Posts Tagged ‘social control’

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.

An Echo Chamber Attack

Sunday, October 9th, 2016

representative_picture_of_american_media

Most people can be cowed by criticism in a social context. They feel safe talking about ideas in the abstract, but once an idea is related to their person, they become defensive. This is because to be shamed or dominated in a social context is to lose power and importance. “Losing face” means losing out.

The Left capitalizes on this because for them, all things are social; they are disconnected from cause/effect reasoning because that produces antisocial conclusions like the knowledge that some people are better at some things than others. To be social, one must insist that everyone is wonderful and all success is luck.

When those who are highly social attack, they usually do one of two things: (1) they imply that you are lesser in some way that is important to the group; and (2) they imply that what you are doing is wrong and “everybody knows” otherwise. They imply these things because their goal is to bully, not prove a point.

A bully achieves release — a relaxation of his own inner tension and doubt — when he dominates someone else by taunting them and then forcing them to back down. He does not get the same charge from beating them up, which is the key to understanding the psychology of bullying. The use of his power to subjugate is what gives him the thrill.

Almost every bully has an entourage. These are toadies, or yes-men, who follow the bully around and repeat what he says. This rapidly gives the victim the impression that the whole social group is against him, and makes him likely to back down. Bully and entourage have a discussion about how inferior the victim is.

In this way, a small group (the bully and his entourage) become more influential in a single instant than the whole group over all previous instants. This breaks people, or so confuses their will that they fall into a mode of constantly reacting to everything around them as a series of threats. They struggle to regain a sense of direction.

The American media, government and academic establishment forms one of these groups, but true to the anarchic form of the Left, there is no leader, only a rotating cast of “lead bullies” who summon an entourage by attacking the other. Their appeal is always this: we are not the bullies, this other guy is, so he is bad and must be slain.

The group fears its own inferiority. This makes it manic about finding scapegoats to destroy if those scapegoats rise above the norm, making the group look bad. Its goal is to make sure that bad and good are equal, so that each person can be as mediocre or bad as he wants to be.

During this campaign, the media bullies have attacked Donald Trump many times, but their most concerted attack came in the last few days over some crass locker-room banter from ten years ago. Apparently, the collaborationist elements of the Republican Party were in on the joke, because they were ready to strike.

Trump handled it admirably. He acknowledged the one part of the attack on him that was legitimate, which was that he did not feel those statements represented his candidacy. But like a true fighter, he refused to back down. He was not cowed by the bullies.

This occurred despite the fact that nearly every media outlet and politician was repeating the same idea: this is the scandal that must end his campaign. It must be hard for them to keep straight faces while doing so, in the light of the ongoing pay to play, racism, hidden emails, and collusion scandals rocking the Democrat party.

In the end, there will be a victim inversion in this case. Trump fought back, and the bullies did not get the subjugation by peer pressure they desired. As a result, they have lost face, and he has gained stature for standing up to the people who bully many of us all the time with their sanctimonious but effective attacks.

If civilization can take a lesson from this, it is that bullying is not done by the strong against the weak, but by the weak against the weaker or the weak against the strong. It is a method by which a group defends its mediocrity, but by doing so, it lowers that standard in the next generation, and ensures its demise.

The Enemy Is Modernity

Monday, September 19th, 2016

the_barren_polluted_wasteland_of_modernity_and_democracy

It is time to acknowledge that the enemy of all sane people is modernity, because modernity is insane. The conventional view of modernity is that it is related to technological progress, but this is backward. Modernity is the condition that turns technological progress into dystopia by mismanagement.

What is modernity? Some time ago, I wrote:

This is the face of modernity. There’s no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don’t change the behavior. Similarly, we’d have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that’s similar and will market it, and they’ll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.

Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the “freedom” to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad – it’s more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We’re so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.

Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it – you’re looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that “freedom,” because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.

This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don’t pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we’ve found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we’re used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; “educate” (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don’t understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.

William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat…Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands…I decline to accept the end of man….I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.

The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society’s failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a “thing” is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don’t encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.

In other words, modernity is a mindset, not a thing or a specific process, including technology. It is a human system of organization that corresponds to the later stages of civilization, at which point its strength — a reflection of concentration of resources in areas like technology, military and economic might — is at a peak, but it is highly internally divided and likely to hit the pavement soon.

Another way to describe this mindset is as a pathology, or a repetitive behavior which is triggered independent of its results, so that it is repeated even when it fails:

Modernity is not tangible. It is an idea, thought or notion, like the worst of our afflictions. Obesity starts with ignoring the consequences of calories. Alcoholism starts with a denial of the effects of alcohol. All insanity begins with the thought that reality follows our minds, not the other way around.

Any number of false enemies will come your way. These fakes rely on your frustration and difficulty articulating why you are upset. Their goal is to make you fight them, so they gain through guilt and necessity a place at your table. These are parasites, but not the cause of our misfortune.

The real enemy is a thought. Other mistaken notions resemble it in that they are not immediate in result. You can get away with the deception for some time. You may even be able to fake it on a regular basis. Eventually, the disastrous results come due.

Modernity is now showing us its ugly side. Across the globe, governments have bankrupted themselves in pursuit of liberal programs. Societies have become dysfunctional, families ruined, daily life a miserable imitation of TV shows, and jobs and commerce have taken over souls.

Leftism and modernity are inseparable. As Bruce Charlton writes:

The way I would conceptualise matters is that government and politics will always be based on some view of the Human Condition. This may be implicit rather than explicit. At present, all mainstream politics works on the assumption that what is important is hedonic (in one way or another) and confined to mortal life.

A ‘Religious’ society is to be taken as short-hand for a society built on the assumption that this is *not* the bottom line, but a means to an end which extends beyond pleasure and mortality – although of course religions vary widely as to what that might be.

Your description fits into the Religious category – although I suppose it is more like an individual spirituality than what is normally considered A Religion – nonetheless its scope is religious.

Here he refers to the same psychology that Faulkner identifies above. Healthy societies worry about moral purpose, and whether or not their actions are producing a benevolence toward life itself or not. Unhealthy societies focus on people and keeping the group together by offering inclusion in exchange for obedience; we call this control.

Control denies our inner traits in order to focus on ways to manipulate us so that everyone is doing the same thing. This assumption of identical motivations, which is closely related to equality, forms the basis of social control or control by the appearance of our actions to the judging minds of others, which determines whether we can be part of the “in” crowd or are ostracized and left with fewer options, since people advance each other socially.

This leads to a situation where all values are externalized:

While our society is divided into left and right, its fundamental impetus has been from a liberal viewpoint, in philosophical terms. This viewpoint is the idea of fundamental human rights and equality, meaning that we all get treated the same way regardless of wealth or quality, and from that, we get “justice.” Both Republicans and Democrats embrace this view, and even far-flung parties like Greens and Nationalists seem to, which means that in our political outlook, there is no deviation from this assumption. We view equality as the highest good, the individual as the highest pursuit, and wealth as the means of that pursuit, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is worse than a Commie or a Nazi, they’re a failure and probably a sociopath.

In our desire to be equal as people, we have denied the person within: the internal traits and preferences that make each of us who we are. We can be measured by our wealth, or our height, or our wish list on amazon.com, but what defines us as individuals has nothing to do with these external factors. It is a combination of personality and abilities. We want to be remembered not only for our skill at guitar playing, but for what the songs we wrote conveyed and made real to others. We want to be known not just for participation in public beach cleanup programs, but our own private choices and sacrifices that helped keep waste out of the world. Even more, we want to be known for how we treated our friends, how we raised our families, and the things we valued enough to die for them, as a life is looked over when the living is done. These are all internal factors, and they are denied by modern society in its desire for external equality.

And so what is the root of modernity? There are two types of civilizations, at the most basic level:

  • Forward motivated. In these societies, people decide what is right and then do it. In this world, the cause is a moral or aesthetic need, and the effect is translating that principle into action.

  • Reversed cognition. Societies of this type argue from convenience, looking at what is already present — materials, humans — and find a compromise that includes all of those to hold the society together.

The latter approach may be referred to as rationalism, because it rationalizes from material and social reactions instead of planning what might be ideal.

The difficulty with this approach, as people brainwashed in modernity see it, is “Who decides?” They are accustomed to “systems” or control structures where all people participate in formalized, universal activities and when they demonstrate exceptional obedience to the principle of control — equality — they are chosen as leaders.

In saner times, people realized that inequality of ability is a fundamental aspect of life itself, and that learning is esoteric or dependent on the ability of the person and how much cumulative knowledge they have already mastered. For this reason, such a society is hierarchical or based on leadership structures like the military.

That in turn implies an interesting quandary: when we need the best, we must ask the best who to choose, because per the Dunning-Kruger Effect, only the best will recognize others of that ability, just like only geniuses recognize other geniuses.

In such a group, the process is started when a threat troubles the tribe, and someone makes it go away through heroic or insightful action. At that point, this person becomes selected as one of the best, and can choose others to form part of a leadership cadre or caste.

These societies have existed for time immemorial. Their order is not older, but simply more evolved than what we have now, which is mob rule plus lots of regulations to try to make equally insane people sane. This order has four cornerstones and is how, in any age or place, one produces a healthy civilization.

Modernity is the inversion of this. It was crafted by those who wished to seize power. Their goal was to abolish hierarchy through equality and then, by using the same tactics of snake-oil salesman, conning the herd into doing their bidding. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are contemporary versions of this psychology.

Ironically, such people come about because of the success of a civilization. When societies succeed, they implement order and institutions which then allow those who could not survive without civilization to survive. The more brain-dead labor is needed, the more deleterious mutations accumulate in people who cannot exist without a narrow path of instructions guiding them.

This tells us what society must do if it is to avoid downfall: it must constantly produce more of the intelligent people, and pare down or eliminate those who are foolish, or cannot survive on their own without civilization. This requires a society willing to be more like the Spartans, who sacrificed defective children to avoid contaminating their gene pool.

An ideal way to do this gently is hierarchy keeps power in the hands of the best, and limits the options of the worst, encouraging them to leave the civilization and try their luck elsewhere. All orders break down over time, which is why “systems” do not work; what does work is keeping quality of citizenry and thought high to discourage the lower.

Modern people — to those who have crossed the abyss of thought that separates modern people from reality — seem robotic and confused on this point. They cannot conceive of anything other than a system which makes guarantees based on universal, formalized action.

In fact, the path to health is like that of nature. No universality, because people are not equal; no formalization, because systems are easily gamed by the cynical but defective. This is the natural order to which our ancestors aspired, and if we are to reverse modernity, it is what we must target again.

Confrontation With Nihilism

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016

air_raid_on_pearl_harbor

Humans live in dual worlds: an inner world and an outer.

The inner world contains a model of the outer world, and allows us to understand it, but can also obliterate reality if our own thoughts or those of other humans over-write the reality-based information.

The outer world contains a model of the inner world, as seen by others, and can be used to manipulate that inner world. This manipulation feels like inner thought, but represents a surrender of moral and intellectual agency to the appearance of our selves to others.

Nihilism is a form of extreme realism with a twist: its goal is the purging of the false inner world, which is actually the outer, and the restoration of the inner as a means of discovery of truth in coordination with external experience. It is denial of human impulses by subordinating them to reality.

Why might this be useful? you might ask. It is the only path toward truth, because only through joining intuition and intellect can we discern the patterns of reality and therefore, what is likely to be true. Without that, we are dependent on material proof of details, and the conclusions we draw from those will be based on those details in isolation and miss the bigger picture.

What is nihilism like? Here, let a grieving woman tell you:

After what seemed like an eternity, the police officers told me plainly, “Aletha is dead.” What followed that stark statement was a sudden moment of lucidity in which only one thing mattered: the truth.

I had to be honest. I had to tell the truth.

That sudden moment of lucidity is nihilism. Ideas have consequences. Illusions are ideas. Act produce results. We are responsible for the consequences of our acts. We have a duty to find out what is true so that our acts turn out well, or at least as we have intended.

Most human activity is designed to promote a myth that human feelings, thoughts and judgments (moralizations) are more important than results in reality. That way, if you wanted an A on the test but got a C instead, you can say, “Oh well, at least I’m more interesting/moral/sexy/friendly than the people who got As.”

This leads to illusion, because the goal is replaced by sour grapes, a scapegoat, a superstition or some other mental pitfall. With goal replacement, purpose is lost, and people become dependent on external worlds for guidance, since they have sabotaged their inner worlds.

Nihilism is beautiful.