Posts Tagged ‘pacifism’

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.

Organized Right-Wing Violence is Now Morally Justified

Tuesday, August 15th, 2017

The shocking violence observed during the Unite The Right protest at Charlottesville caused a devastating self-critique by the Right under a chorus of Leftist applause. What made this such a divisive event was the violence, which cause the optics of the protest to go off-script, and provided the Left with a point of entry for an attack on the Alt Right.

Violence is part of my environment (in Africa) and so its appearance is just another day. But for those who intentionally worked hard at differentiating Unite The Right as non-violent, it was devastating, while the “other” literally enjoyed it. Police and Leftist counter-protesters worked together to sabotage the demonstration and incite violence.

These strong variations in opinion allowed for calls by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster to call for the Alt Right to be classified as domestic terrorists by President Trump. There appears to be a serious chasm in communication between rightists and leftists that masks the Leftist narrative and this is compounded by a similar chasm between general protestors and their elected or appointed officials thousands of miles away.

Human history is full of non-violent protests, passive resistance and non-aggression pacts. This advances the narrative trope that moderates are peaceful while extremists are violent. But the fact of the matter is that violence is a moral affair. In reality, most violence arises from moral action, which shows that what we are dealing with here is different moral systems on the Right and Left.

Clearly the Left are active on a world-wide scale with aggression and violence; for example, South African communists have caused the country to be dubbed the “Protest Capital of the World”. We should also not forget that American armies under liberal guidance and in service to globalism have been killing people in at least seven countries.

All of these protests, wars and drone attacks have been justified with moral reasons. The counter-protest in Charlottesville did not need a permit because the Left was perceived to have enough moral justification not just to engage the original protestors, but to motivate and plan aggressive acts of urine catapults, violent assault and spraying down the Alt Right with mace. Government and media agree that Antifa holds the moral high ground because, as Leftists, they are “moderates” in the view that the Left wants to promote.

The Charlottesville counter-protest did not need an objective, it simply needed a signal to release an insane hatred on whoever was there, right-wing or otherwise. This is how herd dynamics work: one person signals, and the crowd rushes forward to smash whoever is indicated as an enemy of the ideals of the group, much like a gang or cult attacking with insect consensus.

Non-aggression will not work because competitive altruism has people trying to be more moral than one another, which means that anyone who acts out what is known as “moral” — in this time, Leftism — will be perceived as the moderate party, while anyone who dissents is viewed as the aggressor, even when defending themselves.

In future protest actions, the Alt Right will have to profess a willingness to be violent because the other side will be bringing violence. By doing so, we will assert a contrary morality and reject the morality that prioritizes Leftism. By stating our willingness to defend ourselves, we are saying that we have the moral high ground, and the others are wrong, therefore we are attacking their presumption of the moral high ground entirely.

The moral motivation for such a restoration of violence is that we are facing an abounding hatred and pervasive insanity permeating our first world society and wholly directed at the Right. Their morality is based in the individual. We need to target that violence and use it to replace traditional enemies like Communists or Nazis, and instead to demand that we as a society mobilize with organizational violence against those who are causing these disruptions. Their violence is personal; ours is in defense of order and our long-term future.

A world boxing champion always gets a chance to defend himself against the next contender, despite suffering temporary injury. Charlottesville has made it clear that even our non-aggressive protests will end in violence. While we do not seek violence, we must avoid non-aggression, because the violence has found us and will continue to do so until we win.

Why Democracy Always Fails

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017

Human behavior boils down to only a few things. On the plus side, there is transcendence and ego-death; on the negative side, there is projection, transference and tunnel vision arising from solipsism, or the process of staying confined within our minds and the minds of those who share our immediate fascinations.

The grim truth of this is that it may not be all that human so much as the result of cognitive limits. People need to be able to come to decisions quickly that, while not perfect, form a working model upon which more can be built and greater detail ascertained. This requires avoiding imminent pitfalls while keeping as many options open as possible.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking works poorly for leadership, aesthetics and moral questions. Its speed and simplicity makes it an ethic of convenience which evades entirely larger questions and long-term needs. In this way, our evolution which is so brilliant defeats us.

Some are able to escape this trap. They tend to have higher intelligence and be concerned with accuracy, namely how closely the impressions and predictions in their minds match the working of reality outside of the mind. They also have a moral sense which is not, in the herd style, a defensive morality aimed at avoiding loss of life, but a creative morality which strives to improve the quality of life as an existential experience.

Those are rare, however, and when the vote is taken, there are fewer of them than homeless guys voting for free toilet paper in every election, and so they are statistically eliminated early in the process. On top of that, however, we can see another reason why democracy always fails: voters choose appearance over reality.

One of the successful metaphors describing the mind is a ‘cognitive miser’. When we need to make a decision, particularly when we have little knowledge, we rely on shortcuts: hunches, ‘gut’ responses, stereotypes. We use shortcuts because it is easy. We are ready to leap to conclusions, especially when we are too lazy or busy to look for hard evidence. And most of us are cognitively lazy or busy some of the time. When it comes to decisions about strangers, the easiest, most accessible shortcut is our first impression. Unknowledgeable voters go for this shortcut.

Do the effects obtained in contrived lab demonstrations make a difference in the real world? In close races, unknowledgeable or ‘appearance-based’ voters can sway the outcome of the races. Lenz and Lawson estimated that candidates who appear slightly more competent than their opponents can get as much as 5 per cent more votes from unknowledgeable, TV-loving voters. Recently, Lenz and his students conducted experiments with voters in California and 18 other states. In the two weeks before an election day, voters were shown the ballots either with pictures of the candidates or without pictures, and asked to express their intention to vote. Depending on the race – primary or general – when the voters saw the pictures, the best-looking candidates got a boost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent over the appearance-disadvantaged candidates.

Attractive people and interesting, charismatic actors will always win over competent but less exciting candidates. This is no surprise to those of us who are lifelong democracy foes, because we realize that voters choose appearance every time in a more fundamental way: they pick the candidates whose platforms virtue signal, promise pacifism, or give the voters a feeling of confidence or the sensation that society is sympathetic to them (this is what modern people call “empathy”: the thought that if society cares for its most miserable, it also cares for everyone else, especially the individual talking about “empathy”).

Voters follow a hedonistic imperative when it comes to voting. They want to feel good. Things that make them feel good are forms of compassion that make them feel powerful, much as the guy handing a dollar to a homeless person feels a sense of wealth, power and moral superiority. They like pacifism because it makes them feel safe since it promises to neuter the powerful, even if on their own side, mainly because that is the only group of powerful people that voters have control over.

They like to act generous and tolerant because they are LARPing at being kings, even if they do not understand the root of constructive generosity. And so on: a group of talking monkeys with car keys posing and preening chooses whatever candidate it feels makes the best adornment for its personal narratives. People choose candidates like they buy clothing or movies.

For example, a person will select a romantic comedy (ugh) because they want to “feel good” about their position in the world. They watch sad movies when they are sad, goofy comedies when they want to be happy, and “serious” documentaries when they want to impress their friends with how deep they are. Everywhere, monkeys are acting out their emotional needs on the world, and seem not to care that their votes have effect.

As the bloom fades from liberal democracy in the West, and we tally the dead and destroyed from our campaign to make it work by squashing anyone who disagreed with it, people are speaking out more about the failures of democracy. These failures occur at such a fundamental level that there is no way to fix them, as the failure of the US Constitution to belay mob rule indicates.

Why The Left Adores Pacifism

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Robert Stacy McCain observes the loser psychology of the Left:

Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm.

…Feminists can denounce the president as a “fascist,” and suffer no harm, but what would become of these fools if America was not protected by brave troops obedient to our Commander in Chief?

The Left makes zero sense until you understand them as individualists. They want to be free from any risk in decision-making, of the Darwinian kind including a loss of social status, while they are still able to enjoy the benefits of society, and are empowered to game the system by being able to make public, symbolic gestures of goodness that obscure the moral level of their other acts.

They hide this philosophy in egalitarianism because the plural of “I can do anything I want” is “we can do anything we want” and this type of collectivized individualism compels all of the members of the gang to defend each other, and so is the most effective method of building a cult-like revolutionary movement within a thriving society.

It makes sense to note this: Leftists do not create civilizations; they attach to them, or rise up within them, and then act as all parasites do. They siphon off nutrition and as they get more numerous, clog the internal motion necessary for homeostasis and gradually weaken and then kill the civilization. Leftists want you to see them as independent; a better comparison is the mosquito or cholera.

The thing about parasites is that if the host dies, all they need is another host nearby. For this reason, it is important for Leftists to encourage the host civilization to embark on any wars it cannot win. Once it is conquered, the Leftists will be there to collaborate with the enemy in exchange for a position in the enemy where they can continue their parasitism.

One reason that theories about The Rich™, The Masons™ or The Jews™ taking over our civilization are silly is that these theories are designed to conceal the actual parasite, which is the Leftist. Maybe the others are also parasites… evidence suggests they are varied, like any other human group. But what they do pales in comparison to the damage Leftism does.

A parasite needs to be like a good snake oil salesman or celebrity. It must constantly draw attention to itself in a way that displays its moral goodness through symbolic acts, because these are a cover for its immoral acts like parasitism itself. Think of it like a businessman: it is more efficient to give 10% a year than spend 20% of every deal ensuring it is ethical and constructive.

This “virtue signaling” is the hallmark of the Leftist and shows us that their ideology is not a philosophy but a pathology. They have zero interest in whether their words are true; what matters is — like the salesman, again — how their words are perceived by others in terms of making the Leftist look good.

If you wonder why Leftist politicians can approve obviously insane and non-working policies and laws, here is your answer. They do not care whether the policy works; in fact, it serves them better if it does not, and creates more social chaos which in turn engenders more unhappy, neurotic and rootless people that can be recruited into the Leftist gang.

Pacifism appeals to the Left because it is part of their stable of “reality is not reality” thinking. Leftists realize they do not have to be radical innovators in order to look like profound inventors, which they do by acting out the script of an inventor.

The inventor is remember by the group for having essentially said “reality is not reality” in a specific area; the way everyone was thinking about a problem was wrong, and some guy beat it, so it turns out that what most people think of reality is not reality… in that specific area. Leftists want this power more generally, and so they act out the script of claiming most people are wrong in order to appear to be radical innovators.

Conventional knowledge, common sense, logical fact and history hold that the best way to achieve peace is to have a deterrent to aggression. If you can cost the enemy more than he can likely gain, and create uncertainty that he can win, then you are as safe from him as you can be. If you declare pacifism, he will roll in and conquer you, at which point the parasites transfer to him.

Conquerors like the Romans and Genghis Khan experienced this in their own adventures. Whenever they conquered a state or city, there were people there waiting to be of service to the new regime. These people had been highly powerful before and so, it stood to reason, they were competent. Instead they were often parasites, which increased the viral load for Rome while healing some of its territories.

The “reality is not reality” approach of the Leftist recognizes the truth of the need for a military. In fact, if Leftists consistently oppose something, it is a good idea to reconsider it as it usually will be something good. Leftists want to virtue signal their independence from need and their moral supremacy, and humans — especially women — respond to pacifism as if it were good.

In reality, this “good” is just rationalization of a problem to the point of explaining it away. No hippie ever had a good answer for what would happen if the Soviets charged through the American heartland. But, a good salesman makes people feel better by explaining away actual problems so that instead the victims of his con focus on what he wants them to see, which is his virtue.

Feminism — entirely a subset of Leftism — opposes the military because it wants to weaken the nation around it and conquer that nation for its own purposes. Like any other viral thought, feminism “seems” intelligent, good, moral, etc. but turns out to be a deception. Its pacifism is a ruse to the end of that deception, and can safely be considered insane like the rest of feminism.

Reading The Bible As Literature

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016


Throughout human history, religion and spirituality have been great dividers and greater unifiers. While the Left wants to do away with religion, it remains important in the lives of most people on the globe, with only the self-referential first world dissenting.

Bruce Charlton cited a recent Amerika post as a means of continuing his ongoing discussion into future Christianity as a pivot point on which the West can turn should it decide to fight the pervasive evil currently crippling it. His point:

I can certainly see how he would make this interpretation. There is a common, misleading and unfortunate habit – both from real Christians and anti-Christians – of supposing that the Bible (or the New Testament, or Gospels. at least) must be 100 percent true, when taken literally (i.e as statements of facts and universal laws) one sentence at a time.

I can see how this situation has arisen, given the tendency of Men (and nowadays especially ‘liberal Christians’) to distort Christianity to be compatible with those secular and political ideologies which are that person’s primary motivation.

Amerika is thankful for this mention on a blog that many if not most of us read regularly. This allows the introduction of an important topic, which is how to understand a book like the Bible.

The sensible approach to religion comes to us from the Perennialists and Traditionalists, who are the opposite of fundamentalists. Any philosophy which bases the origin of thought in material is materialist, including atheism, but also including fundamentalism, which respects the granular Word more than the spirit it is designed to convey.

In the Perennialist view, every religion is an interpretation of reality including its metaphysical level. The best of these see the physical and metaphysical as parallel, or sharing the same pattern organization. From this perspective, it is the patterns of Reality — not the words describing them — that forms the basis of the religion.

Turning to Christianity, we see a book that compiles the best of European, Hindu and Mediterranean thought into a simpler form, like a novel with interspersed poetry and aphorisms on philosophical and metaphysical topics. Much of the book is told through the history of an ancient people, and the rest, as the life of one of their prophets.

To interpret this book, then, it makes sense not to read it for details — as Charlton argues — but to look at it as a story. In stories, people are confronted with challenges, and make choices as to what to do, and those choices in turn change those people, much as in life. For that reason, what matters is more the end results of each action than any particular detail of its explanation, because those may show where the character is within the arc of his action.

Meaning reveals itself not in the instant but over the course of many instants, with the final notion making sense only in the context of the whole story. This conflicts with the categorical thinking of the modern time by which we can classify an action as good or bad based on type, or look at a detail and understand the principle behind it.

Charlton makes a good point. Perhaps it is borne out in the original text, so it makes sense to inspect it. The paragraph quoted from the Bible reads this way in its full form:

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Reading this as literature, the bolded portion is the point: if your love is based on self-interest alone, it is simply self-serving. Kant makes this point beautifully as well, which is that those who act for personal gain are not acting morally, but selfishly, even if their acts appear altruistic.

In other words, this is an anti-altruism rant that appears to be a pro-altruism screed. The point being made is to detach benevolence from personal gain. This in turn means the opposite of how most interpret the few lines quoted in the original post:

“Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

Which on a surface view appear to be specific advice, not part of a parable or metaphor. The same confusion applies when those who read Plato’s Republic believe his ideal republic is a prescription, when in fact it is a thought-experiment used to demonstrate the failure of systems, since in order to improve upon the natural best state of humankind, we must enact a bizarre set of rules and balances which would make life inhuman and miserable, a lot like modern society.

Charlton takes another avenue to arrive at the same realization:

But really it is nonsense! Nonsense in general, and in this specific instance; because Jesus obviously did not intend this this statement to be taken as a universal law – for two reasons, one because he did not himself behave this way, and two because it is impossible to behave this way.

We could add that any specific virtue, pursued exclusively, leads to sin – and that therefore no statement or rule is universally applicable – but ought to be taken as part (typically a small part, given the large number of specific virtues) of that larger whole of ‘Good’. Jesus was crystal clear that the Good human life is not one of passively obeying a list of rules (i.e. Phariseeism); it was the inner motivation that mattered supremely – plus of course a willingness to repent our many and frequent inevitable moral failures.

A future Christianity will take this into account as older Christianity did. Read as literature, the Bible tells a story of a population which survives through militancy, but then faces a new challenge as it succeeds and becomes a larger civilization: how to keep its population morally disciplined so that social order stays intact by people individually doing the right thing, instead of relying upon the law (personified by the Romans) which frequently is wrong or stupid.

In fact, a broader message emerges, which is that most people are doing wrong as part of the everyday behavior of people in an advanced civilization. The mechanism of civilization itself starts to work against us at a certain point, like how a rocket to space encounters entirely different pressures upon itself once it leaves the lower atmosphere. If both pre-civilization and civilization are not accounted for, the rocket explodes; the Christian method is to eschew enforcement — symbolized by the crucifixion — in favor of constant personal moral alertness that evil lurks in personal gain that is detached from the principle of doing what is right, even when brutally inconvenient.

At the end of the day, this is what “love your enemies” actually means, once we set aside reading the Bible as propaganda and start to read it as literature, much as we should read Plato, the Bhagavad-Gita or any of the other influences incorporated in the Bible.

Good Intentions Destroy The Experience Of Life

Monday, October 31st, 2016


I loved playing a certain online game. The premise of the game was simple: you had personal combat weapons, a plethora of force powers moralized as dark side/neutral/light side, and a bunch of game modes for online play. It was a test of strength against the limitations of the human individual.

The online servers were excellent.

The game was anarchic. The most favored mode of play was Free For All. All you did was duke it out with short range weapons, combat where you could see the light fade from the eyes of your enemies as they died. It was chaos. About three dozen players would be in a server at once. They’d all assemble by herd movement to one major open area and duke it out.

The average player would run into the fray recklessly, swinging at whatever caught their attention regardless of the tactical feasibility of reaching that enemy player without dying. Needless to say he would typically be cut down by some other dumbass in the process, chopped in half from behind by someone else who rolled dice in his head and decided he was the right target for him. The cycle repeated until the battleground was littered with the severed parts and ruined corpses of combatants flickering with the chaotic disco flame of battle.

Two dynamics arose.

The first was that of skill. Pretty quickly people a few sigma to the right of average were learning how to kill with greater efficiency. The standard tactic became to move a lot and shred anything that got close to you with such blinding speed and fury that nobody stood a snowball’s chance in hell of landing a blow on them before getting blendered.

The other element was the social and clan aspect.

All of this play took place on servers, and every server was owned by private individuals or groups who shared the costs. Server owners could kick/ban people as they saw fit using moderation abilities, and so they would authorize the formation of a server clan. People were chosen by some criteria and vetted into their clans, allowed to rock the clan tag in their names.

The social opportunities were endless. There was a lot of simply hanging out and talking during these games. Within every level the fight always gravitated towards a huge open area, while it was natural for a spectator area nearby to form, usually on some kind of ledge elevated within a single jump from the fight.

The unskilled would opportunistically try to kill the people who were unarmed for easy points to rise in the ranks. My experiences in this game taught me that across the board the Master Morality was true and the Slave Morality was false: the best players almost always had some sense of honor and decency and were fair and moral at least according to their own moral creed, while the unskilled were crass, cheap, backstabbing opportunists with nothing but spite in their hearts for people who could do better than them. This game taught me before I learned even in real life: there are better humans and there are worse humans, and successful people generally are such because they hold successful thought processes and successful morals as well. Typically the winners were also the ones who insisted on being polite, bowing at the start of duels, not hitting people in the back, not running for health packs when you begin losing a fight, et cetera. The maggots on the bottom knew no such morals.

The social aspects of the game became more popular than the combat. Server mods were installed that gave extra moderation abilities – the ability to “sleep” a player (their character falls down and is immobilized), the ability to rename, kick, ban, silence their ability to talk on various channels, etcetera. It gave moderators the ability to give themselves or others things like all the game’s weapons with infinite ammo in otherwise gunless servers, as well as all of the force powers in the game with unlimited mana. They could type in a keyboard command and have a big lightning bolt come out of the sky and gib players of their choosing. Make big text appear on everybody’s screen.

What happened after that was frightening to behold when you take the game to be a microcosm of real society.

First of all, a lot of clans for some reason decided that “active and friendly” is a better server strategy than “active, free and full of talented players.” For some reason they got the fool idea that people would leave servers over feuds. Quite the opposite – when feuds started, they guaranteed many hours of activity as the feuding people kept trying to one up each other. Feuds guaranteed stability, hatred kept things alive.

Clans decided that it would be best for servers if there were no feuds and we all got along… in a game about killing each other brutally. Sportsmanship became enforced by moderation. “Cheap” things began to be punishable offenses: things like bowing in duels, not killing unarmed players, not stealing health packs etcetera began to be things that you either did or the mods punished you.

Pretty soon punishing different moves was not enough: the servers uploaded changes to the game mechanics. You know, to make things more “fair.” Initially, your hit box was very small and so extremely intricate dodging of almost anything was easily possible. After the “fixes,” your hit box was huge. Stand in a mirror and put your elbows straight to either side. That’s how wide your collision zone was: if somebody shot right past you, it would hit you anyway. As for parrying, everything that hits the whole front of your body is now automatically parried. The result of the parry, namely who lost and who won now had zero to do with geometry, timing or any of that, and was now completely random.

This was to “equalize” the game, making it so newbies had an easier time killing elites and now elites had fewer tools to use to conquer. They could now no longer dodge or break enemy defenses.

The whole game became a dice roll.

Once combat was ruined, there was nothing left but socializing and political maneuvering.

What was the fun in playing a game where winning was illegal or impossible? Where was the glory in determining your victory via dice roll so everyone had an equal chance, all so you could appease moderators who never could’ve beaten you in the old days anyway?

It took another good two years, but gradually the servers started turning off for good. The game had become obsolete thanks not to its programming, but the human programming in us all that if not corrected by discipline, ruins everything good and replaces it with mindless, sheeplike conformity.

Snapshot: Female Suffrage

Sunday, October 30th, 2016


As mentioned before, there is a problem with allowing women to vote (but scroll to the end for the punchline).

Harvard University President Larry Summers got in hot water for asserting that differences existed between male and female intelligence, and was later vindicated by scientific study (see also: Smart and SeXy) although the mainstream media ignored or counter-spun this information. However, that is not the problem with having women vote.

Women are not geared toward politics. Politics is the process of thinking toward the future in broad, irrational terms like principles and aesthetics. It requires people to take a strong stand because any idea will face a torrent of entropic forces trying to tear it apart, dumb it down or invert its meaning. Unlike in school, where the “right” answer counts, in politics the right vector or general direction counts. The details get settled later and cannot be anticipated in advance.

Nature has shaped women instead toward gaining social consensus. Their job in any situation, like in the archetype specific to them in the home, is to make everyone feel calm and accepted. Then they work out the details. For them, all is detail; there is no hierarchy or outline, but an unchanging goal of stability and peace, and from that they negotiate everything else. They are super-effective in social situations, unparalleled in family care and nursing, but devastatingly wrong in political situations.

Looking at American and European politics, we can see this in action. American women were the crucial group that elected Bill Clinton, generally on the basis that he was “good for race relations” and would establish pacifism between racial groups. American women also participated in electing Barack Obama for the same reason. In Europe, women dominate governments because they are perceived as safer and less warlike than men, with the female vote constituting a bloc they can count on to keep them in office.

We can see the evolutionary role of women playing out through these decisions: first, they pacify; then, they negotiate through details for what they think is a good compromise. The result is an inability to take any direction and then, as a result, a default to whatever the dominant direction is. Under female suffrage, the West has slide further down a path that will obviously not resolve well, simply through the process of compromise.

But for the punchline: while female suffrage is a terrible idea, so is the process of democracy in general.

Democracy disconnects actions from results. Votes are a lottery in which people hope their team wins, but then if not, conclude that the gods must be crazy and disconnect their brains until the next election. Even among high-intelligence males, the process of voting encourages a compromise mentality; working with the system is more important than working toward a result, especially if one wishes to stay in power.

Even further, democracy encourages the worst of human behavior by encouraging people to use the popular vote to take revenge on other groups. People can anonymous spend their neighbor’s fortune or sabotage his business, or simply approve for themselves handsome benefits at the expense of the rest of the citizens. Those with nothing to lose get the same vote as those who will be devastated, and the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius.

People like democracy because of its inherent pacifism. By its reliance on compromise, it prevents clear direction, which in the muddled simple-headed monkey thinking that is the default of humanity, means that it will offend no one and therefore give no one a cause for conflict. This ignores the fact that conflict is inherent because different groups and individuals have self-interest based on who they are, including what they can understand, and therefore are perpetually in conflict. Democracy just forces this conflict behind the scenes.

As we approach the eulogy for liberal democracy (1789-2016) occasioned by the simultaneous failure of every liberal policy yet created in the West, it is important to think the unthinkable, or “think outside the box” as we were encouraged in the 1990s. Our assumptions limit us to thinking along the same path we have been on, but because the results are so bad, it is time for new assumptions or no assumptions. Democracy has failed but there is no reason we must go down with that ship.

The Fall Of Democracy Becomes Plausible

Sunday, August 7th, 2016


The American Interest asks a vital question, citing this study (via Outside In:

But it does highlight the fact that the democratic discontent of 2016 is not just a temporary episode can be allayed by rebuffing Putin’s shenanigans or hectoring voters about their irresponsibility or putting the right technocrats in charge. The dark specter of illiberalism across the West is symptomatic of a deep and broad-based decline in confidence in democratic institutions and ideas that has been taking place for two decades.

Liberalism (the early stages of Leftism) rose to power because of a simple promise: pacifism. Leftism surmises that by making people equally included in society, we can avoid the ravages of the class warfare that devastated Europe in the middle of the last millennium.

However, it has failed to deliver: inequality is ever-increasing, and our new elites are both incompetent and seemingly evil in their capacity to relentlessly advance destructive non-solutions to imaginary problems while ignoring real ones. The economies of the world have reached their end-stage, overpopulation threatens, social instability and decay are raging, and our leaders have no suggestions except to double down on what brought those problems in the first place.

As a result, people are rethinking the supposition that enabled Leftism, which is that we can use external control — an idea inherited from technological processes — to treat people like interchangeable parts and shape them into perfect citizens with rules, incentives and threats. Control is the idea that a centralized authority can use force to organize essentially identical units, which is the opposite of the ecosystem model that nature uses.

The end result of this poor thinking is that we operate by a simple rule: if it is human, it is good; this form of revenge on the natural order leads to promotion of incompetents and a proliferation of regulations which make daily life choking in its tedium and frustration.

Instead, people are looking toward natural-style (organic, ecosystemic, gradual) orders such those described in the four pillars: tribalism, aristocracy, positive incentive systems and some kind of purpose, goal and objective which by its nature is transcendental.

Tribalism means that culture and its values systems take the place of government and economy in regulating a society:

Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which are often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.

Aristocracy means a reversal of the idea of external control. Instead of seeing who masters the system, we look at who is good (moral, intelligent, strong leadership) and give them power and wealth to manage. This gets us off the treadmill of needing constant growth and the resulting “tragedy of the commons”.

Having a goal also removes control. Control exists for itself, alone, although it justifies its power by claiming that it preserves social order. This fails because people become focused on satisfying the needs of the System instead of acting toward what is needed for civilization; control replaces goals. The modern West and the Soviet Union have both failed because the needs of the System replaced the goals of civilization.

In this change from a Francis Fukuyama-styled “end of history” where liberal democracy with market-supported socialism is the final state of humanity, we see the refutation and affirmation of the Unabomber’s thesis that industrial technology is our undoing:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

Instead of industrial technology forming the root of our problem, we see that the theory of industry — take in raw materials, process them, and produce identical units — became the basis for the idea of equality, which because it replaces social order, requires strong State power to implement. Technology itself is not the problem, but treating civilization like a factory is.

As liberal democracy fails people will turn toward alternatives. As always, what people think in groups is wrong. One half will want Communism, and the other half, a capitalist dictatorship of the fascist nature. Instead, we should reverse the very core of our thinking, which is that Systems — themselves an idea arising from equality — can save us. We should look toward putting our best people in power instead, ruling ourselves by culture, and finally, having a goal other than keeping the group together through pacifism.

We Are All One

Friday, July 15th, 2016


When a civilization is new, it is formed by collaboration toward a goal, which enforces both hierarchy and quality standards. In such a civilization, people are known by their acts.

If that civilization survives, it then enters middle age. At this point, the goal is to be good at what it already is, and people are rewarded for allegiance and obedience rather than initiative.

After that, every human civilization so far created has entered old age. There, the goal is to participate only, or to do what others tell you to do and avoid offending taboo. This rewards people for obliviousness to results.

Sane people consider civilization survival the question of human philosophy. Since most civilizations fail, there is something not-obvious about how to avoid failing and, conversely, the way to failure looks like the way to success.

Civilization itself works like a kind of Ponzi scheme. The more people are created, the more the existing things that people own are worth, and so civilizations tend to grow through internal encouragement. But with that, a focus on quality is lost, and is replaced by the idea of mass manipulation, or convincing many equal people to swarm toward a goal through emotional fears and desires.

At that point, it becomes important to keep the group together because this is a prerequisite for it acting as a swarm. This is where the kindergarten teacher logic comes out: what is most important is that everyone gets along, which requires beating back conflict and enforcing identical participation in activities designed around an average. This is the utilitarian, managerial and “nanny” state that ushers itself into extinction.

From this comes the mythos of control, which is that it is more important to defend the power structure than to ensure that its authority is directed at reasonable ends. That amplifies an ancient monkey-level fear in humanity, which is of the group turning on the individual.

Out of that fear comes the human desire for “we are all one” thinking, which is a type of pacifism designed to appease the rest of the troupe of simians by extending universal inclusion in exchange for non-aggression. Instead of fighting internally to create a hierarchy, this group pathology aims to simply accept everyone.

What it denies is the need for internal conflict to keep civilizations in their early and early middle stages. With constant internal conflict, the civilization is constantly rediscovering its roots and goals, and pushing the more competent above the rest. Without it, it slides into senescence.

“We are all one” sounds like peace but in fact it is war against the quality of the civilization, which results in its slow decay. The death spiral is caused by each individual deciding to take advantage of the situation and pass the disaster on to the next generation.

There is great social fear of not joining the “we are all one” surge. It is effective salesmanship to insist that all people are accepted, which is what equality actually means: equal acceptance. It is also a powerful manipulation tool because it projects all conflict as outside of the group, which enables the group to feel like it is perfect in its current state.

No one seems to ask the vital question, which is “One what?” Are we all one civilization, species, or merely united in fear of risk and possible personal insufficiency? This remains a mystery because the we-are-all-one people do not want to delve into such divisive topics.

In the meantime, we-are-all-one serves the same purpose as pro forma tasks at a job. If you do those, you will be promoted, even if you fail to achieve anything of real-world, practical and goal-oriented value. The higher-ups like those who are obedient more than those who are effective but might be a threat.

In this way, the Ponzi scheme of civilization beats itself to death once it gets powerful enough to have people who are not ruling toward a goal, but in maintenance of the status quo through pacifism. Like most human errors, it looks innocent and positive at first, and only far later does its fatal nature emerge.

Robert Sapolsky and the urge to neuter in Stress: Portrait of a Killer (2008)

Saturday, April 18th, 2015


Liberalism wants to remove power. It has two views on power, a public view and a private view. In private, liberals fear power because it requires competence, and competence entails oversight because it allows the powerful to point out where others are acting in illogical or venal ways. The private goal of liberalism is to abolish oversight of the individual, which requires the justification of egalitarianism/altruism to whip groups into a hive-frenzy to implement it. In public, liberals fear power because it results in “oppression,” and their response is to diffuse power through democracy and de-masculinization, replacing it with the Society of Endless Compromise which always defaults to inclusivity, removing oversight and allowing venal and illogical behaviors to be “equal” to intelligent ones.

As part of this myth, liberals enjoy the concept of pacifism. In this mental state, they assume that life would turn out just fine or even better without warfare and conflict. This ignores the fact that most people are unreasonable and that the stronger, by virtue of being more competent, tend to improve conditions by imposing violence on the lesser. In nature, we call this “Natural Selection” and newspapers run the kindly picture of grandfather Darwin. But our human pretense disallows us from realizing the same rule applies to us: evolution occurs when the more competent beat down the less-competent and take their place.

One form of this pacifism myth appears in the interview with primatologist Robert Sapolsky in the National Geographic Society documentary Stress: Portrait of a Killer. Sapolsky talks about his experience with the Keekorok Troop of baboons, and he relates his conclusions as if they were experience, fully aware than an audience of credulous useful idiots will adore him for his precious and passive stand against masculinity, power, violence and anything else that affirms reality over individual human desires, judgments and feelings.

Here is his statement in the documentary:

Sapolsky: The Keekorok Troop is the one I started with 30 years ago.

Narrator: The Keekorok Troop took to foraging for food in the garbage dump of a popular tourist lodge. The trash included meat tainted with tuberculosis. The result was that nearly half the males in the troop died.

Sapolsky: It wasn’t random who died.

Narrator: Every alpha male was gone.

Sapolsky: And what you were left with was twice as many females as males, and the males who were remaining were, you know, just to use scientific jargon they were good guys. It completely transformed the atmosphere in the troop. And this particular troop has a culture of very low levels of aggression and they’re doing that 20 years later. If they’re able to, in one generation, transform what are supposed to be textbook social systems sort of engraved in stone, we don’t have an excuse when we say there’s certain inevitabilities about human social systems.

Let us translate: in this group the alpha males died, and peace reigned. And it has kept going! Why can’t we humans be as enlightened as the baboons?

He does not mention that 20 years is to evolution the blink of an eye, or elaborate whether this troop continues surviving because it is living off the refuse of humans. Then again, that would be a socialist experiment that would make liberals and especially the armchair women pampered with easy jobs or dysfunctional modern family subsidies squeal and shout out in delight how “adorable” it all is.

Pacifism wins the day, and all that scary stuff in life — death, conflict, personal inferiority — is banished. The feeling is religious.

Not surprisingly, the Red The New York Times covered this in pure ecstasy of a passivity-superiority complex:

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe.

That is the Great Liberal Dream in a nutshell: remove the powerful, replace them with foreigners, and have them take care of us in subsidy and happiness forever. The article even states this explicitly:

The new work vividly demonstrates that, Putumayo records notwithstanding, humans hold no patent on multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism = peace, pacifism, love and happiness. Get rid of those blonde meanies who rule over us and we will finally be free!

Like the liberal love affair with the Bonobos, the tribe of monkeys who pacify each other with sex instead of fighting, the Keekorok Troop is a myth elevated to fantasy because it conforms to the liberal agenda.

”We don’t yet understand the mechanism of transmittal,” said Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, ”but the jerky new guys are obviously learning, ‘We don’t do things like that around here.’ ”

Jerky guys versus good guys, in the rhetoric of a scientist. How is this science? It is as if ideology went looking for meaning, picked it out of a more complex situation and ignored the rest of it, and now is using it to hammer home its zombie viewpoint without regard for the truth of the situation.

What happens to the Keekorok Troop when the human garbage goes away, or a stronger troop moves into the neighborhood? Probably the conditions of whatever is “third world status” in simian troops.












What could be the driving source behind such a scientist? Again, from nu-Pravda:

Dr. Sapolsky, 43, grew up in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, a place he describes as ”a true tribal enclave.” His career blossomed during boyhood visits to the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, where he spent hours fantasizing about living in the African dioramas.

By age 12, he was ”your basic misanthropic egghead,” as he put it, and writing fan letters to primatologists (later on, at John Dewey High School in Coney Island, he taught himself Swahili). He dreamed of escaping Brooklyn.

”Bensonhurst was not the place to be a short scholarly Jewish kid with no proclivity toward athletics or gang violence,” he explained.

He was a short nerdy kid who did not like sports and he was of course, oppressed, by the strong. Or at least the violent. Or maybe not the strong or violent, but the criminal. It is unclear what he is saying here, but also clear that if he is reciting this 31 years later, he harbors a life-long resentment of people stronger than him.

Liberal pathology at work is an amazing thing. They wish to neuter the strong and embrace the foreign, if not the outright enemy, and have it take care of them. In my day, we had a simpler term for this: giving up.

Recommended Reading