We might divide the Left into public and private beliefs.
The public belief, egalitarianism, conceals the private belief, which is a need to be included in society despite not necessarily contributing, or engaging in other deviant behavior.
In other words, the Leftist wants to use society as an expression of individualism. In this mode, they are able to act out their personal desires without being accountable to social standards, culture, natural law, logic, common sense, social hierarchy and other facets of a functional civilization.
Leftists could be viewed as those who have rationalized decline, or accepted it by transmuting it into a positive thing in their minds through symbolic associations. Chaos and anarchy create equality, and equality in turn creates them. This allows the Leftist to feel important for cheering on the ongoing slide downward.
When it comes to looking at the philosophy of a Leftist, which is public, and the private pathology that it conceals, it makes sense to look at some who have sold out their country to the Communists, such as oleaginous double agent Aldrich Ames:
People navigate society through archetypes. They understand a basic rule, and extrapolate from that to understand others. On a broader level, each age in history is defined by an event that succeeded which everyone else emulates.
Since the 1960s, our archetype in the West has been the overthrow of cultural order by hippies. Before that, it was the fall of Berlin. Before that, the jazz age flapper casting off a dying social order and being “free.” Before that, the victorious North freeing the slaves. Before that, the rag-tag band of underdog colonists driving back the most powerful nation on earth in a total Cinderella story.
When Leftist rioters burned, looted, vandalized and assaulted their way across Berkeley, California, many commentators mentioned the similarities to the 1960s activism. In both cases, an order was overthrown… except that in this case, Trump overthrew the Leftist order and the rioters were mainly raging against bourgeois armchair Leftists for not turning up the dial on their liberal beliefs to the setting “Full Soviet.”
Shields reportedly came to the defense of a man that was being attacked by people that wore masks that hid their identities. Shields later said, “They attacked him for being a Trump supporter, no other reason.”
After protecting the man, Shields confronted some of the masked protesters, saying, “You guys have your faces covered. You’re attacking people. You are being (expletive) fascists. Look at you guys, you’re (expletive) embarrassing. It’s not okay.”
In a Twitter post about the incident, Shields indicated that police officers and other citizens watched as the attack unfolded. He indicated that several people were attacked, and that he was involved “in a few scuffles” during the riot.
In other words, the cops were told to stand down. They might have done this because those above them agreed with the protesters. But it took a lot of people to not oppose that order. The simple reason is this: they wanted to avoid another Kent State, where pictures of dead students shoot around the world overnight and make your town or university a synonym for dead protesters.
The Left is playing a passive-aggressive game which is part of the circular reasoning at the core of all Leftist beliefs, which act by creating the assumption that a certain ideology is universally adopted, then styling those who fail to agree as attackers.
In this game, the Leftists pretend to be peaceful protesters and the media backs them up on that. Then, they attack, hoping to be injured so that they have a cause for victimhood and an excuse to counter-attack that much harder. They want us to lash out at them, so they can brutalize us. This is a classic “bullying” pathology; Leftists are bullies who are smart enough to hide behind altruism.
Their need for this victimhood relates to the swarm psychology of the mob. The mob cannot act proactively because it cannot agree, but it can react defensively if it feels one of its members has been injured. For this reason, to unite a mob, one must come up with a victim and claim that the victimization of that person will affect all. This creates Simian group panic and retaliation.
It does not make sense to view Leftism as an ideology so much as a pathology that hides behind ideology. There are few true Leftists, only people who are broken and who, when given an excuse for revenge, act it out with fervor to distract themselves from their own existential emptiness and shattered, purposeless, and disorganized lives.
The way around this is to get rid of equality. When someone brings up a protest, look at their history instead of just the single incident. Look at the psychology required to live their lives. And then, fear not writing them off as insane or incompetent, much like the army of baristas and waiters that burned down Berkeley.
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.
The technician represents the final elevation of human consciousness to a position of control. He wields the new magic, technology, and by his membership in the secret society of those who know how things work, is given power over others, who he views as inferior to himself.
He must constantly assert, for example, how simple certain technologies are. Once you know the principle, you see, it is all very simple. That is, if you have learned all of the background material and tools and are comfortable with the environment, which most people are not. Therein lies the key to his power: he has mastered what makes others uncomfortable, and therefore, his incentive is to make it even more uncomfortable.
As a result, the successful geek or nerd specializes in telling us how simple technologies are while making them as alien, awkward, counter-intuitive and joyless as possible. This protects his secret world in which he is master by driving everyone else out, sort of like a bacteria producing ammonia to ensure that it alone can enjoy a food source that it has poisoned for every other type of life-form.
Through this power — and he experiences it as power — he elevates something other than intellect. He mistakes it for his will, but really it is his personality’s desire for stability. Much as our thoughts tend to ratchet between fully coherent and stable and incoherent and threatening, our personalities contain a mental model of the world which is carefully constructed to assert order and reason to everything around us. We feel a sensation of power (but not power itself) when we are able to control the world in consistency with our model, reinforcing our perceptions and eliminating doubt, ambiguity, risk and uncertainty.
Among nerds, this power is most highly realized — and most specific. They have no power on the playing field, or the battlefield, and most likely not in social circles, but they have power over the secret world of gadgets and how to shape the behavior of others by using them. A nerd can make his gadget lower garage doors halfway so people must crawl under them, call a SWAT team to your house in the night, or delete your credit record. It makes him feel like a King for a day.
The problem with technology is that this mentality becomes infectious. People who work with technology are both exhausted by the sheer weight of tedium and detail-oriented memorization they must undertake, and also possessed of a desire to humble or humiliate others with their power. As a result, they set up illogical models which are deliberately inhuman because this gives the most power to the nerd.
‘[B]eeps are one of the most stressful noises humans can be exposed to.’ She explains: ‘The human brain is designed to respond to sound. Every time it hears a sound, it is deciding whether there is a danger, or whether this sound is something you need to pay attention to, and how to react.
…Lisa says that single tones, such as beeps, are called tonal sounds and ‘go through our brains like a laser beam’. They are difficult to ignore even when not very loud.
‘Not only might the brain not easily understand what the sound is, it also finds it hard to tell where the sound is coming from,’ she adds. ‘This causes the release of stress hormones.’
Who on earth would design something in this way? Let us return to the heart of geek power, the laboratory.
There, all is divided into procedures. The procedure for using a microwave, for example, is that the user reads the manual, inserts food, and then goes to sit in a rest area until it is done. When they hear the beep, signifying that the food is done, they return to the laboratory test kitchen and extract it from the gadget, then eat it right away.
The nerds who run the department have a concern: what if the person becomes distracted? Well, we had better make the device beep every fifteen seconds until they come get the food — because, you see, in our laboratory there is only one activity, and that is using a microwave. Everything else in life is forgotten. We are here to microwave, and so if the user becomes distracted, well, what the heck is wrong with them? Force the idiots to get back in here and get their food. Control their behavior.
It is for their own good, after all. The food might get cold.
But when every gadget is designed this way, soon you have an army of egotistical gadgets who are all screaming for your attention, creating a cacophony:
Indeed, research has shown that beeping hospital machines actually slow down patient recovery.
American research has also found – alarmingly – that staff can become so desensitised to alarms they don’t react in emergencies. Schools have found that pupils also find it hard to concentrate when there is a lot of background noise.
…‘John Lewis did some research that found that more than 50 per cent of people wanted their household appliances to be less noisy ,which is why they have just started marking quieter machines with a special “Quiet Mark” label.’
And welcome to the nerd non-solution. Being masters of details, they will never redesign the system from the ground up, so they instead add optional sanity as a luxury purchase item. If you would like sanity with your device, buy this special kind of device, they say, which is like saying, “If you insist on defying our authority, here is a short bus device for you to use so we know you are retarded.”
If nerds and geeks wonder why they get punched in the mouth on a regular basis, this attitude — this pretense, this unwarranted arrogance — could well explain it.
Unfortunately our whole society is based on this pretense: that every action occurs in a vacuum, that humans can control outcomes, and that our superior intellect (monkey howl goes here) enables us to anticipate every situation. This makes us into permanently pretentious, manipulative people with a pathology that insists on subjugating reality to what is mentally convenient for us.
The ancients saw this as hubris, the root form of evil. When mankind thinks he is above reality, the apple that God designates as forbidden becomes a temptation, or an otherwise sane man insists on baiting the gods with knowledge of how he has deceived them. The human drive to feel the sensation of power creates this impetus. The “individualism” commonly lamented in my writings is a form of hubris, one that is inherent to the human consciousness.
When nerds look at civilization, they see something that they can “manage” with rules, incentives and punishments, forgetting that people will not be in a laboratory and will simply change the definition of those things to suit themselves, just like they selectively interpret everything else. Nerds cannot believe life is beyond their control and handy little mental formulations like that.
Now that Western civilization has shown its failure, and democracy being the late stage of that has revealed its toxicity, people go questing for “new” ideas. If they can claim an idea is new, it means they did not overlook perfectly decent options out of a sense of personal pretense; instead, they have discovered what everyone else did not know, and this makes them feel profound and brilliant.
In reality, the human animal and the questions of civilization — leadership, culture, incentives and non-tangible goals — have been known for nearly 6,000 years. Nothing is a mystery. The only question is whether we accept life for what it is, and adopt the time-honored practices that have always worked best, or keep looking for novelty in order to flatter our pathological need for the sensation of power.
If the dissident Right has a weakness, it is that it is Red Pilled but not Black Pilled. With the Red Pill, you see through some of the illusions of our time; with the Black Pill, you see through the illusions of humanity itself.
We are the system that oppresses us. While that system creates many dictators, tyrants and control-crazed governments, the root of its power is in the human herd, which tends to be self-deluding, much as people tend toward narcissism if not checked by a superior force.
The traditional Right emphasizes hierarchy to deal with this issue. Every person in society has a superior force to hold them in check, all the way up to the kings who have an intuitive knowledge of the divine and hold themselves in check with that (or are, like most natural creative geniuses, intensely reality-driven).
Our modern Red Pill types however do not see through to this underlying need. They see how Leftism is delusional; this helps them understand why #FeelTheBern-style socialism will lead to disaster, and Marxist sexual politics are merely more underdog-on-top style Leftist inversion. But what about the weakness that caused these to take over?
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” Fred Nietzsche tells us this and he is most probably right, if we are looking for insanity alone. But most of life occurs in gradients, not binaries. Insanity occurs at different degrees, and can be either a permanent or temporary condition, but it is one of the two and only that. And people might be classed as insane, sane and then those in the middle who are not insane but also not pointed in the directions of realism, discipline and purpose that are required for full sanity. They are both insane and sane, in varying degrees, but have not passed the threshold of recognized insanity.
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
We know that the trance state is more likely to occur in people who under extreme psychological distress, and who believe in the possibility of spirit possession. All of these conditions were satisfied in Strasbourg in 1518.
The city’s poor were suffering from severe famine and disease. And, crucially, we also know they believed in a saint called St. Vitus who had the power to take over their minds and inflict a terrible, compulsive dance.
Once these highly vulnerable people began to anticipate the St. Vitus curse they increased the likelihood that they’d enter the trance state. And once in it, they acted out the part of the accursed: dancing wildly for days at a time.
While this mass delusion is easy to criticize because of its surface-level supernatural basis, if it exists as a psychology, it can be invoked by many means, most of which are not supernatural.
Before looking too far into the supernatural roots of this phenomenon, we should look at the pragmatic ones, namely that people were starving. Why was that so?
Following the Mongol invasions and the weakening of European aristocracy, peasants and serfs gained new freedoms. Many of them moved from Europe into the former Mongol colonies in Eastern Europe, changing the Asiatic population there to be blonder and bluer-eyed. But still, the population surge within Western Europe destabilized it.
Consider how poverty arrives. There can either be a fault of production, or a glut of labor. The latter case seems more applicable for Europe’s serfs: given new freedoms, they choose reckless reproduction, and as a result made themselves less valuable. This is the classic pattern of r-selection: quantity over quality, leading to a lottery in which a few win out big and everyone else is equally miserable.
Almost all human poverty arises from this tendency and it explains the poverty of the third world. They are overflowing with people, most of whom have only basic skills, and as a result, everyone lives in the muck and misery and a few super-wealthy tyrants crack the whip over the befuddled, self-distracting and delusional horde.
One might even see the Mongol invasions as an extreme r-strategy: produce robotic human warriors who while canny tacticians and able politicians, are terrible leaders and so create short-lived empires that fall to ruins very quickly.
This is why humans are self-deluding: the foolish desire more quantity, and the intelligent, by selecting quality, become marginalized. This creates the pattern we are all familiar with where vast crowds chase trends and fascinations, and a few smart people confine themselves to out-of-the-way places to do creative and useful things, to the unacknowledged benefit of the rest.
In our current times, delusions remain prevalent — accepted by all but a few — which are every bit as supernatural and unrealistic as the dance of Saint Vitus:
Democracy. People make bad decisions in groups that favor the lowest common denominator because that makes it easy to achieve agreement within the group, even on simple decisions like choosing a restaurant for the evening.
Rights. People vary in degree of quality; none are equal. Giving them rights entrusts each person with the same power, meaning that the bad abuse it and the good shy away from using it if possible. This creates a race to the bottom because bad behavior provides an advantage.
Anti-hierarchy. Without someone of intelligence and wisdom guiding it, any human venture will fail. This applies to those in business, social life, religion and government alike. The vast ineptitude of our current society is a testament to this.
Equality. Equality works well for comparing simple mathematical amounts; it fails for any measurement with more than one quantitative dimension. People vary in abilities, but more importantly, in character. Some are born programmed to do good, some bad, and most, indifferent.
Freedom. Like “free will,” the term “free” makes people sit up and notice. They love the thought of being able to do “anything” because such a wide-open thought creates brain freeze. But really, most people need to be able to do a few things, be restrained from doing bad, and left alone otherwise.
Diversity. Throughout history, diversity has been the heralding of the fall of empires. Different populations cannot occupy the same space without mutually destroying one another. There is a reason that all mixed-race countries are impoverished, chaotic, filthy and confused.
Once they make you accept these illusions as fact, they have broken your ability to think because you will always be working around and rationalizing these insane ideas. Our pretentious fallacy is that this condition is in any way different from the delusion of the Saint Vitus dance, when in fact they are one and the same: desperate people who cannot control themselves looking for a way to distract themselves, and ending up in a repetitive trance-like pathology of illusion.
Despite it being an apparent American concept, “dark organizations” remains unknown to the broader publics, either because it is politically untenable or because people are confusing it with dark continents/forces. Some research and writings to illuminate this problem has been forthcoming, some of which was authored by Prof Howard F Stein: Nothing Personal, Just Business (2001) and Prof Diane Vaughan: The Dark Side of Organizations (1999).
Vaughan describes “that routine nonconformity, mistake, misconduct and disaster, are systematically produced by the interconnection between environment, organizations, cognition and choice”. To describe it more in detail she states that “Social normalization of deviance means that people within the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant behavior that they don’t consider it as deviant, despite the fact that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety.”
Stein argues on the other hand, that “institutional change creates feelings of loss and grief that are often denied; leading to an inability to mourn that can destroy trust and produce aggression”. In summary he writes that “Throughout the United States and indeed the world, organizations have become places of darkness, where emotional savagery and brutality are now commonplace and where psychological forms of violence – intimidation, degradation, and dehumanization – are the norm.”
The psychologist sees it from a change management perspective while the sociologist sees it as “deviant management”, which in itself can be viewed as change. It is possible to deduce that both authors are addressing the same issue which is probably why they both refer to “dark organizations”, and not dark continents or people.
There is overwhelming evidence of natural pressures on organizations such as economic pressures and competitive requirements. These pressures can be viewed as negative in the sense that it may even lead to bankruptcy, but the dark organization effect is for the most part different. Referencing the author Jim Collins: How the Mighty Fall (2009), he identifies about 26 parameters/conditions that may (in sequential fashion) lead to failed companies. However, these parameters only apply to “healthy” organizations where companies valued at <20% of their original value is classified and presented as having failed. In dark organizations (which Collins do not address), the assumption can be made that those organizational managers would not ”present” themselves as failed, but would in terms of business performance remain below the 20% value – essentially forever. For example, in the case of South Africa, the possibility exists, should a healthy organization be enabled, that business performance would improve 5 times, i.e. the GDP/capita target could essentially be $40,000 instead of the (about) $8000 today.
Internationally, an example of a dark organization was the Oil-for-food Programme managed by the United Nations. After the second Gulf war, President Bush informed the UN that they may close that initiative. Little did he or the UN General Secretary realize how long it would take. In the South Africa Limited of today, the same dark organizational characteristics are slowly emerging. It can be seen in its limitation of “information” which leads to lack of transparency and which are generally the first thing threatened organizations do to “protect” themselves. This is similar to the formation and effect of the well-known “silo’s” commentators generally use.
When information is finally distributed, it is ambiguous, for example: the South African Government’s policies on external relations are the opposite of their home affairs policies – take the wealthy Indian Gupta family aircraft landing on a Military Air Force Base (for a wedding), approved by Foreign Relations while negated by Defense security policies. Another example is the housing development policy of “spatial densification” (which opposes “urban sprawl”) however, resulting in low-cost housing being implemented in the exact urban sprawl fashion.
Examples can be monitored all over the place, which can identify specific organizations that suffer this debilitating illness, and which according to Stein can be remedied, but recognition of the fact is the essential first step.
When you exit the mainstream path of politics, usually by becoming a realist and recognizing that democracy is a scam, you take on new company who are not vetted by social filters like the people in mainstream politics.
Some of these will impress you with their depth and commitment, and others will strike you as people looking for an excuse to act out antisocial fantasies. Sometimes the line blurs: each one of them is enraged (versus mainstream conservative outrage) at how his society has been ruined and turned into an ersatz version of itself. This rage translates into emotional lashing out, and the result is hilarious one-upmanship:
“I’m going to gas the bankers and then throw their bodies into the compost heap.”
“Oh yeah? I’m going to line up all the Jews facing forward down the line, and drill them all through the forehead with a single bullet.”
“Shooting? That’s so mainstream, brah. I’m going to stuff the Jews and bankers in a giant grinder, like you use for weed, you know, and use the paste to make a wall on the Mexican border.”
“Dream on, shorty; that’s not extreme. It’s an acid bath for the Jews, bankers, homosexuals, gypsies and all journalists. Six inches at first, then the knee, then the groin. They will beg for death before it is done.”
“You guys are too dramatic. We just need a day of the rope where we string up the obvious, then armed troops on every streetcorner with a gallows. The minute someone breaks the law, they do the neckless jig.”
Needles to say, there are two factors at work here: (1) people tend to “act out” their emotions, suspending logical judgment, and (2) those who want change almost always end up emulating those who came before them. History is full of these little pitfalls.
Let me stave off some of this chaos with two observations:
1. Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.
Trying to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the Other:
All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.
Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain…the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium.
The above summarizes the Dark Enlightenment well, but it should go further: altruism is salesmanship and nothing more. It is how one seduces societies into self-destruction for personal gain.
If the Dark Enlightenment has one core principle, it is this: all people act in self-interest as do all groups and, perhaps more importantly, this is correct behavior. When all act in self-interest, we do not need endless signaling, because we can simply address their self-interest as a contract proposal. They come to us and we assume everything they do and everything we do will be exclusively in self-interest.
Trust level and signaling are inversely proportional. The more trust you have, the less signaling you have; the less trust you have, the more signaling takes its place. In a high trust environment, like an ethnically-homogenous, religiously unified and culturally-ruled society, you do not signal anything because it is known. Your positions are those that are healthy, and those are agreed on not because they are popular but because they are right and have worked for aeons for that civilization.
Altruism is a form of signaling. Why else would it exist? When you do a good deed for someone, you tend to hide it; if you have to tell them about it, you have introduced new terms to the implied contract between the two of you. “I did this for you, now I want something in return.”
You will notice that all liberals behave this way. Liberals succeed in part because for them the contract is clear: you get equality, and in turn, you support our insane ideology by crushing any who disagree. Liberalism is simply an advanced version of the street gang. Anyone can join if they are willing to fight for the gang and die for the gang. And that fight? Revenge on anyone who is stronger than they, of course.
Which brings me to another point: we tend to see Dark Enlightenment theories as applying directly to the Western European (“white”) people. However, these rules are universal. There are only two parties in the world of leadership, and those are Us and Other. Us is your society; Other is everyone else, regardless of how smart, nice and capable they are.
This is one area where the Dark Enlightenment has gone off the rails. There is too much demonization of the Other, not realizing that we need a stricter rule regarding all Others, which is that if it is not Us, it needs to go away. It must not coexist with us in any form. It needs to go back to its continent of origin.
Which brings me to more of Jim’s essay:
A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.
After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.
They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.
Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”
The tribe declares for the warpath.
And then you kill them all and take their stuff.
Unfortunately, this approach is nonsensical because it is classic passive aggression and appeals because it is political, much in the way democracy only fights wars when it can portray itself as the victim and unify the herd behind war.
A more sensible view is this:
Recognize the Other. Look at them: unless they share very similar genetics, similar abilities and inclinations, similar culture and proximate religious values, they are Other. If you are German and they are Irish, Nigerian, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Russian, they are Other. If they are Finnish, Austrian, northern French, English, Dutch, or Scandinavian, they could be Us; this depends on the situation. In America, all Western Europeans are Us. In Europe, only those of the same nationality are Us.
Deport the Other. Tell them your self-interest: we need a society without Other, and no matter how nice you are, you are Other. So: boats! Big lovely boats with comfortable cabins. Those who resist can be subdued. But put them all on boats and send them away, and I’d make sure the bar is well-stocked with firewater, and never deal with the problem or the misery of murder again.
The angry types will say I’m not being extreme enough. But above I said genocide is “not necessary, not good and not effective.” All are true. Genocide is not necessary because deportation achieves the same result. It is not good because murder and warfare are hard on our people and not interesting for their own sake. It is also not effective because it creates negative goodwill toward themselves in our own people, and gives various Others a flag to take up against us.
My argument is not, by the way, “it is unpopular therefore a bad political move.” Genocide is usually popular if the group committing it thinks they will escape consequences. My argument is that genocide creates bad goodwill, in the form of lower self-esteem, in the group that completes the killing and then realizes they just acted out an emotional outburst and covered themselves in blood for nothing.
Deportation/exile possesses many advantages over genocide: it is not as popular, but it is also easier and easier to forget. It also preserves the order of nature, which is that different tribes separate and mature as they can, working in parallel so that different approaches are taken to the same task ensuring that one will at least work at some point. Other tribes are not a problem when the Other stays in its own continent and your own borders are sealed.
Further, deportation takes the form of a new contract. If your society is prosperous, pay them reparations for future goodwill. The trade is clear: you are displaced so we do not have to murder each other, but we are sending you on your way with gifts so you can set up a new life. This is not our act against you; it is our act against an order which fails each and every time it has tried, namely diversity.
On to our second point…
2. Those who hunger for executions have bought into the reversed logic of democracy.
Realistic people look at nature and reality, see why it works the way it does, and realize that their options are limited to things that work in similar ways. This is true because reality is not a physical thing, so much as an informational/mathematical order; that was the point of Plato’s forms.
Unrealistic people look at themselves, decide on what impulse is strongest, and find a way to justify that according to some universal principle they find that others enjoy as well. The unrealist looks at the Other, realizes that he can gain political power if he calls them rapists or pedophiles or some other unpopular outgroup, and then calls for their execution on the basis that they are bad.
This also occurs at the individual level. People love the thought of killing. They might be surprised to talk to some killers, who rarely will talk about it by the way, and to see that killers view killing as another tool, like we might view a hoe or ratchet wrench. To them, you kill when there is a need and otherwise do not think about it; the wrench stays on the bench. This is both (1) more detached than most people are comfortable with and (2) less “Rambo” emotional than people would expect. It unnerves most people, in fact, which is one reason why killers rarely talk about it.
The problem with unrealist thought is that because it is reversed, it leads to other reversed thought, such as democracy. Our Western mania from equality may have been born long ago when one person decided to act out emotionally, and rallied others to his side to justify the kill. That created a memory in which having a group agree made things easier. That worked for simple problems among honest people, but when manipulators appeared or the problem is complex, the group chooses wrong every time because its unrealistic thought process adapts poorly to reality.
Another article, this time an essay encoded within a story, from Spivonomist, goes awry at a crucial point:
Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”
The article is called “Toward a Model of Efficient Self-Governance” and talks about a society based around a gallows. Those who lead, or propose a new idea, do so with their neck in the noose. When the crowd objects, they are hung.
We call that democracy.
Unrealist philosophies are defensive because they are maintaining an illusion, that is, a narrative not based on reality. Instead it is based on preference and political power, or agreement of the group. This reverses focus from “How do we adapt to reality?” to “How do we justify what we desire?” and this reversal is the root of all human error.
You do not want a crowd making judgments. It always makes them in terms of itself alone. A crowd is a replacement reality; in a crowd, your goal is to keep the crowd on your side and not to step over the line, because then the crowd will destroy you. Just like a street gang. I say cut out the middleman and adapt to reality.
Even more, do not be so hasty with your desire to kill. When the penalty is death, only the crazy step up — or the sociopathic, because they know they can manipulate you. They will put their head in the noose, tell lies that most people think are pleasant, and then hijack your civilization just as surely as the West was stolen by democracy.
Tying this in to the first point: beware of the crowd especially when it comes to genocide. They will kill the Other they fear and keep the Other they think they can dominate, and that more innocuous Other will then simply out-reproduce them, miscegenate and assimilate them. Self-destruction in three easy steps.
I acknowledge that the problems facing us are dire. But we do not get to solutions by acting out our emotions, or by pandering to the crowd. We get to the solution by Dark Enlightenment itself — realizing the nature of people, and the nature of crowds, and instead of going with the herd, putting our best in charge and choosing honorable, efficient and effective solutions over emotional outbursts.
In the wake of the Dylann Roof shooting, the left/media cabal assumes their usual direction of pointing to the exception and claiming it as the rule. In this case, they want us to believe that America is awash in white supremacists who want to do nothing but murder black people.
On the contrary, very few such events have occurred considering that with 200m whites in America, they would have achieved an incident a week at a magnitude larger than the Roof shooting if they were even halfway trying. Those facts as usual do not fit the narrative so are discarded.
As usual, the leftist modus operandi is to deflect and distract from the real problem, which is diversity itself. Under diversity, African Americans always feel like second-class citizens or a conquered people. Under diversity, white people always feel guilty. And, as Kakistocracy blog points out, diversity has far-reaching negative effects deep in our social order:
Contrary to popular narrative, diversity hasn’t put whites at the throats of oppressed “minorities.” It has put them at the throat of each other.
With Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam showed us how American social fabric has collapsed from within as people trust each other less. His work, and studies by others, show us how diversity increases distrust not just between indigenous whites and ethnics in the West, but within the native group as people come to distrust all other people. Like class warfare, diversity leaves a lasting instability through internal division, resulting in none wanting to trust others. That in turn makes them unwilling to interact except through superficial means like talking about sports, shopping and politics as a form of sports.
As I mentioned in a comment on the post above, the effects of diversity are likely to be far removed from the point of impact. Like paranoia, the diversity virus spreads through society in the form of distrust, and it most commonly targets whites because it is illicit to target anyone else. People find themselves caught up in a society that is spiraling downward and yet are unsure where to cast blame, so they consume themselves in impotent frustrated rage and despair at the utter futility of the dystopian existence.
How many of our past panics were brought on by distrust? The Red Scare, the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic, vaccine phobia, fear of a gluten planet, the terror of pedophiles, even fear of “racists” hiding behind every doorway and perhaps our paranoia about terrorism. Even the increasing political Balkanization of our public might originate in a complete inability to trust each other. Our society grows more litigious, more defensive and more defiantly angry every year, and yet a cause cannot be found. Each side has someone to blame, but these appear to be scapegoats or intermediates, not the actual cause. This cause could well be diversity, since it spreads this kind of alienation like an infectious disease or cancer pervading the cells of an otherwise healthy host.
This reflects the origins of liberalism. When liberals took power during the French Revolution, their first order of business was murder. First they murdered the aristocrats, even the ones acknowledged as “good,” and then they began hunting for any who were royalists or those who aided, believed in, or supported the aristocracy. A simple accusation would result in a family being hauled out of bed in the night and executed publicly after a short pantomime of a trial. The killing never stopped and, when the Revolutionaries ran out of external enemies and people whose stuff they wanted to take, they turned on themselves and began killing liberals for not being obedient enough to the Revolutionary ideology. On a slower scale, the same thing happened in Bolshevik Russia, which conducts purges and pogroms to keep the population in line.
An observer chuckling over the follies of history might notice how ideologies of victimhood/retaliation such as liberalism are prone to such things because these ideologies are inherently oriented toward scapegoating. The Revolutionaries in France wanted someone to blame for the problems of excess population, and so they turned on their leaders, but then achieved worse leadership and an unstable murderous time. This early dystopia was then mirrored in Soviet Russia, where people essentially starved in terror of the KGB, and now exists in the USA where the accusation of “racism”TM results in immediate loss of job, home, savings, friends, spouses and children. We have replicated the Terror in the modern time but because of our intense pretense we no longer bloody our hands, but destroy people all the same and smear their names with a lustful hatred for the destruction of any who are bright enough to see that our civilization is circling the drain.
During some events in your life, you will encounter pathological behavior. Like most tendencies in human experience, the concept comes before the action. Pathological behavior can be defined as any action of a method whose goal is not achieved by that method, no matter how many times it is repeated. Pathological behavior occurs when the concept behind an action is erroneous, and the individual deciding how to act does not recognize this fact.
We see pathological behavior in many ways every day. The people who buy lottery tickets and never win, or the lonely souls who carry someone home from the bar to wake up lonely, or even the endless get rich schemes of the masses who chase wealth and, failing, enrich the scammers and frauds of our modern world. All of these pathological behaviors have two components: a flawed conception of the world that unites an unrealistic worldview with an expection of certain result in reality.
The problem with pathological behavior in a social system is that a form of inductive capacitance can be measured in human beings. When two wires are run parallel, current sent through one can be measured in the other. By a similar principle, if two human beings exist in social parallel, they absorb the nervous energy – a sort of essential simplification of idea – in the form of half-understood concepts and desires. As if by osmosis, people grasp the essence of an idea and it becomes the ideative portion of their pathology. “God will save us” and “The state will find a solution” are scarcely removed as concepts in this pathos.
It’s not easy to recognize this. Our civilization has become complex and interdependent enough, and the normal person is so overwhelmed with needs and desires, that it is impossible to point to proof of its failure — but more importantly, it’s equally impossible to point to proof of its success. Many people note the increasing problems (crime, corruption, pollution) and correlate it to a lack of great achievements (art, music, philosophy) but two things hold them back: first, the system seems to be working, and it puts food on the table, so don’t rock the boat. Second: we are still so awed by our technology that we put unlimited faith in it, as well as our technology of mind, which has us supposing that educators and psychologists will find a way to make us all productive citizens somehow.
Yet there’s nothing obvious we can point to (like a clock counting down the sky) and claim it is proof for all to see that our society is failing. All will never see, even if a giant rubber monster attacks North America, because they will revert to non-logical behaviors; this is the brain’s way of avoiding kernel panic and shutting down in disbelief (interestingly, many who faint at disasters first become irrational). They turn to religion, or focus on irrelevancies, and this enables them as peaceful a demise as can be engineered. But the demise we face is not a fast one, but a slow decline into irrelevance, and it is both far off and close by in that we are now in the last few decades in which we can reverse it.
Societies that collapse slowly do not explode. They stagger, through a series of failures and incompetent compensations, into a third-world state where a mass of lumpenproles — dumb, grey/tan, and devoid of all higher culture or philosophy — are ruled by a pompous elite who got the position through a single qualification: immense wealth. Eventually this decadent elite consumes itself through infighting and inbreeding, and what is left is a burned-out shell of a society staffed by dumber, fatter, sicker, more generic versions of its previous occupants.
There is a point where this course cannot be reversed, because culture has been destroyed and the elites are too powerful and the masses too dumb to oppose them — usually distracted by “panem et circenses” or technological equivalent (fast food, TV). At that point, there is so little consensus among the people that they can literally be bought off for a single issue: gay rights, legal marijuana, recycling, more churches. We are not yet at that point but it approaches rapidly, and if “the people” were able to unite behind a single impetus toward change it would be easily reversible. However, they seem more concerned with “personal” issues, meaning political change that benefits them and to hell with the rest, than they are with holistic fixes to an otherwise suicidal system.
This condition arises because just as most people are specialized to a certain level of thinking, few are capable of using what F. Scott Fitzgerald reference to as “cynical” thinking but which might be better called by the name used in American colleges before it became taboo: “critical thinking.” Critical thinking means the ability to compare a stated goal to the method used to reach it, and to separate the actions which will be successful from those that are pathological. Critical thinking allows one to predict enough of the levels of consequence of any one method to project its effects in the future, no matter how popular it is, and critical thinking is a rarity in society today.
Sage observers refer to modern society as pathological because despite knowing that much of what we do is wrong, we persist in repeated patterns, if for no other reason because because we’re overwhelmed. Still, it is not logical behavior, and should be seen as on par with children who refuse to eat their vegetables because they prefer ice cream. Not everything we do in life corresponds to our wishes. Much of it is a matter of “work,” or overcoming resistance to put things into a better organization so they function beneficially.
If we are to trace the roots of this pathology we will find a simple root cause. After sorting through all of the details and problems and intermediate causes, we come to an original error: what philosophers call “consequentialism,” or the idea that what most people think they prefer is the best course of action. This can be seen in our democratic system of leadership, our belief in personal ownership of stock and businesses, and our social system that replaces culture with what is popular to the mass taste. All of these ideas, which we disguise with materialist and humanist rhetoric, originate in the idea that what we prefer as a group is the best course of action.
Anyone who has chaired a committee, or tried to achieve consensus even in a small group like a family, knows that a direction can only be found when every individual considers it not in context of themselves but in the context of a task which includes them but is not limited to them. If left up to their own concerns alone, individuals pick what benefits them, and since the rest of the question — overall direction for all individuals — is a distant second, they consider it barely and conclude it will be addressed by what they summarize in partial witticisms and homilies. “It’s all good”; “It’ll work out”; “The People will rise up and fix it.”
However, the middle class in America and Europe is beginning to see that they, the professionals and leaders of the layer beneath politicians but above workers, have become an endangered species. An influx of cheap labor has made the rich richer, and products cheaper, but the socialized costs of a society without consensus as to direction (something achieved through agreement on values, which are passed down through generations in a form we call culture) make it harder to find respite from the madness. The middle class sees a future in which more money is required to have homes away from the ghetto, more time must be spend on the road commuting, and more effort must be spent in bypassing now-ruined public services for private offerings.
And the workers? Most of these will acknowledge some degree of incompetence in managing their own affairs. Fodder for the workplace, they either walk the straight and narrow or try a way around and in all cases but a few get busted and re-introduced to society as even cheaper labor. The stockholders and CEOs laugh and dumb down the job requirements, making them as simple as pressing buttons on different machines, but the group of violent, stupid, alienated people grows and with it the costs to the middle class. Who gets penalized by crime and unrest? Not the elites behind private security walls. The middle class and the working people pay the price for society’s decay.
In a sensible system, it would be recognized that true leadership (and not just parroting back what the poll figures suggest will be popular) is as rare as the ability to design rockets, do higher math, write philosophy or compose symphonies. A leader is one who intervenes between what the people think they want and what they must do, and either explains to them the logical course or forces it upon them. Whether justification or oppression is used is irrelevant, because if what is logical becomes law, the people are better off even if they had to sacrifice some personal demands for the whole. When the whole becomes sick, we all pay. When we sacrifice for a better whole, we all benefit.
None of our current political solutions are sufficient. It is too easy to promise a pleasant illusion and ignore real problems or opportunities, and so our leaders do it. They, after all, only want to crawl their way out of the morass of poverty that is ensnaring the middle class. Even non-mainstream political solutions fail. While the environment is part of what must be addressed, it is not all of it, and so Greens are left as partial solvers of a detail whose root is the cause described. While a failing of traditional values is part of the problem, it is not all of it, so Conservatives become marginalized with the religious fanatics in a mire of abortion, gay marriage and drug laws. While racial decline and loss of homogeneity are part of the question, they do not complete it, which leaves nationalists further isolated from a solution.
The answer is relatively simple: there is one truth, and we call it reality. Many voices describe it and in any genre there are those who understand most of it, but to see it requires putting our personal interests and egos second to finding truth and enacting it. None of us are god; all of us have some position in the hierarchy of nature, and not all of us can lead and thus not all of our opinions are important in a leadership context. But when we stop concerning ourselves with consequentialism, and look instead toward finding a correct path, we are suddenly less likely to lead ourselves down a path which destroys the whole. As the whole is the provider for the fulfilment of individual wishes, at that point, we also lose our personal concerns.
What we think we desire is contingent upon a healthy whole. When you ask a group of people their concerns, they will pipe up about details, but it is unlikely they will focus on that whole. For humanity to survive as something other than a degraded society where the rich rule the stupid, we need to instead find consensus by targetting reality in recognition of how nature, a healthy civilization, and culture as a reservoir of social learning are essential to our individual futures. Should we wish to survive, and all healthy people do, this is the time to set aside our personal fears, selfish desires and confusions and to enact, finally, a better system of human self-government — before it is too late.
Are stereotypes really as wrong as implied? We are told by our omniscient media and peers that stereotypes are wrong because not everyone in a group resembles them. But could it be we are misinterpreting stereotypes — that instead of trying to summarize individuals, they symbolize the meaning of a group?
For example, Nationalists. Our perception of the nationalist is a tattooed soccer fan whose main activities include brawling, offending people, and periodic hate crimes after bouts of alcoholic madness. These people tend to be socially oblivious and paranoid, fixated on conceptions of a conspiracy and mainly inclined toward offending others with their opinions, then accusing them of failure to comprehend. For them, generally, everything of their race is OK and every other race is garbage if not outright evil. Most come well informed with diagrams of skull shapes, crime statistics, intelligence and of course, the all-knowing veil of history. Why do people not consider Nationalist parties? Because the stereotype of the Nationalist conforms to what they see on TV, and is reinforced in real life whenever they meet a Nationalist. “Come, join the party of angry losers!”
Another great example are Greens. Our public perception of them is Birkenstock-wearing, long-haired, slightly stinky people who go around tightening water faucets to shut off excess lossage, recycling tampons, and shouting angrily that the world doesn’t understand their crusade. They view the rest of us as unenlightened and selfish, pursuing the almighty dollar and first world lifestyle when if we all just returned to the trees, things would turn out just fine. We need to stop eating meat, testing on animals, and driving SUVs. This stereotype, like that of Nationalists, doesn’t apply to every individual who is Green, but it sure does symbolize the group: social dropouts without any broader solutions, but plenty of irritatingly involved band-aids which while not fixing the problem will occupy our time and give us something to talk about while drinking ethical organic coffee from non-authoritarian regimes.
We have a similarly bitter stereotype for Democrats, and it’s just as accurate. They tend to be from East or West coast cities, and be hipsters in that they dress trendily and spend their time in coffeeshops or reliving the greatness of 1970s rock; they usually work for big industry, but that’s okay because they complain loudly about it so no one things they are with the conspiracy. And for them, just as with Nationalists, there is a conspiracy: a vast right-wing conspiracy that not only unites secret elites at Bohemian Grove and the Bilderberg conference, but inducts new members in Skull and Bones so they can someday join the Carlisle group. Of course the VRWC forged 9/11; they also killed Christ, undoubtedly. Democrats are unique for their dedication to personal wealth, comfort and socially hip position while talking a good game and yet doing nothing about it outside of the voting booth. This is why for generations they’ve been called “limousine liberals”: wouldn’t it be great if someone helped the poor, if someone stopped genocide in Darfur, if someone helped the spotted wood-owl… I’ll sign a check, but you won’t find me wasting my time with political activity; that’s for underlings, and I’m an assistant manager!
Stereotypes give us a cariacature of a group through its individuals. They are not meant to be universally accurate, but they summarize what the group means to us in daily life. Nationalists beat people up and do nothing; Democrats whine and buy lattes; Greens use energy-efficient microwave ovens and live in hovels. Why are these stereotypes accurate? None of these groups have a solution, and thus stand out as delusional social failures. If for every minute they spend talking about the “conspiracy” or how people “just don’t get it,” they spent enhancing their own balance, they would go much farther.
All of this just puts into context the remark of Mahatma Gandhi that “You must become the change you seek in the world,” but that’s only part of the story. You must find rational changes in the world and not become a social dropout fixated on one hot issue; then, you must put those solutions into action instead of becoming another modern bigmouth “activist.” I suppose that is why sometimes articles on this site are delayed because our writers are out there collecting trash, starting businesses, publishing books and participating in community activities that reinforce healthful values. We’ll never be popular, but we might be effective.