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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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:
Cesar Barreira teaches at a Brazilian University. This particular institution features a Violence Studies Lab. It’s well placed. Only UMBC or Johns Hopkins would have a more convenient source of violence data near at hand. People like to delude themselves that violence is senseless. It’s not. Chaos gets solved. He makes sense of the “senseless violence” below.
“A lynching is a communal act in response to a sense of impotence,” Barreira said. “It’s a hunt for an infection inside a social group.”
If lynch mobs are organized to cauterize a social infection, than Brazil should teem with them. The place is an open sore that suppurates the pus of public and private corruption. The President has been impeached and much of the Congress is under some sort of legal blackmail/jeopardy. Official authority is behaving worse than the common denominator of Brazilian citizens. The citizens naturally take after their leaders and the law enforcement is typically no less corrupt than its leadership.
This chaos comes from a total lack of any concern for these people’s well being. The people figure this out. Then they go full Twisted Sister, and it’s Street Justice time. This chaos is often caused by rapid injections of un-asked-for diversity. The Turkish Minute describes how taking in three million Syrian refugees has angered the Turkish people.
Although the exact number is unknown, some 3 million Syrians have taken refuge in Turkey since a civil war broke out in 2011. Syrians are often exploited by employees as cheap labor, and Syrian children have been documented as working in textile plants in several places across Turkey.
This has led to problems for the indigenous population of Turkey.
According to questions asked to 1,224 people, 91 percent of respondents believe they have difficulty finding jobs because of refugees, while 94 percent believe rents are on the rise because of Syrians in Turkey…72 percent of respondents say they are uncomfortable encountering refugees. Eighty-three percent of Istanbulites even believe that epidemics are on rise because of Syrians. Similarly, 86 percent of respondents claim that crime rates have increased due to the Syrians’ presence in Turkey as well as a rise in begging on the streets of Istanbul.
So Turkey is essentially now on the brink of becoming a dumpster fire. President Edrogan has declared a “state of emergency” that pretty much makes him a dictator and has locked up tens of thousands of malcontents. Turkey, for all intents and purposes, is no longer a democracy.
But it is not just Turkey. All across Europe, wherever diversity has been tried, it has resulted in failed states wracked with violence, corruption and crime. Britain, Italy and Austria have revolted against this, but the elites — who gain their power by acting under the aegis of feel-good warm-kumbaya notions like “social justice,” “civil rights” and “equality” — are unwilling to give up the throne. They rule as tyrants as their empires collapse around them.
In Central and South America, similar mass migrations have heavily unbalanced populations and destroyed social order. This is why people are stealing to feed their families in Venezuela. It is why the people being robbed then attempt to burn the thieves alive. When order fails, what seems like chaos returns through violence against the symptoms of the dysfunction.
With no social order, only disorder remains as a recourse for removing the failed order and getting started on a new one. There is a cycle between chaos and order, and only violence stops the chaos of a dead order. At that point, the failure can be pushed aside, and those who still have the will to live can restart the process of civilization.
Ye are not other men, but my arms and legs; and so obey me. — Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick
As societies mature, they need methods of holding people together so they can cooperate toward goals, which express purpose and values in tangible form. They have lost their original goal, which is to have civilization in the first place, because they have achieved it.
At this point, the growing civilization faces a more difficult task than ever before: it must unify its citizens toward purpose, including self-discipline to uphold moral standards, without a pressing threat. It is easy to unite people when famine or invaders threaten, but otherwise, people default to the Simian “everybody do whatever they want to.”
The only way known to make this work, throughout all of history, is to make citizenship contingent upon people being useful and understanding the purpose.
Since this is not only true but obvious, a movement immediately forms in every society like mold on cheese. This is compromised of individuals, acting in their own self-interest, who desire to be included despite lack of contribution or purpose, and they form a collective to use peer pressure to enforce their inclusion under the guise of universal inclusion.
This usually follows a diversity event, or interaction with other cultures such that sufficiently different people are included in the society. Once the people are markedly different, one can no longer point to the values of that civilization as absolute, but most widen values so that all can be included. At that point, the values seem arbitrary and people agitate against them because they secretly desire “everybody do whatever they want.”
At the moment that a society accepts universal inclusion, it commits itself to control, or the habit of having (1) a centralized authority that demands (2) uniform, or “universal,” obedience to the same rules. Purpose has been replaced by rules, which are a proxy or symbolic substitute for purpose. Rules are popular because they can be easily gamed, or subverted in intent while staying within boundaries of the rule as written.
Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.
In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.
The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.
People in such societies are made neurotic. They no longer know what is real, only what is rewarded with popularity. Like lemmings, they would march over a cliff by following the person in front of them. They are entirely regulated by social control, or what others think of them based on appearance, and so “reality” becomes alien.
For this reason, they never know what the outcomes of their actions will be, and start to become conformist or prone to negatively restrict their actions to what has become popular in the past. This creates a herd instinct that focuses people on trends, panics, fads and precedent and punishes any who deviate through social censure. That in turn creates a headless society, like a circle of people each following the other.
At this point, people begin to feel pretty bad at an existential level, or the depth at which one considers the meaning of life and the value of existence. Nothing they do that is good will be rewarded, and any attempts to break out of groupthink will be punished. A darkorganization has arisen that opposes creative and realistic thinking.
The only way out of the ensuing death spiral is to effect an artificial bottleneck, or filtering of the population for its most fit, in this case those that still understand the purpose. Either that group must leave and set up a new civilization, or it must exile the purposeless.
Among diseases, the spread of this mental virus is unique because it attacks the strong. Civilizations that rise above the minimum now must contend with a threat from within, and many people are frightened of the type of strong authority — with consequences of potential exclusion — that this return to health requires.
In the modern West, we have needed such a purge for some time. It is not because these people are bad but because their purpose is elsewhere. If we want to restore the greatness of the past and rise to new greatness in the future, we need a civilization unified on that purpose.
Election 2016 presents a moment ripe for such a decision. Half of the country wants a third-world style socialist government, and the rest wants something going in the opposite or, better, a healthier direction. Whichever side wins will destroy the other, so the bottleneck is coming whether we like it or not.
No one worries about the collapse of lower-IQ societies. Such societies exist at a subsistence level, so that catastrophes are actually not much of a threat to the society as a whole, and successes are so mild that they destabilize nothing.
These societies are the most individualistic on earth. The individual is encumbered by obedience to nothing but himself. He has his hut, his bush meat and back garden, and he eats, sleeps and fornicates when he wants. Any rules are simple and worked around with bribes or gifts that perform like bribes.
With higher IQ societies, there is the possibility of failure because the network of ideas and institutions upon which they rest is more developed and thus more fragile.
In fact, higher IQ societies seem to be prone to collapse, following a quick rise and extensive development. They burn out quickly because they are unstable, like a chemical reaction of an explosive nature. As if suffering from the same malady as their people, they become neurotic, or unable to ascertain the cause of any result they see, and so they venture into the nonsense secular mysticism of misunderstanding the reasons why things are as they are.
What kills them is the loss of direction. They start to focus on who is already there, and make all things a means to the end of those people, instead of realizing that all material things are the means to an end of ideas. Such as the transcendentals: the good, the excellent, and the true.
Now, the zombie Leftists in the audience ask, why could this not apply to an idea like Leftism? The answer is that Leftism is not an idea in the sense of a goal, but an anti-goal: it is based in equality, or using all things as a means to the end of those people, rewarding them with equality so that no individual — and these seemingly collectivist movements are individualistic at heart — is challenged to achieve something, or behave according to social standards, before he or she is accepted by society.
Ah, and there is the rub. The idea that is not an idea; the goal that is not a goal. Instead of having a goal, we just sit down at the table and serve ourselves a heaping helping of the seed corn, instead of planting for next season, or as sane people do, the season ten thousand years hence, because if life is good you want it to last that way forever, or as close as it can get.
Implicit in that is fatalism, or the belief that there can be no hope. This arises whenever there are too many fools to get anything done. When there are enough fools, they all gather up into a group, and freak out whenever someone proposes something realistic, and only shut up when the usual illusions are brought out to great applause. At that point, civilization cannot be saved, nor can anything realistic get done, so realistic/intelligent people become marginalized.
If anything, this suggests a Darwinistic nature to civilization: it either exterminates its fools, or it is exterminated by them.
Civilizations die when they lose purpose and it is replaced by a panoply of conflicting directions. This creates a type of background hum where the managerial overhead of thinking becomes awash in many different options, like a type of mental entropy.
When that background hum takes over, it means that the lowest common denominator — an intersectionality of convenience — will always prevail: this rewards the behavior typical to committees, corporations, mobs and the democracy brain fug that always rewards the most timorous solutions.
“Timorous” means both lowercase-c conservative, or the least deviation from the norm at that moment, and politically bold egalitarian solutions, because they flatter every individual in the crowd and therefore are non-controversial.
Smart societies fail because they expand the franchise of power beyond those who can create civilization to those who arrive afterwards and exist in a quasi-contributor, quasi-parasitic status. These people are not bad, but they are static in the transmission, confusing the mission and replacing it with their own neurosis.
Neurosis leads to policies which destroy people because those who are already quasi-parasitic want camouflage which can hide their own lack of self-discipline, self-esteem and clarity of moral and logical purpose. Those who fear they are wrong like nothing more than a cloud of chaos to obscure their own uselessness.
My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.
Anything the herd advocates is designed to destroy good people and replace them with more herd, or undifferentiated people. Here is the great William S. Burroughs on the nature of the undifferentiated, or viral and parasite:
After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That’s one thing the [parasite] couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.
There are people with purpose, and those who have no purpose. Those who have no purpose seek to destroy those with purpose. Fools, by the nature of their foolishness, have no purpose. They are also the most numerous type of human. Civilization thrives when fools are removed; it dies when they are tolerated.
In the question of civilization, survival is not hard. As in school, one can get a large number of questions wrong and still survive. This subsistence existence is the default state of humanity; maybe they get it 60% right and 40% wrong, but they still persist. So what destroys civilization?
If the mediocre can survive, and the excellent thrives, this means that the threat to civilization is that which is bad. The civilizations that endure are those which aggressively remove the bad. This is why the civilizations that thrive often have extensive taboos, social codes, cryptic standards and challenging rituals. This is their replacement for Darwinistic natural selection; they weed out those who need to be told what to do in order to succeed, and instead present their people with a general idea and see who can adapt that to a particular task and thrive.
Some policies destroy people: socialism, welfare, speech codes, regulations, managerial solutions, public education, etc. All are bad not just in real-world results, because these programs fail as well, but in the damage they do to the psychology of the people subjected to them.
Civilization makes itself neurotic, then makes its people neurotic, by pursuing these “ideal” solutions which are designed around the people as an ends and not a means. The goal is culture, greatness, excellence, biological health of the whole, and other intangibles; the means are the people. When the people become the goal, it destroys them in addition to destroying the civilization. This is the paradox of human civilization.
In the long-term view, one must view civilization through a biological filter. You either:
Reward good behavior.
Reward bad behavior (which includes: equalizing bad and good behavior).
The hidden trap here is that by saying all people and thus in effect that all behaviors are equal, one rewards the bad, because bad and good are rewarded the same and bad is always easier/more convenient than good.
There is no middle ground. One cannot duck the question of good/bad any more than one can duck the question of survival. Decisions must be made. They will reward one — good/higher evolution or bad/lower evolution — or the other, but not both.
This is heresy in social terms, because people universally want to believe that they can accept everyone and everything, and still be just fine. This avoids conflict, which upsets women and children, and makes it easier to manage the herd. Just tell them they are accepted, and then what to do in order to be good, which makes them into identical cogs of the system, since if you are telling everyone what to do, the goal must be universal or invariant between individuals despite the great variation between individuals, even if it appears that they are mostly the same.
Convincing people that there is a middle ground makes them neurotic, because they can no longer distinguish between the goal and distraction. The irrelevant and the relevant converge. This creates a mistaken association between false causes and effects.
For example, an article came out the other day that suggested that eating more fruits and vegetables made you smarter. Was that what the data said? No: it said that smarter people tended to eat more fruits or vegetables. Eating those will not make you smarter; those who are smarter do it, and so the result is false.
This is a classic example of Leftist inversion. Because they assume the equality of all people, anything that smart people do is not a result of their intelligence, but of the act itself. It is a cargo cult of methods in a field where the design of the human being — its biology and genetics — is what determines the result.
In turn, that leads us to an ugly realization. A society is only as good as its smartest people, if they are put in charge. This conflicts with the liberal idea that we can make everyone smart, and then by polling the crowd, have a better result than if we had a smart person in charge. But that notion has failed.
The reality is that the inverted society cannot survive. It becomes neurotic, and self destructs, because it is unrealistic. It is socially popular, so there are many smiling faces out there, but they neither know what is realistic nor care. They care only about convenient warm mental feelings of safety and security.
If a high-IQ society is to survive, it will do so by carefully separating its people. Those who are capable of leadership go in one silo, and those who are not go in another, where their opinions are scrupulously ignored and they are constantly reminded that they know nothing. The best must rise. Otherwise, the worst do.
This is the challenge to the west. In the smaller cycle, postwar Leftism — globalism, diversity, pluralism — has failed. In the bigger cycle, we are snapping out of the sleepwalk to oblivion that has gripped Western Civilization since at least The Enlightenment.™ It was wrong, and everything that springs from it is also wrong.
Instead, we are looking toward a non-neurotic future. We must be realists, and that starts with disenfranchising those among us who are incapable of making leadership decisions. We need purpose, hierarchy, realism; we do not need more pleasant human feelings that are convenient but lead to neurosis and with that, doom.
When you look at the breadth and depth of our decline, finding a source seems impossible. Many are suggested; most are scapegoats. You will not respect yourself if you go chasing after symbols of evil instead of the evil itself.
But ask yourself: what, if it went missing, would immediately end our decline?
If all The Rich™ disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change. We would simply have new people with money taking their places. Similarly, if The Jews™ all went away, their places would be taken by those who think similarly, namely gentile Leftists, to the Jewish Leftists.
But what if all Leftists disappeared tomorrow? Perhaps they could be led down to the docks and put onto lovely boats, which would compassionately convey them to a new land, perhaps Brazil? That way they would not get to enact their desires for us to become Brazil 2.0 but would merely experience the original version.
Lovely, lovely boats. In our desire for retribution against those who caused this mess, we tend to forget that it was us. We adopted some illusory ideas and ruin followed. It is that simple. But fixing it could be even simpler if we deported those who embrace the illusory ideas and build their identity out of them. A new space would exist for rebuilding.
Of course, if the Leftists departed certain industries would collapse. Hollywood and journalism would become ghost towns. Pornography would wither and die. Legal marijuana might become harder to find, as would novelty objects. The popular music industry might have to fall back on local musicians of talent but not “flair” for mass popularity.
And yet, life would regain a certain calm. The manic push for achieving wish fulfillment scenarios through government would also depart. People might become content with ordinary life again, and doing the best they can to be the best of what they are, instead of dreaming about what they might be as empowered by the Leftist regime.
The lovely boats would depart, uniting the Leftists with the inevitable end result of their ideas, and all would be happy. Those of us living in the feral, atavistic, primitive and time-honored ways of our ancestors would be forced to confront the end results of those ideas. And Leftists, the same for their ideas.
It seems tragic, the parting of people. Yet nature works by sorting, separating groups by the direction in which they are headed. Leftists want one vision, one cursed by history, and the rest of us — doubtless less educated™, enlightened™ and empathetic — want another. Nothing is more natural than our separation.
On the morning after the Leftists go, what remains? Normal life. Unexciting, perhaps, but at least in line with reality, showing the reason that certain ideas have prevailed across time. Comfortable. Stable. Normal. But not fitting for Leftists.
Instead, they can wave goodbye to us from the lovely boats, and think of the Utopia that awaits them: diversity, pluralism, democracy, self-expression, individualism and compassion. They will at long last be separate from those that hold them back. They will finally be free.
Let us admit, now that we have seen its arc from launch to impact, the true effect of modern society: it displace what is healthy and replaces it with what is obedient to a low standard of behavior that makes it easy to manipulate.
That “modern society” is brought on by leftism, which is one version of the dysfunction called Crowdism around here. Crowdism occurs when a social group enforces individual neurosis as reality through the power of the group. Like a street gang, it lets in anyone who will fight for it and gives them a place which they could not achieve in society. Their first demand, “equality,” is a requirement that people be considered important even if they gave nothing. This enables them to use a scapegoat, or symbolic source of their ills, to hide the actual cause. Equality becomes their watchword, and soon every part of society is contorted to accept everyone no matter how useless, which adulterates quality and destroys standards, and soon society is a third-world ruin.
That is the process which we are currently living through. When it is done, the West — USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe — will resemble Brazil: vast hordes of impoverished third-worlders ruled by a few rich people who must dedicate all of their time to maintaining their wealth, thus become bored and hopeless and die out through degeneration. That is the end result of going down the path marked EQUALITY: instead of highs and lows, you have a uniform field of identical objects, and to rule them, you need tyrants, but those then become miserable and cruel. Obligation makes them so.
The replacement of our society occurred by the displacement of social standards, indigenous populations, cultural values, ways of life and even common knowledge. All had to be altered to make way for the great Utopia which will occur when all are finally equal. This displaced a functional society, and replaced it with one like the third world, although the institutions and people still cling to the ways that have worked for centuries.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Let us decode that statement by revealing what these behaviors really are, underneath the political categories in which they have been shoved:
Guns mean independence for the good to keep the bad at bay;
Religion means reverence for life and a moral (not ideological) code,
Antipathy to those not like you is common sense recognition that other groups envy you and want to conquer you;
Anti-immigrant sentiment is recognition that the happiest nations are formed of homogenous groups by race/ethnicity, culture and values;
Anti-trade sentiment occurs when people realize most of the world is a mess and “globalism” will only create an average of that mess, which destroys the finer strains of humanity.
The Crowdist has a single goal: make all people the same so that everyone needs the Crowd and it has, as a result, absolute power. Then, the visions in our heads of what “should” be can be forced upon people and dissent eliminated. This creates a replacement for reality, a human-only world, composed of our desires and feelings more than logical responses to the world around us. It makes wishes into reality, or rather, eliminates the requirement that what we desire be realistic, like the mindset of children playing with a dollhouse or people watching porn.
Their goal is to replace this reality in our minds, first, and then enforce those new conceptions on people through the eternal popularity of illusion. If we tell people that the color purple is actually orange, and enough repeat this, it will spread as people try to socialize with, sell to, buy from, romance and instruct those who think purple is orange. Soon the old way will be unknown; most will rationalize that this change is acceptable because it is just swapping one word for another. And yet, over time, consequences will emerge — old color patterns will not work because they are now ugly. Old books will not make sense. And so, gradually, the past will be replaced by an inferior substitute.
In one area alone they are right: when it comes to fixes for our civilization, these are collective endeavors. “To each his own” leads to the few who always do right becoming marginalized, and the behavior of the many — who always go with the flow — becoming normed. Conservatives for the last two centuries have been left baffled: they did what was right, and tried to improve things, but then the crowd rushed in and took over. While they were busy with their own, they were quietly replaced.
This displacement is necessary for the replacement of reality with the pretend-world of those who dislike existence, and want to feel a sense of power by controlling it according to their wishes. They are hurt that the world does not operate like their minds, and too narcissistic to adapt their minds to the world which has thrived for eons before them. In the process of this play-acting, they forget the reasons for why reality is the way it is, which exist to avoid the type of catastrophe that will soon come.
But, absorbed only in their own desires, the new conquerors will merely ignore the dysfunction and blame another scapegoat, then skip away toward their own banal pleasures, convinced of their own supremacy.
For those who oppose the current civilization in the West, it becomes clear that we must backtrack to our original error and reverse it. Our greatest fear should be that we will not backtrack enough, and will instead legitimize the same path as we are on at an earlier stage, while convincing people the threat is over. While we have the attention of our people, it makes sense to fix this once and for all.
As an alert reader will have guessed, this presents a difficulty because getting to the root of this problem requires attacking some of the sacred cows of our society that most people believe are their only defense against it. Because we live in a democratic time, we see individual rights and equality as well as an extensive system of laws which apply uniformly to all as our firewall against crazy government and even crazier public opinion, with the sinister predatory eyes of raw commerce in the background. And yet, like heroin addiction, our reliance on these protections comes at a cost which perpetuates the need for such protections.
With that in mind… we need a change of direction away from democracy and equality to a society based on both results and creating a higher qualitative level of existence. This corresponds to the conservative ideals of consequentialism and transcendentalism linked by a sense of social order, values, morality, practicality and a sacred nature to life itself. In other words, we are looking past The Enlightenment™ to what existed before it, in part by recognizing that society is not a linear path from “primitive” to “civilized” by a cycle based on what ideals are adopted. The liberal democratic ideal is part of the death-cycle, but the conservative ideal, part of the springtime of a society in which it grows and matures with a zest for life.
This leads to confusion among conservatives, who believe they are supposed to “conserve” a previous state of society. This misreads conservatism: we conserve that which is both realistic and transcendental, wherever it is found, and this conservation includes pushing our society to higher levels of quality. We cannot defend something simply because it once was, nor do we adopt something “new” because it has not been done, as occurs with the novelty fallacy inherent to liberalism. Our goal is to re-make society according to what should be conserved, not defend how things have been going along here before some Other intervened. Inevitably, that Other originates in a scapegoat, and the hope is that by removing the other we end up with what is good. In reality, we will end up with disorder, because what made the past work will have been forgotten and we will have failed to re-connect it to the ideal that originally made it valuable.
Defense of the norms of people who hate you is the ultimate “cuckservative” failing. Most people act by convenience, and what is popular is usually wrong because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, enacts compromise, and consists of the greedy demands of a herd with zero accountability. Conservatives do not defend norms; they strive for ideals which are based in reality. Convenience is our enemy, as is popular opinion, because both of these shift the focus from what is optimal to what involves the least amount of stress on those around us. We must remember that we arrived at our present state by going down the path of public opinion, convenience, popularity and appearance. Our goal is to avoid that path entirely.
This world is incompetent and ruined. Under democracy and equality, our customs have been abolished, our people removed by soft genocide, and our leaders and elites turned into comic book figures who gesture vividly to appeal to the crowd and by thus avoiding real issues, steer us into disaster and then retire to riches.
We are fighting a war of sense versus public opinion. Our nation will be great again when it has a strong identity — formed of culture, AND heritage, AND values, with religion shared between values and aesthetics, a subdivision of culture — and by that nature develops a strong cultural resistance to parasites. The parasites we fight are found among our own people; parasitic ideas like liberalism, guilt, egalitarianism and victimhood form the basis for our internal division and self-destruction. The Other appears as a beneficiary of this, but by the foolishness of our own people, and not as an origin in the Other itself. For this reason, every minute we spend on Jewish conspiracy theories or cruelly denigrating African-Americans is a strong and energetic step away from what we must be doing. We need to fix ourselves.
Most people get confused because they think in terms of categorical logic, which uses broad mental containers to categorize actions by appearance. The simplest form of this is the destruction of morality by making it categorical, creating social constructs called “good” and “bad” which categorize by method and not goal, which measures itself in terms of results; the two are inseparable. Fools and parasites want us to measure our actions by social categories of good and bad, which judge in terms of appearance, which is what regulates method, because appearance is the basis of social interaction in groups. What looks good to the group, and is convenient for them, they approve; goals — which require results for comparison — and principles remain invisible to the herd. They like it that way. Goals, principles, values, heritage, culture and morality of the honest sort strike terror into the herd, because it threatens to divide the group by having a purpose, which means that some will be visibly falling short and thus be bumped down to lower social status. The herd unites itself on acceptance of all based on having no social order and no values system beyond the bare minimum, which enables it to become powerful and take over societies.
Our enemy is public opinion created by social factors instead of logical ones. Look to structure, not appearance; ultimate results, instead of convenience; and most of all, not what people think but what we can show is true. Truth is more important than popularity, and until you get to that point, you are only repeating one other variety of Enlightenment™ jive instead of looking at the root of the problem. We are under assault by this delusion of the Enlightenment™ among our own people, not the third world or The Jews, who are proxies used by our liberals who have been made into zombies by leftism. They use these proxies to destroy us, but they are the symptom, and not the cause. The cause is the neurotic delusion which creates the herd and from it liberalism/Leftism, and it is this we must defeat in whole if we wish to have a healthy enough society to sleep soundly ever again.