Posts Tagged ‘scapegoating’


Saturday, September 30th, 2017

Those of us who enjoy a hearty tipple, a full pipe or even something stronger are forced into a simple realist proposition: we like getting fuzzy-headed, buzzed, tipsy or perhaps, totally fuckin’ wasted. There is an honesty to admitting this. That leads us then to question why this is so, which with autonomous beings is a question of purpose.

There are many reasons to do anything, but only a few that support getting intoxicated, but the two most common ones are the absence of pain and the promotion of pleasure, which — contra certain cynics and pessimists — are not the same. One can find pleasure even in the midst of pain when striving for something that appeals so thoroughly to the mind that it becomes necessary to strive for it or feel inferior in one’s own estimation, and it is issues like that which forge our souls.

For example, many have died as explorers, mountain climbers, inventors or daredevils. Their pursuit of pleasure in achievement was greater than their fear of lack of pain. In fact, at some point, pain becomes pleasure when it occurs in the pursuit of something desired; sado-masochism is a typical neurosis that mistakes the pain of achievement with pain itself, and fetishizes it.

This tells us that pursuit of pleasure is a more complex and rewarding goal than pursuit of the avoidance of pain, mainly because it attracts so many of our best who find meaning in it. Avoidance of pain, in the meantime, provides a trap: when we have pain, pain-avoidance makes us feel normal; when normal is seen as bad or boring, pain-avoidance makes us feel better than normal life can.

Consider the typical case of a man injured on the job. His back, hips or legs are damaged and after his surgery, he is granted an open prescription for pain pills. During the six months that it takes to heal, he takes these pills on a regular basis. Eventually, he is at least mostly healed, and the pain is gone. But now, life itself seems painful, taking the place of the actual pain. Either that, or something happens which makes him feel life is painful. Rather than allowing this short-term circumstance to pass, and instead to focus on the long term where better days are ahead, the man behaves like a terminal patient who assumes that the source of his pain cannot be erased and that he must medicate for the duration of his life. He has developed an unhealthy dependency.

On a philosophical level, the same proves true. People become convinced of the negativity of the present and for whatever reason, choose to believe that alleviation is not possible, so they self-medicate with consolations, justifications, excuses, pretense of victimhood and scapegoating. They find that life is not as they want it to be, whether by failing or by finding themselves in circumstances they dislike. They then decide that they have been victimized by life, which excuses their failing, because instead of having failed, they have been held back by some other force. At this point, they launch into scapegoating.

Perhaps another force — like the injury of the man described above — imposed a disadvantage on their lives, and they were harmed by it, but unless it prevented any better outcome in any area of their lives (through which they could leverage improvements to the rest) it has not actually made them, as a whole, victims. But this equating of the part for the whole is essential to all low-quality human thinking, and here it enables people to confuse a misfortune with a permanent inability to make their lives right which coincides with the natural solipsism of the human being, or desire to filter out the world and focus on the self entirely.

This confusion elects them to identify with victimhood as a means of escaping blame for the parts of their lives that they could improve, and forces them to scapegoat a victimizer — even if someone who has done them some wrong — and assign to that person control of their lives (when Nietzsche calls this “slave morality,” this is one of the things he is referring to). At that point, all failure in life is blamed on the scapegoat, which enables the individual to engage in compensatory behavior, or rewarding themselves with small pleasures and indulgences as a means of salving the pain of being a perpetual victim.

Looking at this psychology, we have to ask ourselves, is this anti-pain or pro-pleasure? After all, pro-pleasure makes more sense as a positive activity. The normally productive individual who enjoys his beer, wine, whisky, tobacco, caffeine or other stimulants strikes us as someone enhancing an already-full life, where the unhappy person with problems who drowns his sorrows in his drugs of choice strikes us as someone with an empty life or a pathology of unhappiness.

This makes sense because the productive person is seeking pleasure, where the unhappy person is by his own admission seeking to numb the pain. If this person does not have a reason for an enduring pain, such as an ongoing tragedy that no others manage to transcend or counteract, then we believe in palliative care; for example, few of us will condemn a person whose body is wracked with a fatal disease who decides to take increasingly high doses of opiates until death arrives on little furry wings.

Many of us would not fault someone who, in the last years of his life, decides to drink himself to death as a way to foreshorten any final ailment. But when the person has other options to self-destruction, and is choosing the self-destruction not as a means of being happy but of being unhappy, then we see this as something like suicide, surrender, or refusing to play a game from fear of losing. The same is true of our psychological outlook. Those who embrace victimhood but are not truly victims are only victimized by themselves.

Much of modern society consists of such self-pitying behavior because of the focus on the individual. Instead of emphasizing that people should place themselves in good situations and do good things, we emphasize that the individual must be competitive with all others on a social level, therefore must not prove themselves “good,” but “better,” in the sense of more witty, attractive, interesting, attention-demanding and current with social trends — including the righteous type of morality that changes with each passing week in terms of its focal point, such that last week it is transgender fisting rights and this week it is kneeling at the funerals of Downs Syndrome patients — and so is thrust into a role where they start out at a fundamentally negative status, called equality, and must prove themselves to be more than equal only through the attention of others, mainly by “staying relevant” and other attention-whoring. In doing this, we have replaced a morality of productivity — do good, be good and be happy — with a morality of popularity, in which only those who command attention from others are important.

This forces people to either accept irrelevance and lower status or participate in the ever-increasing intensity of the game of soliciting the notice of others, in which one never achieves permanent happiness because they either must get popular again or, having attained popularity, have no more goals to which to aspire. The only way out of this constant race is to declare victimhood, and that is their only option if they do not want to face the fact that their values conflict with those of the society around them, which unless their values are arbitrary, suggests strongly that society itself is in decline, which means that all of their efforts are ultimately doomed and will be forgotten after the crash.

Humans, tending toward individualism because the pingback from our brains is stronger than the signal we get from perceiving the world around us, generally downplay the importance of civilization. To us, it is a stage on which we dance, to the applause of hopefully millions. But in reality, it is the vessel through which our deeds live on, even if our names are forgotten, and so we are dependent on it as we are on sun, gravity, rain, and the rotation of the Earth.

A human in a failing civilization is someone tossing his best years and greatest hopes into a dumpster fire, and that is before we consider what will happen to his descendants. Denying this enables us to be functional in a dying civilization, and so most do it, either by rationalizing decline (Left) or focusing on individualism (Right) of the “work hard, pray hard” variety. Both of these approaches lead to victimhood, the first because the absence of total decline makes Leftists feel that they are at a disadvantage, and the second because it means that they must exist in denial about the futility of their work and prayers.

Modernity is like group projects in grade school: you know the other members of the group will screw it up, and that when the project is done it will go into the trash anyway, so unless you are motivated by the individualism of wanting to feel smarter and better than other people because you got an “A,” in which case you will do the whole thing yourself, there is really no point toward giving much care. Earn your money, retreat to your exclusive suburb, live in comfort, and deny meaning, because that is the price of doing this. That in turn brings on a greater sense of victimhood, namely the notion that tends to arrive in the late 60s that you have wasted your life on trivialities and that other people forced you to do this, which is partially true. You did what was expected of you.

Escaping the victimhood trap requires looking at the long term and living for meaning, which involves a connection between self and world. When you can look at an effect you have had, or a challenge you have overcome, or even situations where you did what was right over what was merely convenient or popular, then you can have a sense of pride in your own life and the knowledge that there is a meaningful connection between you, what was given you, and what you did with it. You have risen above the challenge of life. Similarly, this applies to the mind.

Our internal signals provide greater pingback than perceiving the external world, but if you orient yourself toward discovering the world by using your mind, you receive not closed-circuit stimulation — a mental sensation not unlike that of intoxication — but a sense of connection and placement within the world. If you are excited by discovery within your thoughts, your thoughts are no longer arbitrary, but focus on knowledge of the world. At that point, the higher intensity of internal signals is short-circuited by an even higher intensity to accurate internal signals, which overrides the tendency toward solipsism which leads to the victimhood complex.

While that seems complex, it is a positive option to the anaesthesia in which most indulge, which means not being intellectually in attendance for your own life. It allows you to discover what is good in life, and this enables you to survive disadvantages and challenges, and to more than merely subsist, thrive by making choices that shape your soul, and through them not only find meaning in life itself, but by striving for self and civilization, maximizing the chance of the endurance of your efforts while also demonstrating a heroic outlook toward the game of life itself.

Can The Alt Right Be Saved At All?

Thursday, August 3rd, 2017

The Alt Right faces a problem that it has not yet addressed: Typical of movements in later stages of development, the Alt Right has succumbed to a dumbing down of its core message from strict realism and cause/effect reasoning (i.e. recognition of causes instead of effects to prognosticate a problem/problems) to focusing more heavily on effects themselves, and calling for extreme solutions that will probably turn off many who might otherwise be agreeable with the Alt Right’s more softly toned, and strictly necessary solutions. This has already caused some people to disassociate with the Alt Right, and it will probably eventually lead to even more prominent figures dissociating with it in the near future.

So instead of people advocating violence, let’s try to advocate something that won’t turn off large numbers of reasonable people from even considering what we have to say. If we seem like a bunch of loons, most people of sound mind — the kinds of people we want to be attracted to these ideas — will just dismiss us as ridiculous, and out of touch with reality, as we would probably deem them. If we want them to be reasonable, it necessitates that we not only be reasonable ourselves, but appear reasonable in all things. Presentation of the way we dress is recognized as important, so should the presentation of our words.

I certainly hope the Alt Right can be saved, because I’ve at least been familiar with this movement in its various forms for the past seven years, and have grown with it. As it has gotten more obsessed with The Jews, the Africans, and other non-white groups they can blame for the West’s predicament, I’ve grown wearier of its prospects to attract more quality people. Instead it will probably just continue, as it seems to have done, to attract people that want to blame some unstoppable force for their problem, instead of figuring out the root of that problem.

Sure non-white groups are obviously incompatible with our nations and communities, and obviously we want real nations that consist of only a single group, rather than many, but our problems are not caused by these groups; they are caused by the collapse of the West. As nations decline, those in power bring in foreign groups to put bandages on their failures. Since our societies have fallen into decline the people in power become progressively of lower quality, and make poorer long term choices, but these are still just the symptoms, the causes are whatever is causing our decline, these effects are just that.

So let’s try to rid ourselves of these symptoms, but do so by attacking the causes. What is causing our decline is us. It is the decline in quality of our people (i.e. whites) and it is that we’ve replaced leadership, hierarchy, authority, and order with democracy, equality, and freedom. In doing so, we’ve replaced our natural leaders with good salesmen. We’ve replaced tradition with modernity. Once we fix the problems with us, the symptoms that the majority of the Alt Right seem obsessed with will be easy to deal with, and we won’t need those extreme solutions either.

Into The Leftist Mind

Saturday, May 13th, 2017

Humans fail when we allow our big brains to become substitutes for reality. More than our brains, it is our fear of a Darwinian event that causes us to desire a place without hierarchy or right and wrong, so that we never face being wrong or failing.

This mentality is similar to that of the heroin addict: on the drug, everything feels all right. The drug suspends the challenge of life itself. It freezes time. And so, they come back for more, because the heroin drives away self-doubt and fear.

Leftists, as those who embrace the human-only world of social and emotional thinking, are people of the lie that says we can avoid making choices and having some win and some lose. This makes them masters of scapegoating, or finding someone else to blame for failure.

This can be seen nowhere better than in the response by head dingaling Hillary Clinton to her failed presidential campaign, which ironically was the biggest political failure in history because it cost more than any previous campaign:

Alas, there seems to have been precious little of this self-reflection since her defeat. The authors report that Clinton blames Trump’s victory on “the FBI, the KGB and KKK” — referring to the investig­ation of her secret email server, Russian interference and racist voters.

But the secret email server was her own doing, the product of her paranoia so deep that after her 2008 defeat, the authors recount, she downloaded tens of thousands of her staff’s emails and had them scoured for evidence of disloyalty.

The Leftist psychology rejects the idea that individual humans must adapt to reality, and replaces it with the idea that reality has a moral obligation — according to a herd of humans — to adapt to that individual human. It produces a comical mental state.

As a result, whenever Leftism fails, the Left finds someone else to blame. This is why Leftism is an apocalyptic ideology: it begins by rationalizing one bad decision, and then in order to keep that rationalization alive, justifies going further down the rabbit trail of the psychology of that bad decision, and then blames others instead of noticing its own failure, making it pathological and unable to check its own momentum.

For this reason, Leftist societies always self-destruct if given enough time, money and power.

In the meantime, Hillary announced the agenda of the Left for the next four years: blame racism/sexism, non-Leftists in government, and the Russians. We will hear of little else, and they will use these dramatic issues to unite a group for protest and vandalism to try to force abdication by D.J. Trump.

This also illustrates the fundamental incompatibility of democracy with realism. A realist requires accurate feedback; a democrat filters out data that is inconsistent with the narrative before even considering what decision to make.

For the past century or two, Leftists have gained increasing power and through that, governed progressively more with this method. During that time, our fortunes have also declined, because reality-denial always produces bad results eventually.

Technology Is Not What Defines Modernity

Saturday, April 15th, 2017

Most of those who are active in politics at this time are single-issue voters. They want one thing to change, and the rest to remain the same. Only a few grasp how large our change needs to be, and see that all of these single issues radiate from a core dysfunction caused by the structure of our civilization being based on false assumptions.

Those who see the enormity of the problem and how deep the rot goes tend to go a little bit insane. They are trying to overturn an edifice with a toothpick, or at least it feels that way. For this reason, most adopt desperate solutions that are unrelated to the actual causes, because these at least symbolically feel correct.

One such outlook is primitivism, which believes that “technology did this to us” and therefore, the solution is to roll back technology. While in some areas this looks correct, it is important to distinguish between cause, effect and symptoms of that effect. A single act may cause a result that is invisible, but manifests in a number of evident disasters.

For example, the transition to demand-side economics from the Obama era had a very clear effect in making the basis of our monetary value a result of the speed of demand for that money. This in turn had visible symptoms like a decline in purchasing power, economic slowdown in hiring and other expenditures, and very remotely, an increase in apathy because money was more speculative than actualized in value.

So let us look to modernity. The term only came into use in the late 1800s as a designation of an era, but this does not tell us when it began, because the effects are noticed long after the cause. In theory, it was replaced by postmodernity in the 1960s, but many think that the postmodern is a pluralistic expression of the modern and nothing more.

If we look a hundred years before, we can see one plausible root, or the event that changed all events after it. With the French Revolution, equality became the official policy, ideology and goal of modern governments. And yet, even that event has a cause, which many trace to The Enlightenment,™ a cultural and artistic movement a century and change before.

Even though technology was present during that era, it was also present before that, and in ages before. If anything, it seems that technology develops with the rise of organized civilization, which means that the timeline of civilization death could have other causes, since technology will be present but not necessarily causal.

This reveals to us the illusion of blaming technology: it is easy to blame technology because it is not us. That means that instead of taking responsibility for embracing illusory thinking like The Enlightenment,™ we find something else to scapegoat. If not technology, The Rich,™ The Jew,™ and even other ethnic or religious groups.

In fact, we did it to ourselves. “We have discovered the enemy, and it is us.” More accurately: the enemy is any number of bad choices that take us off the path to what makes us great. There are many possible errors, and only a few ways to success, all correlated with the principles that guide us in a general direction toward qualitative improvement.

What this means is that, contrary to some of the “solutions” floating around out there, we cannot fix our problems by simply backing away from technology. Even if that were likely to happen in a world where someone else will simply adopt it and use it to conquer other groups, it would leave intact the illusory assumptions and bad leadership that propelled us into this condition in the first place.

That way, history would simply repeat. We would buy time, but not achieve victory, and by doing that, doom ourselves to repeat the same intractable problems time and again until we finally exhaust ourselves, either emotionally or genetically.

Instead it becomes clear that we must save ourselves from within. Our efforts have gone toward an illusion, and this illusion is based in the idea of the convenience of people instead of principles. To reverse this, we must first choose the goals that are best and move toward those, instead of choosing from among the possibilities that are convenient for others.

Our real problem is the collapse of social order. There are too many people competing for power, and they use all else including language, science, law, knowledge and religion as means toward that end. This corrupts those things; that is a symptom of the power struggle. Until we make a working social order, we remain in the cycle of failure.

What Really Killed Those Cute Bahamian Swimming Piggies

Friday, March 17th, 2017

There is a predictable pattern to the way that mass media news outlets report on events.  First reports tend to be highly sensational, and either due to ignorance, bias that favors an ideological narrative, or bias towards the popular (“clickbait”), also tend to leave out or misreport important facts.  This departure from truth is further amplified by social media, which promotes simple explanations that point the blame solely at a guilty few who can be satisfyingly hated due to presumed malicious motivation.  We have explicated the steps in this cycle previously.

So it is with the Bahamian swimming pigs.  After seven of these beloved creatures were found dead on their tiny home island, the first, biggest, wave of mass exposure this event received cast the blame onto a few reckless tourists who through cruel stupidity fed the pigs alcohol.  This was a popular framing, first because it allowed people to indulge in feel-good hate against an unfair oppressor, and second because it allows advertisement of an easily achieved personal moral superiority: look at these pig murderers, I would never murder a pig for laughs, and therefore I am good, even though that’s a very low standard for good.

Now, after the Internet outrage mobs have dispersed to new distractions, National Geographic reports that there may not be any malicious oppressors at all:

Though initial reports suggested that tourists had given the pigs fatal doses of alcohol, Humane Society inspector Ventoi Bethune told National Geographic that the dead swine had likely ingested sand.

Veterinarians who visited the site found large quantities of sand in the deceased animals’ stomachs, which Bethune says may have been caused by a recent influx of visitors throwing small amounts of food on the beach.

“The pigs have been on the island so long, they are used to foraging for natural food,” Bethune says. The pigs would only go the beach for an occasional treat.

But with the increase in tourism, the pigs are relying on humans more than ever.

Though the modern mindset is shaped from an early age to expect harm from intentionally evil agents–like comic book super villains–in reality those threats are not so great, because they’re rare, easy to spot, and easy to deal with.  If the pig murderers had been a few malicious individuals, we could imprison, exile, or execute the culprits and the problem would be completely solved; at least until another set of this rare type of person appeared.

What is in fact far more dangerous is carelessness and well-meaning naiveté.  This is commonplace; its negative effects are far more difficult to spot, and there is no obvious solution.

None of the individuals responsible for the pigs’ deaths intended to kill the pigs.  None of them expected it to happen, and most likely the vast majority don’t even realize that it happened.  If we wanted to assign blame, we would have to hand out a large number of fractional pig murder sentences, which is absurdly impractical and ineffective.  And to hate those responsible, to declare ourselves morally superior, we would need to pass a higher standard than the cartoonish modern conceptions of morality such as “don’t be a dick”.  Those who fed the pigs probably thought they were being nice, friendly, and good.

But we are able to sketch out some direction that a solution would take if we leave behind the need to blame as the most important component of a solution.  Assigning blame is important when it means holding people responsible for their failures, but becomes a distraction from solutions when punishment and retribution take the place of identifying causes.

In this case we see that the pigs died because they ate too many bits of food left in the sand, which was the result of a combination of too careless humans, and too many humans.  From there we can propose either making the human visitors less careless (good luck), or reducing the number of human visitors to the island.

Though this is less satisfying than beating a few assholes, it would mean the remaining cute swimming piggies would be less likely to die — and that is what really matters.

Ashes To Ashes

Friday, September 16th, 2016


Greetings to the Committee for Interplanetary Archeology,

I hold in my hands one of the most unusual artifacts we have recovered from an eliminated civilization. It is marked AMG-1208C1, and it is unusual for one salient trait: it is a belt-fed machine gun that fires a single round at the time.

To understand why this is rare, we must understand Earth warfare, which involved large groups of humans charging at one another. The machine gun was invented to prevent these charges by firing bullets in a continuous stream, allowing the user to sweep it across the fields of his fellows, killing them and ending the charge.

This gun would be useless in such a circumstance. It also features a trigger which is designed to be operated by an electric spring, and not human hands. Let me describe to you how its use came about.

During the late days of the elimination of the Earth species and its civilization, a few of the citizens awakened to what was happening and determined to reverse it. Seizing power through a populist movement, they quickly created an authoritarian government and began to remove from their continent people they saw as unable to be compatible with that society.

This provoked a counter-reaction. The rest of the species was offended by this choice, and waged war upon them. The breakaway continent, using superior technology, conquered this other group, and then made a decision of momentous importance: they would eliminate the threat.

On the island of Réunion, they built a massive sarcophagus. It was seven of their unit of measurement, kilometers, long and nearly four wide, and rose one-tenth of a kilometer above the earth. Made of white stone, it had a deep foundation and a single door at the top of a long shaft. This was designed for a single purpose.

These insurgents were intelligent, and so they used automated technology to collect individuals from around the world, drug them with a mixture of Fentanyl and Valium, two popular sedatives, and then fly them to this island and lift them to the gateway. This is where the AMG-1208C1 did its work.

We have found remains of giant loudspeakers apparently used to blast music at the people corralled to this gateway, and evidence that they were further drugged with alcohol and indole alkaloids at the top of the sarcophagus. Then, they were ushered through a narrow passageway by automated arms, where a laser sighted them and the AMG-1208C1 shot each one in the head, at which point they were placed in orderly rows at the bottom of the sarcophagus by robotic arms.

The gun used a special round that was designed to stay intact as it passed through the outer layer of bone, then expand rapidly in all directions, liquefying the brain. Death was instantaneous. After each layer of bodies was deposited, it was covered in a slurry of sewage and pulverized animal organs, specifically those of the pig. We believe this was done to hasten decay and discourage salvage.

Using this method, the people of Earth eliminated over eight billion people.

At first, the insurgent group exterminated every other ethnic group. This left only about a half-billion. Then, they used automated DNA testing to eliminate those who were partially mixed with other groups, cutting the number down to about 200 million. At that point, they selected for not only their founding ethnic group, the “Nordic-Germanic” tribe, but also eliminated those of low intelligence, high criminality, sexual fetishism and other disadvantages.

When it was all over, the planet had only eight million people, each capable of great things.

It is unclear why the elimination event proceeded. Our investigation of their records suggested that they retained a system of government based on personal omnipotence, called “egalitarianism,” which caused internal division and a series of revolutions and social disorder events which fragmented the civilization like an unstable spacecraft descending into a high-oxygen atmosphere.

For our own study, we can learn much from this and other civilizations which have experienced elimination events. Outside of ourselves, we have found none that have survived this crucial threshold, as crucial as the ability to tame fire, which seems to test species for fitness and eliminate all but one percent of them at most.

We have marked the Earth planet as a galactic heritage site and death memorial, and will incorporate this knowledge into our own history.

Submitted this 29th day of the 11th month by Avrghxzq Hbtilinien, archaeologist.

Batman vs. Superman, Social Justice and Anti-Semitism

Friday, April 29th, 2016


Surely the obituary for Western culture will include a footnote for the newish film Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice:

Not only did the subject matter — a fantasy designed for small boys — trigger concerns of an infantilized and out of touch population, but also as many commentators noted, the movie was terrible. Robotic script, wooden acting, surface emotional content and brain-degrading dialogue. And yet, audiences seemed not to care, and attended it happily in large groups, possibly so busy texting and chattering that they were unaware they were watching a movie.

When entertainment for adults becomes cartoons, it says something about the audience. They need to feel like heroes, and they want to watch something with the depth of a Soviet propaganda film that makes them feel good about their society and its direction. This tells us that they are not heroes, and they are not confident in our future.

This takes us to a study of the psychology of projection. People assert what they doubt. They do this fanatically because it is psychologically easier than facing what they are afraid is true. Primitive societies dress their warriors like terrors in the hope that this will protect them. Sophisticated societies create mythologies of morality to rationalize failure by explaining that, while all is destroyed, it was done in the name of being good sociable creatures who never harmed anyone.

Projection allows us to assign our own choices to external forces. This can make us feel heroic, as in a superhero movie or “Social Justice” where people assume that armchair activism makes them into Martin Luther King, Jr. It can also avoid the elephant in the room, which is our bad choices, by blaming external actors like The Jews™, the Rich, “poverty” or Satan himself for the results of our poor decisions. Scapegoats of this nature are always more popular because they are simpler and psychologically easier than facing the actual problem, which is usually denied because people are afraid of it.

And yet fixing this actual problem is our only hope. We made bad choices and got bad results. Allowing mercantile elements to take over our society from below was stupid, as was pacifying the masses to avoid revolts. Democracy was stupid — especially after the warning from ancient Athens — and now tolerance, social justice, diversity, transgender bathroom rights and other artifacts of democracy are stupid. Just as Communism in Russia was stupid, Liberalism in America and Europe is stupid and heading in the same direction.

What makes history fascinating is that it is a story of people looking in the wrong places because they were afraid of the underlying issues. Then some disobedient individual or non-conforming group takes a new look at the problem, sees the obvious common sense reality and acts on it, and gets ahead. Then everyone else slavishly imitates that group, just as they slavishly imitated one another in avoiding the problem previously. Until we get to that state, our existence will be much like the odious Batman vs. Superman: a simplistic cartoon on the screen, and our feet stuck to the floor where an unknown sticky substance accumulates gradually, eventually pulling us all down into its decay.

Scapegoats prevent victory

Thursday, October 15th, 2015


Our human tendency, when we fail, is to find something to blame. This substitutes for what scares us, which is that our brains have been hacked by our own failure to notice reality, and that one of the assumptions upon which our vision of the world rests is false or partially false.

In political terms, we create a scapegoat: a symbolic enemy who is responsible for our failure, and whose purging will result in our victory. This takes the most convenient form of human thinking which resembles our method of cleansing our homes, removing the bad and leaving only the good. It is still superstition much like a talisman in inverse, feeling that if we remove the totem of evil we will have removed the root of evil, which is in our error.

As Nick Land writes, the scapegoat psychology takes a pseudo-xenophobic form:

“Our entire history is something that’s been done to us by tricky outsiders — especially the bad stuff!”

This is not actually xenophobia, which is a healthy thing because all other groups differ in abilities and inclinations, and nature puts us into competition. Fear the Other; the Other means to remove you and take what you have. This pseudo-xenophobia instead takes the form of us casting out evils through a symbolic sacrifice, a scapegoat, in the form of a group in which we see similarity to our own mistakes. It is not Other that we cast out with this; it is our wishful thinking that we could exile what is wrong in ourselves.

Convenience in thinking revolves around what is easily and quickly comprehended, not what represents reality in any form. Convenience makes an idea more likely to be adopted by a group which is why large groups are usually wrong or insane in their choices. It also appeals to the weakness in individuals, a type of solipsism, that says what we intend to be the case should be the case and therefore, filtered through social pressure, “is” reality. Scapegoating is one of the many forms of human convenient thinking.

Scapegoats prevent victory. They take the place of the real problem, leaving it unsolved with the assumption that it has been solved. They encourage atrocities as the people involved attempt to violently rip out their own mental dysfunction through the symbol of the scapegoat. Worst of all, they point the finger in the wrong direction and, by being easier means of motivating masses, thrust all of our energy into the wrong places. When the scapegoat is dead and the people exhausted, those who notice the problem still remains will not be very popular.

We have spent too long looking for an external source of our misery. It is within us, which means that groups — the Rich, the Blacks, the Jews, the Whites, the Christians — are not to blame. It is inherent in our thinking as a group, and through that psychology, in our behavior. We must change the thinking and behavior simultaneously because they cross-influence one another, which requires both an individual and cultural revolution, and the strong monarchs who can protect it as it grows. Democracy will never allow us to escape the scapegoat.

Political activities

Monday, May 11th, 2015


Whenever reading about the failure of a large entity, whether a corporation or civilization, the temptation rises to ask aloud why no one noticed what was going wrong

The answer can be observed in any organization: political activities, or behaviors which are aimed not at direct results, but solely at holding the group together. The corporate retreat, group hug, and nastier versions like public executions and show trials all fit in this category. As do the leftist favorite of “raising awareness” and the political rally or group discussion of funny things liberal comedians said on TV last night.

Political activities also represent a warning sign. The presence of political activities reveals two problems. First, the group is not holding together well and requires constant conditioning to stay together. Second, a real-world problem or need is being ignored in order to enforce the herd.

The best political activities are totally useless, completely polarizing and comically absurd. If they are useless, they can achieve no damage by failing. Activities that are polarizing both unite the group through finding an enemy and serve to weaken that enemy, in addition to providing an excuse for failure; any lack of achievement is immediately attributed to the enemy working against those participating. The ludicrous nature of most of these activities provides a further insight into their use. Those who engage in humiliating and pointless activities succumb to a Stockholm syndrome-like condition where they must justify their participation, and thus rationalize it as having meaning when it does not. This forces all participants to both turn off their brains and view their self-esteem as contingent upon the success of the agenda.

As an empire dies, political activities — activities that serve no other use than to unify the group — increase in direct proportion to the dysfunction arising from a lack of shared goal. Such dying empires start to resemble cults, in which all activities serve to brainwash the population into not noticing failures of its own narrative, and increasingly punish those who deviate from the official explanation. As the West spirals down into dysfunction, activities like “political correctness” and “social justice” fit within this framework and constitute a form of scapegoating where enemies are chosen at random as a means of unifying the population around something negative, since positive agreement no longer exists.

Recommended Reading