Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘social control’

Social Control

Tuesday, October 31st, 2017

Humans live in a world of confusion because so many things are a mystery to us, and so we write them off, but then become subverted by lurking doubts. We accept many things in our lives that we do not understand, and rationalize them as being for the best because we see no other option.

For this reason, at least two layers exist to our human world: there is the public layer, in which we explain our rationalizations to each other, and an underlying layer, understood by few, where actual cause-effect relationships are understood.

In that public layer, we reason backward from what already exists. “The economy needs” or “bipartisanship demands compromise.” Here, we are looking not just at the material world, but the configuration in which it stands now, and reasoning from that about what our future should be. This necessarily follows a single direction, because each act accepts the last as necessary and reacts to it in order to keep it from failing. It is like building a house out of a shack; we add on rooms to support existing rooms, and end up with a chaotic design.

The underlying layer remains understood by few because it requires analytical skill and patience to understand, things that require the force of character and force of intellect that are rare in any society. And so, all of the forces that actually regulate and change our society go unnoticed, while a play is acted out onstage to provide simple answers that make people feel intelligent and confident for understanding them.

Plato argues for a cave metaphor, and the ancient Vedic scribes talked about the veil of Maya, but this is not as simple as “materialism.” It is our tendency to mistake effects for causes of themselves, much as we like to see ourselves as causes of ourselves, which manifests in materiality as opposed to seeing patterns, which is what we call idealism of the German school.

We can understand patterns only through the world beyond the part of us that consciously rationalizes and uses language. Patterns must be understood on a lower level than symbols, and can be recognized frequently by aesthetics, but this requires that we reach into our inner selves where intuition resides. Through that, we can apprehend the forms or patterns that life takes, and thus understand it as a kind of language: in certain types of situations, certain patterns arise in response to certain conditions. Patterns replicate in parallel across different media — thought, information, matter, energy — and the broader our analytical reach in these areas, the less likely we are to be able to translate the patterns we see into language or equations. Instead, we must simply take them into our inner self and assess them against all else we know to intuit what is correct. This is the opposite of deduction and rational thought; “exterminate all rational thought,” as William S. Burroughs advised, opens the gateway to understanding the intuition.

As such, our only true motivation is from within, and is based in understanding, not desire. We cannot command it to be so, write laws about it, enforce it with procedures, or demonstrate it in a lab or open argument. It is a direct understanding of the world, and its counterpart is our creative side, which generates metaphors for our comprehension of it. Together, these two sides come together to give us a more accurate portrayal of the world, even if it is not literal, because we are dealing with patterns that occur over time and across multiple media, so they cannot be visualized, tokenized or otherwise reduced. They are alone in themselves, and the best we get is glimpses, but not all glimpses are equal; those glimpses which apply a focused understanding of the world are more accurate, and these are biologically possible for only a small segment of the population. Either those people are in charge, or the rest who do not understand such things declare them to be insane and reject them.

In every human event involving two or more people, the social impulse conflicts with the inner self. The social impulse is composed of what we want done to us, and how we convince others to do what we want done. Because both we and they are human, the natural tendency arises to assume that both have the same motivations because they have the same sensations, a condition which rapidly approximates solipsism. When reinforced by the group, the condition accelerates, such that reality is gradually minimized because it naturally clashes with a human-centered view of the world, and eventually inversion occurs, where the meanings of words and things are changed into their opposite. With this comes a backward thought process of rationalizing from what is, in order to feel good about it, so that others can be motivated with this good feeling to do what is necessary despite the otherwise crushing pressure of solipsism, like an exploded star becoming a black hole.

Social control occurs through the need for this manipulation. Instead of confronting reality and acting toward purpose, individuals act toward keeping the group together (“why can’t we all just get along?” howled the exasperated kindergarten teacher). This shows the dominance of the social impulse, which is entirely external and represented reversed logic, in that it argues from material motivations as a way of preventing certain acts and forcing others to occur.

External control benefits those who wield it because it is simple to achieve. You set up rules, make them vague, and then punish anyone who deviates, which is something you selectively interpret or choose to enforce. In other words, your citizens will be at all times cowering from the possibility of enforcement, and they will attempt to do things to please you in order to pre-emptively prove their loyalty. This makes them entirely subservient, and soon the need to rationalize this external control forces them to re-construct how their internal impulses work. Over time, they will stop being able to formulate objectives and analyze their own actions without your input because before they do anything, they must ensure that it will not offender the controller. In this way, people become entirely dependent on the control yet prone to rebel against it as they sense that it is changing the core of their personalities.

In our neo-Communist society, social control goes a step further by being distributed, or not directly implemented by a centralized force. Instead, the central authorities set up a reward/punishment system which mostly functions by making rewards necessary to rise above the entry level, subsistence lifestyle. For example, a controller can rule without making his ideology mandatory. Instead he simply impoverishes everyone, or at least forces large expenses upon them, and then alleviates that pain for those who affirmatively come to him and demonstrate a willingness to be obedient. Although it does not involve high technology, control is a form of mind control in this way, in that it induces people to re-wire themselves to be essentially mental servants of the controller. Taking this a step further, social control induces citizens to enforce control upon each other, with those who impose control upon others being rewarded, and those who fail to do so also fail to advance in the system. Soon there is a gold rush for having demonstrated obedience by making others obedient.

Bureaucratic society takes on this form through its pretense of meritocracy. As a way of enforcing equality, meritocracy starts everyone at zero and advances those who are willing to sit through many years of schooling, memorize all the right facts, participate in all the activities, and otherwise have their minds shaped to fit the type of behavior that society expects. This makes people into beggars who must prove their utility by sacrificing their time to be spent on essentially make-work, since very little of what is memorized is retained, and weeds out the non-compliant ones. Social control causes people to enforce on one another a competitive race for status, such as who owns what objects or has which titles. “Keeping up with the Joneses” motivates people to earn more, which in turn causes them to trade off more of their time. All of this has the effect of altering them internally, so that like citizens of ex-Soviet republics, they become unable to act of their own impetus and are entirely dependent on external cues — social, ideological, monetary, material — to know how to deal with life. Without others to follow and set standards, they are locked in paralysis at the thought of having to act.

This use of social control to morally and intellectually neuter people demonstrates the nature of bureaucracy as a control system, rather than an efficient method of administering society:

The end result of complete cellular representation is cancer. Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organisms. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on opposite principle of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action, to the complete parasitism of a virus…Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapses. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existences as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host.

When hierarchy is abolished, such as by a revolution, all that is left is those in power. Hierarchy refers to a hierarchy within the citizenry, such that some have rank above others, as opposed to government or another party outside of society itself which, like a contractor or service provider, claims to provide quality governance and stability in exchange for income from taxes. A controller is neither of the group nor interested in hierarchy; control must come from on high, or outside of the group, and be obeyed or used to ostracize or otherwise damage the person who failed to obey. Controllers may implement a hierarchy within the political class, but this division represents power only, and not a role beyond administering control downward.

Leadership is not control. Government of any form seeks control because it is external to society and operates by reducing people to the rank of equals so that it can reward those who obey, punishing the rest by parallax motion of their social status and fortunes. Actual leadership separates the best people out from the rest in advance, does not demand loyalty tests or other methods of keeping the herd together, and emphasizes reward for successful achievement of goals. Control regulates methods as a means of limiting what people can do and therefore what they can think; leadership rewards achievement and has minimal influence on methods. As a result, leadership creates many paths to the same goal, where control creates repetitively similar paths to many different goals, since it does not operate by reward but by punishment for deviation from ideology, and encourages all other forms of deviation as a type of stochastic resonance to silhouette and emphasize the ideological narrative.

With control, mass culture is created, but control also arises from mass culture because with masses, keeping the group together is more important than having purpose. For control, purpose is short-circuited into a perpetual pseudo-purpose of always maintaining control. In this way it is both tautological and cyclic in a self-perpetuating way, although with each cycle, it seems to lose some energy because of its repetitive nature, and slowly runs down. Mass culture and control are inseparable from bureaucracy, which is the assembly-line treatment of people as identical objects upon which the state acts, and this requires imposing external manipulation on people through rewards and punishments as a means of “shaping” them to be obedient. For this reason, bureaucracy is totalitarianism

Thus, over the past 50 years, the consequence has been the rise of The Manager as the archetypal Modern Man – the manager is the cocrete terminus and manifestation of sixties spirituality. Indeed, the 60s-type rebels and cynics always become managers; and managers are the servants of The System – indeed managers are the dupes of The System.

The deal is that in return for creating and imposing The System – in return for working as-a-manager to extend the reach and power of The System via the expansion and linking of bureaucracy – the manager personally will be rewarded with wealth, power and status such that he can pursue his (or more usually her) selfish gratifications – sex, holidays, fashion, possessions…

All managers hate their work as such – and it is indeed hateful work; it being to collaborate in the intended long-term and permanent enslavement of others to a totalitarian agenda of materialism and inversion of the Good. (Bureaucracy just is totalitarianism.)

Management uses the same philosophy as other forms of control: an external authority, using external methods, manipulates people in order to shape them into a pattern of compliant behavior.

This has several negative consequences. First, it makes people entirely dependent on authority, and correspondingly unwilling to trust their own analytical ability, intuition or common sense. Second, it allows those who have no inherent wisdom to get ahead by simply being obedient and diligent, which is a form of equality when put under analysis. It also bores those who do not lack ability because for them, all of this stuff is remedial and tangentially relevant. But it delights those who find comfort in external process. People who find comfort in external process are those who are alien from the inner process by which they formulate their own purpose; control, because it is external, acts against those who have inner purpose, shaping them gradually into those who respond only to external stimulus. This is why it associates with fantasies of revenge, defense of the underdog, equality which innately sabotages the higher to promote the lower, dominance of the weak over the strong, and other fantasies.

William S. Burroughs reveals knowledge of this when he spoke of what he thought about Leftists:

All liberals are weaklings, and all weaklings are vindictive, mean and petty. (164)

Bureaucracy, Leftism and Control thus fit into the same pattern: imposition of the weaker on the strong, after subverting the strong with a mental virus based in guilt for having succeeded. This accelerates the rise of the people without souls over the small group who do all the hard intellectual and moral choice-making.

People without souls focus on the external personality of other people — obedience, social cues, favorite TV shows, shared activities — and ignore the inner core, where intelligence and moral character reside, two factors which along with the creative impulse constitute what we call the soul. That inner core is hidden from socialization, and can generate the personality from its most essential principles outward, but only if the person is self-actualized; otherwise, the personality is an artifact of the social group. Since this inner core is inaccessible to control, it represents a threat to control, which relies on the concept of universalism, or one idea applied equally in different contexts without regard for the patterns and variations inherent to those different contexts. Universalism is control because it destroys context, difference and individual traits, and replaces them with a mechanical, artificial and uniform rule which stamps out the difference between human beings so that control can remain in power. Similarly, it seeks to crush nature, which is comprised of endless variation and complexity, because nature threatens human dominion by not being human, where through social means, both individuals and groups can be dominated.

Using language, tokens and social pressure to control a human herd is the essence of modernity:

Language is a virus that seeks to supplant natural order. People are able to use language to manipulate one another, and through this can get ahead with social/ideological means instead of by producing actual results in external reality. From Tom Wolfe:

Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

And William S. Burroughs from The Ticket That Exploded (1962):

From symbiosis to parasitism is a short step. The word is now a virus. The flu virus may have once been a healthy lung cell. It is now a parasitic organism that invades and damages the central nervous system. Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organism that forces you to talk. That organism is the word.

And Friedrich W. Nietzsche in the document that kicked off postmodernism, “On Truth And Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense” (1873):

But because man, out of need and boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum omni contra omnes [war of all against all] from his world. This peace pact brings with it something that looks like the first step toward the attainment of this enigmatic urge for truth. For now that is fixed which henceforth shall be “truth”; that is, a regularly valid and obligatory designation of things is invented, and this linguistic legislation also furnishes the first laws of truth: for it is here that the contrast between truth and lie first originates. The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real; he says, for example, “I am rich,” when the word “poor” would be the correct designation of his situation. He abuses the fixed conventions by arbitrary changes or even by reversals of the names. When he does this in a self-serving way damaging to others, then society will no longer trust him but exclude him. Thereby men do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception: what they hate at this stage is basically not the deception but the bad, hostile consequences of certain kinds of deceptions.

In other words, language is used to obscure the selfish motives of the individual which are cloaked in the idea of altruistic motives to help others. This is the essence of Crowdism.

Control, like tyranny, represents the ultimate selfishness: it is defensive in that it seeks to quash variation and independent thought in order to smash down the accurate analysis and perception of the most accomplished in force of moral character and force of intellect in our society. Control works by removing the natural leaders of society and replacing them with rote laws and a single universal standard by which all people are molded, making them replicants of the intent of the controllers, which does not offend the 90% who are weakest in the parallel of force of intellect and force of moral character, but destroys those who might know better by being able to more accurately perceive reality.

At the core of control we find the human impulse to avoid fate. Humans claim to want safety, but what they mean is freedom from being incorrect in their assessment of reality, thus subject to natural selection via physical or social means. In nature, the man who fails to make a fire on a cold night dies; in human society, the rest of the group is obligated to save him, thus dooming the group to drown in incompetents as more of them are saved and reproduce. Fate treats us all unequally. Some are born to sweet delight, and some are born to endless night, but social control would have them all be born to a state in-between, a perpetual grey mediocrity where they are safe but also prohibited from reaching excellence, beauty, realism, honor and virtue. And yet, this is popular with a crowd who by its very nature is formed of people who have nothing to distinguish themselves, therefore must rationalize that they have been wronged in order to continue believing that they are in fact good. All human efforts perish by this standard.

Inside of humanity lurks a great weakness. We try to avoid fate by eliminating possible error, and in doing so, neuter and domesticate ourselves. We are looking for excuses to do nothing, to rationalize life instead of acting it and by so doing, coming to terms with our limitations and the fate that awaits us beyond our control, like natural selection itself. This becomes a fear of life itself, and it is why every human effort fails and over time, becomes replaced by an oblivious mediocrity which dooms its original purpose and removes access to an honest enjoyment of life for all.

Is Empathy Killing Us?

Tuesday, September 26th, 2017

Many of us have not heard of The Russel Conjugation, which turns out to be an assessment of how emotion — including empathy — over-rides our logical thinking process, leading us to favor bad options because they have greater effect on our persons:

As the theory goes, it is not that we don’t have our own opinions so much as that we have too many contradictory ones, and it is generally our emotional state alone which determines on which ones we will predicate action or inaction.

Russell Conjugation (or “emotive conjugation”) is a presently obscure construction from linguistics, psychology and rhetoric which demonstrates how our rational minds are shielded from understanding the junior role factual information generally plays relative to empathy in our formation of opinions.

…The basic principle of Russell Conjugation is that the human mind is constantly looking ahead well beyond what is true or false to ask “What is the social consequence of accepting the facts as they are?” While this line of thinking is obviously self-serving, we are descended from social creatures who could not safely form opinions around pure facts so much as around how those facts are presented to us by those we ape, trust or fear.

The human mind rewards whatever stimulus is most intense, and for most of us, social fears and opportunities are more real than the cold, “dry” logical calculations required to make complex decisions. In groups, this is intensified by a need to feel membership in the group, since inclusion is binary and so one is either in the good graces of the group, or an enemy.

Heterosexual Pride Day Demonstrates How “Equality” Will Not Solve Our Problems

Thursday, June 29th, 2017

In the realization that the best defense is a good offense, a group of non-Leftists got together and christened today Heterosexual Pride Day. Good provocation brings out the issues that lurk under the surface, and this was top-notch trolling.

Naturally the Left responded with outrage. In their view, homosexuals are a persecuted minority, and therefore homosexual pride is good, but heterosexual pride affirms the oppression that they infer is going on because of the delta in power between the two groups.

On the Alt Lite and mainstream parts of the Right, this provokes confusion. How is it, they ask, that if it is good for one group to have pride, it is bad for another group to do the same? Try that with the “White Panthers” or “Christian Holocaust” in conversation and you will see why not.

As they are about to learn, the hardest cuck to beat is the cuck within. In each of us, there is a beaten, derided and humiliated little boy hiding in his room after his parents said something cruel or his social group at school made fun of him for not being enough “with it” in emulating whatever trend everyone else was chasing.

To uncuck yourself, realize that there are two views of human social organization:

  1. Do what allows everyone to just get along.
  2. Do what is right and realize there will be conflict.

Egalitarianism arises from a desire to avoid conflict. Properly speaking, it is a variety of pacifism, or the idea that refusing to fight is more efficient or more moral than getting in there and fighting. The tearful child hiding behind his pillow wants, at first, for the conflict to end so that he is just accepted and can go further down the path of maturation without the horror of social censure confronting him.

If you want to know why most people tend toward egalitarianism, and from that to the range of opinions derived from it known as “Leftism,” the reason can be found in this desire to avoid conflict. If we tolerate everyone, stop fighting, and each of us just does whatever he or she needs to, they think, then society can function and the individual will not be bullied anymore.

To someone in the grips of this mentality, “equality” seems like a savior. In this view, every person and group gets an equal chance to have pride in what they do. But that is not how equality works in practice. In practice, pacifism always penalizes those who know and care enough to fight for what is right instead of what is convenient (that which allows us to “just get along”).

They do not understand egalitarianism. Equality will always and forever mean taking from the thriving and giving to the failing. It will always mean supporting the underdog against the strong. It will inevitably and necessarily oppose those who start conflict, even if the conflict is fair and reasonable, because the goal of equality is keeping everyone together in lieu of finding out what is right because the latter inexorably involves conflict, and egalitarians fear conflict in which they can appear to be in the wrong.

Scratch a bully, find someone who is terrified of not being included. Every bully that I knew had a terrible home life. Divorce, drunk dads who loved the belt more than a single word of praise, dysfunctional parents and siblings in jail. Feeling no place that belonged to them, and thus no value or purpose to their lives, they came to school and did unto others as life did unto them.

The kids who were really sad were the ones who had outwardly functional homes, but parents who belittled them or ignored them. To these parents, children were possessions that were designed to make the parent look good, and if that did not happen — the little screwups of childhood — they treated the children like non-functioning gadgets, and this mentality of “take it back to the store” or “throw it out” imprinted deeply on those children. These are at first inclined to go along with the True Believers in equality, but over time come to realize that what they have always wanted is to know what is right, and to do that, so when people criticize the belittled child can comfort himself with the knowledge that he did what was good and that the others are simply wrong.

One does not need equality in a group that is naturally equal, which means a group where everyone knows roughly what is right and each person is working toward that unequally, or according to their skills and abilities without the expectation of being identical. But in a group organized around control, or forcing everyone to just-get-along so that authority can stop worrying about what is right and focus on increasing its power, inequality is a problem because authority needs everyone to do exactly the same thing in order to avoid internal conflict. They demonize that internal conflict because some of it will consist of accurate and realistic criticism of that authority.

Authority gets a huge boost here. The dividend achieving by not trying to address real problems, and instead using that energy and resource load to further the goals of authority itself, makes authority massively powerful. Despite its promises to citizens, it serves only itself, and power that serves its own goals instead of those that it rules is by nature tyranny, or another form of bullying. It comes full circle.

This creates a match made in some infernal place. The underconfident herd demands an end to being bullied because its individual members fear losing social status if they are found to be wrong, and so authority steps in and promises to abolish all standards except obedience to authority, which makes everyone safe. At that point, society anathematizes realistic thinking and solutions in the external world, and goes down a path of navel-gazing which rewards only lies, since it is based on an assumption (equality) that is a lie.

This is why “Heterosexual Pride Day” or “white pride” will always be viewed as different than their equivalents among minority groups, and will be demonized and treated as an attack. You cannot get to doing what is right through equality; in fact, egalitarianism opposes the very idea of doing right or being realistic, which is required to know how to do right, in the first place. Equality replaces good as the goal of society. As the old saying goes, “Quality or equality; pick one.”

Why Civilization Drifts Left: Social Feelings

Thursday, March 2nd, 2017

Donald J. Trump gave his first really big speech, and feelings are mixed across the board. Many on the Right feel that he gave in to the Left, and it is certainly hard to refute that when we see language like this in the speech:

…while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.

…Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty, and justice in an unbroken chain all the way down to the president. That torch is now in our hands, and we will use it to light up the world.

…This is our vision. This is our mission. But we can only get there together. We are one people, with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same, great American flag. And we are all made by the same God.

His speech is great and stirring, a laundry list of changes shaped roughly around an arc from bipartisanship to his big point of American unity and self-interest. He makes a convincing argument for that — in the context of recent history — which reveals his role as a moderate trying to stop the bleeding in the short term, not think about the long term.

In the long term, everything said here is nonsense. Mob rule is unsustainable; the election of Trump was an attempt to fix the past hundred years of horrible decisions, not to make an affirmative choice toward a saner and healthier civilizations. He alludes to this:

Then in 2016, the Earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds, families who just wanted a fair shot for their children and a fair hearing for their concerns. But then, the quiet voices became a loud chorus, as thousands of citizens now spoke out together from cities small and large all across our country. Finally, the chorus became an earthquake, and the people turned out, by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple but crucial demand – that America must put its own citizens first. Because only then, can we truly make America great again.

In other words, things got so bad that a correction had to happen, and so democracy will perform one of its favorite tricks just as it did under Reagan. In this trick, democracy shows us how “good enough is the enemy of good” and will fix a few really egregious and immediate problems as a means to ignoring all the longer-term, deeper-seated problems.

Our modern world is miserable. It is ugly, conformist, unrestful, noisy, polluted, disposable and essentially wastes time because it refuses to find a purpose except humanity itself. Its emphasis on equality and tolerance means endorsement of decay and degeneracy all around us. Jobs are jails and most of our activity is distraction, producing landfill and little else.

This society is a horror. It has been a horror for so long that we cannot imagine any other way of doing things. Western Civilization is in decline and has been for centuries. The result is that all of our thinking is screwed up. We are so accustomed to the lies and rationalizations that we can no longer see clearly. And so the failed methods of the near past get perpetuated.

Most people have focused on adapting to our current existence, forgetting that by doing so, they are changing themselves. They spend the best hours of every day in servitude to the pretense and fears of others. They invest their time in communities which do not last, institutions that chase trends and fads, and a society whose values conflict with their own.

America represented an attempt to delay the decline just a little while longer by restraining mob rule through an elaborate set of gates, locks and channels known as the Constitution (“muh Constitution”). But by limiting the insanity of modernity, it only perpetuated modernity in a slightly diluted form.

This held on for almost two centuries before imploding, reaching its low point in 2008 with the election of the least credible candidate for an American president ever, and then in 2016 reversing course through the backlash Trump mentioned. We are in the midst of a cultural movement in the West that rejects liberal democracy, diversity and equality. Trump and Brexit are its first steps.

Our society is a horror because it is driven exclusively by people jockeying for position in socioeconomic status. The Enlightenment™ was a revolution against the kings, but it was also a revolt against caste, or the knowledge that people have different awareness — intelligence, morality — and that general gradations in awareness correspond to career and social roles that people should pursue.

With a caste system and aristocracy, the jockeying for socioeconomic status is removed. This produces a stable society which does not need constant growth in order to maintain itself. We gave this up for equality. America has tried to limit that equality with rules, but the herd subverted the rules and took over, with the most egregious example being Barack Obama.

His election however heralded something else, which was really total victory for the Left. They had beaten back the last vestiges of Anglo-American self-interest, and now conquered the nation with socialist policies designed to bleed dry its middle class and convert it into a Venezuela-style ideological state.

While Trump is pushing back against this and cleaning it up, the bigger problems remains which is that the system of liberal democracy is unworkable. The West has been in an accelerated downward slide since its liberalization, including two disastrous and fratricidal world wars. But everything else is bad too, except the economy, which so far has seemed powerful.

For example, in most of the West, our leaders are still crazy. Our popular culture is garbage and we have not produced anything great in centuries. Our science is politicized, our industries predatory, and the average person walking around exhibits the symptoms of dissociation (sorry… deconstruction) and confusion. Idiocy rules. Ugliness prevails.

Preserving this situation is the “good enough” that is the enemy of “good.” Good would be a better society, from its pattern to the everyday experience of its citizens. Good enough is patching up the sad wreck of modernity so that it avoids the immediate crisis and then goes back to a slow, smoldering decay.

People say that civilizations have life cycles, but this is less like a human life cycle and more like that of a forest. When a forest is new, trees expand onto previously unused land. As it succeeds, it runs into new problems like overcrowding, soil nutrition, parasites and waste removal. In the long term, the forest that lives maintains itself, and this is what civilization has failed to do.

Our civilization needs pruning and renovation. Our people, the only implement that can make this civilization, also need some work, both in terms of mental discipline and ejecting the one-in-five people in this society who seem to be outright insane or criminal. We need to orient our minds toward a future version of our civilization that is better, not just the present with a few threats removed.

Trump cannot do this. He is only the president of one country, and his goal is to take “baby steps” away from the Obama insanity and toward something more like 1950s America. That is admittedly a good first step, and if he can do it without starting a disastrous war that first step will lead to others, which is ultimately the goal for any non-Leftist.

However, he will have to struggle with a very human problem: humans tend to move Leftward in their thinking, especially in groups. This originates in the nature of socializing with others; the first step in socializing is to make others feel accepted, and most people do this by validating the individualism of others.

Individualism does not mean what people think its means. It does not mean independent-minded, as people want it to, but instead has a complicated meaning which amounts to thinking that the self is more important than the world, principles or others. Excerpts from a dictionary definition:

…the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests

…the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole

We might include principles and the inherent purpose of civilization in with the categories listed above as “common interests” and “society as a whole.” The essence of individualism is denying anything larger than the self and things one needs to manipulate in order to get what one wants. It is the basic unit of control, or using others as an extension of a will not their own.

Some would say, not incorrectly, that individualism is a kind of sociopathy and solipsism: it denies the world outside the self except as an agent of the self, or an extension of the self, or in extreme cases, views the world as part of the self instead of the other way around. This is a fundamental inversion, like pretending to be God, that afflicts humans like a bad mental virus.

The reason humans shift Leftward by default is that we like to socialize, and socializing means accepting the individualism of others, and this in turn means accepting the worldview in which individualism is the default. This means that instead of thinking about the consequences of our actions in reality, we are thinking about:

  • Symbolism. What message does it send? What does it stand for?
  • Feelings. How does this make other people and the group feel?
  • Appearance. How does this make me look to others, and how will they react?
  • Judgments. Does this communicate safety or risk to others?

If you wonder why the West has drifted into decay, here is your answer: the default state of human beings is self-destruction, but they are only liberated to this state when they are so dominant over their environment that they have excess. Someone whose concerns are bound up with reality is conservative, and people who spend all their time on survival tend to be that way.

Societies like the Spartans and even modern religious orders embrace asceticism for this reason. People who have no excess and stay busy tend to be focused on their actual task, not woolgathering that then becomes wishful thinking and, once an untested mental paradise is created, self-pity at being here and not in the Utopian there.

Trump cannot be anything but a moderate because he has relatively limited power and anything approximating actual conservatism will seem to most people to be beyond the boundaries of what is accepted now, in the 70th year of our transition to Communism and the 228th year of our transition to Leftism and the thousandth year of our immersion in individualism.

He also is forced into a moderate position by the social pressures around him. Now that he is inside the system, and socializing with the people there, he is gradually drifting Leftward through a process like entropy where the collected wills around him slowly erode his own. He is fighting back, and seems to be employing the Reagan strategy of symbolic Leftist acts to cover himself while working toward a few core ideas that are more moderate — undoing Leftist damage because it is dysfunctional — than Rightist.

So far, he seems to be doing well. Brexit and Trump are just the tip of the spear of a cultural shift in the West. This is manifesting in politics most visibly, but behind the scenes, people are shifting away from Leftism in all of its degrees, including liberal democracy. We have seen that it wants to kill us — especially Caucasians — and now we want escape.

Political Correctness: An Extension Of Archetypal Leftist Psychology

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

ableism_and_saneism

The Left rose through a singular power: a simple idea that made people feel comfortable in their social group, binding them together into a band to conquer all so that it would serve this idea.

For that reason, it makes sense not to say that Leftists are individually totalitarian, but that the thinking of Leftism is inherently totalitarian and individual Leftists will not be satisfied until they achieve a state that is both totalitarian and reality-denying.

The nature of ideology, after all, is to replace reality. It is the anti-reality. It tells you not how things work, but how they should according to human social logic. Leftism is at war with reality.

As a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by the group. For this reason, they form a gang to make this so, but while their method is collectivism, their motivation is individualism.

What gives Crowdism power is the transfer of society from cooperative — where all people work unequally toward a goal that all understand — to control-based structures, where a formal goal is set up and applied equally to all in order to maintain power structures despite the fragmentation of society into many special interest groups, with individualists being one of these.

This gives rise to dark organization or a counter-current within society, formed of the individualist gang, that operates against its goals. Special interest groups do not share the goal of society as a whole, and therefore become parasitic: they take from the whole to support their own agendas.

For these reasons, the gang/cult of the parasite is always in motion. Its agenda never rests because it has hacked the human brain with a simple pleasing concept that short-cuts everything else. “If everyone is accepted, no one is at risk, and there will be no conflict,” is its underlying appeal, and the very fact of this simplification makes the meme powerful. It appeals to fear.

Since its motive is always conquest from within, the Crowd uses a number of hooks to short-circuit the psychology of others, and these in turn shape its own thinking into a pathological (repetitive without regard for results) obsession. This mental state can be recognized by the following internal cycles:

  • Begging the Question. To advance itself, Leftism uses this fallacy to transition political ideas to perceived social morality ideas. As we see with political correctness, the basic form is to assert that certain things are universally good, and therefore that in the converse, anyone who opposes those ideas is bad. The basic form of the fallacy is as follows:

    The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”).

    A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”).

    Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.

    The final line may be the most important: this argument type is a linguistic sleight-of-hand, and the only reason it works is that the premise is associated with universal moral good, a concept that itself is an assumption. But because of its appearance in a social setting, the argument seems convincing because universal acceptance is a necessary basic attribute of socializing in large and thus broad groups. This is how the Crowd forms.

    For example, consider the Leftist argument for diversity: variety is good, therefore we need ethnic variety. The only way to oppose this seems to be to criticize the conclusion of the argument, when the real solution is to attack the assumption and the inexact language that allows it to seem relevant. Variety is good in certain contexts, and only certain types of variety, and these do not analogize to civilizations very well.

    The Left moves into circulus in probando by stacking its assumptions: “Because (we assume that) morality is universal, (we assume that) diversity is good, and since (we assume that) diversity is working so well, we need to expand the program.” In fact, all of Leftism can be seen as a circulus in probando starting with the idea that personal intent is more important than reality — the core of individualism and The Enlightenment™ — and moving to universalism, democratization and finally, to the extension of those principles to other areas. Diversity might be viewed as ethnic democracy, welfare as subsidized universalism, and strong state control as democratization of power.

  • Rationalism. Humans like to think that reason alone will bring them to correct answers, but they forget that our reasoning is shaped by our minds and must correspond to a reality more complex than our minds. Reason is thus not a singular thing, but many grades of an idea, and in addition to that, it varies with the individual.

    For those reasons, saying that reason will guide us to correct answers necessarily overloads our minds with the imposition of the idea that all people are the same, and that reason works like a calculator, when in fact it is more varied. That in turn creates the curse of rationalism which is that it enables people to have tunnel vision by identifying a plausible answer and then finding facts to support it, instead of assessing all facts and finding a model which fits all of the known data.

    Rationalism in this sense is not essentially distinct from rationalization, or developing a way of visualizing an unfortunate event as a positive one. In this case, the unfortunate event is civilization collapse, and so instead of fighting it, the Left rationalizes it and directs its attention away from fixing the problem to finding a way to feel good about the problem. Both rationalism and rationalization start by accepting a perception and then altering facts by filtering out those that do not conform to the thesis so that the perception appears not just true but inevitable.

  • Control. When cooperation can no longer exist because society is pulling itself apart into special interest groups, control appears: force everyone to go through the same procedures, or “means” versus “ends” or goals, equally or in the same way, so that details can be managed from central control or through a centralized narrative, even if independently interpreted as is the case with egalitarianism, the founding idea of the Left.

    The modern method can be seen as Social Control, or use of the threat of ostracism and reward for making people feel good as dual pincers of the control mechanism. Guilt is the primary weapon there: those who are not ideologically conforming become aware that others will be “upset” or “offended” by their acts, and are made to feel bad not about the consequences of their actions in reality, but in the perceptions of others.

    This process of regulating people through public appearance proves deadly effective because humans — like our Simian forebears — are social creatures. Alienation does not require government intervention, and because it causes others to fear for themselves if they are associated with the alienated person, spreads like a disease. It is more effective than any other means of punishment because the consequences are all-pervasive.

    When noticed by humans, social control is referred to as peer pressure with all the implications of collective punishment that this indicates. A small group, like a local community, fears being associated with bad ideas, so it punishes those who have them. In addition, this group will punish a group within it for deviation from the norm. This means that the individual is totally dependent on the group for behavioral cues and must follow whatever is decided, in an inversion of democracy but an extension of democratization. When all people have a voice, conformity results, and then it is made mandatory.

  • Crybullying. To advance a petitio principii fallacy, one must act as if the assumption therein is normal and universally liked. This requires playing the role of an innocent, benevolent and passive party. However, when someone refuses the assumption, this requires the fallacy advocate to act the role of wounded victim, which then justifies (synonyms: rationalizes; excuses) retaliation.

    This produces a type of weaponized passive aggression or indirect bullying. The Leftist needs to appear somewhere, insist on a Leftist method, and then act wounded while summoning the troops — the rest of the gang/cult — to attack. This enables Leftists to infiltrate any area of society and, by using their passive aggressive “victimhood” narrative, force others to conform to what the Leftist desires.

The psychology created by the above cannot be properly viewed as a philosophy, but an inversion of philosophy: instead of finding reasons to act in certain ways, it assumes basic human impulses — which like most undisciplined things, are usually wrong — are correct and then invents explanations for those that make them seem reasonable.

That however implicates a philosophy with two branches:

  • Means Over Ends. Leftism embraces a classic “means over ends” analysis. In that view, the goal does not matter so much as behaving in a correct way, in this case for social approval. That allows necessarily goals to be ignored if the methods needed are upsetting or inconvenient to the group, which “wags the dog” because then instead of thinking toward purpose, people think away from purpose and let methods become a substitute for goals. This rationalizes the lack of purpose inherent to a dying civilization and creates an imitative society where people repeat past successful acts without knowledge of what made them successful, simply by placing trust in the method and being afraid to contemplate goals.
  • Cause And Effect. Normally, we see our actions as the cause of an event which had certain effects, or outcomes. In the inverted world of Leftism, cause is removed by the assumption of moral goodness to methods, which signifies that the methods are both effect and cause. This removes the human ability to see cause, and by declaring the irrelevance of ends or effects, obliterates our ability to formulate independent goals. This creates atomized, infantilized, and domesticated people who depend on strong authority for guidance, as their acts otherwise are goalless and therefore become self-destructive in addition to pointless.

The root of this philosophy is a resistance to life itself: people would prefer to be gods in their own minds than to realize their place in an order — structure, hierarchy, flow of events — that makes life what it is. This is the essence of control within the human mind. It rejects all that is natural and replaces it with a world composed entirely of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. This is comforting to the under-confident and neurotic.

All high-level societies die through some form of Crowdism, which is usually Leftist. When a civilization is forming, its purpose is clear: create civilization, beat back nature and disease, and organize so that the pleasures of life are possible. After that point, civilization is taken for granted because most people cannot see the reason to choose a new purpose, since they have the effects of the work that created that civilization.

Dysgenics factor in here as well, especially in cities large enough to be anonymous. People need only to find a job, rent a place to live, and purchase food from street vendors. Everything else is optional. It is not surprising that modern Leftists are enamored of the job/rent/restaurant lifestyle. This, and the advances in institutionalized hygiene and safety that save people from their own bad choices, create people who are living but have no will to live other than the mechanical and material process of survival itself. With this, purpose and bravery die.

Anti-goals afflict successful civilizations only. One mode of thought, embraced by primitivists and Nietzscheans to varying degrees, is that civilization — if it wishes to survive — needs to back off of “perfecting” everyday life, and should preserve dangers. The idea of social Darwinism that is not in love with jobs and money holds that there should be no externalized costs to individual actions, such that each individual faces the consequences of his actions including potential death. This means strict punishment for any costs incurred to society by the individual, a lack of things like insurance and uniform methods of survival, and daily challenges so that the clueless weed themselves out.

Another possibility for civilization survival is to design it such that every action must have a purpose, and the results are compared to that purpose, with those who achieve parity between intention and reality being promoted in a hierarchy. This creates constant internal evolution and at the very least disenfranchises those who are inept at everything but collecting social approval. In other words, society must be less “social” and more purpose-driven.

Diversity presents a fundamental problem in any society because with the presence of a single person from the Other group, either social standards must be widened to include the standards of both self and Other, or those who are Other will be at a disadvantage and appear to be victims. That in turn jump-starts the begging-the-question fallacy by making it easily observed that the Other is failing, and assuming that this is bad, and therefore that “change” must occur.

Above all else, we must remember what Walt Kelley told us years ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Inside of each of us is a monkey. This monkey reacts to life out of fear and lives in a miasma of superstition, projection and denial through filtering out inconvenient and upsetting information. This monkey is driven by impulse, which leads to rationalization of that impulse, and reverts thought. The healthiest civilizations are disciplined more in terms of private thoughts than public behavior, but not through Control; instead, they aim for realism and other methods of refining the spirit to be rigid about its thinking and to push down the monkey impulses.

Our inner monkey resents life for not being equal to our intent as individuals. That choice forces us to either accept reality as it is (nihilism) or to accept only ourselves, then rationalize that denial as good, and in turn blot out reality without a consensual hallucination of human thoughts, feelings and judgments. Since this has its root in the monkey impulse toward self-importance in defiance of a reality structured otherwise, it is also a regression and the source of the dark organization that is Crowdism.

We have come to recognize Typical Leftist Behavior (TLB) with increasing frequency as the achievement of Leftist goals (diversity, equality, democratization, globalism) has made reality totally unknown to most people, resulting in terrible consequences when their ideas are put into practice, as usually happens with reality-denial. TLB takes many forms but all are based in the schema above.

The threats in front of us — Leftism, The Enlightenment,&trade civilization collapse — are themselves effects of this inner transformation of human beings. We no longer intend to achieve good results; we focus instead on making our feelings happy despite the darkness around us, but this deprives us of a sense that life can be a joy and a pleasure. That in turn pushes us toward more dark thoughts and behaviors.

Salvation for Western Civilization begins when we not just reverse this process, but commit ourselves instead toward a purpose which replaces the original purpose of survival that kept our civilization united in its early years. We also must protect ourselves genetically, so that we are not replaced with the Other, even in traces, as those alter what we were and through atavisms of that, what we must be again.

The Left won because it had a simple idea that dominated all other thinking. The solution is not to try to replicate that, but to understand that simple ideas which dominate are in themselves a terrible notion, and that instead, we need a more nuanced, purpose-driven and realistic view of life. As Leftist society crashes in chaos around us, more are turning toward this idea or something like it.

Dissident Right Requires Force, Not Humility

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

homosex_in_korea

Someone recently stated that men of the dissident right are above all characterized by their humility. That may be true in the American sense of humility meaning politeness without ostentation, but in terms of the characteristics needed for survival it does not make sense.

The dissident right are men of intelligence. The unfortunate thing is that intelligent men are not violent, while their enemy is. In such a scenario, violence will always win. For the sake of completeness, see the five biggest threats to humans where intelligence is mentioned as a human weakness. We need to stop being too clever and focus instead on end results.

It may therefore be prudent to demonstrate that intelligent men can and should be violent, by first reviewing history. One example is Alexander the Great while another is Julius Caesar. In America, Alexander Hamilton died in a duel while Washington led a ragtag Army against trained British Forces.

However, violence does not only apply to physical fighting, it also applies to a forceful nature (or conviction) such as Edmund Hillary‘s victory over Mount Everest. It applies to people overcoming a crippled state and it also applies to students having to master the art of abstract thinking.

Violence in this sense — sudden, decisive change — can harm humans as well. Common cases include post-traumatic stress from divorce, job loss, or even military conflict. Few know apparently that the sight of animal blood will severely damage young children unless they are properly prepared for what they will see.

To survive these conditions, one has to be quite forceful in confronting what people nowadays call stress. Insurance companies refer to such stress management as “Employee Wellness.” People have to react sharply to stressful situations because there is just no other way of both addressing the challenge and coming out of it mentally intact.

Should one review human genetics, it will be established that humans are gregarious animals, prone to socializing, consuming fruits and born without fangs. They are classified as placental mammals with similar behaviors such as breathing air and keeping families safe in little homes. One problem though, is that nature does not provide a predator to keep humans in check, as it were.

Despite these similarities, humans are identifiable in eight genetic forms caused by different environmental conditions across the earth. But evolution allows migrating humans to adapt to their new environment within a few generations, while cultures remain unchanged a lot longer, since it arises from inner traits like preference instead of mere physical adaptation. Inner traits regulate civilization and personal goals; outer traits regulate the methods used to achieve those.

It would seem that having access to big brains should enable humans to overcome the natural and predictable appearance of threats. In these cases, having a known adversary is an advantage because it eliminates the mental instability that is the weakness of having big brains. Humans are therefore pitted against each other, but also against the unknown, forever, which apparently does not require fangs, with the alternative being a “forceful” culture. A forceful culture expects threats and knows how to deal with them.

There is one genetic human trait in the act of violence that is interesting though. There are three typical violent responses as follows:

  • Paralysis. Freezing while hoping the threat goes away.

  • Flight. Running away from threat.

  • Fight. Engaging the threat, physically or otherwise.

Another interesting aspect is that above three responses only occur when the actual threat is in play, while very little is known about the time period leading up to this condition. This means many different reactions are possible for many different reasons.

Organizationally humans can be compartmentalized as follows:

  • Spread across six continents (so much to learn?)

  • Involved in ten or more different religions (for that unknown threat?)

  • Citizens of hundreds of countries (to limit threats from the other?)

  • Working for thousands of companies (develop potential and adding value?)

Through organizations we realize that human death is a tragic loss, but also that that such losses must be replaced. The inability of a gregarious human to accept death is therefore anathema to civilization, and is strange within the animal kingdom. It is a challenge inherent to humanity which requires humans to re-educate themselves toward acceptance of a forceful, instead of pleasant and obliviously bourgeois and eusocial, society.

For example, in an organization the loss of an employee is viewed functionally, analogous to when the machinery comes to a stop because one of the gears needs to be replaced. An organization is not a machine, however, and in fact exhibits human characteristics in its own limited but significant way. Replacing the human gear is not a simple act as has been proven by thousands of companies.

However, that the gear is replaced, or needs to be replaced, is a common event. That is why organizations developed risk management, to avoid the loss of a human gear, but also other gears that affect output. There are four possible reactions to risk management as follows:

  • Ignore the risk because it won’t affect the organization.

  • Avoid the risk because it is possible and more effective.

  • Mitigate the risk by taking preventive steps and ameliorate effects should it happen.

  • Engage the risk forcefully.

The following summarizes the above into several heuristics which can apply to more specific situations:

  1. Intelligent people should use force as one of the tools in their considerable toolbox.

  2. Loss of life is difficult for individuals, but organizations can handle it more logically.

  3. Genetically, at least a third of all humans are prepared to use force under threat.

  4. Organizations must allow forceful engagement as a fourth option.

Force is an issue today because people and organizations are unsure how much of it can be used. Intelligent Special Forces soldiers working under well controlled conditions will return home to find that their families at home are at more risk than they were.

One example frequently used is the population growth rate comparison between Afghanistan and South Africa. Both are small countries, but one is at war while the other is in a much publicized state of democratic peace, yet population growth rates are/were the same. The use of force is less likely to impact reproduction than the state of chaos created by a lack of force.

Another example is the Benghazi disaster where people were executed by violent armed perpetrators, but the cause was actually at home. This resulted in Kris Paronto taking up “arms” in a forceful manner against Hillary Clinton. His reaction to the threat is not some knee-jerk reaction, it is careful, calculating and inexorably moving forward.

The question now becomes one of how people and organizations in civilian society stopped doing risk management, and gave in to their fear of death, which they translate into a fear of force. A neutered society, rendered indecisive by democracy and pacifistic by manners, seems to most people to present less of a risk than one in which force is used. The examples above show that the contrary is true: the non-forceful society simply transfers the risk to existential, social and mental stress which causes deleterious results.

Risk management deteriorated over the last century like other social institutions, but the ancient knowledge that risks require a specific set of responses appears wherever dangerous or difficult situations appear. The rest of society distracts itself by pretending that no risks exist.

From above we surmise that the biggest risk that humans face is from other humans, in addition to the unknown.  Force is required to address risk caused by the threat of “other” humans. Here are a few examples:

  • Buying a car requires forceful thinking in order not to use risky financial third parties.

  • Paying for electricity to a third party instead of directly to the service provider is a risk.

  • Not managing what your council is doing in your area has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

  • Not managing what your school is doing has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

  • Not managing what your media is doing has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

Through these examples, we can see that the organization of society has failed to regulate certain predictable risks through force. These failures were flagged as risks but were ignored because elected officials are avoiding a social risk, which is that they might lose the next election. After all, it’s not like somebody is going to die or anything stupid like that, right?

As a result, our society adopts a posture of humility, or harmlessness. This makes people feel outwardly safe but because they do not trust it, they internalize stress for negative health and existential well-being. Death rates are up already and it is intelligent people like you getting buried.

Fear of force thus begets ambiguity and delayed but inevitable failure of the whole, where use of force endangers individuals but makes civilization thrive. Forget about humility and use force to fix social failures because it is easy –- even Kris Paronto can do it — and eliminates the helplessness that modern people so often feel.

Binary Choices

Monday, November 7th, 2016

typical_leftist_behavior

Most of the time, we get a range of choices that we can make in response to a need. If we wonder what to do with that empty field at the back of the property, for example, dozens or even billions of ideas spring to mind, and we eliminate most of them as impractical or too expensive.

We do not get that luxury when a choice is thrust upon us. For example, the neighbor to the east offers to sell his land at a certain price. There is a yes, or a no, and any other options are variations of those two. This is the situation we find ourselves in with this election, and with Leftism.

Both of those things — Leftism and this election — originated from outside of us, and presented themselves to us like a stump in the middle of the road we are otherwise whipping through. We are no longer making choices, but are forced to make a decision about something that we did not choose.

Those who have been around this green Earth for a little while find that emergency situations are of this binary nature. Most people cannot induce their brains to recognize the threat before them and that it is real. As a result, they go into denial, or distract themselves with tangents.

A few always click with the danger right away. To them, a binary decision has arisen: they either deal with the problem, or it deals with them… and so, they choose to deal with it. At that point, the facility of choice returns because there are multiple ways to deal with it. But first they had to get over that hump and admit that it was real.

With Election 2016, as with Brexit, we are being forced to snap out of our ordinary slumber and recognize a real threat to all of us. That is, a toxic occupying force controls our lands and through its methods — equality, permissiveness, diversity and government control — it intends to destroy us and replace us with useful idiots.

Who those useful idiots are matters a lot less than the fact that our inertia is carrying us toward this fate, and we have a binary choice: either we accept the reality and get some choices, or we go into denial and then the choice will be made for us.

No one wants to wake up one day to the realization that they are in a failing civilization and that their government is hostile to them. No one thinks about how great it would be to live through the decline and fall of an empire as great as Rome (or at least close). But this is upon us, and it divides us.

In this election, there are two groups. Some grasp the situation and are able to act. The rest are hovering around in mental nonsense land, wondering if the candidate “clicks” with them or what their feelings are. They have dodged the question entirely because it is more convenient, comfortable and easy to remain in spaced-out narcissism.

For those who recognize the problem, the entire political landscape shifts. We are no longer talking about issues, laws and working the system. We are talking about averting a crisis which has crept up on us because we were busy taking the system at face value. We can no longer do that; now, we are revolutionaries and rebels.

Half of our society will remain in the low self-esteem space where they listen to society, take it at face value and act as it tells them to. They cannot or will not recognize that these people are deadly and results will be horrible in short order, and that the smiling faces on the television are lying to us and want us destroyed.

The other half is people like you, dear reader. You were comfortably in the ego-bubble of consumer products, entertainment, social pressures and comforting words in strong voices from government and media. Now, you have seen through the illusion, and you are terrified because you realize the enemy is among us.

Whatever happens tomorrow, you must stand your ground. You cannot go back to comfortable oblivion. You must go forward. Whether that is with the ballot, or the bullet, remains to be seen. But what you see is real, and by recognizing it, you have made the binary choice. Now the only question is how to defeat the enemy.

Good Intentions Destroy The Experience Of Life

Monday, October 31st, 2016

good_intentions

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

The online servers were excellent.

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

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

Two dynamics arose.

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

The other element was the social and clan aspect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole game became a dice roll.

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

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

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

Control Makes People Broken

Monday, October 31st, 2016

chernobyl_control_room

Ye are not other men, but my arms and legs; and so obey me. — Captain Ahab, Moby-Dick

As societies mature, they need methods of holding people together so they can cooperate toward goals, which express purpose and values in tangible form. They have lost their original goal, which is to have civilization in the first place, because they have achieved it.

At this point, the growing civilization faces a more difficult task than ever before: it must unify its citizens toward purpose, including self-discipline to uphold moral standards, without a pressing threat. It is easy to unite people when famine or invaders threaten, but otherwise, people default to the Simian “everybody do whatever they want to.”

The only way known to make this work, throughout all of history, is to make citizenship contingent upon people being useful and understanding the purpose.

Since this is not only true but obvious, a movement immediately forms in every society like mold on cheese. This is compromised of individuals, acting in their own self-interest, who desire to be included despite lack of contribution or purpose, and they form a collective to use peer pressure to enforce their inclusion under the guise of universal inclusion.

This usually follows a diversity event, or interaction with other cultures such that sufficiently different people are included in the society. Once the people are markedly different, one can no longer point to the values of that civilization as absolute, but most widen values so that all can be included. At that point, the values seem arbitrary and people agitate against them because they secretly desire “everybody do whatever they want.”

At the moment that a society accepts universal inclusion, it commits itself to control, or the habit of having (1) a centralized authority that demands (2) uniform, or “universal,” obedience to the same rules. Purpose has been replaced by rules, which are a proxy or symbolic substitute for purpose. Rules are popular because they can be easily gamed, or subverted in intent while staying within boundaries of the rule as written.

Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.

In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.

The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.

People in such societies are made neurotic. They no longer know what is real, only what is rewarded with popularity. Like lemmings, they would march over a cliff by following the person in front of them. They are entirely regulated by social control, or what others think of them based on appearance, and so “reality” becomes alien.

For this reason, they never know what the outcomes of their actions will be, and start to become conformist or prone to negatively restrict their actions to what has become popular in the past. This creates a herd instinct that focuses people on trends, panics, fads and precedent and punishes any who deviate through social censure. That in turn creates a headless society, like a circle of people each following the other.

At this point, people begin to feel pretty bad at an existential level, or the depth at which one considers the meaning of life and the value of existence. Nothing they do that is good will be rewarded, and any attempts to break out of groupthink will be punished. A dark organization has arisen that opposes creative and realistic thinking.

The only way out of the ensuing death spiral is to effect an artificial bottleneck, or filtering of the population for its most fit, in this case those that still understand the purpose. Either that group must leave and set up a new civilization, or it must exile the purposeless.

Among diseases, the spread of this mental virus is unique because it attacks the strong. Civilizations that rise above the minimum now must contend with a threat from within, and many people are frightened of the type of strong authority — with consequences of potential exclusion — that this return to health requires.

In the modern West, we have needed such a purge for some time. It is not because these people are bad but because their purpose is elsewhere. If we want to restore the greatness of the past and rise to new greatness in the future, we need a civilization unified on that purpose.

Election 2016 presents a moment ripe for such a decision. Half of the country wants a third-world style socialist government, and the rest wants something going in the opposite or, better, a healthier direction. Whichever side wins will destroy the other, so the bottleneck is coming whether we like it or not.

Realism Versus Socializing

Thursday, October 20th, 2016

nwo

The rise of Farage and Trump has been the final blow to a thread of Western liberalism that goes back before the birth of the US or EU. We know it as that media darling the 1968 revolution in which the Baby Boomers tried to destroy all that came before them in the name of freedom.

However, 1968 was not new. It borrowed from the beatniks… who borrowed from the flappers… who borrowed from the Bohemians… who borrowed from the Romantics… who borrowed also from the decadents of later Rome. All of them followed roughly the same agenda:

  1. Disorderly personal appearance and hygiene.

  2. Sexual liberation and promiscuity.

  3. Excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs.

  4. Temporary, wandering lifestyles.

  5. Rejection of national bonds, preferring international.

  6. Attitude of irony toward all sacred values.

The motivation behind this seems to be a fear of death, and a desire to banish it with extremes of sensual and social experience. When one is in the circle of friends with a good buzz going and feeling like one’s lifestyle represents something new, different and ironic to that which is the norm, it is possible for a few moments to forget lurking mortality.

More importantly this is an assertion of individualism. The hippies, beatniks and hipsters are joined in mode of thought: they want to make themselves personally important, and this requires deprecating and minimizing the influence of civilization, nature, religion, heritage and realism. What matters instead is social power.

When people are declared to be members of a society of permanent standing, a type of proto-equality results: this means that whatever they do — so long as they avoid big nasties like murder, rape and assault — they will be accepted in the group. That in turn makes everything but the big nasties seem to be a possibly lucid choice.

Individualism is their way of demanding the widening of this proto-equality so that they can do whatever they want without social consequences. This makes them rely only on the self for judgment, which disconnects them from reality, at which point they lose transcendental knowledge and start to obsessively fear death.

The path of individualism necessarily leads to the social world because the individualist needs a mirror to confirm his biases and make him feel important or noticed, since without a transcendental view, the only importance one can have is in the eyes of others.

The Baby Boomers were the peak of this social influence, which took over from the realist/transcendentalist underpinnings of Western Civilization. Realists tend toward transcendental thought because, having been forced to accept reality as it is by realism, they then realize they have to find meaning in the world and not outside of it, including in themselves and the consensual hallucination of social control and social reality.

Right now, the tide is turning. After many centuries, the Age of Ideology is over, and the time of the realist has begun again. We are witnessing the rebirth of a society. Donald Trump, born the year after WWII ended, has refuted the dominant theme of the “Me Generation” that the Baby Boomers created.

most reliable poll

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%.

This is causing panic because without the reign of egomania that the ‘Boomers offer, we lose the sense of universal meaning. With social reality, we feel that whatever the group recognizes is universal and created equally in all observing, which is probably an artifact of how language makes us feel, but we do not notice our own projection of interpretation onto it, so this is incomplete as an understanding at best.

In the world after Farage and Trump, the only truths are personal and other people are entirely different worlds. Instead, we find meaning by looking within ourselves to understand the world through intuition, and follow our unique role in it without deferring to what the crowd thinks.

This change is epic on the scale of a thousand years or more. It will reverse the passivity of the West that has led to its ongoing collapse, and will redirect us toward a new world that seems at first to be filled with emptiness, but over time will reveal its greater possibilities.

It could be yuge.

Recommended Reading