if they are good or not, so long as they have money?

Like most human illusions, this one is fallacious too. The shopkeepers that are longest-esteemed are those who uphold standards and enforce social order because they are trusted by the upper portions of the bell curve, and everyone else imitates those. When the herd takes over, however, this becomes inverted.

In addition, those who are starting out with nothing will use nice as a way to get a foot in the door… with guilt. Who can turn down a nice guy? White knights everywhere rely on this theory, and it works enough that society keeps producing white knights like an unwanted but voracious weed.

Businesses use a variation of the “nice guy” strategy any time they support a little league team, highway cleanup or local symphony. Unlike regular nice, however, this gives back to the community as a whole. This means it is not personal like nice normally is. However, this means that other businesses can use nice as a simpler version.

The problem with nice is that, like other bourgeois ideas such as “the customer is always right,” it results in acceptance of anything-goes behavior. This in turn makes the business less efficient for others because it is busy being nice to the insane, selfish, lonely, bored and sociopathic.

When the mental virus of nice leaves behind business and migrates into the broader culture, it creates a pathology of deference. Individuals lose the self-esteem they need in order to demand that there be standards. Instead, they take the only safe option that is compatible with nice — they get out of the way — creating that “anything goes” feel.

This creates a society of neurotic people who are afraid to stand for anything, and as a result, welcome any new degeneracy or foreign invaders in their midst. To them, the only winning strategy is more nice, because any lack of it leaves them exposed to someone else demonstrating more of it and thus capturing the high ground, at least in social terms.

Equality creates this form of competition because in an egalitarian society, being non-egalitarian is the only real sin aside from obvious sociopathy like murder, assault, rape and violent theft. Those who are nice are inherently egalitarian; by the converse, those who fail to demonstrate nice will be seen as ideological enemies.

The bourgeois mentality of salesmanship and the prole culture ideal of equality thus conspire to create a society where everyone is a sitting duck. To defend themselves against bad behavior is to invoke the wrath of the Crowd; to accept bad behavior and use it to demonstrate nice, on the other hand, is a win. This way, good becomes evil in results, a form of inversion.

The way around nice is removal of the anti-hierarchy created by equality, which mandates a vast mass who are equal ruled by a few leaders who exist to implement further egalitarian reforms. If we recognize each person as having a place, it makes sense to see them as having immutable self-interest related to that position.

For example, a thief always steals; this is what thieves do. The less-intelligent always seek to overthrow the more intelligent, much as the less-moral seek to overthrow the more moral. The herd seeks to dethrone the exceptional. The ugly and sad want to destroy the beautiful, healthy and cheerful.

When we escape the mental grotto of nice, we can see that not only do people work in self-interest specific to their roles, but that it is more humane to recognize them as they are. Give people clear direction and limit the damage they can do, and they are less likely to live in a miasma of lowered self-esteem based on their past failures and bad acts.

In order to have this exist, however, the best must always oppress the rest, because in one of those rare but ineffable binaries of life, otherwise the rest will oppress the best. Since having the best in power provides the best results, and these distribute to all citizens, it makes sense to put the best in power, much as we select the most talented surgeons or mechanics over the rest.

A new era dawns in which cold, hard logic will be victorious over social sentiments and individualism. Cold, hard logic is like ice in winter that kills all but the hardy; it removes mental confusion by focusing on results and reasoning about how to achieve those, and leaves feelings and group emotions by the wayside.

This view liberates us from a fundamental curse: caring about what is popular. Ultimately, nice is an expression of popularity and fear. People fear that they will not be included, and therefore, it is popular to include everyone, which requires abolition of standards. As we awaken from the stupor of this idea, our civilization can become functional again.

We Are What You Fear

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Writing about politics for several decades has convinced me that people from different “tribes” — a mixture of ethnicity, caste/class, religion, politics/philosophy and social rank (alpha, beta, omega) — really do not understand each other. Each tribe knows itself and, because its normal opinions shock others, its members isolate into “bubbles” where they experience only similar opinions.

This is why the Left has utterly no clue about who the people of the Right are. They have stereotypes: inbred farmers, the Klan, angry Christians, Hitler, the Confederates, maybe even those people who live at the end of the cul-de-sac in the suburbs. But those are surface descriptions. They do not actually know these people, nor do they care to.

For this reason, it always shocks them when we turn out to be educated or “educable” (my term for those who could accomplish a college degree or run their own successful business, whether they chose to or not) and normal. This ruins their narrative that we chose our ideas because we are dysfunctional; instead, it reveals that our ideas were logical responses to the situation we see before us.

Leftists start calling names when their narrative is interrupted, which is why the usual neurotics are attacking LD50 Gallery by calling anyone involved a “fascist”:

After some digging, it turned out that the gallery had, on the down-low, actually hosted a “neo-reactionary” conference as well, though not a particularly well advertised one. Or as one of the speakers wrote, “behind a veil of secrecy to prevent the usual suspects (Leftists and other neurotics) from attacking”.

Those are the words of Brett Stevens, a fascist who has in the past praised Anders Behring Breivik, the far right terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011.

…In case you’re unconvinced, one of the few place to offer any support for LD50, was amerika.org a right wing website that, as part of it’s mission statement, suggests we “repatriate the non-indigenous”.

As obvious historical illiterates, these neurotics have no idea what “fascism” actually is, nor do they care. They want a term for an enemy that is so bad that it is OK to destroy them, harm their families, enjoy torturing them, dehumanize them and exterminate them. This is not an analysis; it is a category for extermination.

They cannot accept the fact that their narrative and ideology have failed to convince people. They must pretend to be shocked at this because they base their identities, or personal sense of self-worth, on the idea that they are “right” and the rest of us are “wrong” and therefore their purpose and truthfulness is greater than ours.

This reveals the basis of Leftism in individualism or hubris. They really do not care whether or not what they say is true. What they care about is that it be treated as true, so they get what they (personally) want, and they have formed a collective of individualists like a union, gang or cult to demand this from the larger society around them.

Leftists use a method of passive aggression leading to circular reasoning by which they demand that you accept their assumptions as gospel truth, and then react as if they have been victimized when you refuse to accept the insanity.

In this way, Leftists create a psychology where they are always correct and the rest of us are always wrong, therefore the only solution is for us to accept the greater morality of the Leftist position and roll over on our own. This only works if we accept the fundamentally social morality of the Left, which is that including everyone is more important than getting to the correct answer.

The Left thus resembles an abusive relationship in which the rest of us are always wrong, the Left is always right, and they use this imagined justification to essentially steal from us to fund their own projects, which coincidentally result in enriching Leftists with wealth and power. Their goal is to seize control from those who naturally should wield it and transfer it to themselves, through the ruse of altruism.

What is shocking the Left (this week) is that the victims are no longer rolling over for the parasites. In fact, something bigger has happened: the victims have recognized that the parasite is a parasite, not a logical participant, and they are no longer listening. The same force that kept them “cucked” for years caused them to suddenly snap and polarize to the opposite direction.

For example, we can look at the lamentations of the insane that they are not treated as sane people in American politics anymore:

Democrats’ frustration spilled over after one member noticed a Republican House member wearing headphones plugged into his phone during the debate.

“What could possibly be more important right now?” Abbie Finkenauer of Dubuque shouted. “Get off your phone and pay attention.”

Shannon Wurzer, a Republican teacher from northeast Iowa, said she was shocked when she saw the party she supports refusing to consider any of the amendments.

“They weren’t giving an inch. It didn’t seem like the Republicans were even listening,” she said. “It was all their way. And that’s not what we’re used to in Iowa.”

Notice the passive aggression in the above. These Leftists — some of whom claim to be Republicans, who claim to be conservative sometimes — are upset that the previous order in which everyone rolled over for them has been disrupted. Republicans are no longer listening to them because the Republican base has realized that Leftists are insane, and you cannot negotiate with insane.

Much of this comes from the interweaving of HBD, Nietzsche and deep ecology in the Alt Right: we stopped seeing ideology as philosophy, and started seeing it as pathology, or in other words a symbolic expression of the needs of the individual. Leftists justify themselves more than they assert positive future options. They are at heart, simply neurotics.

For this reason a cultural shift is going on in the world. We have seen through the veil and realized that behind Leftism, no matter what degree, lies only insanity. Any idea that begins with the assumption that all people are equal will lead to complete breakdown of sanity, logic and pragmatism.

It also acts on our people like an addiction. This is why it is important to discard scapegoats and intermediaries — the Rich,™ the Jews,™ the Government and the Deep State — those are symptoms of the basic fact that We The People are in charge, and mob rule always produces dysfunctions of that nature. The real error was equality as articulated during The Enlightenment.™

Everything else has followed from that basic assumption. When people surmise that individualism is true, this leads to a condition called “Crowdism” that collectivizes that individualism and results in mass insanity as people are forced to accept mob rule as if it were reality. If we do not destroy equality, we will repeat the same historical pattern of failure.

These people are not realistic. They are not good. Their leaders are a few self-enriching cynics, ruling over neurotic true believers and a huge crowd of useful idiots who just want to have happy social feelings by being “good” through a few symbolic acts, which is much easier than actually being good in all that one does.

You can see the insanity on full display through the Leftist jihad against non-Leftist speech which leads to hilarity like the following:

And this just in—VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s alma mater, Stanford’s Graduate School Of Business, just cancelled a debate between Brimelow and Tim Kane of the Hoover Institution to be held by the Stanford chapter of the Adam Smith Society, citing the destruction of Berkeley as the reason they’ve been scared off.

Get this: the Left has canceled a debate by a Rightist because the Left is afraid that it will become triggered and riot, despite that having absolutely zero to do with the Rightist. It is like an alcoholic demanding that his community ban wine because otherwise he will drink it all and burn down a barn.

We are what they fear because we refuse to accept their narrative as “good.” This is the first step, and most important, in delousing oneself from Leftists. Their entire philosophy is based on the idea that individualism and equality are good. In reality, those destroy civilizations, and our goal is to avoid being destroyed, so we must fight back… in self-defense… by any means necessary.

We have reached peak insanity with the Left and it is clear that we can no longer walk down the same path holding hands, Right and Left. We need separate nations. Since Leftists already have most of the world, it makes sense to repatriate themselves elsewhere, and return our societies to the ethnic groups and philosophies that last ruled them well. End the Left. They are a disease.

White People Show Symptoms Of Abuse Pathology

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Advanced civilization runs into a problem: the capable must take care of the incapable, since they have both been born to the same civilization. Instead of adopting the elitism that would keep the incapable in check, the capable make themselves into servants of the incapable by “managing” the inept, sloppy, oblivious and narcissistic.

This creates a sense of futility in society, starting from the top-down. Who dares hope for a good outcome when stupidity always wins, and when the intelligent are required to work long hours to keep the insanity from overflowing? Society can either exist as a top-down entity, where the intelligent rule, or it is ruled from the bottom-up by the stupid, who then oppress the intelligent and make them de facto slaves.

You undoubtedly have experienced this reading the newspaper. Story after story describes idiotic and incompetent people doing moronic things, and then at the end you see that they will become wards of the state or otherwise continue. There seems to be nothing you can do: you are outnumbered by fools and, because “society” wants to help them, they win — while you labor away and try to be responsible to pay for it and manage the chaos.

People in Western Civilization probably identified with Jesus on the Cross because of their own martyrdom in this way. Where once they directed others toward creating positive results, they became glorified babysitters once those efforts succeeded and resulted in a vast population of less competent people. Day after day, they were exposed to the ugliest and most desolate of human behavior.

Consider the manager in a small firm. He does not expect his employees to be geniuses when he starts working there, but over time, he comes to see them as an adversary. If not constantly told what to do, they just screw around… with no thought about what is needed for the sake of the business. They will overlook jobs that need doing as a result, simply because they were not instructed every minute of the day.

Even more, they tend to be flakeouts. They will do a job halfway, and then wander off toward something else. Count on them to fill out paperwork wrong, to take sick days whenever they can, to steal items from work or just to do everything poorly because they can get away with it. They have no sense of purpose in the job.

The manager does what everyone must do in such a situation: he cracks down. He enforces work hours more rigidly and puts in place checks and balances and paperwork to force people to do things the right way. They then find ways around that. He redesigns. It is a constant battle, a Tom and Jerry style slapstick comedy, with the workers apparently dedicated to creative ineptitude and laziness.

All of us have experienced low-level jobs where this was the norm. For those from upper-half-of-middle-class backgrounds, it was usually an eye-opener to realize that not everyone cares about getting the job done, and seeing how management are essentially slaves to the complete lack of dedication of their own workers.

This outlook shows what exhausted the West: we became babysitter-managers instead of conquerors.

We can see the results of this today in the behavior of Western people. We like worn-down middle managers, always having to acquiescence to “whatever the herd is doing,” and never able to create sanity in our own lives.

Witness this ultra-cucked guilt blitzkrieg on the topic of immigration from people in denial that business requires a stable civilization:

Rather than return to such a policy targeted at a new group of persecuted people, the United States should continue to accept humanitarian immigration, not because refugees can improve local economies—though they can—and not because they can provide tangible intelligence against ISIS—though they do—but because getting out of the way and allowing people to escape violence is the bare minimum of moral decency.

America may have no moral duty to put out fires around the world, but it does have a moral duty not to block the fire exits.

Translation: if other people are having a problem because of their own incompetence, it is your job to take them in and manage them so that you can get brownie points for being such a nice white knight.

No wonder white Americans are dying out. Sure, the middle class salaries and top-notch shopping are nice, but this provides no future other than being a glorified janitor who does not even get the respect that the guy who cleans the toilets gets. Instead, we know the drill: import Other group, have what we offer be not enough, and get spat on while we struggle like salesmen to make it right even though it never can be.

Diversity occurred in the first place because of this lack of social order. Social order occurs when — as naturally happens in the military, athletics and business — there is a strong hierarchy. Those on the top are there for reason of greater competence, and they tell the others what to do. But we interrupted that with the doctrine of equality, itself a descendant of the idea that we must manage our low-skill citizens.

Instead of having the intelligent making decisions, we had a large contingent of poor people who simply refused to do their role. And so, we imported the Irish to replace them… then the Poles to replace them… then the Italians to replace them… and since then it has been a Ponzi scheme to bring in new groups of third-world people who are not yet ruined by our lifestyle based on individual rights which allows the weak to the command the strong.

That is the real reason for immigration, after all. Unions, worker’s rights, riots and revolts… these meant that, to the bourgeois middle class, it was impossible to do anything but pander more to our low-skill people. Business shrugged and took the money it blew in a year on lawyers to keep the union menace at bay, and threw it into pro-immigration lobbying. Finally it could turn a profit again.

You did this to yourselves, idiots. You, the voters, who are afraid of strong power, opted instead to defend the weak, which made all of the existing problems weak and launched new ones. You cannot blame The Rich,™ The Jew,™ or even business itself. You the voters did this. You refused to fight back against the ongoing creep of the managerial state, and now you are all miserable because of your bad — no, let’s call it what it is: stupid — decisions.

That tolerance for stupidity (the opposite of tolerance is not intolerance, but having standards) caused an abuse pathology in white people: we are abused by those who use our guilt against us and demand we take care of them, even though they have little to offer. I am thinking mostly of dumb whites here, but we have now expanded the franchise… white people live in a constant miasma of Stockholm syndrome, PTSD and neurotic delirium.

As a result, you will exterminate yourselves by failing to breed, which is consistent with being miserable because your lives are spent babysitting lazy, oblivious and deceptive fools that you rely on for labor:

Every time a story like this is published, its comment section predictably devolves into a digital screaming match — on one side are parents and would-be parents espousing the primal human instinct to reproduce, and the folly of denying that drive. On the other side are activists who, like Kelly, believe the way to best protect our children is by not having more. Or, put another way, if you want to preserve the planet for future generations, shoot the stork. Caught in the middle? Twenty- and thirty-somethings torn between the desire to start a family and guilt over doing so.

…“We have a generation of people whose decisions are deeply and painfully complicated by climate change,” Josephine Ferorelli, co-founder of the nonprofit Conceivable Future, which frames global warming as a reproductive justice issue, told Salon. “There isn’t a correct answer here — it’s an impossible choice. So we’re trying to refocus the conversation to something larger.”

If any of these people were not stupefied by their own propaganda, they would realize that having first-world high IQ babies is always preferable. The world is drowning in people and will do so regardless of what we do here in the first world, but we could stop our role in the problem by ending immigration and sending back the people we have now educated here.

Nope, we cannot do that. The role of the manager is always to sacrifice himself because there will always be more clueless people who need being told what to do. Seduced by the power and salary, he nonetheless becomes a slave, bending his back to solve problems of an obvious nature and as a result being distracted permanently from any creative, forward-looking and eternally-valid solutions.

Shoot the stork? Shoot the stupid. Humanity has since its earliest days been awash in incompetents. They may be perfectly nice, pleasant and compassionate people, but they are incompetent. As a result, they destroy anything they touch, either directly by making “decisions” involved with it, or indirectly by passive-aggressively enslaving their betters to become watchdogs over the herd of sprawling ineptitude.

Future historians of the West will record that its decline began with the idea that everyone who was born within a society had created an obligation for that society to take care of them. Better is the rule of nature, where the wolfpack kills or leaves behind the inept wolf, not from a moral judgment but from a sense of self-preservation. Elitism and aristocracy are right; humility and compassion are wrong.

Leftism Is A Form Of Anxiety

Friday, January 27th, 2017

When trying to understand Leftism, it makes sense to treat it less as an ideology than a pathology, or cycle of impulsive behavior that reflects an inner need. Only this analysis explains the intensity of Leftist belief and the way it behaves like a drug, giving its users a momentary high and then leaving them miserable until given the impetus to act again.

Given that Leftists, when they achieve their political aims, tend to create institutions and civilizations that self-destruct from the success of those very aims, it is clear that Leftism is not a reality-based narrative. This is the essence of ideology: it supplants reality by making human reason and intent more important than results in reality.

That, by its very definition, fits the archetype of a pathology. The same behavior is repeated independent of results because the behavior itself, and not its stated aims, are what its adherents crave. That leads us to the question of what type of pathology Leftism might be. One big fat candidate is separation anxiety disorder, or SAD.

What is SAD?

According to the American Psychology Association, separation anxiety disorder (SAD) is an excessive display of fear and distress when faced with situations of separation from the home or from a specific attachment figure.

Anxiety and/or being anxious are similar conditions resulting from an environment where change occurs. If one is accustomed to a specific environment, change can be (very) disruptive thereby motivating the establishment of an entire Change Management Industry (for companies).

What is the population impact?

  • Infants: 6 months – 3 years > 4%
  • Children: >12.5%
  • Adults: >7%
  • “It is presumed that a much higher percentage of children suffer from a small amount of separation anxiety, and are not actually diagnosed. Multiple studies have found higher rates of SAD in girls than in boys, and that paternal absence may increase the chances of SAD in girls.”

However, “the clinically anxious pediatric population are considerably larger, according to Hammerness et al. (2008) SAD accounted for 49% of admissions.”

The election results (as an indication of the extent of liberally oriented people in the US) show that Leftists represent about 50% of the voting population in the USA. Comparing the violence “against change” after Obama’s inauguration with that of Trump, one can safely say that liberals are fairly anxious about the perceived changes they expect from a Trump Presidency. What is interesting is that Obama also stated his desire to change America in 2008, without it resulting in a comparable negative reaction by conservative voters.

The reference to “paternal absence” above, can also be illustrated by one in three children living without an own father. This is about 24 million people which in a generational sense points to 30% of the population.  In addition to that single parents have tripled since 1960.

Informal data over time therefore, encourages the real fear of a SAD population (of adults) growing to 30% and beyond. Apart from requiring specialized medical attention, it appears that negative political fall-out has (as a consequence of ignorance thereof) manifested itself in an unstable nation.

 Who is knowledgeable about SAD?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is the 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) classification and diagnostic tool. In the United States the DSM serves as a universal authority for psychiatric diagnoses.

Medical practitioners may follow the following process: To be diagnosed with SAD, one must display at least three of the following criteria:

  • Recurrent excessive distress when anticipating or experiencing separation from home or from major attachment figures
  • Persistent and excessive worry about losing major attachment figures or about possible harm to them, such as illness, injury, disasters, or death
  • Persistent and excessive worry about experiencing an untoward event (e.g., getting lost, being kidnapped, having an accident, becoming ill) that causes separation from a major attachment figure
  • Persistent reluctance or refusal to go out, away from home, to school, to work, or elsewhere because of fear of separation
  • Persistent and excessive fear of or reluctance about being alone or without major attachment figures at home or in other settings
  • Persistent reluctance or refusal to sleep away from home or to go to sleep without being near a major attachment figure
  • Repeated nightmares involving the theme of separation
  • Repeated complaints of physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, stomachaches, nausea, vomiting) when separation from major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated

One informal comparison with (liberal) SJWs includes the following criteria:

  • The “anticipated” separation from major attachment figures includes “friends” at school or Facebook. In other words, not being part of the popular group can cause serious anxiety. The fear of being alone is a real issue (FOMO: Fear of Missing Out)
  • Repeated nightmares involving themes of separation. It seems that their anxiety cause SJW’s into a light sleep causing multiple dreams every night. This will cause them to be slow developers.
  • Physical symptoms (such as vomiting) can be intentionally produced as a means of manipulation to avoid (anticipated) separation. (They literally live in a future world)

One explanation for having different “attachment figures” is precisely the lack of parents or even siblings. Single children are perhaps also more likely to exhibit SAD due to helicopter parents and in the case of single mother homes, mothers treating their boys like girls could also exacerbate this problem. The part where “avoidance” is discussed can also develop into defensive behaviors, manifesting in its full glory during adulthood.

Political impact of SAD

As shown above, anxiety and specifically SAD can cause a person to behave in certain ways. In theory this is due for the most part to avoidance, in order to avoid separation with whoever is important for that person. It appears that, due to exactly this avoidance, that liberals/SJWs will refuse to admit his/her own avoidance to anyone, ever.

Since no research investigations have been initiated into this field, political writers such as Matt Forney have realized that SJWs cannot be fixed and that they should be contained.

In the aftermath of the Trump inauguration, the question remained of how to achieve American unity. Many commenters voiced the opinion that the Democratic Party strategy will be to simply continue their losing fight to the next election. But surely that is not viable and certainly a nation divided is not feasible.

From an anxiety perspective it is unfortunately unclear whether a solution exists on a political, but what is clear though, is that this issue is not going away because it worsens with every generation. Decay begets pathology, and pathology begets ideology, which the resulting disastrous choices worsening the conditions of decay and causing the group of anxious Useful Idiots to grow, accelerating the cycle of suicide.

Maps And Territories

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

One of the concepts explained at length in the followup to Nihilism is that of mental maps, or how we have representations of the world in our mind which are not symbolic but designed to mimic structures found in the world. These generally follow the primal archetype of a geographic layout because this is probably their role throughout evolution.

Mental maps allow the brain to navigate the world, but this comes with a downside, which is that they provide more intense internal stimulus than external stimulus because the associations — firing of neurons — happen more easily than if provoked by anything but threat, sexual excitement or other extreme external stimulus:

The neuroscientist John O’Keefe discovered cognitive maps in the 1970s. His research ultimately won him a share of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. O’Keefe was not looking for maps in the brain. Newly arrived at University College London (UCL) from McGill University in Canada, he was actually interested in memory.

…This idea received a boost when the Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb suggested that memories could be formed by changing the connections between simultaneously active neurons across the brain, to make their communication easier in future – a simple and yet profoundly influential idea…This idea received a boost when the Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb suggested that memories could be formed by changing the connections between simultaneously active neurons across the brain, to make their communication easier in future – a simple and yet profoundly influential idea.

…O’Keefe and his student Jonathan Dostrovsky set about recording hippocampal neurons to find out what they do on a normal day in a normal rat that was just foraging around for food. They made a remarkable discovery. Some neurons in the hippocampus would become active only when the rat walked into a particular place in its environment. After many control experiments to see if the cells were being activated by particular sights, sounds or smells, O’Keefe concluded that these cells were being stimulated simply by the rat’s being in a particular place, and so he named these neurons ‘place cells’.

Our contemporary public culture normally associates Pavlovian response with trained behavior, but the bigger story here is the formation of nerve connections which provide more intense sensations that most things we perceive from the outside world which do not trigger our 4F — foraging, fighting, fleeing or reproduction — responses.

This provides the basis of human solipsism because our memories and the triggers (sorry, SJWs) stored in them will always be more powerful than perceiving the world, in addition to being faster and thus, striking us as more important. This means that the more we look for clear thoughts, the more we find memories comprised of our conclusions from the past.

That in turn interrupts cause-effect logic because we are no longer working from cause, or how we get to a certain reasoning, but from effect, or the conclusions we drew, which makes us look backward to method and not purpose as the core of our thinking. That in turn pushes any concept of understanding why we do what we do aside, and encourages us to repeat actions that were successful for ourselves or others.

In this, we can see the basis of an inherent instinct toward both conformity and methodological thinking in humans; the latter also produces conformity because it encourages people to engage in similar behaviors, and not to think about the reasons why those were successful in the first place. From this, the origins of the herd instinct that manifests in democracy when a civilization becomes neurotic enough can be found.

Leftists Accuse You Of Their Own Dysfunction

Tuesday, January 24th, 2017

Humans, when caught doing something wrong, have a tendency to blame the person who discovered them for interrupting their solipsistic fantasy in which they believed it was acceptable to act as they did. This is why Leftists accuse the right of being intolerant totalitarians while demonstrating those same traits as their normal operating procedure.

Because of this, Leftists tend to unironically psychoanalyze the right — known as “concern trolling” — and in doing so, reveal the roots of their own pathologies. For example, consider this Leftist analysis of the psychology of lying:

Another reason for promoting lying is what economists sometimes call loyalty filters. If you want to ascertain if someone is truly loyal to you, ask them to do something outrageous or stupid. If they balk, then you know right away they aren’t fully with you. That too is a sign of incipient mistrust within the ruling clique, and it is part of the same worldview that leads Trump to rely so heavily on family members.

Each time the Leftists repeat a lie, such as that Donald Trump mocked a disabled reporter, it unifies their base by forcing loyalty. Those who are unquestioning will repeat the lie, and this cows others into accepting it as truth.

Another example can be found in this entertaining Leftist analysis of cherry-picking, which is a classic Leftist technique for making their assumptions seem to be reasonable conclusions:

One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as “thinking like a lawyer,” in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to “in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true.”

…Dan Kahan (Yale University) agrees, finding in their research that “the deposition is to construe evidence in identity-congruent rather than truth-congruent ways, a state of disorientation that is pretty symmetric across the political spectrum.”

…”In our research, we find that people treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions,” says Campbell. “When the facts are against their opinions, they don’t necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant.”

This psychology exemplifies backward thinking: people form conclusions based on what they will, intend or desire to be true, and then select the facts that support those conclusions.

However, one might view all of Leftism as an exercise in begging-the-question fallacies, such as the idea of equality itself. Assuming that all humans are equal in reasoning ability, the argument goes, there is no reason they should not be politically and socially equal as well.

In contrast to that assumption, reality shows us wide divergence among humans in ability, morality and inclinations, all of which factor into the decision-making process of logical analysis, called “reason” by the thinkers of The Enlightenment™ and afterwards.

A classic example of this could be found throughout the Trump campaign: assuming that diversity is a good thing, they “reasoned,” it is bad if a candidate does not emphasize diversity has his primary goal.

As always, the Leftist cries out in pain as he slaps you.

Organic Versus Individualist Views Of Civilization

Saturday, January 14th, 2017

In a traditional society, the aristocrats take care of three functions: leadership in war, leading cultural events, and interpreting religion. These are the foundation of a healthy society.

They do not take on the functions of government. Government tries to protect everyone from themselves, which shows us the flaws of both government and consumerism: it needs any 25% of the population to endorse it to win, and it does not care who they are, only for the numbers. Thus it always displaces a more discerning audience for a less scrupulous one.

Looking at this mechanism, we can see that government is parasitic to the whole of society because it emphasizes saving individuals who are perhaps not fit to be part of it, at the expense of the standards, quality and purpose of the whole. This is the nature of individualistic government: protect the individual no matter who they are, and by extension, damage the organic whole which suffers for having lesser individuals survive.

The idea of individualism is that society stops being concerned about the whole — including tradition, the past, the future, values and philosophy — and focuses on saving every individual from whatever terrors or doom awaits them. Organicism is the opposite idea, holding that society should save itself as if it were an organism, focusing on the health of the whole in which individuals are but cells.

Democracy attempts to be individualistic.

Monarchy is organicist.

Our modern viewpoint skews entirely toward the individualistic because the motivation behind equality and humanism is the protection of the individual. It represents the lone person, terrified of being insufficient, joining with others around the credo that there should no longer be external standards, so that everyone is included… exclusively so that the terrified individual is automatically included and safe from fear.

Organicism recognizes that for the civilization as a whole to thrive, Darwinism and moral Darwinism must exist, promoting the best above the rest. This is not some simplistic “kill the weak” calculus, although it would not oppose such a crude but effective model. Instead, it demands that we see society as a body and demote the individual to its place as one of many unequal forces working toward that end, like different species in an ecosystem.

To see society as a body requires giving up the pretense that the individual means anything without context. That is: the individual is only significant where serving a role in the world, and has no significance when limited to the self alone. This denies all of our fantasies of power and control over our world, but gives us something better, namely a chance for meaning.

And yet, with meaning, we have something to lose, so like the teenage girl breaking up with her boyfriend because she fears to lose him, we cast aside all meaning and embrace the meaningless because it makes us feel powerful. With having given up anything external, we can focus on ourselves and follow along with the world as conformists, dedicating none of our mind to it.

Like a symbolic victory, it makes us the most important thing in the world, and yet makes that victory empty. In fact, over time it becomes apparent as a defeat disguised as victory. And where does that leave us? As cells in a vast body, having betrayed it, hoping now that its death will not be ours as well.

But it will.

Leftists Are The Party Of Human Intent, Which Is Always Wrong

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

Humans are a mirror of the world, but as with any mirror, things are backward when seen by an observer. This is why humans can exist in opposites to reality within their own minds, and yet these inversions are visible from outside those minds.

Very few people realize how human intent is not just different from, but opposed to reality.

For example, equality is the opposite of reality, because equality does not exist in nature, and therefore human intent seeks to impose equality on the inequality of nature, like clear-cutting a forest but for symbolic reasons. In the same way, human intent itself is the opposite of results in reality. If something exists, it does not require intent, only recognition.

This pattern extends to all levels of human thinking. Whatever we think we should do is usually wrong; whatever works, is usually right. This is the split between Left and Right. The Left believes in equality because it believes all people can receive “reason” through symbols passed on by others, and therefore can make the right decision by using that mental tool. The right believes in time-proven solutions and pursuit of timeless and ongoing goals like excellence, beauty, accuracy, realism and goodness.

When Leftists act, they inevitably choose pathological options, or those in which they repeat the same ideas regardless of results in reality. They have a pathology, or mental compulsion, to act this way in defiance and ignorance of reality because their goal, which is based on human intent, is the opposite of reality.

With that in mind, it makes it easy to appreciate why the idiots double down on insanity:

“In times of economic war and mafia attacks … we must protect employment and workers’ income,” added Maduro, who has now increased the minimum wage by a cumulative 322 percent since February 2016.

The 54-year-old successor to Hugo Chavez attributes Venezuela’s three-year recession, soaring prices and product shortages to a plunge in global oil prices since mid-2014 and an “economic war” by political foes and hostile businessmen.

But critics say his incompetence, and 17 years of failed socialist policies, are behind Venezuela’s economic mess.

If increasing the minimum wage did not help the last five times, it will not help now. This is not a question of degree, but of a failed policy. And yet, he must do it, because he is pathological, because he believes human intent is more important than reality.

In the Leftist mentation, all that matters is intent. People are starving? Your intent is that they do better, so you write a law saying them get more money. This intent-only outlook is inherently solipsistic and denies the fact that the world — including the markets — will have an equal and opposite reaction, such that this money will now have less value. Intent, which is symbolic and appearance-based, cannot recognize this.

This is why Leftists love minimum wages. The symbol is correct; the reality is a disaster. They also love welfare, pacifism, equality, diversity, free love, drug use, communes, anarchy, rainbows, “we are all one” and “peace in our time.” They have made themselves delusional by valuing the sensation inside their minds more than what happens as the result of their actions. Leftism is a pathology.

Our only salvation lies in restoration of the reality principle, but the catch is that most people cannot appreciate or discern reality. Only the best can, and this requires giving them absolute power to do what is right, and to displace the thronging herd of neurotic people who want to impose their intent on us and make us suffer its consequences, all for their pretense of being more good than reality itself.

Lindy West Denies Her #AltRight Roots

Friday, January 6th, 2017

Recent-vintage SJW writer Lindy West, who would be attractive as friend or love to both sexes if she were not both obese and neurotic, recently blamed the alt right for the failure of social media. This is convenient because social media is failing anyway because it has driven away the quality audience and replaced them with the warm bodies of fools, much like MySpace before it.

West types with tiny fingers emerging foreshortened from meaty hands:

I talk back and I am “feeding the trolls”. I say nothing and the harassment escalates. I report threats and I am a “censor”. I use mass-blocking tools to curb abuse and I am abused further for blocking “unfairly”. I have to conclude, after half a decade of troubleshooting, that it may simply be impossible to make this platform usable for anyone but trolls, robots and dictators.

…I hate to disappoint anyone, but the breaking point for me wasn’t the trolls themselves (if I have learned anything from the dark side of Twitter, it is how to feel nothing when a frog calls you a cunt) – it was the global repercussions of Twitter’s refusal to stop them. The white supremacist, anti-feminist, isolationist, transphobic “alt-right” movement has been beta-testing its propaganda and intimidation machine on marginalised Twitter communities for years now – how much hate speech will bystanders ignore? When will Twitter intervene and start protecting its users? – and discovered, to its leering delight, that the limit did not exist. No one cared.

Looking past the artifice, her point is simple: she wants the public sphere to be a safe space which excludes anything that contradicts the Leftist narrative. That she blames the alt right and its tactics, which in the time-honored Leftist tradition of attempting to deny the importance of content by focusing on its external form she reduces to “trolling,” is incidental; the woman is calling for tyranny and censorship.

This becomes entertaining when we consider that only a few years ago, West was more of a realist, and wrote about flaws in the Leftist narrative:

Babies stirs up a shade of white guilt that’s awkward to acknowledge but even more awkward to ignore. Watching the film, hopping back and forth between wildly disparate cultures, one thought is constant: Which baby would I like to be? Where would I like to raise my baby? Which baby is best? After the screening, a friend came up to me and announced—thrilled, unsolicited—that SHE would be the NAMIBIAN baby. Certainly not the Tokyo baby (it’s too crowded there). Certainly not the white baby. Here’s the thing. No you wouldn’t. I’m sorry, but you would be the white baby. The Namibian baby (though it is the cutest!) sits in a pile of red dirt all day and plays with a bone. Once in a while, a goat comes by and steps on it. Like the other babies, it is lovin’ life, it is healthy and deeply cared for, but we can see its future right there on the screen: It will grow up, it will sit in a pile of red dirt all day and care for its baby, and once in a while a goat will come by and step on it. Which is, of course, fine. Whatever. But you, middle-class white lady from Seattle, would be the goddamn American baby and you know it, because as much as you want me to know about your superliberal cultural relativism, you cannot live outside of it. You would rather eat hamburgers and go to college and know who Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is than enjoy whatever noble simplicity supposedly exists in that pile of dirt. Not because it’s better but because it’s true.

With this type of simple realism, she has connected to the roots of the alt right: we look at life as it is, not how humans think it “should” be based on the idea of universal inclusion of all people as equals. In realityland, people are not equal and outcomes are not equal because they depend on the inputs of ability and choice of organizing principle for your civilization. This is taboo in the new SJW “Red Guard” reality.

Alas, realistic observations and the cocktail of obesity, neurosis and miscegenation — a sign of underconfidence — with which West has adorned her life proved incompatible, and so she has gone the way of the SJW. But luckily she has left us many important cultural artifacts, including superliberal junk food critique: