Posts Tagged ‘realism’

Rejecting The Enlightenment™

Monday, December 11th, 2017

Western Civilization slowly emerges from The Age of Ideology as Leftism, having achieved its final goals with globalism, reveals its fundamental impracticality and the misery of life under an ideological (i.e. reality-denying) regime. In its place, a new era appears as people reject anything but the innate and observable, having come to distrust scientists, academics, reporters, and ideologues.

Some object this. Like most Leftists, and they are all Leftists of some form, they differ only in the degree to which they are willing to apply their one idea, which is human equality. Some want a fairly conservative Leftism, where others want to jump into Communism with both feet out. All want to drag us back into The Age of Ideology to some degree.

As is always the case in human affairs, people disguise their intentions, and so many talk about returning to liberal values as found in The Enlightenment,™ the massive cultural change which kicked off The Age of Ideology. Stephen Pinker, who has produced at least one really great book, seems to have joined in this desire to resurrect the failed past:

These are just a few of the issues Pinker will discuss in “Enlightenment Now,” but he explains that the book is more than a compendium of encouraging statistics – it’s an urgent reminder that we need to preserve the Enlightenment values of reason, free expression and scientific inquiry that have led to such remarkable human progress since the 18th century.

…Instead of behaving like petty authoritarians and lamenting the imaginary fascist takeover of the country, anti-Trump forces need to reaffirm their commitment to Enlightenment values and institutions: free expression, universal human rights, unfettered objective inquiry, the rule of law and democracy.

Most people have no idea how all of these values connect to egalitarianism/individualism, which is the one idea of both the Left and the Enlightenment™ (“hmm”). Let us view them in sequence:

  • Reason. For us to believe in human reason, we must believe that it is evenly distributed among the population, but this requires us to think of the step after an idea is generated. When someone produces an idea, it must be recognized by others as correct or not. We either put our faith in exceptional human beings or in the generic “human reason” which assumes that a crowd is convinced by a correct argument, which in turn requires we believe they all possess at least an equal minimum of analytical ability. In reality, people have widely differing abilities to the point that they might as well live in different worlds, and those at lower levels not only fail to recognize accurate ideas, but actively reject them.
  • Free Expression. In theory, we all support free speech… until we encounter spam. The large amount of opportunistic, insane, stupid, delusional, egotistic, and vandalistic speech will make us reconsider! This means that we do not want egalitarian free expression, which is like a herd of monkeys all screeching at once, but quality of expression, which requires that in contrast to allowing a free-for-all, we listen to those who demonstrate the ability to make at least one coherent point.
  • Scientific Inquiry. To seem to oppose science appears to most to be the ultimate apostasy of our age. After all, science brought us hot showers, penicillin, and microwave dinners. People forget that science is in the hands of individuals, and individuals are not as unbiased as science is proclaimed to be, and so they can cherry-pick data, exclude items from study, and draw over-broad conclusions based on limited data. Science remains popular because it is presumed to be “objective,” which forgets that people do not understand the same thing at all from the same facts. This is why science us usually wrong and our “unassailable scientific truths” change every decade.
  • Universal Human Rights. The core of egalitarianism is found in individualism: no individual wants to face the Darwinistic or Social Darwinistic consequences of being wrong in how they understand reality, so they demand reality be abolished and be replaced with human socializing and its laxer standards of judgment. In reality, people have different abilities including to comprehend basic consistencies in our world, and so it makes sense that they would have different roles, duties, privileges, and responsibilities. Extending the same rights to all merely punishes the more productive and intelligent whenever someone of lesser ability struggles near them.
  • The Rule of Law. We like to believe in the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men, or the decision-making of individuals who are probably smarter and wiser than us. With the rule of law, everyone is treated the same, which means that our past contribution or lack thereof is not taken into account. What this does is essentially punish those who have contributed in the name of protecting the vulnerable, and instead of allowing a sensible case-by-case judgment, relies on blocky categorical rules which are never precise enough, leading to endless and tedious legal wrangling. Over time, law degrades us and compels us to do the illogical.
  • Democracy. Look at the people around you. You know that they are unequal in their ability to perceive reality, analyze it, and creatively understand the possible solutions — that means setting up little dioramas in their minds, and then hitting the “play” button on a mental video player to see how interactions play out — that describe the choices we can make in life. Now you realize that ability is distributed unevenly, with the real talent being rare and exceptional. Democracy means that the lower talents win out over the higher every time, which is why democracies die by a thousand cuts, making many bad decisions that ultimately add up to fetters of precedent that prevent anyone from solving any real problems. Democracy destroys civilizations and makes people blockheaded, timid, deluded, and prone to opportunism.

In summary, we do not need a return to the values of The Enlightenment,™ which are ancient at this point and reflect the same type of thinking that killed both ancient Athens and the modern Soviet Union. The herd is not good, but instead is a compilation of the thoughtlessness of individuals who are then separated from responsibility for their actions by the fact that they can blame the crowd. “Everyone was doing it!”

Enlightenment (™) values created The Age of Ideology by separating our thinking from cause-effect in reality and instead directing it toward human consensus, or what most individuals will insist that others believe because this benefits individuals by deconstructing the cause-effect relationship between their actions and the results of their actions, which can result in a loss of social status if the results turn out poorly, showing that the individual does not understand reality well and thus is delusional, less intellectually capable, inexperienced, or otherwise maladapted.

The coming age — barely dawning on us now — is one where people think less of the individual and more of the organic whole, such as their civilization, ethnic group, faith, and caste. Trying to make everyone equal actually created unending disaster at every level, and as we awake from the stupor of good social feelings and rediscover reality, we are casting equality and The Enlightenment™ aside.


Saturday, October 14th, 2017

Someone asked what I call my general philosophy, and as usual there are several answers. Politically, I am conservative, meaning that I believe in preserving and pursuing what worked best in the past; this is a quest for virtue and realism joined.

At a metaphysical level, I am a parallelist, or one who believes there are not dual worlds, only one continuity of experience of which we can sample only part. Parallelism states that parallel structures imply an underlying reality which is not immediately tangible or visible.

On the level of personality, I am one of those people who aims for the holy grail of realism united with a desire for gradual improvement, meaning that instead of being reactively realist, or one who looks at the world and figures it never can change nor should be changed, I am actively realist, or in search of ways to improve reality that are consistent with its underlying pattern order.

But at the core of it all might be something we could call continuity, around which I designed the Continuity Movement back in 2005 or so. The point of this was to look at the world from outside of the human being, and to apply a futurist-style optimistic enthusiasm toward nature and our possibilities within it.

Continuity, as a philosophy, recognizes the simple truth of life: like good heavy metal, it is riff-based, or constructed of cycles; each riff represents a motion that affirms a central point by moving away from it, and then implying a return. These cycles exist in a concentric structure of cycles within cycles. Within those, there are epicycles or internal cycles that produce a seemingly retrograde motion to the overall cycle, forming a type of internal opposition that gradually harmonizes with its context.

Cycles link cause and effect. The event that triggers other events, known as a cause, creates its effects. Those in turn become causes for other events. Frequently, since the effect is a response by the external world to a cause, the cause and effect are mirrors of each other, such as how human attempts to keep foxes out of the hen house merely produce more capable foxes.

We can see two general types of cycles. The first involve feedback loops, where two or more objects intensify their behavior in response to each other, like birds moving their nests each time a snake finds their location. The second are more like signals, and involve a cycle running its course and resulting in a symbolic act, which prompts reactions that do not interact with it but something else.

Humans are more responsive to the second type because our brains work by signals, where the world works mostly by feedback, since it is not like us driven by the higher-intensity sensation of the symbolic language of the brain versus the ambiguous, fuzzy and nebulous perceptions we have of the world outside of our thoughts.

If we have an eternal failing, it consists of mistaking feedback for a signal. We interact with something, and it responds, so we see this as a response to us, when in fact it is simply a logical continuation of the cycle. This causes us to forget that the cycle is still ongoing, and to take a temporary response as a permanent condition, while assuming that it is focused on us. This creates a paranoid solipsism that is the hallmark of all poor human decision-making.

Our inner selves, which are unregulated by social concerns, have the ability to engage in a feedback with reality because unlike the ego, they do not work through symbols, but through bundles of sensations expressed on a spectrum, from which we derive a general gut instinct about the pattern. “This feels like it will work,” we say, bypassing reason for the power of the subconscious mind. But even those sensations can be forged by the ego, which filters out anything which does not fit the model it wishes to enforce, leaving only the opposite of what is true.

In our search for symbols in the world, we then become oblivious to the world. All human problems originate from this type of tunnel vision, where we see a moment in a process and assume that it is the whole, thus keep acting on the the theory that it explains the situation even when contrary data arises.

As always, our tendency is to argue from the self as opposed to from the world, which causes a condition of solipsism which is mated with a narcissism in order to justify our lack of knowledge about what is outside of our minds. Tom Wolfe describes a variant of this condition in the “fiction-absolute”:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

Every human rationalizes his own condition as the best possible result, therefore is oblivious to the possibility of better results, which is why conservatism aims at conserving the best of human conditions at a civilizational level; it opposes the solipsism toward which most humans are prone. Continuity one-ups that by installing a sense of time consciousness in the individual.

Much of our success and failure is determined by whether or not our behavior is efficient, and to what degree. Efficiency is the management of energy over time so that results are produced with the least amount of energy, freeing it up to be applied elsewhere, such as in the higher functions of civilization. A society which spends all of its time and energy on subsistence farming cannot produce institutions or the order of law; as a result, the function of individuals is localized to themselves, since they have no intermediate to facilitate interaction with others, especially distant others.

Continuity, as a philosophy of cycles, looks toward energy not as a static resource but something which flows through a system depending on its efficiency. The greater the efficiency, the more energy can be dedicated to that which improves life, including at the existential level where we try to decide if we like who we are, how to self-actualize ourselves, and what is meaningful and important in life.

The cyclic view stops us from trying to seize things that already exist, but remind us that our actions now are really actions in the next part of the cycle. We plant in spring to harvest in fall. We are, ultimately, our children and their degree of ability to interact successfully with the world. This contrasts the human tendency to seize on the tangible as we see it as useful to us, and to elevate that to a perceived “universality” which is shared through socializing.

This tendency toward projection of an instant to cover the entire cycle can be called the authoritarianism of the ego, which demands that what it sees be seen by others and validated, and leads to control, which is the method of using social — including political and economic — forces to demand that others view the world in a way that does not violate the narrative of the individual. For example, if someone fails at raising cattle, he will blame bad luck and resent anyone who suggests otherwise, unless their explanation also vindicates him.

Human smugness, passive-aggression and most of all addiction to unnatural power over the world comes from control. We want to stop the cycle at one point where we master it, and to compel others to see it the same way, so that we are not at risk of being “wrong” because our mental model was incorrect. We rebel against Darwinism by insisting that there are no failures, only choices, and that therefore, we cannot be seen as less important simply because we incorrectly understood the world.

By removing the belief in the single instant, which resembles a symbol in how our brains treat it, as the sum of the whole, continuity demands that we look at the cycle as a whole and place the instant within it. This allows other people to be “right” but only in the context of one part of the cycle, and has us looking for what comes next as a way to ascertain the effect of the cause that is that one part of the cycle.

Continuity by its very nature emphasizes the order outside the human being, not just nature but civilization and potentially, the metaphysical.

It fits with parallelism, the philosophy that all things exist in parallel, or in many forms which are simultaneously competing and strengthening one another, like different species and individuals in an ecosystem. Parallelism, like continuity, removes our thinking from the linear and personal and channels it toward the complex instead of the universal, which is an offshoot of solipsism that projects our own thinking onto others on the basis that they, like us, think in symbols and can be controlled through social forces.

Parallelism has a few key tenets of note:

  • Wholeness. For an idea to be true, it must be true in all relevant areas; we cannot define true-ness by selecting some areas where something is true, and allowing those to stand for the whole. In other words, we argue from impact within context instead of the object considered without context.
  • Independence. We cannot force change by demanding what we want, but only by setting up the conditions that produce it, and selecting for those things that exhibit the traits we desire. In this way, parallelism emphasizes Darwinism and treats the world like an ecosystem, where opportunity creates options and those options which are parallel — true in all ways — can be chosen over others.
  • Centrality. All things that are true converge on a center point, reality, because this is the nexus where they are joined. We can speak of an idea as true in abstraction, but that does not include all parallel elements, as since we are operating within reality, it must be consistent with reality.
  • Causality. Perhaps the most striking idea of parallelism is that causality is not linear, but as in Platonic forms, mathematical or informational; patterns occur, and from those other patterns result, in a cause/effect that resembles a cycle more than a linearity.
  • Monism. If all things are parallel, then there is no separate order or “second world” of dualism, in which the true pattern of reality is manifest. Instead, the underlying pattern order is never directly revealed, but is manifest in all levels of our world, including the metaphysical, which will play by the same set of informational rules including thermodynamics that our physical world does.
  • Localism. Parallels are created in response to new events or opportunities; as a result, each one of these must be independent from the others, for the most part, and survive or die based on its own merits. In this sense, there is no “collective,” only groups of individuals and sub-groups who can work together where they share a goal. Ideology and universalism are meaningless.

Control remains the greatest threat to humanity because it limits our understanding and forces us into compliance with human, rather than parallel-spanning realistic, concerns. Control is dominance of human fear over the world by denial of vital information, which only distances us from the realization because nature is a mathematical order within all that we do, and not simply a material thing that we can mold.

The problem with control, as it emerges, is not just that it denies reality, but that it leads to an inefficient distribution of energy. When an illusion is enforced, this requires work, and the inversion of knowledge that comes along with enforcing control also eliminates necessary methods. The more centralized the control, the more energy is spent on control, and the less on task and thus, improved efficiency.

Paradoxically for most, especially for those who have not yet wrapped their heads around how collectivism is individualism, control includes the oldest human illusion, which is that of method over goal. Method over goal postulates that if we limit bad methods, it does not matter what our goals are, so “everybody do whatever they want” and “everyone just get along” apply through the timeless method of compromise, which is also known as goal negation because you can no longer have a whole plan or system with compromise; parts are negotiated away, and it becomes something else. That is acceptable for fungible quantities, but not for patterns, architectures, designs, structures, systems or ecosystems. The compromise obliterates the distinctive aspects of the plan.

Control in fact includes anarchy, because anarchy requires that people impose “freedom” on one another, so that each individual has minimal constraints, while also requiring some form of authority in order to maintain productivity. Anarchist communities without that order, even if informal and social, have failed very rapidly, where all the other ones have taken slightly longer to fail.

In fact, realism remains alone as the type of mental approach to escape control. By pointing to an external reality, and not a human source, and admitting that people will not universally or equally perceive this, realism gets out of the business of changing minds in order to enforce a reality. Instead, it lets reality be reality.

When these notions become aired, it makes humans uncomfortable. We must admit, at some level, that all of the evils that we fear in fact dwell within us, and that our natural instincts are to create a social order that will self-destruct. We have no one to blame but ourselves, and our declarations that our leaders misled us were in fact lies; we, as a herd, indulged in fantasy-as-reality, and misled ourselves.

All of those are the opposite of continuity. It does not aim to seize a moment and make it into a rule; it seeks to open up our thinking beyond the moment, and into the chains of cause-effect events. It hopes to show us that every act has parallel options and secondary effects. It desires to expand our world, not contract it for the purpose of manipulating us to validate the pretense of a small group.

Continuity is more than a political philosophy, however. It is an approach to life that both negates the self and recognizes its importance. It sees the necessity of nature and the human inner self. It aspires to make us more than we have been, but to awaken the sleeping potential in us. And most of all, it seeks an order of mathematical and informational balance, in which clarity and efficiency reign.

Why “Studies” Fail and Why the Left Loves Them

Tuesday, August 29th, 2017

The Left loves studies. For those who do not know this term, which is thrown about in Leftist circles, “studies” refers to any purportedly scientific assessment of data. They look objective. They seem irrefutable! And yet they are often wrong or draw wrong conclusions because of poor logic in their conclusions, which means that data may be correct, but is unrepresentative of what the study purports to “prove.”

Every decade or so, a new spate of studies come out which disprove the old, and yet we continue to rely on the same methods, which are flawed on a philosophical level because they do not understand cause and effect or are guilty of “cherry picking,” where the authors find facts to fit their theory, instead of choosing their theory based on the totality of the facts.

We can see this confusion manifest in a recent assessment that the Brexit vote was caused by “low levels of education” instead of inner choices:

The paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal World Development, applied a multivariate regression analysis and logit model to areas of the country to identify why people voted the way they did.

The level of higher education in an area was far more important than age, gender, the number of immigrants, or income in predicting the way an area voted, the researchers found.

…The researchers also found that a lower rate of turnout – by just 7 per cent – would also likely have changed the result to Remain.

In other words, higher education in an area correlates to that area voting against Brexit, which misses the point of who is voting. Neighborhoods with more higher education, we are led to assume, magically transform people into anti-Brexit voters because they are informed. More likely is that those who have the ability go on to higher education, and possibly thanks to what they have “learned” there, go on to pick neighborhoods which reflect their social group.

The implication is that if we just educated everyone really hard, they would receive the propaganda and do the “right” thing by voting against Brexit. In reality, these distinctions were cut in stone because only some can go on to higher education, and they group with others who reflect the propaganda they were taught, instead of the other way around, which is that education transforms people into Remain voters.

A more blatant example can be found in this politicized study which purports to analyze lynching:

The slightest transgression could spur violence, the Equal Justice Initiative found, as it documented 3,959 victims of lynching in a dozen Southern states.

The group said it found 700 more lynchings of black people in the region than had been previously reported. The research took five years and covered 1877 to 1950, the period from the end of post-Civil War Reconstruction to the years immediately following World War Two.

…The report cited a 1940 incident in which Jesse Thornton was lynched in Alabama for not saying “Mister” as he talked to a white police officer.

In 1916, men lynched Jeff Brown for accidentally bumping into a white girl as he ran to catch a train, the report said.

Here we see a lack of cause and effect. Pretext does not equal cause. If we leave out the cause, and look only at the pretext, these events seem worse than they are. Naturally, the “Equal Justice Initiative” has no motivation to find more lynchings so that it can solicit more donations or gain fame for itself.

If humanity is to get ahead, it will be by discovering reality, which is both more complex than humans anticipate, and requires less complexity imposed upon it through the categories and filters we use to force it to conform to our expectations. “Studies” are only one part of this; even the way we notice reality is corrupted by this tendency, which originates in The Enlightenment™-era notions of humans are the prime goal and assessor of any action.

A more sensible view is to see humanity as not inert and identical objects who react the same way to the same stimulus, but as people capable of moral choice relative to their innate abilities. From this perspective, we see how studies miss out on the many reasons why results in different cases may be similar, and how essential it is to understand our world more than ourselves.

Conservatism = Realism + Qualitative Thinking

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Some may wonder why Amerika identifies as conservative. The simple reason is that the other components of belief — nationalism, deep ecology, aristocratism, transcendentalism — both share a common root and do not stand alone as solutions.

We may never be able to compete with the Left, which wins fans by distilling all of human need down to the simple idea of mandatory equal inclusion, or egalitarianism, but we can offer a core formula.

The term “conservative” arose in response to the rising egalitarian attitude in Europe over the past thousand years, and came from the root word conservare:

late 14c., conservatyf, from Middle French conservatif, from Late Latin conservativus, from Latin conservatus, past participle of conservare “to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard,” from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + servare “keep watch, maintain” (from PIE root *ser- (1) “to protect”).

As a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke’s opposition to the French Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his French disciples (such as Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration “Le Conservateur”).

Conservative as the name of a British political faction first appeared in an 1830 issue of the “Quarterly Review,” in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies.

At that point, the idea is lost, simply because almost no one has been able to face the scope of what they are protecting, which is not “the past” as is commonly assumed, but the best of the past, meaning that which succeeded to the point of being responsible for whatever greatness remains today.

This should be strikingly obvious, but it does not distill to an easy concept, so it has been abbreviated to mean “holding on to the past,” when it actually means “striving forward to restore that which works in any year,” because conservatives fundamentally accept that history is cyclic, with golden ages formed of truths found and a long, dark fall as those truths are lost, replaced hopefully by its restoration.

That understanding invokes another concept, namely “the best.” Plato’s Republic opens with a question as to what the best life is, which inspires us to look at all of history as a series of options with their consequences plain to see by what happened in response from the world, which Plato views correctly as not having a personality as most assume, but utter consistency, like a logical calculation or the cycles of nature.

From this notion of the best arises the idea of qualitative thinking which commands us to look not just at what works in a sense of minimums, but what would be the most inspiring, enduring, excellent, and cheering. In short, it prompts us much as evolution did, not to stick with a subsistence existence, but to look at what we might have and strive for it, using the textbook and laboratory of history.

Joe Sobran elaborates on the nature of qualitative thinking:

“We must build out of existing materials,” says Burke. Oakeshott laments that “the politics of repair” has been supplanted by “the politics of destruction and creation.” It is typical of malcontent (or “utopian”) politics to destroy what it has failed to appreciate while falsely promising to create. Communism, the ideal type of this style of politics, has destroyed the cultural life of Russia, which flourished even under the czars. The energies of radical regimes are pretty much consumed in stifling the energies of their subjects; they try to impose their fantasies by force and terror, and their real achievement is to be found not in their population centers but at their borders, which are armed to kill anyone who tries to flee. Communism can claim the distinction of driving people by the millions to want to escape the homeland of all their ancestors.

Conservatism is not a political ideology but a folkway. It consists of the folk wisdom, passed down since the dawn of time, about how to make decisions. In this way, the definition of conservatism became inverted; we are not those who hold on to the past, because the present will very shortly be past, but those who cultivate the best in humanity.

From this comes a synthesis of realism, or paying attention to the way the non-human world reacts to our potential options and thus choosing the option which works, and qualitative thinking, which demands that we filter out everything but that which produces the best results out of those that work.

Conservatives are those that see that entropy is always present and humans always weak, and thus that with time, all good things are destroyed. They respond not by clinging to the last stable state, but by pushing us forward to evolve and mature into the best possible thing we can be, which includes ideas that shock humans like hierarchy, nationalism, and transcendental thought.

The latter confuses almost everyone. It consists of finding the logicality in the order of nature and the cosmos and seeing how it is superior to our short-term monkey-perspective human outlooks, which are fraught with emotion and doubt, and through understanding our world, coming to love it and see its beauties.

Together these ideas do not form something as pithy as “make everyone equal so that we all ‘just get along,'” but it does give us a template that never fails and gives us the possibility of the future being brighter than the now.

Reclaiming “Realism” From The Herd

Thursday, May 25th, 2017

We live in a time without a single line of authority, so “anything goes” applies to our knowledge and people routinely misapply concepts in order to make them seem more distinctive and appealing.

For example, consider the term “realism.” It sounds made-up; we can guess what it would most likely mean, sort of like we guessed on terms during tests in junior high school, but then we end up with nothing more than it is for people who like reality.

A more detailed reading we have us realize that it means reality first, but even that tells us little. First before what? Human emotions, for starters. Human self-interest. Dogma and what we “should” be doing, according to ideology. Reality first before all else, even and especially, our thoughts and emotions.

Let us take a quick look at a basic definition of realism:

There are two general aspects to realism, illustrated by looking at realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties.

First, there is a claim about existence. Tables, rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist, as do the following facts: the table’s being square, the rock’s being made of granite, and the moon’s being spherical and yellow.

The second aspect of realism about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence. The fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say or think about the matter. Likewise, although there is a clear sense in which the table’s being square is dependent on us (it was designed and constructed by human beings after all), this is not the type of dependence that the realist wishes to deny.

The realist wishes to claim that apart from the mundane sort of empirical dependence of objects and their properties familiar to us from everyday life, there is no further (philosophically interesting) sense in which everyday objects and their properties can be said to be dependent on anyone’s linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or whatever.

Realism is the antidote to relativism of the passive form, in which we can know nothing because not everyone agrees on what it should mean. This “consensus-based” view of reality is more properly understood as humanism or utilitarianism, because whatever the herd wants is declared to be “true” independent of reality. Realism reverses this and says that things are as they, and our perceptions are often separate from that.

This in turn to us reflects a vision of human cognition. We understand reality by knowing ourselves, and then by studying reality, and through that, come to know its patterns (Plato’s forms) and thus, an order above both the material and ourselves.

In contrast, the standard definition of “realism” used in everyday speech has more in common with pragmatism, fatalism, compromise and pacifism. It means “getting along with others” by accepting compromises instead of what you know is right. This is naturally an egalitarian impulse, a terminal spirit disease.

Witness a complex version of this usage in action:

A new foreign policy can be built by recovering a traditional realist approach that held for much of the Cold War era and which was shared by both parties. Doing so will reclaim American realism from those on the right who have made it the handmaiden of neo-isolationism, while ensuring that it avoids the overreach that since 2003 has undermined support for America’s role abroad.

…[W]e should think again about the purpose of American foreign policy. Yes, it is to preserve the sovereign and independent American union. Yes, it is to protect our homeland. And yes, it is to keep us prosperous and at peace. But these are not ends in themselves. They exist to allow Americans, with due regard for the just laws of others when abroad, to be free—free to preach, to trade, to study, to help, to work, whether overseas or at home. That is how we conserve free America: by acting to make sure that individual Americans are free to live their own lives.

The interesting argument in this piece concerns the abundantly evident observation that American foreign policy see-saws between isolationism and interventionism, and the latter way always heads toward Leftist globalism or its precursors. Isolationism failed because it allowed harmful events to transpire and resulted in bigger and more horrible wars than timely intervention would have achieved. Interventionism has now failed because it ends with American troops dying across the globe for the nebulous and impractical goals of spreading democracy and consumerism.

But then, notice the sleight of hand that transitions from realism to the usual “we can all get along” philosophy: we are fighting for the nebulous and impractical goal of spreading democracy and consumerism in America. This is not realism; it is rationalization of our decay projected onto foreign policy. It affirms that the nation serves the individual, when the other way is actually true, but only if we get government out of the way: the individual serves civilization and benefits from it in turn, but principles and realities must come first before individual “freedom” and “equality.”

Everything touched by anyone infected with Leftism will always become the same message, which is essentially subsidized anarchy so that everyone is included so that no one is excluded, which is why individuals join: to make sure they are never excluded, much like they pay club fees, go to see their friends’ terrible bands in dingy hipster bars, watch boring sporting events, pay union dues, and go to cult-like political and religious ceremonies.

Realism consists of recognizing that results in reality — the outcomes of our actions, and how they compare to all other possible options — matter more than human concerns or individual needs. We are what we do. If what we do is destructive, then it is not realism to do so but its opposite. As we come up on over two centuries of egalitarianism, and see the world in ruins around us, realism demands we change.

Is Anything In The Media True Anymore?

Monday, May 1st, 2017

When we were growing up in spaced-out suburbia, people read Newsweek and The New York Times for information and repeated it as truth. That is what educated, successful people did; everyone else imitated in a covert and sly version of “monkey see, monkey do.”

In the method of controlling people since the dawn of time, these media establishments enjoyed preaching fear and then giving meticulous advice about details of daily life. This made it clear who was in the Cool Kids Group and who was just a — said in sotto voce — sad loser going nowhere.

The Times in particular conveyed all manner of dietary and personal care information like a tyrant dictating to his toadies. Eggs were bad; they would stop your heart. Fat was bad and should never be consumed. Coffee would make your brain turn to cheese. People need to stretch for thirty minutes before running or their tendons would explode. And on, and on…

Much of this “nu-knowledge” contradicted common sense. But it sounded good, so people kept running out to buy cottage cheese, low-fat salad dressing, light beer, bean sprouts and wheat germ. Fortunes were made based on what one $24,000/year writer the Times was able to twist out of a study written by a $18,000/year graduate research assistant.

A lot of us resented this stuff on a gut level. When people start dictating to you how to live your life, and anyone who does otherwise is seen as a déclassé moron, they have forced you into a control structure. You now either do whatever ludicrous thing they say, or admit you are part of the Great Unwashed, the Redneck Horde, or whatever group they are warning about this week.

Old-timers in particular took a cynical attitude. The papers always had some new fascination or fear to make the herd jump, buck and run. If you just waited twenty years, all of that stuff would be debunked anyway, and they might find out that some lobbyist slipped a few grand one way or another in order to buy a few hundred million of consumer interest. Quite a bargain, if so.

Now that years have passed, we are seeing the tip of the iceberg of the forgeries of “scientific opinion” that came our way during the consumer boom years of 1920-2000. In particular, it seems that the dietary advice of our big newspapers was just plain wrong, such as the Satanic Panic over saturated fats:

The authors, led by Dr Aseem Malhotra, from Lister Hospital, Stevenage, wrote: “Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong.”

Dr Malhotra and colleagues Professor Rita Redberg, from the University of California at San Francisco, and Pascal Meier from University Hospital Geneva in Switzerland and University College London, cited a “landmark” review of evidence that appeared to exonerate saturated fat. They said relative levels of “good” cholesterol, or high density lipoprotein (HDL), were a better predictor of heart disease risk than levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), also known as “bad” cholesterol. High consumption of foods rich in saturated fat such as butter, cakes and fatty meat has been shown to increase blood levels of LDL.

The experts wrote: “It is time to shift the public health message in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease away from measuring serum lipids (blood fats) and reducing dietary saturated fat. Coronary artery disease is a chronic inflammatory disease and it can be reduced effectively by walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food.” They pointed out that in clinical trials widening narrow arteries with stents — stainless steel mesh devices — failed to reduce the risk of heart attacks.

In other words, what was considered “settled science” and “everyone knows that” has become recognized as a false solution, which both wastes time on the irrelevant and obscures the necessity of the actual solution, which seems to be “walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food.”

Some might wonder how illusions like this have persisted for so long. The answer is that in a hierarchy based on popularity, instead of strict realism, whatever seems appealing to the herd will become dogma, and anyone who resists the dogma becomes an ideological enemy. Only with generational change do the illusions fade, because otherwise, those who oppose them find themselves ignored.

This form of “fake news” originated with payola to scientists by industry in exchange for conclusions favorable to that industry:

As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. Newly unearthed documents reveal what they didn’t say: A sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.

…Nearly 50 years later, some nutritionists consider sugar a risk factor for coronary heart disease, though there’s no consensus. Having two major reviews published in an influential journal “helped shift the emphasis of the discussion away from sugar onto fat,” said Stanton Glantz, Kearns’s coauthor and her advisor at UCSF. “By doing that, it delayed the development of a scientific consensus on sugar-heart disease for decades.”

Fifty years later, we have caught these two — who are now deceased, which may be why this came out — but have no idea how many more existed, and how much of what we accept as truth is in fact cash-backed lie.

When promoters like Bill Nye or Neil DeGrasse Tyson tell us that something is 100% science, we should stop and ask ourselves who is telling us this, and whether they are simply preaching to the choir for more bucks, or accepting cash behind the curtain. We will not know for another fifty years, if history is any guide.

Shills, all of them. Under democracy, whatever the herd wants is that it is told, and because there is no hierarchy of people oriented toward truth and sanity, whatever people can be paid to say using their positions of authority is preached to the herd, and then the herd enforces it on one another.

Do not trust the media. Do not trust “science.” Do not trust academics, or history written by them. Our only tool in this game is logical analysis (sometimes called “critical thinking”) and it never favors the Left, who built their beliefs on the illusion that people are equal, and have been perpetrating lies ever since.


Monday, May 1st, 2017

To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.1

Without venturing into criticism of existing movements, let us agree for the sake of argument that it seems like conservatives have won very few battles since the French Revolution, if not The Enlightenment™ itself, and that current efforts hover dangerously close to being absorbed by the same force that defeated conservatism in the past.

This occurs for a simple reason: Leftism, like any other excuse for avoiding reality, is infinite more popular than the idea that reality is important.

Conservatism is the voice of reason: let us look at what works, and apply that. Leftism is the enticing illusion that says whatever we humans want is more real than reality as a whole. This is obviously anti-reality, but because most people fear the consequences of their acts — a measurement of reality — it is eternally more popular than a concern with what works in reality.

This allows us to see Leftism for what it is, which is a cult dedicated to ignoring reality and forcing other people to agree so that it seems as if this unreality is “proven” correct. Leftists are those who want to use the power of the Crowd to make unrealistic ideas the official “truth” and therefore, to drive out the good and replace it with a lack of standards.

That ultimately serves the individual because then there are no ways the individual can fall short and lose social status through bad behavior. The individual gains the benefits of society without the obligations. Crowds exist to enforce this individualism, which is why they are paradoxical: they act like a mass, but are composed of the need of individuals.

When a civilization succeeds, it begins to fail. The reason for this is that its success means that it is worth money and can make people popular. They want to take it over and gain that benefit; this makes society a target, and its conquest into a commodity that people can use to advance their own power, wealth and status. They make civilization a means to the end of their own individualism.

Their party trick is to define certain areas as places to demonstrate good versus bad behavior, which in turn has the effect of liberating all other areas from observation. As long as you virtue signal about accepting immigrants, you can behave like an idiot when you cut in line, drive carelessly, waste food, behave self-importantly and engage in many other little sins constantly.

Leftism is entirely comprised of virtue signaling for this reason. Its great secret is that its members do not care about the outcome of their actions. They just want to look good. Leftism is a social movement disguised as a political one, and it is this reckless indifference to truth that allows it become popular and have otherwise sane people pretend to believe in it.

The religion of Leftism will not end until it destroys everything. It ends civilizations. It has no single source because it arises through success paired with human failings, which wealth enables civilizations to tolerate. It gains momentum because it travels on a sea of guilt, resentment and envy which are eternal human frailties.

The only response to this religion is a counter-movement which denies cult-like thinking entirely.

Such a movement would take the core of conservatism without the intermediates which have made it odious. It would pursue the best possible results instead of symbols designed to manipulate the herd. The conservative reliance on apple pie, working hard, freedom, liberty, independence, money and Jesus would fall aside, replaced by the goal of revitalized Western Civilization.

A movement of this type recognizes that civilization is like an elevator, either heading up or heading down. There are only brief pauses of indecision and then the elevator goes back to the lobby, which (predictably) is Civilization 1.0, or third world style subsistence living plus warlords. We were on the third floor, now are on the second, but need to get to the fourth or beyond.

Our modern idea is based on constant growth. More people, more freedoms, more money, and more stuff. The past was not quantitative like our present time, but qualitative; it aimed for constant improvement of what it had, meaning that people got smarter, stronger, morally better and healthier, and that its architecture, art, philosophy and culture grew upward instead of outward.

A realist movement — which we should for the sake of convenience refer to the “Ultra Right” or “Ult Right” — would recognize this qualitative need for civilization. We do not need more or different methods; we know what works, and now it is a question of lots of small modifications, case-by-case basis decisions and other acts to improve its quality.

Democracy does not work. It encourages people to act without responsibility to results, because the only thing they are responsible to is appearance to their social group. By the same token, politicians offer visions, then blame the other side. Nothing gets done; the voters have power, but cannot coordinate to use it well, lost in a world of symbol and aesthetics.

Freedom also does not work. Choice is our primary weapon; instead of demanding no limits on choice, demand that all pursue what is good, beautiful and true instead. We need guidance from culture and the ability to make choices from the limited list of sane options, so that the best results possible are achieved for as many people as possible.

Consumerism does not work. It reduces quality by increasing quantity and novelty. This means that we are awash in too many options with too few good ones. This makes us rich in terms of the number of choices and objects, but poor in the quality of their function and as a result, deprived of time we could have spent on something meaningful.

Qualitative realism sees these things as false targets. Freedom, consumer choice and democracy are ultimately symbols used to make us have feelings, and thus to manipulate us, even if we — as a herd — are the ones manipulating ourselves. We can awaken from this world of symbolic unreality and instead act on what is necessary, and then gradually improve that until it is excellent.

The Ult Right consists of these basic beliefs:

  • Social order. Some people are good; “people” in general are not good. They may not be fully bad, but they are not pointed toward what is good. As a result we need a hierarchy of categories, known as castes, where we select people by intelligence and moral outlook so that the best are on the top, with layers beneath. This encourages upward motion and ensures that the upper castes, who have more wisdom, make the decisions that influence daily life, products, culture and art. This benefits everyone by improving the quality of these things.
  • Leadership. Politicians are actors presenting fairytales to fool an audience into voting for them so that they can deliver the same thing time and again. Their power comes from the illusion that they are taking care of us. Instead, dispense with this idea, and promote actual leaders with unlimited power to fix problems, and let people take care of themselves as they do in nature, according to self-interest. By recognizing this principle instead of demonizing it, we can accept people as they are, and have our best at the top showing the way. Since dictatorships are unstable, the best method here is hereditary aristocracy, in which we take our best people and breed them as a permanent group from which leaders are chosen.
  • Culture. The root of culture is the ethnic group; when that group is separated from others, it has the ability to make daily choices by a values system, instead of needing a maze of laws and regulations. Citizens enforce rules on each other through social approval for good behavior and fleeing in fear from bad. This enables cooperation because people are similar and moving in similar patterns, so there is no need for the neurotic internal chatter, excessive competition and debate that afflicts democratic societies.
  • Purpose. Early civilizations have a goal: become organized and survive. When civilizations become successful, this goal evaporates and is replaced by looking inward and backward in a quest for meaning. We need meaning through a desire to become not only successful, but to improve our quality and to rise to the point of wisdom and power where we can explore the stars, invent the greatest of arts and philosophies, make our cuisine inspirational, and live well in every sense of the word. At some point, this includes having a metaphysical direction, or a meaning beyond the physical, so that we can understand every aspect of the challenge of existence.

How could this happen? Unite the top 5% of society by natural ability around some form of these ideas, and start removing laws. Eventually replace them with others. These laws would form the basis of our transition. They will also entail the peaceful and generous repatriation of those outside the founding ethnic group, and the gentle removal of those whose values conflict with our own, such as neurotic Leftists and those who engage in destructive behaviors.

Who rules over us that we cannot criticize? It is us. We the people, enshrined by Enlightenment™ ideas of individualism, are the ones making the decisions. We are doing a bad job of it and there is no sense that we will improve in the future, even with momentary thrusts toward sanity like Brexit and Trumprise. Herds make poor decisions; we are dooming ourselves by demanding power.

This seems like a long path but the fact is that history has sunk liberal democracy, and we are going to be ejected from that sundered boat whether we like it or not. Our only power is our choice about where we land. The Right has so far backed down from these truths as a totality, but the time has come to face our future, and the possibilities it holds. Welcome to the Ult Right.

1 — Attributed to Voltaire, but probably not written by him, and often thought to be about The Jews,™ the freemasons, Scientologists, the Rich,™ Bilderbergers, Catholics or some other shadowy group. In fact, the only group we cannot criticize without everyone going mad is We The People, a.k.a. the voters, who were the people who held political power but did nothing during the last two centuries of degeneration.

More Evidence That Syria Is Not About Syria

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

As the theory develops on Amerika there are three basic approaches to politics:

  • Ideology. This is based on what we “should” do from the perspective of the individual human as formed into groups of scared people called crowds. This generally focuses on abstractions based on the assumption of a universal human morality, and presupposes that history is linear from a primitive past to an Enlightened™ future which is more like the world as humans wish it were, or intend it to be, than the world as it is at a functional level.
  • Pragmatism. Taking into account the powers that be, and the forces that act upon them, this outlook or attitude looks toward compromise and balance between different forces; Donald Trump refers to it as “deal-making” and it tends to consist of recognizing that any action requires trade-offs and will be made in trade for several something elses that other parties need or want.
  • Realism. An anti-human perspective, realism looks at events through their end results, especially over time, as measured to all other possible options, which creates a preference for qualitative excellence as over time it returns the best consequences. This ignores human intentions and the politics of getting a group to work together and focuses not on what “should” be done, but what constitutes the best adaptive strategy given the reality of the world outside of human intentions and politics.

The Alt Right is a firm realist movement meaning that, having given up on equality and thus democracy, it has no concern for pacifying the fears of others nor for human intentions and desires masquerading as policy. But to get to realism, we may first need to see commonsense, aggressive ideas be proven as a foundation. There are many steps to a goal.

Trump presents himself as a pragmatist but has converted social conservative morality into a form of realism; in his mind, certain behaviors produce better results, and so he champions them not from a religious basis but a pragmatism of the world outside of politics. For this reason, his realism-pragmatism hybrid is probably a mystery to most people.

Last week, he displayed this attitude by launching a missile strike on a Syrian airbase, and Amerika has taken the politically unpopular opinion that this strike is part of his “America first!” vision and has little to do with Syria, but everything to do with Russia and China, possibly as a method of securing Chinese non-intervention in American military activity against North Korea.

If the United States wishes to intervene in Korea, we need to avoid expansion of theater through Chinese entry, which happened the last time American forces were defeating the North Koreans, prompting the first combat between Chinese and American units. The problem there is both the human wave tactics of the Chinese and the fact that, should America prevail, it will be viewed correctly as a threat to the Chinese homeland, which will cause the war to accelerate out of control. Fears of this happening in Indochina hampered American strategy in Vietnam to the point of nearly crippling it, all while Chinese and Soviet weapons and advisers flowed into North Vietnam. This is the nature of a proxy war; it is horrible when fought in a host country, but really bad if the actual combatants manage to tangle it up and start WWIII.

We can see some of the American interest in North Korea confirmed in reports of how the Syria strike was used as a political meme:

Last week nearly five dozen Tomahawk​ missiles were well on their way from U.S. destroyers in the Mediterranean to targets on a Syrian airfield before Trump leaned over to inform his Mar-a-Lago dinner guest, China’s President Xi Jinping.

One of their other conversation topics was North Korea’s determination to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them, Kim Jung-un says, to the United States. Trump deems this a threat to national security and vows to prevent it, with or without China’s help. Both men agreed on the North Korean nuclear threat.

Imagine this from a business perspective. You are having dinner with the new prospective client and you casually inform him that you have just beaten the competition at their own game. China, who has allied with Russia for the past seventy years, would perceive this as a shift in the game; the congenial host has taken pains to illustrate the benefits of collaboration, and show he can take the initiative.

It could entirely be unrelated, but at a similar time, China switched coal supplier from North Korea to the United States, seriously hampering the already fragile North Korean economy:

Following repeated missile tests that drew international criticism, China banned all imports of North Korean coal on Feb. 26, cutting off the country’s most important export product.

To curb coal traffic between the two countries, China’s customs department issued an official order on April 7 telling trading companies to return their North Korean coal cargoes, said three trading sources with direct knowledge of the order.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were discussing North Korea at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on April 7.

The new Trump doctrine appears to be the best kind of intolerance: he recognizes that while America has desires for isolationism, and domestic problems at home, his presidency will be short if he allows unstable third world powers to gain access to weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. North Korea threatens Japan, and Syria threatens Israel, both US allies and high-IQ countries.

Ideology bows down to pragmatism and a hint of realism here. On the plus side, if Trump crushes these problems, he builds momentum for his social reforms, including the possible budget reform that could downsize government and strip power from the Leftist welfare state, thus disempowering its base and forcing the “long march” into a retreat.

The Leftist Idea Of Endless Progress

Saturday, March 11th, 2017

The ideas of both continuous progress, and the impediment of progress by the forces of “reaction” — on a level similar to that of the progressive Leftism from which it borrows its name — are motivated by excessive belief in scientific advancement and the ability to indefinitely regulate the behavior of the undifferentiated human biological mass.

At the core of the science of Leftism lies the idea that upon that which we find in the manifested World, one can continuously add more value, and hence forever retain the optimism about the prospects of the future even in face of all the apparent and alarming deficiencies, surfacing problems, deteriorations and degenerations. At its core, the idea of Leftist “scientism” is not the idea of perpetual perfection of the one and the same principle, but of the perpetual need for expansion and management.

The Left’s response, globally speaking, to the problems that “Humanity” (the abstractly conceptualized identity crafted through observations in biology) faces is not to study and address the root causes, but simply to export humanity to another universe via Science.™  In order to prove the root of the problem is not the failure to comprehend the immutable laws of all of the manifest World, but simply the failure to manage and expand, the Left then promotes and propagates the idea that the crisis will be solved if we could just make yet another breakthrough, or yet another regulation. We are thus always borrowing from the future to pay for today.

The fear that we will fail in our grand task of quantitative expansion is mirrored also by the Cuck-o-sphere, which laments those days when Man™ walked on the moon and his progeny strolled ‘round the endless expanses of featureless consumer neighborhoods. The greatest fear that a Progressive harbors is characteristically voiced by spokespersons of the Pop Science TV shows. They despair how “petty” disputes and lack of consideration and scientific awareness (or enlightenment) of mankind impedes the important task that lies in discovering new fuel sources and searching for ourselves a new homeland among the stars. Because, as is quite evident, on the subconscious level, even a Progressive acknowledges the fact that humanity, as is, faces only one direction, and hence, that the marvelous answer lies in the most absurd idea possible – that so called humanity shall save itself by running from itself – from the products of its own devices. This is apparently, the scientific-consumerist end game: devour and run, like a parasite moving between hosts.

The greatest fear of the Progressive in fact, lies not in the possibility that we will not  explore the stellar expanses. It lies in the fact that we will not find anything unique there. It is disturbed by the possibility that whatever we do find there will be of significance only in a purely quantitative sense. And hence, that the answer lies in the most dreadful place possible – in front of our own noses. In other words, the riddle of human survival can be solved through means available at every moment and at all places – through understanding.

This understanding is not conditioned upon geometric and taxonomical observations, but upon that quality which gifted individuals, those upon whom the keys of the Tradition and of the Regnum were once bestowed upon possess – the quality of insight. In the end, in fear of the consequences which necessarily must arise from it, the Left and its immanent science declared war on fundamental understanding itself, replacing it only with the most superficial type of knowledge, the one that is limited only to apparent expressions which can therefore be calculated and managed.

Theosis Is A Form Of Realism

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

As part of the Platonist vision of conservatism, articles on this site frequently speak of the vision unleashed by the intersection of Platonic forms and Germanic Idealism, namely that recognition that the underlying substance of the universe is thought or thought-like. This is why idea, structure, pattern and logic that corresponds to the outside world are more important than immediate material obstacles.

This ancient philosophy lives on through hermeticism, but also in Christianity through transcendentalist thinkers like Johannes Eckhart. Hermeticism finds its roots in Hindu idealism which, as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, roughly mirrored the Greek and German versions. All expressed the idea of an order of nature based not in material position, but logical order.

Plato even took this far enough to speak of healthy civilizations, which recognized this order, as contrasted to unhealthy ones, which were in the grip of hubris or the brew of individualism, narcissism, solipsism and socially-empowered boldness — in which the approval of the social group matters more than reality, and makes us feel safe in denying traditions — which modern people exhibit, especially with their smug and prim attention whoring at political events. Plato wrote:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

…When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

…Undoubtedly, he said, the form of government which you describe is a mixture of good and evil.

Why, there is a mixture, I said; but one thing, and one thing only, is predominantly seen, –the spirit of contention and ambition; and these are due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element.

The most important line can be found here, in plain sight because very few people can understand it: “the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things.”

To be virtuous is to live in a perpetual state of contentment, and to be free from “contention and ambition…the passionate or spirited element.” The ego is the root of the passions; the nature of being “spirited” is to be rebellious against what the evident order. Plato is pointing out that greed and rebellion are one and the same force.

Even more, he is showing how there is an esoteric path to wisdom, namely that only those with gold and silver natures are going to understand the value of “virtue and the ancient order of things.”

From this comes the root of traditionalist thinking: worldwide, there are many religions, and they all describe the same world, so they converge — unequally, idiosyncratically — on the same “truths” or accurate observations about the world, both physical and metaphysical. When we recognize this, we see that history is indeed cyclic, or the story of humanity in an optimal state, its fall, and its attempt to return.

In order to effect our return to this saner state of human being, and to force our evolution into silver and gold again, we must begin with an evolution of consciousness toward extreme accuracy:

When Owen Barfield described the evolution of consciousness, he used ‘evolution’ in a pre-Darwinian sense of a developmental change analogous to the fertilised egg ‘unfolding’ to become a mature, adult organism.

…If the evolution of consciousness has a unified purpose and aim (isn’t just a different purpose and aim for each entity), then this implies that there is a deity – as the source of purpose. Therefore, the evolution of consciousness is a consequence of some divine plan.

What could this divine plan be? For many Christians it will be ‘theosis’ – or the process of Men becoming more and more like God; aiming at becoming Sons and Daughters of God.

Realism demands that we understand our world as it is and adapt to it, which first requires that we make our minds more like the world, a process that in turn leads to transcendental wisdom, or appreciation for the logicality and sanity of our world in presenting us with the best possible existence. Normally humans do not understand their world and so view it as crude, threatening and disorganized.

Theosis is a subset of realism. If God exists, He is part of this world, in idea or at least as a cause of the effect that is this world. If we study the patterns of this world and come to understand its (realist + transcendental) wisdom, we can then grow closer to God by achieving greater mastery of adaptation to the physical world around us.

What this means, interestingly, is that the “religion-first” approach to traditionalism is not going to work. What works is to enforce self-discipline on ourselves so that we accurately understand and adapt to reality, and religion will emerge from within that process instead of the other way around.

Recommended Reading