Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘self-interest’

Relevant Heresies

Saturday, April 1st, 2017

Among human groups, a tendency arises to use the power of the group to suppress disturbing ideas. The origin of this arises in the fear of the individual of not being included, and so the group criminalizes exclusion. This creates a society of tolerance, acceptance, low standards and entropy, because by not rising to a standard above themselves, the group declines to a mediocre standard.

Think of every coddled and protected entity you can: this is what group tendencies do. Dodo Birds lose the ability to fly or flee; the children of rich celebrities become entirely inert; people in government bureaucracies where they are shielded from the consequences of their actions lose all sense of being efficacious or efficient. This is entropy.

In every age, there are those who stand against the group and point to the duality of reality and principle — the former what arbitrates results, the latter how we know what to aspire to — as what should replace the group. We recognize that human social groups converge on what is convenient, not what is real, and as a result are as toxic and poisonous as an epidemic.

These individuals against the herd tend to find themselves branded heretics, pariahs and evil, hateful people. Of course, we must note that to evil, good is evil, and therefore that much as to the insane the sane are insane, the herd will oppose any healthy ideas.

This means that a celebration of honest heresy is in order. Let us list a few, for your enjoyment and contemplation, that turn reality against the herd:

  • What is popular, is wrong. Most people pursue what is popular as a means of choosing an option which is “safe,” meaning that it works for others and is safe from social criticism or censure. They are motivated more by fear of doing wrong in a social context than desire to do right in terms of end results in reality. In addition, they choose what is simplified and convenient for them to do. This is why short-term solutions and easy answers win out, even with an intelligent group. The “committee mentality” prevails wherever people are trying to get along with each other because interpersonal politics become more important to individuals than finding a solid and clear answer.
  • People are self-deluding. Humans like to think of themselves as good people who exist in a state of equilibrium. Instead, the mind rapidly flits between ideas, desperately trying to hold on to a sense of order, and so most decisions are made from the perspective of doing what makes the individual feel most stable. For this reason, individuals tend to reject difficult and complex problems and replace them with simple emotional reactions. This in turn makes them hostile to clear solutions and explanations.
  • Evil is real. Looking at existence from the prospect of its continuity and improvement, we might view “good” as that which is connected to the whole and responsive to it, thus interacting with it and improving it qualitatively. Evil, on the other hand, would be that which withdraws from the whole and focuses on a subset of the whole in order to increase its own power. Where good encourages reflection, or meditation on our own acts and their consequences as well as potential actions and goals, evil short-circuits this process and disconnects from the wider world in order to be more focused on the individual and what it can possess or control. Whether or not there is a Satan lurking below us in a demonic underworld — although we are thankful for this notion, as it brought us some of the best Slayer lyrics — something like “evil” exists around us and within us, and is a temptation of every second of every day and in every action that we take or fail to take.
  • Our goal is organization. Most efforts fail because they are disorganized, which means that parts are not assembled in a pattern that enables them to interact to produce the end goal. Our enemy is disorganization, which is the process by which chaotic individuals create disorder among the parts, sabotaging the end goal in order to engage in some self-interest of their own. Even thoughts need to be organized. Where disorder persists, dysfunction becomes the accepted norm and thus people act toward further dysfunction, much as we see in the modern fallen West.
  • Morality is size-independent. A society has a moral standard like surface tension of a body of water: once pierced, chaos results. Any immoral acts work toward piercing this moral standard, and all moral acts strengthen it. In this view, whether one steals a billion dollars or a candy bar, the result is the same. People become accustomed to immorality, then become corrupt, and by accepting this as the norm, destroy anything good and replace it with a corrupt alternative. This is how values are inverted.
  • The only solution is quality people. Rules do not ensure good outcomes, only that the interpretation of the rules will be changed. Market forces and political censure can be dodged. Bureaucrats and police cannot restrain an unruly populace. The only solution is to have good people, both in competence and moral character, in power in all places where decisions are required. The farm with a good owner prospers; the farm with a bad owner, or no owner, does not.
  • Elitism is compassion. When we establish hierarchy by elevating the best and demoting the worst, we create a more competent and functional structure. This in turn leads to better results and all benefit from these, even if they were demoted from higher degrees of wealth, power and status.
  • Rationalization destroys purpose. Most people, when a sub-optimal outcome is achieved, do not agitate to press toward a better outcome. Instead, they accept the mediocre and rationalize or justify it as being what they wanted all along. For this reason, asking a group of people if they are “happy” is a pointless endeavor; they do not know, and will make themselves happy with even bad results.
  • These heresies are taboo because they invert the usual human way of thinking, which is that if we find a way to unite the group and get everyone or most everyone to agree on something, we have achieved a good result. This is normally described as peace, happiness, love, equality, oneness, tolerance or any of the other brain-negating concepts used by those who prefer short-term absence of conflict — driven by their individual fear — to finding a working answer. People would rather patch a leaky boat than rebuild it, even if it still leaks.

    Currently, we are in the midst of a change of orders. The old order was created over the past thousand years as power was divided from a central hierarchy into increasing degrees of mob rule. It found its ultimate expression in liberal democracy as a global order, and since that entity reached power, the failure of that approach has become clear. Now the old order fades away, and we look toward something new, which introduces fear and trembling among the herd.

    As part of this transition, it is imperative that we remove social pretense and other illusions so that we can see the actual task before us. What was heresy under the old order will be common sense under the new, and while this provokes fear among much of the popular, it is important to remember that they fear risk out of concern for their personal self-interest, and any ideologies or protestations they offer are merely camouflage for that fear.

    Our new path as a species, as nations and as individuals lies in defeating fear. We must face the truth, no matter how cold and sharp it seems, in order to achieve greatness again. Only through this can we escape the falling order of the old and learn the wisdom of embracing the new.

All Things Are Self-Serving

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

If traditional society has an essence, it is a focus on context and pattern instead of objects themselves, because it recognizes that any thing out of place in the hierarchy and order of nature will become an all-consuming force. For example, beer is delicious, heartening and enjoyable but when pursued to excess, becomes a replacement for life much like ideology, money, power and individualism.

This applies to institutions, governments, organizations, power itself and even abstract concepts. Capitalism, for example, is the only working economic system we have found, but if left to its own devices, it produces the scenario we see in American stores: refrigerators, cheaply made in China, which have a lifespan of four to seven years and a failure rate of 10% within three months.

Once upon a time, less than a generation ago, refrigerators lasted for up to forty years. They were built solidly with few features and produced domestically. A person could expect to own two of these in a lifetime and, when parts wore out, to replace them, because the designs did not vary substantially over time.

What went wrong? We might argue that the new way is more efficient: cheaper refrigerators, newer features, and a wider variety. But underneath that glitz, the refrigerators are not cheaper, especially not in lifetime ownership, since you need to buy ten of them to equal the ownership duration of the past. Capitalism is rewarding itself by, once it has a captive audience, extracting wealth from them.

Naturally other factors are present. Is it capitalism to blame because an industry has overgrown itself and consumer, responding to new features and price, ignored the better options so that those companies then went extinct? Or, as argued here before, perhaps we should blame unions, which raised the price of labor so much that it was offshored and then, when those countries learned to manufacture refrigerators on their own, replaced entirely with imports.

Another factor is the need to keep people employed. A company, beset by regulations and a highly mobile labor force, has to hire more people and so grows constantly like a bloated beast. At that point, it must squeeze more money out of the product, so turns to “planned obsolescence.” But it is hard to argue that planned obsolescence will not be conceived of by a firm, and once it succeeds, others will follow suit to keep their own profits comparable.

This shows us a principle of existence: all things are self-serving, and if not kept in check by some form of power above them — aristocrats, culture, legal liability or media — each thing expands to take everything that it can and passes those costs on through externalization to the collective. Everyone suffers when refrigerators are constantly dying without a technological need for this to be so.

As a salesman said, “They make them cheaply in China. Sure, they’re crap — but everyone makes out like bandits on this side. We sell insurance and make a good profit. The firms keep the name here, and buy them from overseas, and that means jobs for everyone in the office, even if not in the factor. It’s just you the consumer who suffers.”

We can see this profile in other industries as well, such as the lügenpresse:

Far from the British press being the champions of free speech, as the popular buffoon Jeremy Clarkson has suggested, they are instrumental in shutting it down.

The press has an interest in suppressing free speech because free speech competes with the press. If the media offers our only perspectives on the world, then they have a monopoly on news information and will profit greatly. If others, such as citizen journalists like Millennial Woes, are able to draw large audiences, then those are a business threat.

All across the West a great cash-in has been occurring since the 1990s. Without the Soviets to compete with, we turned on ourselves, and every industry became greedy in order to comply with the parasites (unions, governments, lawsuits) and to extract as much as it could from the captive audience in the middle class. Eventually, it killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and now a backlash has begun.

In the future, our thought will not focus on deconstruction, or isolating ideas like capitalism as solutions in themselves, but on context, or how to balance different self-interested forces under the command of some purpose and principles which benefit our civilization as an organic whole. This is the only way to arrest the ongoing parasitism and restore a healthy, joyful life so we are strong enough to want to survive.

Leftist Mouthpiece The New York Times Stumbles Onto Truth

Wednesday, July 13th, 2016

From one of the more interesting articles about the rise of Donald Trump in recent memory, even the arch-Leftist stronghold The New York Times recognizes a realistic truth:

“I think what we really find troubling is the mainstreaming of these really offensive ideas,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks hate groups. “It’s allowed some of the worst ideas into the public conversation in ways we haven’t seen anything like in recent memory.”

Mr. Trump declined to be interviewed for this article, and his spokesman declined to comment.

Outside a former aircraft factory in Bethpage, N.Y., not far from a strip of halal butchers and Indian restaurants now known as Little India, a Long Island housewife who gave her name as Kathy Reb finished a cigarette on a spring evening. Nervously, she explained how she had watched the complexion of her suburb outside New York City change. “Everyone’s sticking together in their groups,” she said, “so white people have to, too.”

Therein lies the vital point: if every other group can have self-interest, so can Europeans.

This means that the diversity dream has failed, and we are re-segregating into many groups based on heritage.

The reason for that is simple: ethnic groups have the same inclinations and are roughly matched internally by ability, allowing for the most cooperative social order.

In addition, self-interest is an irreducible fact of life. We are merely recognizing this formally instead of being in denial.

Leftism was given all the power it needed, and still it failed. Now the long turning away begins.

Tribalism Accelerates

Friday, June 17th, 2016

tribalism_accelerates

Let us review what we have learned in sotto voce from the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre:

  1. The cops cannot help. Being a police officer was a calling, when we were a unified nation and had something to work together toward. Now it is just a job, chosen because it comes with good bennies, the ability to retire at 45 and “double-dip” by getting hired in another security-related field, and political respect. The careerists won out. And so, the cops defer to authority in order to make any action. They do not take unnecessary risks. Their job is to do the job as defined, not the job as it should be. They waited for three hours during a mass shooting before going in, allowing the shooter to tag over a hundred people, and to have possibly killed more had he locked exits and kept shooting instead of goofing off on social media.
  2. The government cannot help. Across the Western world, governments turned on rainbow lights at their capital buildings. Every face glowed bright in the promise of the symbol, which allowed us all to feel morally superior for having supported the Correct side! And then, no one did anything else. Stop Islamic radicals? Make police more effective? Build a wall around gay communities? Step up profiling of terrorists? None of these have happened. Government was there to give the symbol that made happy feelings in the voters, and then its job was done, so back to taxing and spending.
  3. There is no unity. Despite the vigils and people painting the names of the victims on their ’91 El Dorados, there was no sense of unity. People are not stepping up to say “we are in it together and we fight together.” Of course, the media implies this, but the groundswell of popular support — beyond the group of committed neurotics who believe what they see on the television — has not occurred. In fact, the general reply seems to be, “Not my tribe, so not my problem.” Blacks, white straights, Hispanics, and Asians are all just biding their time, knowing themselves to be competing with one another and so, de facto, at war.

As reported here a short while ago, the internal paradoxes of diversity have collided and abolished it except as a symbol. This means that practical people everywhere are reverting to tribal identities, which exist as one or more of the following: race, ethnicity, religion, caste, class and realist alignment (Leftists/Communists versus everyone else).

The homosexual tribe stands alone because every tribe stands alone. This means they can expect no unity with the rest of their globalized multicultural nation-state entity, and that they feel no guilt in acting in pure self-interest. Just as women are voting for Hillary Clinton for the sole reason that she also is a woman, homosexual tribalists will now act only for what benefits their tribe above all others. “Is it good for the homosexuals?” is the only question on the agenda. And if other tribes suffer, that is their problem.

Wise observers predicted that this would be the result of diversity. Self-interest is one of those behaviors which every creature must indulge in, or end up dead, and so self-interest may be concealed or transferred somewhat, but it is never removed. When the silly white Leftists announced diversity, the rest of the world said: “The morons have invited us onto the gravy train. Let us go there, drain them dry, and conquer them, these people who are too stupid to live.”

When you look at non-native ethnic groups in the USA — meaning those outside of the founding Western European population — you see two types. There are those who have bought into the symbolic reality offered by Leftism, and those who have recognized it as false. The latter group keep their language, customs and allegiances, even spying for their nation of origin. They know they are biding their time until the takeover can occur, and that their tribe will need them.

Some have noticed this seemingly suicidal side to Leftism, but the Leftist agenda is to avoid tribalism so that the individual can profit enough to escape with the loot. Leftists negate their tribe because their only tribe is the self. It is not surprising that so many of them show the results of generations-ago slight admixture — an Asiatic lift there, a middle Eastern nose there, some Amerind or Lapp around the eyes — because they have never felt allegiance to the group, or anything beyond their own immediate comfort. They are dead souls.

As the results of the plans of these dead souls unfold, it becomes clear that Western Civilization and Western Government — now recognized as egalitarian, and therefore a gradual path to Communism — will separate. The national groups are already breaking into tribes, and they will enforce street justice by always defending their own and fighting for territory above all else. As usually happens, the Leftists who made it at the career of being Leftist will be boarding private jets for Switzerland, and the rest of us will fight it out in the streets, wondering how it got so bad so fast.

“Demography is Destiny”: Ann Coulter Shares The Secret of Empires

Saturday, March 26th, 2016

if_you_will_be_offended_please_stay_out

Some ideas are so common-sense that they are non-controversial entirely in almost any context. Almost, until that context shifts to humanity.

For example, Darwinism makes perfect sense to us for other species. The eagles eat the slow and stupid mice, and mice get smarter. Well… not that much smarter, but it at least keeps them from getting dumber. The lions cull the slow and sick wildebeast, and the herd is healthier as a result.

But if you apply that theory to humanity, human pretense kicks in. What if I were the slowest wildebeast in the herd? What if I were the baby born retarded or with an incurable disease? What if I were the mouse that got distracted for a moment by something on his iPhone, and the eagle tore me apart in squirming, screaming agony?

Human pretense: the idea that we are somehow different from and above the rules of our world, simply because we are the ones observing the world that we know. We see the world through our own eyes without seeing ourselves as part of the process, and thus we assume that how things appear to us is their essence, and that we are essential to the operation of the world. Thus the ego, solipsism, eventually individualism, and finally Crowdism and its subset Leftism (and most Conservatism) are born.

When an idea conflicts with this pretense, it becomes a special category of things which are OK in any context except the self-referential. Just like we refuse to acknowledge that humans are made of tasty meat that tastes like pork, that we die just like any other animal, or even that our living and dying is beyond our control, for social reasons we refuse to mention these normal things which are taboo in the human context.

One idea of this type is the simple homily demography is destiny. It means many things, but the simple point is that the species and individuals who reproduce are the ones who will endure. Nothing else really matters on the same level. If that group is displaced or becomes mixed, it is erased. Wise words from Ann Coulter on this topic:

Democrats haven’t changed anyone’s mind. They changed the people.

More white people voted for Mitt Romney this year than voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Barack Obama lost white voters by 20 points — the widest margin since 1984.

But in 1980, whites were 88 percent of the electorate. In 2012, they were 72 percent of the electorate. Not only that, but the non-white electorate is far more Democratic than it was in 1980.

If the same country that voted in 1980 had voted in 2012, Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did.

This can be interpreted other ways as well. If our society does not breed intelligent children and raise them well, our homegrown idiots will take over just as surely as immigrants will. “Demography is destiny” means that at every level, what matters more than our laws and economics is the biological composition of our nation. That in turn contradicts our pretense that we can make some laws and have “solved” the problem.

Human pretense makes us feel in control. It is like the satisfying feeling one gets from having arranged the living room furniture in the perfect order, or made intelligent compromises in a business deal. For a moment, it is all about us, and by implication, we can never die and have no need to improve ourselves. Uh, reality knocking…

Another common sense idea is that “people act in self-interest.” It is socially permissible to mention this when Wal-mart raises prices on adult diapers or watery beer, but to mention this in the context of government is a strict no-no. Government, we must believe, is a wise adult in loco parentis who always acts in our best interests, not as Mencius Moldbug and friends would tell us, a self-interested actor in a market for services.

Ah.

This ugly issue reared its head with the question of the European Union. At first, it was sold to us as a trade union, which meant that trade within Europe would become more efficient than trade with outside parties, keeping more money in Europe. That was not a terrible idea, but then the EU concept began to grow, and eventually, the real agenda peeked out:

This writer generally has little time for conspiracy theories, but Richard Jeffrey, chief investment officer at Cazenove Capital Management, makes a compelling case.

Throughout the current crisis involving Greece and Europe’s banks, there has been a widespread assumption that the euro zone’s problems have been caused by a mistaken belief that if the political will were strong enough it would be possible to overcome the clear economic flaws in the system’s design.

The idea that the architects always knew the system would break down but reasoned that such a collapse would enable them to bring in the deeper union that many of them favored suggests something more than naivety.

Ah, indeed.

People act in self-interest.

The basis of civilization

Sunday, February 14th, 2016

the basis of civilization is not YOLO

Civilization might be described not as a tangible thing, but a process. Through that, it can be seen as a goal, and since that goal must necessarily be broad, a direction. In this, civilization seems paradoxical: its purpose is generally itself, or a qualitative improvement in the process of becoming civilized.

Several theories exist about this direction as it can be implemented by individuals. Some hold that it should be altruistic, with people working to provide for others who have less. Others suggest that it should be self-interest, or each working for his own improvement. A third option — an ancient option — exists, but more on that later.

On the surface, altruism sounds like the best option, and it is this surface appeal that explains its popularity with younger people, most women and underconfident men. We all work and give some of what we have to those with less, therefore instability is removed and people feel a lack of resentment for one another.

There are a number of problems with this. The first is that any gift-giving is a form of taking control of another person and serves to reinforce their lower status, provoking the very resentment it hoped to placate. The second is that whatever one tolerates or subsidizes, one gets more of, so poverty expands. Further, this form of transfer essentially overworks the successful to provide for the rest, damaging the brightest lights of our civilization by burdening them with guilt and misery.

Self-interest appeals more to those with experience who have seen the vastness of the world and realized that human patterns do not change. Most people are incompetent, many because they are dishonest or delusional, and very few possess the ability or inclination to understand the effects of their actions, probably on the order of 98-99%. Since understanding politics, leadership, and the far-reaching consequences of our actions begins around the 125 IQ mark, by definition fewer than 5% of our population has a chance to grasp these disciplines. Then there is character; even among the intelligent, few think of more than their immediate benefit in the short term. On the positive side, self-interest mirrors natural selection and puts the most competent on top, which ranks it above altruism which essentially enslaves the competent to the rest.

While there is truth to both of these options, they pale before the third, which is to have a direction that unites the individual to civilization. This option is to make our goals the transcendentals, or those intangible things to which we can always aim but which we can never fully obtain: goodness, beauty, excellence, truth and even identity, or the notion of the civilization itself as a distinct and worthy enterprise removed from all others. These can include both self-interest and altruism as methods toward the transcendental goal; after all, it only makes sense to put the best on top, and to help the deserving when in need, as a means of achieving these extremely long-term ideals.

What defines transcendentals is that they are intersectional, or existing within all other areas. Altruism that achieves transcendentals is good; self-interest that achieves transcendentals is good. The method no longer replaces the goal, and therefore, a direction at a level higher than technique can emerge. The difficulty is that transcendentals are appreciated by very few, both from limits of natural ability and character, and require a society willing to experience humility to the degree that it favors hierarchy.

And yet, with transcendentals there is hope: a chance that we can unite not on needs and fears of ourselves, but on a cooperative process in which participation enriches us. This is the qualitative improvement of society in living form, an entity declaring itself worth having and then making good on that promise by enhancing itself in the intersection of many thousands of methods.

At the core of this process hides identity. Without a belief in its uniqueness, no society can last. With that belief, it is able to declare its values without neurotic doubt, and then begin the arduous process of putting those values into practice, refining their meaning as it does. Culture shapes genetics, and reality shapes culture, and this way all of the different disciplines come into coordination.

If you want to find the root of nationalism, it can be uncovered through identity. Groups do not segregate themselves and deport the Other from hatred of the Other, but so that the group can apply and improve its own standards. We cannot control ourselves with mere methods like altruism and self-interest, but with culture we can define our direction and then improve it, and in that alone the process of civilization is found.

If you don’t like CEO Martin Shkreli, you don’t like post-modern Amerika

Saturday, December 12th, 2015

the_eye_of_greed

If E-VIL, Greeeeeedy 1%-er Martin Shkreli didn’t exist, some Leftist filmmaker out in Hollyorc would have to invent the man. Before Martin Shkreli hatched, Oliver Stone did. The character in Wall Street was named Gordon Gekko and his famous “Greed is Good” soliloquy justifies this month’s Netflix Bill. I’ll save you the cost. Here goes.

So what did Martin Shkreli do that was vile, sick and amoral? He raised the price of a drug his corporation sold and reaped every penny of profit he could from it. The drug, Daraprim, treats parasitic infections. It used to cost $13.50 a pill. It now costs $750. Why did Mean, Old Martin charge such an exorbitant price? Because he could.

I can imagine the scene from an updated version of A Christmas Carol.

Cratchett: “Please, Mr. Shkreli! My son Tiny Tim has a compromised immune system and your Daraprim pills are his only hope to wipe out his parasites. I can’t afford $750 per pill….What will I do?”

Shkreli: “Bob, Old Buddy, Old Pal, Old Schmuck, let’s go through the relevant options here. 1) You can get your defecation in sequence and learn how to sell those little, pruned nuts off. Then you can afford whatever the fornication I feel like charging you and Tiny Tim will live to see his Bar Mitzvah. Or 2) You can invest in a good, sturdy shovel and a warm pair of gloves because, let’s face it Sparky, your ass is broke and the undertakers here don’t work cheaply.”

Now we all know the scene I created above would never come to pass. I’m sure people with sick children are that desperate and I’m sure Martin Shkreli is genuinely that obnoxious a mentula. He’d piss on cute, little Tiny Tim and laugh if it gave the poor tyke pneumonia. It’s just that both Mr. Cratchett and Mr. Shkreli have an ally here. That keeps Tiny Tim alive and keeps Martin Shkreli well supplied with nose-candy for all his holiday partying this winter. It’s you, it’s me and all the other suckers imprisoned in the US cartelcare, oops I mean healthcare system.

Insurance companies will pony up. They will do so voluntarily, or ObamaCare will be tweeked a notch to make them pony up voluntarily. What Mr. Shkreli has done here is reveal three flaws with our current society that manifest themselves in our screwed healthcare system.

  1. We are altruistic beyond all reason. People who have compromised immune systems are going to have a very hard time surviving, even if you microwave all their parasites with the wonder-pill. You could teach 500 kids in Detroit how to read for the price of saving Tiny Tim until he reaches adulthood and is too sickly to ever hold a full time job. Or you could fail to do either while expending the money to do one or both. Or you could draw the line on this pathological altruism somewhere and perform the incredibly hard cost-benefit analysis that is necessary.
  2. And here’s the kicker! If either Cratchett or Shkreli invested their own money in saving Tiny Tim, I’d say ‘God Bless” and wish them a mountain of luck. They aren’t. They are investing your money and not even asking please or telling you thank you. You are saving Tiny Tim (and indulging whatever itch Mr. Shkreli feels like scratching) every time you pay for that increase in your health insurance premium. Neither Cratchett nor Shkreli has to wonder whether saving Tiny Tim is worth the fight.
  3. Neither Shkreli nor any other drug maker (or other economic actor) has any moral or practical economic limit on what they can screw over you, the health-insurance premium payer for. We are all individuals that get to do our own thing. Shkreli’s thing is robbing the insurance industry and by extension all of its customers. Unlike Mark Zuckerberg who buys regulatory capture over the immigration process to artificially lower his labor costs, Shkreli just puts that .45 right up against your dome and calls for your wallet. If anything, I like him compared to Zuckerberg. There’s no treacly pretense of any decency. The red claws and fangs are out there in clear view.

So you’re probably thinking this guy Shkreli should have a .50cal sniper round with his name on it. Maybe you lack the educational background to properly discuss his business ethics, but he can go take them up with Jolly Old Saint Pete. I’d have to agree with you on that one. Guys like Martin Shkreli have a notch in the ecosystem, but a wise man makes bloody well sure they don’t get to practice it near his location. But that brings me to my final point here.

If you don’t like Martin Shkreli, you don’t like our contemporary society. Amerika is in part Martin Shkreli. He’s just way more blatant about the whole thing than Bono, Bill Gates or Bill Clinton. He doesn’t tell you how much he cares. He shows you by skinning you and leaving you for dead.

Martin Shkreli is a serviceable villain. He is truly malicious, but his greed is good. It clarifies a whole bunch of things that the typical Amerikan Crony Kapitalist would rather leave carefully obscured. If you want to see him stopped, than you have to help dismantle the Government-Capitalist Complex that thrives on regulatory capture and dishonest, corrupted democracy. Shkreli, like Barack Obama, like Neal DeGrasse Tyson, like Speaker Ryan, Like Hillary, like Jeb Bush, is Post-Modern Amerika. We have met the enemy. Is he staring back at you out of the mirror this morning?

In defense of self-interest

Saturday, September 26th, 2015

white_resistance_to_internationalism

In an egalitarian time, the greatest sin is to withhold from someone else when you have more than they do.

While many people do this all the time, they carefully hide the fact. The most troubling circumstances resemble those in which I found myself yesterday.

At a convenience store, I purchased an item for my companion, and as we set out into the sun, a voice called out. “Sorry to bother you, sir, but I’m just trying to get something to eat…” called the plaintive soul.

Without hesitation, I said, “No.” He didn’t ask for an explanation — too many other marks coming out of the door, fattened on moon pies and Budweiser — but the reasoning is worth sharing.

Self-interest is the only moral course of action.

With self-interest, a direct correspondence occurs between the intent behind any action and its application. There are no proxies; the homeless-looking guy says he’s broke, but maybe not. The charities say the money goes to help people, but maybe not, and there may be secondary consequences. Those who give money are on a practical level chumps funding unknown evils in the name of the “good” whispered in their ear.

Further, Darwin winks at us. I use my money to the best of my judgment. Those who are poor at spending money wisely will end up being poor; those who are good, will rise. This benefits all of us by putting the most competent people both in charge of the money, and in a position to use it.

Next, I disagree with the idea of subsidy in any form. If I have to work, it is theft to allow others to skate by without it when they have need. I will spend my money on my family, and they will spend it on theirs. If an economic downturn comes, I want them starving so they bang on the doors of banks and investment houses and demand a fix. But do not steal from me. Karl Marx was right: time is money. When parasites show up and demand a handout, they are not just taking my money, but part of my irreplaceable life that I now have to work to pay for them, the parasitic bureaucrats who administer to them, and the businesses that crop up to take advantage of the free money handed out by the idiotic (apparently) voters.

There is only one legitimate use for collective income in society: toward things that benefit us all. We all take benefit from an opera, for example, pushing culture upward; we all benefit from roads, a military, courts and police. We do not all see any reward from charity, which takes from the successful and uses it to subsidize the unsuccessful like a crop no one wants to buy. And yet they grow. The more we give, the more of them there are.

This does not mean at all that I believe in Atomized Man, who owes no one a thing but himself. We all owe a debt to participate in society, and that is why we go to jobs and fund things like roads. The most important aspect of this however is the one no one mentions, which is supporting society itself — through labor. It takes work to maintain a culture, values, heritage, standards, customs and social order. These things do not show up on ledgers but they are more important than money. You can make it through a bad time with those, but not a rich time without, as our society is evidence daily.

One final reason exists for taking gleeful delight in self-interest: to do otherwise, to any degree, creates a victimhood mentality. If you give someone money, he must categorize it in his mind as either that he was wronged and is owed, or that he is a parasite. He will choose the former and the people handing out the money — all politeness — will do the same. This creates a mentality that spreads through society like an epidemic: first the poor feel wronged, then the middle class consider themselves victims, then the rich do. The problem is that victimhood is compensatory behavior. When someone feels wronged, they will “take it out” on other parties with the compensatory excuse and rationalization/justification that they were (actually) owed this, and did not receive it, so they are right in taking it. If you want to increase criminal mentation in your population, produce victims.

It is entertaining that our media is quick to defend various murderers and pedophiles with the excuse that they were abused when they were young. And yet, most abusers recreate their abuse trauma, so if possible, we should avoid abuse. Unfortunately for us, the perception of abuse — “I was wronged!” — functions exactly like abuse in the human mind. Handing out free subsidies is creating future abusers. It is immoral for the reasons stated above, as well as impractical, but it is downright suicidal for the reasons stated in this paragraph.

A victimhood mentality makes all of geared toward having non-goals. When they are at a job, and the stated goal is to make widgets, their actual goal becomes to do as little as possible to reclaim what was “stolen” from them. People pad bills, waste time, throw out working materials and otherwise sabotage society at large — which foots the bill through externalized costs — because they feel victimized. This quickly spreads to outright revenge, in which they would rather destroy everything everyone has than let another second go by without their “victimhood” being addressed.

Victim mentality creates a sluggish society. No one works toward task, but they also stop aspiring to anything beyond that theft of time and resources. They stop dreaming and hoping, and go into “resistance mode,” where like suicide bombers they simply hope to take down others with them when they go. They give up working toward anything and merely work against each other. Soon there is a giant mass of monkeys, each trying to rip all of the others off, with anyone who chooses to remain a decent person becoming the target of not just parasitism but outright violent crime. All of this arises from the welfare/socialist psychology.

White people got depressed and started dropping out of society at the point where it grew powerful governments. As the 1800s gave way to the 1900s, governments rose in power in replacement for monarchies and culture, and people became miserable. This occurred because government works through a victimhood Narrative which enables it to create victims, justify/rationalize the expansion of its power on their behalf, and then use that to force everyone else to obey and not notice its gross incompetence. When was the last time we had competent leadership? No one can remember, because it was not in our lifetimes, and in fact ended long before that.

Our current situation has us beset by parasites, most of whom do not intend to be predatory. They grow up in this society, get told they are victims, and then become addicted to the steady flow of benefits and welfare. On the other end, people become accustomed to easy jobs and stealing away whatever time and money they can, including by externalizing cost. Our current immigration crisis, as well as our constant class warfare, arises directly from the victimhood mentality created by our handouts because government wanted to be more powerful, and the voters approved it.

Self-interest includes that which benefits everyone, not just in the world of money and government, but things like the environment, natural species, clean air and preservation of culture and race. Without self-interest, those things are assumed to be someone else’s problem, and people work against them because they see any other costs as taking from what they are “owed.” Our society became hateful when we turned out back on these shared things for an endless cycle of finding pitiable peasants and trying to “lift them up” by giving them money, then finding out — it must be magic — that in the next generation there were more of them.

White people went into decline when we got into the government/welfare loop. Like bacteria or mosquitoes, our dependents multiply and drain us of energy. Soon good people stop caring, stop trying to get anything right, and finally stop reproducing and being moral. That is the condition white people were in by the time 1968 rolled around, like weakened patients watching helplessly as the host attaches. The parasite has sucked us dry and the only way to keep it at bay is to hold up the principle of self-interest rigorously in every area of life, all the time.

Fear of the known

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

deep_dark_forest

The best way to master someone else — to crush him or her in the mental judo by which we enwrap our opposites in arguments from which the other cannot escape — is to convince them that they are motivated by fear, ignorance or stupidity. At that point they begin to distrust their argument, and lack the will to complete it, which in scientific terms means their insecurity doesn’t allow them the energy to forcefully explore enough options, so their brain picks conservatively among weak options and loses.

Human fear, for this reason, is vastly misunderstood because we use it more as a token of manipulation than of diagnosis. Like love, sex, God, death and other sacred things, it has become a symbol in the tug-of-war for mindshare that is our advertising-driven, consumer-fueled, individualistic society. Even more, because we live in a time of social judgment predominating over situational complexity, we are not encouraged to investigate fear. It’s bad. Period. Got it?

Instead, I think it makes sense we look at the fears of human individuals with the open eyes of a nihilist. A good starting point is to acknowledge these basic categories of fear:

  • Evolution
    We fear any action by ourselves, others or the world at large that can show us to be on the wrong side of evolution. Specifically, anything that shows we come up short, whether in penis length or muscle strength or brain strength.Our popular culture has downdumbed evolution into a wrestling match, where two people fight and one survives, breeds and defines the future. It’s obviously more complex than that: post-natal care, prosperity and wisdom are even greater influences than supremacy in combat, because often the most well-endowed person in the room avoids combat to be constructive instead. This is not to in any way disparage combat and aggression, both of which are necessary.

    In the modern time, our culture has a paranoiac fear of inequality. Our logic is that if we suppress evolutionary measurement for all, we’ll be safe from it, so we declare ourselves equal. Of course it doesn’t work, because there will always be a best locksmith in town who you need if it’s an urgent task that can’t be screwed up; on the other end, cynical disillusioned underachievers stop believing the rhetoric as well and start using “equality” as an excuse for a looting party.

    Our fear of inequality is fear of competition. As is our fear of elites, nudity, grades, salaries and the judgment of others. We all know the smarter critters come out ahead, and since they’re smarter, can see what we dumber creatures don’t, possibly as they stand over our steaming carcasses. That scares us, so we make it socially taboo.

  • Chance
    Here’s one to keep you up in the small hours: some things are completely random. Even if you live a really good life and do the best you can, that 747 up there with engine trouble may land on your house and roast you and your family into kerosene-glazed hams.There is no reason to it because there’s no narrative controlling all of life and judging each act from an anthrocentric perspective; even the most astute theists will characterize God as a system with a will, rather than a judging personality, so we have no expectation that acts like randomly falling planes are deliberate. Rather, they’re random, which doesn’t mean without order but does mean without an order that considers us as individuals.

    So we fear random chance. Since it occurs without precursor — leaving a car unlocked with a laptop inside is a precursor, where a random homeless crackhead breaking into a car with nothing visible has no precursor — we have no way of knowing that the SUV two lanes over is going to veer left as its driver has a sneezing attack, ploughing us and our loved ones into fat dappled red paste.

  • The physicality of our minds
    It’s late at a party. People are speaking into the wee hours. You start to notice how when we talk, we often screw up — not just the ums and stutters and un-grammatical sentences revised ad hoc halfway — but the times when our brains, grasping for a word, pick a similar word with a dissimilar meaning. Or, mangle a cliche.Usually we confuse words or phrases we use commonly with what we’re trying to say, and spit out the wrong thing, like a database mis-indexing a search. “I wasn’t album I mean able to be there” or someone confusing congratulations with condolences at an inopportune moment because they were nervous — these are good examples.

    We’re quick to “I screwed up that phrase” but that’s a way of hiding one of our oldest fears. I didn’t do anything; my brain, which is physical, had a mechnical (bio-electrical) error and so wasn’t able to complete that thought. We’re quick to say “I did it” not to claim responsibility but to disclaim the idea that, beyond our control, our brain is an organic gadget which can misfire (a “brain fart”) without our control.

    This is one of the most sacred human illusions. We like to believe we’re in control of our minds, that everything we do is deliberate, and that when we make errors, they were bad choices. Increasily, science shows us that our errors originate in biology: too little of certain nutrients or neurotransmitters, confusion causing us to breathe shallowly and starve the brain, exhaustion, etc. This draws into question whether we as personalities, souls and individuals have much choice over our actions at all, and this is why the physicality of our minds is a big taboo.

    It’s so taboo, in fact, that you will find people extremely unwilling to discuss this. You can bring up weird sex, murder, racial inequity, joyful child rape and the apocalypse and people will be less queasily unable to handle it than they will with this topic; after all, those are external events. By mentioning the physicality and falibility of the mind, you’re striking at their self-identity and subverting it.

  • Self-interest of others
    This taboo is a social taboo: if you mention that all people are motivated by self-interest, whether material or identity or (in the rare case of 1% of the population) a desire to act in an idealistic sense of “moral attention,” people freak out. That’s because this knowledge undercuts the social illusion, which is that by demanding we all be equal and sociable, we have somehow cancelled out our ability to manipulate behind the scenes, invisibly, for our own self-interest.Society is like two guys with guns. They agree to not shoot each other and put their guns on the table. But for how long does this bond last? A promise can be broken. Treaties often are. One guy may have a knife that he hasn’t mentioned, and the other a sap that he keeps incognito. If one of these guys is motivated by self-interest, he may wake up to life and think, “You know, I’m never really safe from this guy until I’ve killed him, because he can always grab that gun or whip out that knife. So I’m going to sap his ass until he falls over, and then take both guns, and I’ll have improved my position.”

    That’s why self-interest terrifies us. Civilization itself is based on the idea that we can set aside self-interest and instead act according to collective rules designed to preserve others. However, no one else knows what goes on in our minds, and in every society — even the most repressive — there is ample opportunity for scheming, planning, and conspiring behind the scenes. In public I can hand out money to charities and speak profusely of brotherly love; in private, I can leak your police record to the press, bankrupt your company and screw your wife, because I’m acting in self-interest.

    Interestingly, ancient societies understood this principle, and so fell over themselves to find that 1% who because they’re deep space idealists will always act in favor of a moral goal that underscores all their acts. Sadly, such people are a threat to those who both recognize their self-interest and are able to deceive other people that they don’t, and so the spacy idealists are the first to die in any political turn of events.

  • The narrative
    We fear a narrative to life itself: an external force, manipulating for reasons we are too dumb to see, that creates the actual narrative of life versus the ostensible. Witness a lemming procession: the ostensible narrative is that we’re going to the promised land. The actual narrative is that the lemming who told us we were going to the promised land is leading us over a cliff, and when the thrashing and gurgling is over, will go back and claim our lemming-holes and lemming-wives for himself.We can divide hidden narratives into the following categories:

    • Conspiracy: a secret force controls the world for its own purposes
    • Paranoia: some force or secret metaphysical order to nature manipulates us
    • God: there is some force of judgment or wisdom that knows when we’re behaving like monkeys
    • Determinism: all of what we do is determined by what came before us; there’s a plan!

    These scare the crap out of us. Not only do they mean we’re suckers for buying into the ostensible narrative and not noticing the secrete narrative, but they also mean that our efforts to reward ourselves will not reward us in the ways that matter according to the actual narrative.

    A good dose of relativity — not relativism, which is a false objectivism based on personal empowerment by pretentious assumption of the ability to judge others and give them compensatory scoring for the relative disadvantages only wise you can see — can help cure this problem. The only narrative that exists is that found where all things are relative to the whole, and only one thing fits this definition: the whole of physical/informational reality itself. (For more on that, you’ll have to see our columns on idealism.)

    There’s a duality to our fear of hidden narratives, however. When things go badly for us, we like to blame them. It wasn’t me that screwed this up — God cursed me. It wasn’t our fault that we elected corrupt leaders — it was the Masonic-Zoroastrian conspiracy. Don’t worry about striving because we know the mathematical order of this universe determines that only the good die young, all things must fail, etc. — let’s go to the pub, there’s nothing we can do! Shrug.

All of these great hidden fears — and they’re hidden, because confessing your actual fears to others reveals your weakness, so confess trivial instances of those fears instead — have one thing in common: they acknowledge the limits to our autonomy, knowledge and self-control. In short, they show us that we are exactly what we appear to be, which is a small tribe of monkeys that got smart on one planet and are now trying to gain self-control so they can be realistic and progress to the next evolutionary stage.

These fears together act to hide that reality because it is fundamentally threatening to have an actual goal. If there’s something we should be doing, all the things we do which are not means to that end can be seen to be the flakiness, selfishness and laziness they are. We don’t want that. We want freedom from the judgment of others because we fear our weaknesses will be seen, so we try to blind them to the actual goal (smart monkeys!) in order to hide our motivations, even if that means our species drifts further from having a realistic impression of what it’s trying to accomplish.

In order to hide these truth-fear pairings, we make up a countervailing fiction, which is that we have a better way — and we base it on social, or anthrocentric, concerns instead of the world as a whole. “All of us here agree” is a way of programming your brain to ignore reality and to focus instead on what other monkeys want you to think. They will call it Progress, Science, Wisdom — profaning all holy and sacred and reverent things in the process — maybe even Morality, but this social fiction creates a consensual reality which slowly obliterates all other truths by becoming an assumption underlying their supercessors.

The problem with this consensual reality — some call it “social reality” and the political movement it engenders Crowdism — is that since we define our own needs and reality, we create an ever-widening circle. Truth threatens? Redefine truth as convenient. But now the new truth becomes inconvenient, so we alter it a little further. In the next generation, further. Soon we’re way, way far from any sense of truth, but we can’t see it because all the monkeys around us are repeating to us, in new and innovative ways, the underlying assumption that we need a social reality to replace nature. We call that cognitive dissonance.

Even worse is that as we subsidize others who want to evade reality, we slowly place the burden of our salvation on those who deny social trends and insist reality is, indeed, real — this is the one radical and taboo act in all eras and civilizations — and these people are a minority. Soon it becomes more convenient to kill them, and the civilization plunges into disorder because people are acting on what they’d prefer to be true instead of what is realistic. This is how all civilizations die.

You might think this article is a hit piece on God and tradition, but those two terms were very sensible innovations that allowed us to name our fears and displace them onto the whole of reality, instead of ourselves. They can be abused, but there is nothing which cannot be abused because names and symbols differ from what they reference, so we can always change the definitions of signals (like names or symbols, even God) and then use them as if they were still valid. If anything, if the symbol “God” has become corrupted, the smart response is to embrace God and start working to redefine the symbol toward reality — but that’s another topic for another day.

Our secret fears, like our secret hopes, reveal what we know at our innermost souls and, because this pattern repeats among all humanity, what is probably the most accurate depiction of our reality. While the socially acceptable response is to deny fears exist and not look into them, as it will destabilize others, the intelligent response is to explore fears in the laboratory of ourselves so we can understand more about this magical world in which we live.

Why Civilization Requires Selfishness

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004

or

Cruelty versus Self-Interest

Oversocialized eras breed people who are afraid to offend. I can only speak for America, having lived here my whole life, but I can see the disease spreading to Europe via American media, products and attitudes; it’s a cultural invasion, not a physical one. Of all the invasions that occur, this is the most disgusting, since it is passive, and passivity wherever it occurs goes well self-pity, self-righteousness and low self-esteem, since nothing is worse than not being able to simply say, “This is what I want and I have my reasons, and your objections don’t matter to me.” That is the language of those who create, while “We might be able to do this if no one’s upset” is the language of the submissive and reactionary. Given that this passive attitude dominates among the “cultured” these days, meaning those indoctrinated in the global culture formed by money and liberal democracy and cosmopolitan values, it is not surprising that most people are afraid to deny others a chance to have what they have.

In America, this is manifested by an attitude that anything exclusive is bad, and anyone who creates a community and then wishes to exclude others is bad, and that the highest good is making something good available to all comers so that those who follow the rules can “get ahead” in whatever imaginary social and political order exists. These things are truly imaginary; if you have food on the table, your family around you and do something you find meaningful, you’ll fulfill your destiny – that alone is reality. But fantasy worlds prevail, in part because we’re all surviving by being in denial of the impending collapse of the West, which has lost its cultural consensus and thus is being slowly divided, consumed and parasitized from within. What enables this destruction is in part the attitude that everything should be open to everybody.

Imagine an open frontier. You and your family find a place where no one lives, and through days of back-breaking labor cultivate fields, build towns and develop all the specialized skills needed for civilization. Your sons and daughters marry well, and bring in additional talents. All is fine, but now you’re wealthy, and hence soon are surrounded by supplicants who want to be “allowed” into your civilization, usually because of some misfortune they perceive as having happened to them. What occurs if you let them in is the death of the natural selection that made your civilization possible.

You endured hardships, and undoubtedly, some died. Some of these died for no reason, but most died because of lack of judgment, intelligence, character or strength; the ones who remain are, by definition, adapted to living in the civilization that resulted. This is the only true equality of opportunity that exists: they were able to start something of their own and by endurance, create a lasting functional entity. It’s not equality of opportunity to then let any wandering fool into the place, as they had no part in its creation, and thus are unproved. Unsurprisingly, societies that take on the general public have throughout history become bloated and collapsed. If one looks at this from a reality-world standpoint, and not a fantasy of religious-political implications, it’s clear why this happens, and how the same mechanism that selects the best to create a civilization works in reverse to digest it.

In nature, you can see this order everywhere. Ants succeed in part because they rigorously defend themselves against other ants, and thus ensure that only the most competent ants prevail in their colonies. Egrets will fight for their prey against other birds so they can feed their own young, and there’s nothing more noble or gentle than an egret. Why are humans different? The answer is simple: because the people who come up with these egalitarian ideas are products of a civilization many years after its founding, and not those who created it. To these people, any life outside of an already-established civilization is unthinkable; society will always exist, why not let in others? After all, it makes us feel good to give this gift. This process inevitably destroys every civilization infected with it.

For this reason, the best civilizations have during healthy times been places of a dispassionate nature, or perhaps we should say: highly selective in their passion, and unlikely to grant emotion to all comers much as a prostitute grants sexual favors to any man with the right wealth-tokens. It’s healthy and fine to be proud to be Indo-European, and to deny others access to your civilization; after all, self-preservation is your first goal, and letting them in will destroy you. Similarly, it’s healthy and fine to within that civilization deny breeding and wealth to those who are less capable. This might seem cruel to them, but it’s the opposite of cruelty to your civilization itself, and from that comes benefit for everyone. This is the natural way, and it shouldn’t be replaced by human ways, especially seeing how these human ways have led to collapse among us. Trust nature. Only then can we all fufill our destinies and live meaningful lives, regardless of the degree of fantasy-world social prestige and comforts we enjoy.

Recommended Reading