Posts Tagged ‘neurosis’

Without A Quest, Art And Civilization Decline

Friday, November 17th, 2017

When you venture to your bookstore or library, you will be confronted by a ubiquitous but useless fixture of our contemporary landscape, the modern novel. Unlike regular novels, these are of a vintage in the last thirty years and focus not on inner development of characters, but on finding ways to use introspection to rationalize decay as victor.

One of the things that bothers me about the modern novel is the loss — the perversion, really — of the hero narrative. Classic literature centers around protagonists who are trying to transcend the baser aspects of themselves and fears that cripple their inner abilities; called “the fatal flaw,” these stumbling blocks thwart the heroes as they are trying to overcome obstacles and triumph. In classic literature, people undertake difficult tasks and in doing so, learn about themselves and opt to change themselves so that their flaws no longer hold them back from doing what is right and necessary.

In contrast, modern literature consists of stories of “heroes” whose biggest obstacle is themselves but instead of trying to conquer their weaknesses, they embrace them and that is considered heroic and a victory. The modern novel is all about embracing and celebrating one’s dysfunction or fatal flaw. Nothing to overcome here except self-criticism, the biggest boogeyman of all for a modern protagonist. At the end of these stories, the protagonists are unchanged, but have found a way to “accept” or “celebrate” their dysfunctional lives after spending most of the book navel-gazing.

The thematic arc of classic literature and the hero’s quest implies that there are standards and that success comes from overcoming our fears and becoming better people so that we can rise to those standards and not just be good, but get the most out of life. This is at odds with the Leftist/Liberal narrative that demands that there are no standards other than what we personally define and that there is nothing to overcome except our lack of acceptance of who we are. Because of the classic novel’s implication that there are standards that are defined outside of one’s self, it is necessarily viewed as oppressive and must be eliminated. The modern novel hates the classic novel.

We might see these modern stories as parables of “dysfunction as virtue” in which characters, instead of undergoing internal change, re-configure their external selves — sort of like interior decorating, but for the public personality, much as hipsters excel at — and then rationalize their inner confusion, immorality and decay as a sign of “depth” or tolerance. Almost all of these stories resemble rambling narratives of the fears and neuroses of the protagonist, then suddenly reach a point where it becomes clear that despite all of the exterior change in the life of that protagonist, nothing inner will change. The books then bash out a few homilies and repeat some trendy notions from self-help books, pop science and politics, and end.

As our publishing industry cranks out these modern rationalizations ad infinitum, producing endless next-big-things but no classics, it becomes clear that this approach to storytelling reflects a deeper philosophical divide. In modern society where everyone is equal, inner change is not just unnecessary, but risky. However, finding a way to rationalize your dysfunction as virtue and explain it as a quirky, interesting and nobly self-sacrifical lifestyle choice always goes over well with the people at your local organic brew pub.

The comparison of the modern novel to the crazed, nonsensical babblings of the left provides further insight. In both cases, the inner life of human beings is denied, and replaced with the notion that exterior re-configuration provides a greater meaning than learning to overcome our failings and become qualitatively better people. New quantities, or a changing of the surface behaviors and objects surrounding the individual, are preferred to improving the parts of the self that we are afraid to inspect, because in them lurk existential terrors and difficult moral, intellectual and historical questions.

Modern novels have never made anyone get closer to self-actualization, understanding of their world, or appreciation of the inner beauty of life itself. Like the products on store shelves or Hollywood movies, they are dramas of narcissism and attention-getting, designed to avoid and distract from the need to use some kind of self-discipline to make ourselves better people. Not surprisingly, the Left adopts a similar outlook, because when your goal is equality, the last thing you want to is to look at where we are fundamentally unequal.

The Stevens Rule

Friday, September 15th, 2017

Back in the 1990s, an influential book called The Selfish Gene emerged. Its basic premise was that we do not use our genes, but they use us, meaning that we exist to perpetuate the gene and not vice-versa. Naturally this was not literal because genes do not have agency, but it served as a powerful metaphor for Darwinism: ideas, not intentions, win out, and we are their vehicles.

This coincided with ideas advanced by William S. Burroughs and Tom Wolfe, namely that ideas use us in an analog to biological viruses. When an idea appeals to a large number of people, they exist to give it immortality, and they pass it along by force because of some need of their own that the idea purports to address. Whether it does or not is the question of history, which shows us that humanity has been racing from one idea to another, looking for stability, which is manifested in the absence of illusion, as they shuttle between extremes.

Idea-viruses can destroy whole societies. It is possible that certain Maya regional civilizations perished because when the droughts came, they chose sacrifice to the gods over rebuilding the irrigation system that took water from rivers to the north. Many of us would say that Athens tore itself apart internally in pursuit of the humanistic society, and that the Soviet Union did the same.

Every society understands the basic idea that it should be virtuous; however, that simple notion is then hijacked by narrower definitions which use that society in order to perpetuate themselves, much like viruses injecting their DNA into our cells, which then become little factories to replicate the virus, bursting and letting the toxic brood spill forth.

Our current society is crucifying itself on the cross of pacifism, which is our interpretation of virtue because an absence of pacifism means internal struggle and thus that the higher will remain above the lower, a condition which insults our bottom-heavy population. Pacifism for us is a mix of pluralism (“agree to disagree”), equality, and diversity. Each idea supports the others, which makes them a whole idea.

People love pacifism because it means that they can never be wrong, which is another way of saying “the rules do not apply to me.” That is, they can do whatever they want, and no one else can point out that they are transgressing against the flag, king, gods, morality or virtue. This is why they aggressively try to remove religion, culture, and other unique statements of values, because these are standards against which the equal individual can potentially transgress, and therefore risks to those who desire above all else to be equal.

Diversity is a crucial point of this strategy. It was always designed as genocide, or at least erasure of the majority culture, because majority culture provides a standard against which other people can fail, and that failure is exactly what equality was designed to avoid.

You can tell that the stated reasons for diversity are not the actual reasons because no one knows what those actual reasons are. Discussions about diversity are a shambles because people bleat out a Soviet-like “Diversity is our strength,” and when pushed further, start to break down into chaos.

This is why The Stevens Rule exists, which is:

In any discussion of diversity, over time the probability of mention of restaurants becomes one.

When discussing diversity, inevitably someone is going to start talking about restaurants and ethnic food, and the fact that it happens sooner rather than later means that people really have no idea why they “think” diversity is our strength, at all. They know that it is the right thing to say, socially speaking, but beyond that, their reasoning is as murky and chaotic as the East Bay.

This reveals the actual reason for diversity: there is no advantage to diversity, except that it enables white people to one-up another with pretense.

It is a type of revenge… life made me a loser? You got the BMW, and I got the Hyundai? Well, screw you, buddy, because although I am not wealthier, I am better. You have a BMW, but I have diversity. It’s just like kids in the 1930s listening to “race music” and thinking they were edgy and stuff, or the Bohemians of the 1870s who lived like gypsies. Nothing provides better revenge against your parents and people with more money or brains than you than saying, “I hate You and I embrace the Other, because I hate You most of all.”

Of course, these people make themselves neurotic because revenge is essentially a way of enslaving yourself to the person you want revenge upon. Your life is dictated by what you must do to respond to the world in order to get revenge on them, and so they, instead of virtue, have become your focus.

As a side note, this means that the diversitarians are in fact the most racist people on planet Earth, which would bother me if racism were actually a thing (“racism” is the Leftist term for the variety of “freedom” or “independence” that has non-neurotic people exclusively favoring living among people like them, not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion and general direction; for example, Your Author prefers to live among Caucasian, Western European, Kshatriya or Brahmin, Protestant or Deist, conservative realist people). Diversitarians are recognizing the importance of race toward producing an Other, and then using those other races as means of both revenge and caste-jumping among Caucasian people. No wonder they are all neurotic.

People are cowed and cordycepted by the idea-virus of diversity, which is what gives it power. It is the equivalent of the courtroom question: “Yes or not answers only, please; have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It’s a gotcha, and the Left loves gotchas because nuance, depth, and duration are anathema to their rather square-headed thinking.

When someone asks you if you support diversity, there are two answers: yes, I’m with the good people and I want to do virtuous things; or, no, I ride with Hitler and I want to gas six billion non-whites including your Bubbie. There is no middle ground because the question is a binary based on support of something arbitrary, so you either indulge in the illusion — the idea-virus — or you are free of it.

This is the power of the idea-virus; it eliminates the middle ground, which means that failure to agree is the same as disagreement or enmity, when in reality those are different things. If someone asks me what I think of Gefilte fish, I can answer that I have never had it, that I do not eat it, that I think it is an abomination or finally that I think it should not exist. These are different answers, but not to the idea-virus!

In the narrow cadre of Realists, one truth shines above all else. Everything — every object, idea, person, group — acts in self-interest. They do this because self-interest cannot be subverted in the same way altruism, compassion, friendship, love, peace, harmony and other seductive terms can be. Nature sticks to the bottom line.

When you see the world this way, you realize that altruism does not exist and that diversitarians are not pathological altruists; they are people using diversity as a weapon to beat your head in, get ahead of you and take your stuff, like the shopkeeper who figures out that he can claim his competitors put horse meat in the soup.

In addition, you realize that diversity itself is not the idea. The idea-virus is that of power, or that the individual can step beyond his role in the natural place of things to have pure, raw power… which is reflected through the obedience of others… which in turn is the only thing on Earth that can truly turn someone into a slave, that dependence on the opinion of others.

And so, like all things evil, we see that servitude presents itself as freedom, much as evil always presents itself as good and diversity presents itself as anti-racism. The idea-virus has won out by requiring one level of interpretation — thinking ahead to more than the next move in chess, more like several moves ahead — beyond what most Caucasians can understand.

The time of The Selfish Idea has ended, however, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, because with the rise of the “clash of civilizations” we have returned to organic or unequal and naturally-arising distinctions as opposed to ideological ones, which are based on the idea of a universal human truth which “should” be imposed upon reality. All ideology is humanism.

As these organic times return, people come not just to distrust a specific ideology — the toxic brew of Leftism, diversity, consumerism, and egalitarianism that the American neoconservatives and neo-liberals share as a means of uniting their governments — but the idea of ideology itself. Ideology requires that you believe that The Selfish Idea is not selfish at all, but altruistic, and therein is the root of the lie.

When we do not require the approval for other people for our self-esteem, we can rediscover virtue: it is made of doing what works, but choosing from within that set, the set of what works best, which means that which the finest minds among us recognize. We cannot separate realism from the pursuit of genius. But with virtue, we no longer “need” The Selfish Idea; we have realism, instead, which works better anyway.

We can make our own Mexican, Italian, Asian and Irish food. It’s not rocket science. We can farm our own crops, raise our own livestock, build our own gadgets, clean our own floors. “Freedom” may be nonsense, but the way of life that does not involve being beholden to others for our own survival is worthy of praise.

Platonic Forms In Quantum Physics

Monday, June 26th, 2017

Plato remains widely misunderstood, and his concept of forms perhaps the most of all. Plato wrote an early form of Germanic Idealism, where he specified that pattern was more important than material substance or linear causality. Perhaps the most unsettling implication of this idea is the notion that cause-and-effect are not limited by time or physical content, but are determined by pattern alone.

Many years later, science writers are discovering Platonic forms in quantum physics through the notion of decoherence (as opposed to incoherence, of which I am frequently accused):

Quantum effects such as interference rely on the wave functions of different entities being coordinated (the technical term is coherent) with one another. If they’re not, the effects are averaged away. That sort of coherence is what permits the quantum property of superposition, in which particles are said to be in two or more states at once.

…If their wave functions are not coherent, two states cannot interfere, nor maintain a superposition. The process called decoherence therefore destroys these fundamentally quantum properties, and the states behave more like distinct classical systems.

…What, though, causes decoherence? This arises because of a long-neglected aspect of quantum entities: their environment. The way a quantum system behaves and evolves can depend crucially on the fact that it doesn’t exist in isolation.

…If one quantum object interacts with another, they become linked into a composite superposition: in some sense, they become a single system. This is, in fact, the only thing that can happen in such an interaction, according to quantum mechanics. The two objects are then said to be entangled.

Quantum objects interact on the basis of being coherent with one another, or being parts of the same pattern, and this enables them to function as a single system. This in turn means that patterns do not dissolve because their parts tend toward integration with the larger pattern.

Those patterns which fit with another, like phrases in music complementing one another, constitute a larger pattern, and so endure more than the chaos of everyday existence, which follows classical physics because it has no higher degree of organization.

In other words, our world is comprised of patterns, and where those break down we have raw entropic data, a kind of miscellany, in which no piece has a particular relation to the whole.

Our ignorance to patterns implies that we have lost touch with the world, and instead have receded to a world of our personal human desires and whatever the group is chattering about today.

We can see that through our alienation from the world as it is directly experienced through our neurosis, or confusion of cause and effect, brought on by socializing taking over our minds:

Originally, Men simply perceived and believed the suprasensory reality – they saw and heard the voices of spirits, gods and demons…

Then the world became more confined to perception by the five senses. The spirit reality could only be perceived as a result of special rituals. First there were shamans who specialised in contacting the spirit realm, then there were priests…

Now the spirit reality is so remote to us that we cannot perceive it at all, except in altered states of consciousness such that our consciousness, our self of self awareness, is suppressed – by drug intoxication, disease, in sleep… When we are awake, alert and in clear consciousness we live in a world of five senses merely, from which spirits, gods and demons are absent.

In the long term, quantum physics affirms the beliefs of the ancients.

There is an invisible order.

As soon as we interact with it, the die is cast.

Focus on those moments of interaction force our minds away from seeing the underlying structure.

This structure is consistent with classical mechanics, but goes beyond it.

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 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— 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.

Recommended Reading