Posts Tagged ‘solipsism’

Pathological Sanity

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

Anytime you can not speak of your accurate and realistic observations, you live in a controlled society. This means that your society is in the process of decline and has already collapsed, and is awaiting a coup de grace from some invading Vandals or Conquistadors.

We cannot speak of everyday truths at this time. Things we observe, if they contradict the going narrative, will end our careers, friendships, families and futures. And so, we self-censor, which is even worse than government censorship or the cabal censorship of large dot-com agencies.

That in itself tells us something. When accurate observations about reality are taboo, this means that civilization at that moment is based on something other than realism. This means that it has a secret to hide, and that this secret clashes with what it knows of the world around it. In other words, civilization is afraid of reality, because too much truth will point out what it is hiding.

In a roundabout way, this answers a question you may have had while sitting in history class, bored out of your mind and daydreaming as is the norm in school, all those years ago: what was it like to be in Rome or Greece before they fell? Did people know what was happening? How did it happen? What did it look like?

The answer now becomes abundantly clear. People in those societies simply went insane. It started with a few, and everyone else imitated them, and because they were afraid of sane people, they became pathological in their desire to exterminate sanity. Once that was done, everyone focused on illusions while their world crumbled around them, and if they woke up at all, it was too late.

In the centuries before the fall of Rome, bad behavior accelerated. People indulged in fetishes and excesses, became entirely individualistic and disregard tradition and sanity as a result, accepted corrupt business practices, and spent more time demonstrating their allegiance to the “right” ideas than on trying to counteract the problem.

They all went insane, for practical purposes, because they were imitating each other instead of paying attention to the road ahead.

We are seeing the same thing happen now. Our official dogma of egalitarianism cannot be questioned, and so there are many areas we cannot discuss. Those proliferate as we achieve more equality, because then we see more of the inequality of ability, and in the end, find ourselves vastly confused because ideology conflicts with reality.

Civilizations die because of behaviors which most humans find difficult to limit in themselves. What we think of as “sanity” is relative to the behavior around us; when people begin behaving in insane ways, we intensity the insanity while thinking ourselves sane.

Our morality and actions are referential and deferential to other humans which came before us. This is sometimes called “precedent,” but in reality, it is a trend, and like all trends it starts as an idea, and then other humans emulate it. This inward-looking tendency to a group obliterates any ability to see the whole picture, which requires seeing ourselves as a species struggling for sanity, with history as a record of what did and did not work, and how well those worked.

That measurement invokes concepts that are lost to most, such as scope, duration and quality. Scope means how deeply the effect goes, and other “dominoes” that fall when a concept takes over one area of society and then, in light of its “success,” is applied to others; duration considers for how long it succeeds, and then what the long-term effects are, which are often the opposite of those in the short-term, leading to an inversion because what once seemed good becomes awful; quality refers to how well it succeeds, meaning

We turn away from those complicated questions of the whole picture, and focus on a human-only perspective comprised of ourselves and others, in order to avoid looking at history, our existential needs and how humans as a biological species are subject to Darwinism both as a group and as individuals. The thought of being the victims of natural selection offends us because it means that we are at risk, and cannot survive simply by wanting to, but have to understand how our world works, and are graded on that by our success or failure.

As part of this great indulgence of fear and human wants, groups of people tend to agree on insanity because it makes it easier to endure the fear. The problem with this is that like any trend, this insanity gains momentum and quickly spirals out of control, culminating in reality-denial that subjects the group to the same events that it feared enough to make mention of them taboo.

For those who want to restore civilization, the only successful counter attack is pathological sanity, or a dogmatic insistence on a realistic outlook and discipline of the self to it, such that we are at lesser risk of a natural selection event and also, to beat back the human tendency to crave denial, projection and as a result, solipsism and insanity.

This change is feared by many people because if we implement any hard standard, it means that some will fall below that level and require ejection from civilization. However, if we follow the Darwinistic model, it makes sense that in every generation we will be ejecting people who have deleterious mutations, birth defects, or just general ineptitude that makes them weaker specimens. This, too, is sane.

On the other hand, the prevalence of this fear explains the power of the mental virus known as equality. The notion of equality appeals to the individual because it says that no one will face a loss of social status for being inept, and therefore, that people can feel “safe” from social threats, and that society will do its best to save them no matter what they do. It is an anti-Darwinistic notion.

When we see people cuck, or give in to the tendency to go along with the herd, we are witnessing the power of this fear. It seduces all but the strongest because they are mentally addicted to the vision of a world where they are safe from the consequences of their own actions. That is an illusion, and for that reason becomes insanity when it is portrayed as reality.

Pathological sanity retaliates against this by affirming that life is never safe and that all actions have consequences, and that us hiding those merely prolongs the disaster. In addition, it notes that it is impossible to escape loss of social status for doing something stupid, in that those above the individual on the Dunning-Kruger scale can and will notice the screwup.

The only means of adopting pathological sanity is to invert the fear, and point out that insane and inept people are a bigger threat than our fears for our personal safety. The real safety is found in competence; false safety is found in protection of the individual without regard to their actions and the results — including side effects — of those actions.

As civilization leaves the era of ideology, in which we constructed elaborate theories to justify conditions where the individual was made safe at the expense of the group, focus returns to the organic society. People will be more concerned with the health of the society around them and its future, and less about preserving those who, in the name of fear and safety, insist on equality despite its destructive effects.

Identity Provides A Cure For The Egomania Of Modernity

Friday, March 24th, 2017

We love to accuse strong leaders of megalomania. Stalin, Mussolini, Trump: the problem with them, we reason, is that they are driven by their egos. What we are experiencing is a classic case of projection. The gnarly fact of the modern West is that most people live in a bubble of their own megalomania.

In a society designed around equality, social status is geared toward a minimum. Demanding that everyone be equal means that all are accepted, but that any rank higher than that is delivered through popularity, much like how voting and consumerism make celebrities and billionaires. This creates constant competition for importance, which people signal through a sense of self-importance.

This pretense manifests as everyday egomania. It is not just the selfish choice to ignore the needs of others, but a total disregard for consequences in general. They act to make themselves look good, showing off what they own and their job titles and their position in a social group. This makes people hateful and negative toward one another.

Identity, on the other hand, requires one to shed that identity in favor of belonging not so much to a group but to an idea. A civilization is a tangible thing that is perpetuated by an idea. Like transcendentals, it is both immutable and ongoing, which means that people are always striving to achieve more of the idea.

However, most good things in life are this way. A novelist spends his life trying to perfect the expression of his theory of existence. An artist always tries to capture that one moment when the light was just right. A scientist discovers a process and then spends the rest of her days trying to perfect it and fully explain it. The same is true of civilization.

In contrast to this, most people choose to go further into themselves. They do not reach out to timeless, immutable and ongoing goals; instead, they focus on the tangible and immediate because it is less threatening. This separates them from the pursuits which will bring them a sense of meaning to their lives by virtue of being larger than the individual.

Identity presents itself as a transcendental in this context. One is no longer serving the individual or the group, but the idea of civilization as manifested in both. By pursuing principle, the individual is able to lose himself and gain a world. By doing that, he transcends the elements of his existence, and instead embraces something eternal.

For this reason, identity salves the question of mortality. Fragile individuality is transferred to an ongoing process, and the stronger parts of the individual are expressed as manifestations of this process as it is expressed as expressions of those inner values. The barriers between self and world erode, and a sense of unity prevails.

All of us recognize that the shallow/callow world of consumerism, celebrity and politics cannot provide a future for us. We do not even enjoy the present, and we know the future brings more of it and an intensifying form of it. The only alternate path is to start living for more than the abyss of self, and among the other transcendentals, identity provides a way.

Divorce Creates Intense Solipsism

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

Those who follow this blog know that its fundamental argument is that civilizations die by hubris, which we call “individualism” in a modern context: the pathology of the individual which considers itself more important than reality.

Hubris is a form of the cognitive bias we call “solipsism” which occurs when people think the world either exists for them, or is a subset of their own minds. In order to deny reality, one must be solipsistic.

Solipsism spreads like a virus because once one person gets away with it, others realize they are at a disadvantage by acting toward a purpose larger than the individual. They give up and choose a self-centered life as well.

A trap emerges but most people tragically do not realize it until their later years. Living for oneself is a path to emptiness because meaning is found in the connection between self and reality, including but not limited to others. Living for principles and purpose such as is synthesized in the transcendentals like “the good, the beautiful and the true” creates meaning; egoism destroys it.

One writer pointed out how solipsism creates emptiness and a type of low-grade but fanatical sociopathy through his essay on why never date a woman from a broken family:

I have seen too many men have their heads handed to them, regardless of all this daydreaming about compatibility, equality, success, adventures, whatever. It all goes right out the window when Herself gets pregnant, and suddenly she is the center of the universe, those are HER children, and a guy can attend as many parenting classes and change as many diapers as he is humanly capable of doing, but she is from that time on looking for something she never had, something she has spent her childhood longing for and rationalizing away why her mother did whatever it was she did to deny to her, something that doesn’t exist: The Perfect Father. And she will keep right on looking, using “her” children as bait to try and trap one, man after man after man.

And I have seen very, very few exceptions to this formula for guaranteed heartbreak, summary dismissal and a future of painful and impoverishing litigation for too many good and decent men: women without fathers seem utterly incapable either of allowing any man to parent children in his own manly way, or of searching their own souls deeply enough to recognize that children are both distinct human beings and future adults, rather than their own personal property, pets and projects of empowerment.

The virus of self-centeredness causes people to be unable to understand others as real, since for the self-centered person, everything that exists in the world is there to serve a purpose for the self alone, and is only useful as a means-to-an-end. This makes them manipulative, controlling and most of all, willing to destroy others for their own convenience.

Every aspect of modern society bears the stamp of this solipsism which, if not actual metaphysical evil, certainly acts like it.

Charlton Converges On Notion Of Solipsism As Evil

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

At every other blog in the universe, you are told that shadowy external forces are manipulating you, 1984-style.

On this blog, you are told that instead you are your own worst enemy, and the things that seem good are often not. This is more like what was espoused in the book that inspired and provoked 1984, the Aldous Huxley sermon on the end of civilization by internal entropy named Brave New World.

We are self-deluding creatures who fear natural selection and loss of social rank. We see other things as positives, such as low-risk social participation. This drives us to mandate the latter by removing the former, a type of de facto Utopian thinking that is an inbuilt flaw in humanity. We cannot create perfection by denying the objects in which our fears are manifested.

This is why every human organization fails once it has enough power. It turns its methods into its goals. This happens because, in an attempt to remove what it fears, it regulates method instead of purpose, and in doing so creates a false purpose based on what it measures.

The classic example of this comes from American police departments. Officers are told they will be ranked according to the number of arrests they make. This means that to win the officer game, one must kick up the numbers. The successful candidates rush out and arrest all of the bums, winos, hookers and other known blight, and avoid the time-consuming task of identifying murderers and organized crime kingpins.

All of our societies in the West now follow this model. We lost purpose because we made methods more important than goals in a desperate bid to banish our fears, which then ensured that we would be ruled by the “game” set up by the regulated methods. The last two centuries of history show us in a paroxysmal spasm of trying to find the “right” methodology, and yet everything we do seems to fail.

That realization points to an internal evil, not an external one. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions… and what we consider “good,” at least as a group but probably in our thinking with very few exceptions, is removal of the appearance of bad that results in dystopian levels of dysfunction. The problem is us. Or rather, it is in our intellects and souls, an in-built “backdoor” that lets us hack ourselves.

On Amerika, writers have long identified solipsism as the root of the psychology of individualism, which is the pathology where the individual acts as if he is God and more important than reality itself.

Bruce Charlton, one of the insightful writers who move in parallel rightward through different threads of analysis, has endorsed the diagnosis of solipsism as the root of the failure of the West:

Solipsism is the belief, usually quite brief, that the thinker is the source of everything that is – my feeling that everything is just a product of my own thinking and has no independent existence: my life is a dream.

…We can really only go forward – indeed we must go forward because if we get stuck in solipsism – as so many modern people seem to have chosen to do – then nihilism and despair are inevitable. In solipsism we begin by regarding the world as our own thought, but soon (and inevitably) we begin to doubt the reality of these thoughts – after all, thoughts change, they are not solid…

The self in solipsism surveys the world paralysed by doubt – the thoughts are transient, the world a product merely of thoughts – everything slips away.

Solipsism is a refusal to make choices that involve scary things. Instead, we retreat into ourselves, which because these selves are closed-circuit feedback loops, results in a type of accelerated entropy leading to heat death: no decision particularly matters because the ultimate result will never change until the advent of death, which is impossible within our cognition because of its vastness.

The solution to solipsism occurs both within and outside the individual. As a civilization, we need to rediscover purpose and stop regulating ourselves through methods alone, which is the behavior formalized in Leftism. As individuals, we need to find transcendental vision of life in which we recognize the greater wisdom of nature and the cosmos relative to our own intentions.

Formalization creates dark organizations. The more we try to do what our brains see as “good,” the more we self-destruct, because we have forgotten to verify whether our internal conception of good actually matches results in external reality. This engenders solipsism in a perpetual cycle until it destroys us.

How Leftists Play Both Sides

Friday, February 3rd, 2017

How popular was the Soviet Union? In the West, we tend to portray Russians as victims of their government, but the reality was that the government was perpetuated by them and seemed massively popular, especially when things were good. When they tired of it, it went away, leaving people wondering why they had not simply done that fifty years before.

Most people do not realize that the kid at the back of your history class was right: almost everything in our world is excremental. Most of the music, books, movies, politicians, products and public figures are simply moronic. The herd, which is conscious only of The Now™ and therefore oblivious to options not in front of its face like sale items on a shelf, accepts what is “better” but never stumbles to awareness of what is “good.”

Leftism is perpetually popular. If you tell a group of people that everyone is equal and we do not need a hierarchy to rule over us, the vast majority of them will swoon and fall to delighted excitement. There will be a small group at the rear, old men and teenagers mostly, who realize that not only is the statement not true, but that it is the oldest and vilest lie.

Why is Leftism so addictively popular? The first reason is that it is pacifism. The women especially love this part; when everyone is equal, there is no more inequality, so no more internal competition. They do not understand basic information dynamics, however, which would inform them that when everyone is equal, the need for competition is intensified as people try to rise over the generic level.

However, that does not explain the seemingly fanatical way that people take to Leftism even when they have never heard of it before. Something clicks in their minds, and they are able to visualize some way in which Leftism is relevant and important to them, and they go from indifferent to maniacally committed fans — who would rather die with the idea than live without it — in minutes.

Comparing it to heroin addiction is entirely wrong. Most addicts use the drug for some time before realizing that they are addicted, or in other words, cannot visualize their lives without it. It makes life so much better that to give it up is to die, or at least feels that way. Leftists without Leftism are people who cannot visualize themselves existing.

Its appeal must be something very simple, very primal, in order to be so universal in potential appeal. It does not appeal to everyone; possible two-fifths of the population are immune through instinct, another twenty percent or so by indecision, and maybe a twentieth are born with the onerous knowledge that illusion is not real but a real threat and must be fought.

If this addictive idea is like others, its appeal occurs to the individual. That is: the individual finds it desirable because it makes the individual more powerful. In this way, analysts like J.R.R. Tolkien are correct about the seductive power of the one true ring just as Melville correctly identified the white whale. People lust for power over their smallness in the world, and it changes them.

To a game theory analysis, the individual will choose whatever position allows them the most power balanced by the least risk. Leftism offers a position like this by giving them a weapon with which to paralyze others, but while still allowing them to “cheat” on the rules on their own. This occurs through the pairing in Leftism of demands for equality and perception of victimhood.

The demands for equality prevent others from rising; the perception of victimhood means that the Leftist is always entitled to something from those others. This means that the Leftist is in an ideal position according to game theory, which is that there is minimum obligation and maximum entitlement:

  • Minimum Obligation. Egalitarianism demands equality, with the idea that there is a collective “we” that enforces this. As a result, the burden of responsibility and action passes from the individual to society. Couple that with the fact that under egalitarianism, society cannot reject people for being insufficient or limit their access on the basis of their being of the wrong caste, and people are empowered to make whatever silly decisions they want knowing that society must support them and clean up the mess.
  • Maximum Entitlement. In an egalitarian society, the more-equal are expected to subsidize the less-equal because this is the only way that equality can be achieved without acting in the Darwinian method of killing or reproductively penalizing the less-equal in order to improve the genetic quality of the group. This means that any who demonstrate victimhood can lay claim to part of the wealth of the society, and also get themselves protected status as not being assumed to be strong.

These combined effects mean that egalitarianism offers a “great deal” to the individual: they can do whatever they want, force society to subsidize them, and if they are willing to act wounded, can seize power and wealth without risk of being punished for having done so. Even more, egalitarianism makes it easier to be “good” by changing the definition from achieving good results to being symbolically good.

Egalitarianism produces this type of symbolic thinking because it is easier for the citizen. Instead of having to do much of anything, they have to raise the right symbols and say the right things at the right times. Once they have done that, they are free to ravage whatever they choose. Even better, if they find a victim and very publicly lift him up to equal, they are assumed to be ideological heroes and forgiven transgressions.

Leftism succeeded because it enabled people to manipulate society. Instead of having social standards that people were rewarded for obeying, society adopted an assumption of reward and need at the same time, which let people be “equal” by separating their actions from the consequences of those actions.

This allowed them to play the society “game” and win by contributing little, removing standards that would restrict them, and simultaneously force others into behaviors that destroyed them unless those ideals were recognized as insincere, and the others also adopted an attitude of public compliance and private manipulation as well.

Through these means, Leftism destroys societies. The symbol replaces reality. The symbol also becomes duplicitous. People are schooled to be greedily self-interested and corrupt, deceptive. And the herd is unleashed because it is no longer responsible for its actions, and can externalize the costs of its acts to the collective and then blame that collective for any failings.

We can see this as a primal human behavior, which is why it is immediately recognized.

For example, consider some teenagers riding bikes through the woods. One of them knows that there is a dirt mound ahead that he likes to jump from on his bike. He can do this safely because he knows the right groove in the dirt to ride to launch easily to a safe landing zone on the soft forest floor. The others do not.

His greatest advantage comes in urging others to jump their bikes as recklessly as possible, knowing that they will fail and may be injured while he will not be. Because he knows the secret, he can jump his bike safely and look more competent than the others, while they will fail and be injured and lose social status. He wins.

Another example of this pathology can be found in road rage. A person who is driving badly, when someone else who is driving well unintentionally points out the bad driving by contrast, will blame the person driving well, because that person interrupted the solipsistic narrative of the person driving badly that claims the bad driving was in fact good. Awakened from the illusion, they retaliate.

The primal example comes to us from the Christian Bible. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fall into typical human individualism and desire to have the knowledge of God. When a deceiver promises no consequences, they commit a proscribed act, and then blame the deceiver and each other. For them, the game victory is found in suspending responsibility and denying their own solipsistic narrative.

Leftism remains eternally popular, like other human pitfalls that make us feel powerful without having to actually fight against the evils eroding civilization. It appeals to the clever monkey in all of us that wants to have the benefits of society without having to actually be good, or do what is right in all areas, substituting symbolic action for reality.

As we go forward, we must realize that the “right side of history” is in fact a form of decay that rationalizes itself by claiming that what is right concerns a small subset of what we must think about, and that we can solve these by making ourselves more important than reality. Like most paths to Hell, it begins with good intentions and leads us into a ghetto of our own illusions and denial.

Maps And Territories

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

One of the concepts explained at length in the followup to Nihilism is that of mental maps, or how we have representations of the world in our mind which are not symbolic but designed to mimic structures found in the world. These generally follow the primal archetype of a geographic layout because this is probably their role throughout evolution.

Mental maps allow the brain to navigate the world, but this comes with a downside, which is that they provide more intense internal stimulus than external stimulus because the associations — firing of neurons — happen more easily than if provoked by anything but threat, sexual excitement or other extreme external stimulus:

The neuroscientist John O’Keefe discovered cognitive maps in the 1970s. His research ultimately won him a share of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. O’Keefe was not looking for maps in the brain. Newly arrived at University College London (UCL) from McGill University in Canada, he was actually interested in memory.

…This idea received a boost when the Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb suggested that memories could be formed by changing the connections between simultaneously active neurons across the brain, to make their communication easier in future – a simple and yet profoundly influential idea…This idea received a boost when the Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb suggested that memories could be formed by changing the connections between simultaneously active neurons across the brain, to make their communication easier in future – a simple and yet profoundly influential idea.

…O’Keefe and his student Jonathan Dostrovsky set about recording hippocampal neurons to find out what they do on a normal day in a normal rat that was just foraging around for food. They made a remarkable discovery. Some neurons in the hippocampus would become active only when the rat walked into a particular place in its environment. After many control experiments to see if the cells were being activated by particular sights, sounds or smells, O’Keefe concluded that these cells were being stimulated simply by the rat’s being in a particular place, and so he named these neurons ‘place cells’.

Our contemporary public culture normally associates Pavlovian response with trained behavior, but the bigger story here is the formation of nerve connections which provide more intense sensations that most things we perceive from the outside world which do not trigger our 4F — foraging, fighting, fleeing or reproduction — responses.

This provides the basis of human solipsism because our memories and the triggers (sorry, SJWs) stored in them will always be more powerful than perceiving the world, in addition to being faster and thus, striking us as more important. This means that the more we look for clear thoughts, the more we find memories comprised of our conclusions from the past.

That in turn interrupts cause-effect logic because we are no longer working from cause, or how we get to a certain reasoning, but from effect, or the conclusions we drew, which makes us look backward to method and not purpose as the core of our thinking. That in turn pushes any concept of understanding why we do what we do aside, and encourages us to repeat actions that were successful for ourselves or others.

In this, we can see the basis of an inherent instinct toward both conformity and methodological thinking in humans; the latter also produces conformity because it encourages people to engage in similar behaviors, and not to think about the reasons why those were successful in the first place. From this, the origins of the herd instinct that manifests in democracy when a civilization becomes neurotic enough can be found.

Leftists Are The Party Of Human Intent, Which Is Always Wrong

Wednesday, January 11th, 2017

Humans are a mirror of the world, but as with any mirror, things are backward when seen by an observer. This is why humans can exist in opposites to reality within their own minds, and yet these inversions are visible from outside those minds.

Very few people realize how human intent is not just different from, but opposed to reality.

For example, equality is the opposite of reality, because equality does not exist in nature, and therefore human intent seeks to impose equality on the inequality of nature, like clear-cutting a forest but for symbolic reasons. In the same way, human intent itself is the opposite of results in reality. If something exists, it does not require intent, only recognition.

This pattern extends to all levels of human thinking. Whatever we think we should do is usually wrong; whatever works, is usually right. This is the split between Left and Right. The Left believes in equality because it believes all people can receive “reason” through symbols passed on by others, and therefore can make the right decision by using that mental tool. The right believes in time-proven solutions and pursuit of timeless and ongoing goals like excellence, beauty, accuracy, realism and goodness.

When Leftists act, they inevitably choose pathological options, or those in which they repeat the same ideas regardless of results in reality. They have a pathology, or mental compulsion, to act this way in defiance and ignorance of reality because their goal, which is based on human intent, is the opposite of reality.

With that in mind, it makes it easy to appreciate why the idiots double down on insanity:

“In times of economic war and mafia attacks … we must protect employment and workers’ income,” added Maduro, who has now increased the minimum wage by a cumulative 322 percent since February 2016.

The 54-year-old successor to Hugo Chavez attributes Venezuela’s three-year recession, soaring prices and product shortages to a plunge in global oil prices since mid-2014 and an “economic war” by political foes and hostile businessmen.

But critics say his incompetence, and 17 years of failed socialist policies, are behind Venezuela’s economic mess.

If increasing the minimum wage did not help the last five times, it will not help now. This is not a question of degree, but of a failed policy. And yet, he must do it, because he is pathological, because he believes human intent is more important than reality.

In the Leftist mentation, all that matters is intent. People are starving? Your intent is that they do better, so you write a law saying them get more money. This intent-only outlook is inherently solipsistic and denies the fact that the world — including the markets — will have an equal and opposite reaction, such that this money will now have less value. Intent, which is symbolic and appearance-based, cannot recognize this.

This is why Leftists love minimum wages. The symbol is correct; the reality is a disaster. They also love welfare, pacifism, equality, diversity, free love, drug use, communes, anarchy, rainbows, “we are all one” and “peace in our time.” They have made themselves delusional by valuing the sensation inside their minds more than what happens as the result of their actions. Leftism is a pathology.

Our only salvation lies in restoration of the reality principle, but the catch is that most people cannot appreciate or discern reality. Only the best can, and this requires giving them absolute power to do what is right, and to displace the thronging herd of neurotic people who want to impose their intent on us and make us suffer its consequences, all for their pretense of being more good than reality itself.


Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

We are familiar with the scales of justice, but what about the scales of attention? Few of us analyze what our brain spends its time processing; we respond to stimulus, which is easier, and allows us to reserve more of our thought process for ourselves. As a result, life is not tiring at all because we are only halfway awake.

For those who study the brain, informally (which is better above 120) or formally (better below 120 IQ points), it becomes clear that mental state is a zero-sum game. During any span of time, the brain can process only so much, and so adopting more of one thing over others displaces those others. This leads to several interesting revelations:

  1. Self-world balance. The more the brain thinks about itself, the less it studies the world. And so, for those who focus on the self or are driven by the impulses of the self, less is known of the world. Conversely, the more one studies the world, the less time is available for the self and its impulses, which become seen as a means to the end of studying the world.
  2. External-internal balance. When strong authority is present, people must spend less time thinking about their choices and worrying about the risk of getting them wrong. For this reason, the stronger the authority, the less thoughtful that people are. Conversely, truly weak authority like anarchy causes people to think too much about repetitive and commonsense questions, producing the kind of neurosis that causes society to die out.
  3. Present-future balance. As we think more about the future, we exclude the present to that degree. This means that the converse is true: the more we think about the present, the less we think about the future. Since the present is a moment passing, this amounts to a backward-looking bias against the future.

Essentially, the more that we focus on our selves in the here and now, the more we miss out on what life is about beyond the self. This leads us into a condition called solipsism, where we believe that our minds are the world, and that the world therefore can be changed by intent alone, expressed through ideology.

The scales of attention show us that our consciousness is the ultimate resource. We can regulate our experience to make it more meaningful and more realistic, with the latter leading to the former because it filters out more of our own background hum of desires, impulses, emotions and reactions. But most of humanity will choose otherwise, which is why life in civilization (ideally) is a competition for who gets to clarity first, and can then lead the others.

Marxism Is Politicized Solipsism And Nothing More

Monday, December 12th, 2016

In Canada, Dr. Jordan Peterson is clashing with the State for his refusal to use arbitrary gender pronouns as is now apparently required by law. His reason for refusal is fascinating, and yet extremely practical, as mentioned in an interview:

Part of the reason I got embroiled in this [gender identity] controversy was because of what I know about how things went wrong in the Soviet Union. Many of the doctrines that underlie the legislation that I’ve been objecting to share structural similarities with the Marxist ideas that drove Soviet Communism. The thing I object to the most was the insistence that people use these made up words like ‘xe’ and ‘xer’ that are the construction of authoritarians. There isn’t a hope in hell that I’m going to use their language, because I know where that leads…For me this became an issue because there is not a chance I’ll use radical, authoritarian language. I’ve studied this psychologically, and I know what it does.

People say that real Marxism has never been tried – not in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Korea, that wasn’t real Marxism. I find that argument specious, appalling, ignorant, and maybe also malevolent all at the same time. Specious because Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people would die in the 20th century because of it.

…I think that we’re in a time of chaos and anything can happen in a time of chaos.

This is why Crowdism is an important doctrine: Marxism is not something new, but the eternal human temptation toward solipsism. It is us falling into our egos. This is a weakness inbuilt into every human, especially intelligent (which correlates with existentially fragile) ones, and when a society becomes successful, it blooms like a cancer.

It was obvious that it was coming because the Peasant Revolts in the 1500s had essentially the same ideology — everyone is equal, everything is shared, all is determined by human intent and not results because those lead to hierarchy. These may have been inspired by the Mongol Empire, perhaps the precursor to Communism, which used similar ideology as a means of appeasing its population so that they were easier to control.

People still do not understand the journey from individualism to a grey race and authoritarian state. Individuals fear the risk inherent in life, and demand guaranteed social inclusion so that even if they get it wrong, they are still part of the group. This clashes with the need for hierarchy for society to be functional, so the individualists form a little gang of Crowdists — those who advocate collectivized individualism — and act like a cult within society, promoting only their own true believers and beating down anyone else if they can. To justify their selfishness, they re-cast it as a type of Utopianism in which eliminating conflict (pacifism) becomes possible and desirable but dependent entirely on “equality,” or the concept that each person can do whatever they want and cannot suffer a loss of social rank for their failure or degeneracy. This creates a runaway ideological spiral where people attempt to demonstrate allegiance to these unrealistic ideas by forcing them on one another, which destroys social order. Society splits into many special interest groups, which leads to neglect of social institutions that then become taken over by the Crowdists, whose main goal is to externalize the costs of their actions to society at large so they can continue to have “anarchy with grocery stores.” The end result is that civilization collapses into a third-world state, which is how most societies die: popular revolt by the lower echelons, frequently called “workers” but more accurately described as unskilled and undirected people, combined with neurotic dropouts who failed at maintaining their position among the elites, becomes so focused on revenge that it destroys the basis of the civilization.

Marxism is just one version of Crowdism, but they are all very much the same: New Agey on the surface with lots of talk of accepting everyone, but underneath, unstable and therefore requiring increasingly authoritarian methods — both police enforcement and mind control through social influences — to avoid coming apart, which happens after they achieve dominance anyway because their methods are contrary to the mathematics of reality which require inequality to avoid lapsing into a condition like heat death.

Currently, we are in a time of chaos because a functional order was gradually discarded over the past thousand years and replaced by the post-war Leftist order which has recently revealed what happens when it finally gets the power it always wanted, after having cracked the system in 1968: it destroys everything. Society goes soft totalitarian, social order evaporates, people turn into cruel whores, the lowest common denominator prevails, work is slavery, cities are ugly, almost everyone is incompetent and stupid, our leaders are sadistically oblivious manipulators, and people have no hope because they see the tunnel closing in around them, and so become perverse, venal and selfish. This is every bit as end times / fall of Rome as it feels; the new-old order, which replaced the old order, is falling, and not gracefully as the old order did. It has ended civilization in collapse.

Those of us on the Alt Right, instead of dedicating our time to emoting about this like the other 99% of humanity, have instead focused on how to decrypt and debunk the arguments of the new-old order, and articulate what we want instead. The result is actual political effect instead of more narcissistic, self-focused moping as our fellow citizens seem to be dedicated to.

Dark And Light

Thursday, December 1st, 2016

Let us go on a flight of fancy and assume for the moment that we can divide human tendencies — inner impulses manifesting in action — into dark and light categories.

Light refers to those that rise in evolution and capabilities; dark refers to those which return us to our Simian past (or, for creationists, the lowered state of humankind to which pre-Adamic humanity slid).

We might list light traits as: purpose, kindness, aggression in problem-solving, honesty, honor, pride, decency, thoughtfulness, insight.

We might list dark traits as: selfishness, greed, cruelty, laziness, dishonesty, ethics of convenience, obscenity, perversity, carelessness, obliviousness.

The success of humanity is bound up with those light traits, and its downfall with the dark. Light leads to improvement, where dark retreats from improvement, and goes instead into the individual, withdrawing from the world and the challenge of it.

Today some Baby Boomers came my way. They had worked their whole lives for what they had: president of a company, leader of a civic association, a big house near the city with cars that screamed “success” to casual observers.

Like most of their generation, also called “the Me generation,” they had done everything for themselves, and in the process been induced to give up their lives. Then came retirement, theoretically the golden years.

After being given a Blackberry (gold watches are passé) and sent on the way with a celebratory dinner, the husband retired to his hobbies. These were in theory what he liked to do, an ultimate expression of self.

Over time, however, they began to ring hollow. One can only play so many rounds of golf before realizing that the talent to be great is not there, and the thrill is gone. Golf was an escape; now it has become a job.

Simultaneously both of them became irrelevant to their community and their friend groups, all of whom were busy with their own pursuits, also dedicated to the self. They found their contact with the world limited because they no longer had anything to offer it, like power and wealth.

Then they began to look at that big house. It was unending work, it seemed, and once it was a status symbol and image of prestige, but now, no one gave it a second look. It had been — at the end of the day — no more than a complex business card, albeit also providing some comfortable living.

They had no problems with money, but lacked things to spend it on. Their kids had moved far away after contentious childhoods, and checked in for the monthly call, but not much more than that.

No matter what they tried — new hobbies, new social groups, even going to church — they found that these activities had little relevance. Their presence was for their own enjoyment, and there was no joy to be found in going through rituals.

Eventually they retreated back into their home, a grocery store or two, and a favorite hardware store. He puttered around the house, fixing things he would have paid Mexicans to do in crisp twenties only a year before. She went through old recipes.

At night, the house was still, with nothing to think about but decrepitude and death.

Through their example we see the rotten fruit of individualism. Living for the self means becoming relevant only to the self, and there is only so much there, like the hobbies or purchases. Without purpose, humans die.

Their generation grew up in a huge postwar boom of wealth. Having thrown off the last of the old rules, individuals were free to make money and live however they wanted, but this meant no connection to anything beyond function and self.

During working years, this did not seem like such a big deal. There was always something to do at work, and distracting television at home. Then activities on the weekend, filling that time. The goal was to never be silent and alone.

Now however, life was entirely silent and alone. As limbs stiffened and eyesight faded, they found themselves unable to participate in all that they would have done, if they were young, and somehow past it already. Less fascinated. More experienced.

In a former age, they might have found themselves on a council of wise elders in their community. Possibly also living near their children, helping them with a new generation. Reaching out in other ways, having a purpose.

They might have even seen in the interconnectedness of things the presence of something us educated moderns dare call “God,” but which represents the God-principle: a battle between darkness and light, always struggling to produce something better, or even more interesting.

They might have connected to something.

Instead, the lights dim and the television goes on for the fifth time that day. The sports games are empty, since there is no watercooler talk. The romantic comedies after forty years reveal an utter redundancy. Shopping has no luster.

If you want to know the dying of the West, hear this: at the boundary of the self, light converts to darkness and vice-versa. What the self sees as light is dark, because it isolates the self from purpose. What it fears is what it must pursue.

The West has died because it lacks a reason toward, an aspiration, that connects us to life. Instead we are prisoners in the wells of ourselves.

Recommended Reading