Posts Tagged ‘solipsism’

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.

We Have Reached Peak Individualist

Friday, November 4th, 2016


So how does Dow Jones the Average fight back against the SJW Empire? He hits the Off Button. Block the signal. Turn off the noise. They have to sell. You don’t have to buy. When it all gets too disgusting, you also can join a new and burgeoning social movement. You can support Peak Individualism. It is happening all around us.

The salad days are seemingly over in Hollyorc.

The autumn box office is falling, down about 16% from the same period last year, according to the tracking service comScore.

Post-summer moviegoers have shelled out $807 million at the box office since Sept. 6, including $24.7 million this weekend for Ben Affleck in The Accountant. In a record-breaking 2015, the box office brought in a robust $960.8 million for the same period (Sept. 8 through Oct. 18).

Target retail stores are having to spend $20 Million to replumb all of their stores as a result of their disastrous bathroom policy.

Target, a popular retail chain, has announced it will spend $20 million in the coming months to add single-stall bathrooms to hundreds of its stores — a move that comes following furor over the store chain’s transgender bathroom stance.

The NFL is getting thrown for a loss. It’s going about as bad for them as it was for Colon Kaepernick vs. The Buffalo Bills yesterday. Stephen L. Carter describes the entire league-wide four touchdown loss below.

…as Peter King of Sports Illustrated pointed…Ratings are down 13.4 percent, far more than the usual election year drop-off.

Carter acknowledges this could be “Kaepernick Effect.” He then backs away from this truth and gets into peculiar problems besetting the NFL and football in general. He shouldn’t have backed away from “Kaepernick Effect.” I have yet to meet an Alabama or Auburn fan that has walked away from football. It’s one league in particular suffering the current decline.

Instead, he should have extended it without loss of generality. This is not Peak Football, Peak Hollyorc or Peak Target. This is Peak individualism and it is a recurring and growing social phenomenon. I described peak individualism back when Target initially launched its execration.

It happens all the time with “successful” activism. Lefty always wins the argument. They get progress. People who consider it regress instead don’t raise their voices. They just stop coming around.

Peak Individualism is a classical form of pacifism. It is the commonly decent, civilized human being’s defense mechanism athwart SJW converences. It’s the only thing that ultimately works. Cut off their money and they run out of butt fuel. Let the narcissists whine. It’s what they typically do when they fail to produce.

You just avoid people who deliberately ruin places so you feel unwelcome there. You do not have to watch things that are deliberately gross or offensive. You do not have to enrich companies that participate or who advertise with the assholes. They can’t stop you. They can’t even detect you until they finish early counting the till. Then they have a problem.

It’s at this point where the poisonous solipsist has to clean up or be permanently shunned. It’s sad when something has to be permanently shunned but it happens. Toxic deenerates can kill anything they infect, but they do have to be starved if you want to stop them. In most cases, the narcissist-infected entity recognizes their problems and de-rectums. Then the civilized society gets their activity back again.

Just be patient and continue to passively avoid these people. They starve without you. You lose nothing without them. Never let self-interested, disingenuous SJW types convince you that it is your duty to support a parasite load. And that, in the end, is what Peak Individualism — I use another word for “individualists” in private — is.

It is the point where society gets sick of SJW parasites and opts instead to tune them out until they attention-starve, or better, put them on helicopters to the third world where their passive-aggressive selfish behavior will fit within the background noise of the dysfunctional norm. They do not belong among first-world people.

Anatomy Of An Individualist

Thursday, June 23rd, 2016


If you still refuse to believe that the disease of civilization decline lies in “We The People” and not some external force, consider the case of a typical individualist who took her pathology to the next level by making it highly public:

The San Diego woman documented her art on rock features on social media as she traveled across the US.

Over a 26-day period in 2014 she damaged formations at seven national parks by drawing or painting on them with acrylic paint and markers, signing her works with her social media handle ‘Creepytings.’

In one post from the time, she wrote: ‘It’s art, not vandalism. I am an artist.’

The modern egotism insists that each person be described in superlatives. Functionality is not enough; one must be a sage, a prophet, an artist, a visionary. Even though very few are, and especially very few who scrawl their works on public surfaces.

Art is a condition of the mind, a communication rendered into some form. Vandalism is what happens when communication is put in the wrong place. She conflates the two, just like leftists confuse method for motivation, because it is convenient for her to do so, so that she may achieve her actual goal — being an attention whore and demanding attention to her ego.

When we create “equality” as a political value, it turns people into attention whores. They have been reduced in value and the means of measuring actual value — moral, character, intelligence and fidelity — have been adulterated. As a result, all that remains is doing “stunts” and drawing attention to oneself.

Not surprisingly, they do so at the expense of others, as our graffiti-scarred cities and spam-ridden internet show us. Why would they do otherwise? People have nothing in common except obeying the rules to have money, pay taxes, and allow other people to be attention whores in the hope that someday each of us gets our fifteen minutes of vandalism fame.

You Are The Product

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016


The web gave us the rise of the personal blog. At first, the blog was a place to post links of interest, but with the rise of search engines, this became less important, and instead bloggers competed for traffic on the basis of personality and pleasant visions of life… that may be very far from real.

But with this change, the blogger altered identity. He or she was no longer the chooser of links, or the finder of oddities, in which case the links were the product. No: the blogger was the product. People were tuning in to partake of the personality and the lifestyle which they admired.

This clinched the trap. Where previously bloggers had been susceptible to vanity, now they were what they were selling to the audience, and sometimes they bought their own product… as every drug dealer or arms merchant is cautioned not to do. Bloggers got no such warning.

In doing so, they pioneered the postmodern condition: when everything is a product, individuals are products too, selling themselves in exchange for jobs, status, popularity, fame and opportunities. We have made our society into a herd of attention whores through our insistence on selection by the masses of what is the “right” answer.

Look at what a creepy, proctological world we have made:

“The other bloggers in your community won’t share your content with their readers [if it’s not cheery],” she explains. “And if the [blogger] networks don’t share the content, then your own numbers suffer.”

…“I felt I could somehow control things as long as it looked good online,” says Denise

…“So there we all are, family time, grilling on Father’s Day with peach iced tea, but you can’t enjoy the moment you’re having with your kids, because you’re taking endless photos and it’s all stage-directed,” says Denise. “You’re worried about getting the company logo in the frame, and your kids smiling, and you’re taking shot after shot.”

In other words, bloggers — We The People — have become just as sold out as big media. But there is another catch: if your blog is a personal one, or one in which you sell yourself, you find yourself altering who you are to make the audience happy. Your personality, life and soul have become a means to an end of getting more attention.

Validation creates a validator. If we are all equal, that situation creates competition to be validated as more than equal. That transfers power from the individual, who ordinarily through self-esteem is alone responsible for his self-image, to the crowd which approves or disapproves. The validators become the tyrants, and bloggers alter themselves to be more pleasing, like concubines after a feast.

Another blogger expressed it this way — basically, needing attention makes you a slave and a whore to what other people think:

and you know what? even though i was fretting all along about my absence, i finally let go of all that self imposed stress and just enjoyed life. it’s been great to take a breather from the ol’ internet- my pal and yours, but let’s face it: sometimes the internet can feel sorta… eh at times, you know? pretty easy to get caught up in it all. all the tweeting, chatting, flickring, facebooking, stylehiving, myspacing, friendstering, tumblering, bloglining, etc. it’s a lot, isn’t it? sometimes so much that you forget to interact with the people right in front of your face. instead, you find yourself neeeeeding the updates. who’s doing what. did so-and-so post new pics? has so-and-so returned from their vacation? what is so-and-so making for dinner? what’s the latest celeb scandal? and what is so-and-so wearing today.

crazy, i know. but the time away provides an excellent reminder: you will be just fine if you didn’t check in with all that stuff as much as you think you need to because your own life is pretty good. and that it feels a lot better to live through your own experiences than through someone elses.

This echoes the meltdowns that other bloggers — in this case, the type of “look at my perfect life” blogger called a mommyblogger — have experienced. For example, Heather Armstrong (Dooce) had a very public meltdown in which she admitted to being in therapy, divorced her husband and fled her “perfect” life:

I find this so confusing because according to Dooce, the two of them have been going to therapy for years together. Dooce has praised her husband and openly loved him for years. I don’t get how this happened. Was she lying to us about how things really were?

I’ve noticed that many very successful and/or famous people do not stay with the partner they were with prior to that success and/or fame. But Dooce has been successful and famous for a long time now. The marriage had the outward appearance of surviving not only Heather’s mental illness, but also her career. Jon doesn’t seem like the kind of man who would begrudge Heather her success. He seems to really love and respect her.

Other bloggers have had similar meltdowns. Early blogger Justin Hall experienced a meltdown at the peak of his fame and as he was forced by post-college life to make himself into a product. Jorn Barger, the guy who invented the term “blog,” experienced an intense meltdown that left him homeless.

So what does this tell us? That the need for validation creates a need to manipulate image, and that soon the false image replaces reality…

Most women don’t necessarily do it for the money, Denise noticed, but rather for validation — the feeling of importance that comes from working with big, national brands like Bigelow Tea and Coca-Cola.

“They aren’t very honest about what’s going on in their lives,” she says. “I was certainly one of them.”

…“I’m not playing that game anymore. I’m moving on from writing posts about chicken and cupcakes. These days, if I’m at a park with my kids now, I’m there, at that park. I feel a real sense of community — not the false kind I tried to create online.”

The image must conform to what others want to purchase as a product. They do not care about reality. They want a pleasant reality in which to lose themselves and feel better about their lives. You, the blogger, are the product: a celebrity whose forum is not the movies in which you act, but your own personal drama and lifestyle which you sell like a used car to whichever warm bodies you can induce to click on your links.

The creepiness continues because with the idea of a “personal” connection comes the notion that people can share emotions, truths and viewpoints:

As a result of such heated controversy, Armstrong began connecting with others in the blogosphere, and her readership continued to grow. Since then, the relationship between her and her readers has been invaluable. They have helped her through extremely dark times in her life, particularly through her postpartum depression.

“I would give hints about how I was feeling, and people would respond,” Armstrong said. “Many of them reached out to me with their own story, saying, ‘Please take care of yourself.’ I really credit their support of me to the willingness of me to accept that something was wrong.”

In other words, this is the formation of a hive mind: a huge group grooving to the same emotion, moving through the same motions, and motivated by the same fears. This is a dangerous condition at best, and a horrifying abyss of human moral awareness and self-discipline at worst. When the herd validates you, you have no reason to change for some reason as piddly as adapting to reality.

FreckleWonder, the (freckled) blogger cited earlier, eventually retreated from blogging and left instead this statement about how profoundly being a self-centered celebrity had ruined her life:

If my math is correct, it’s been 99 days since my last post. I didn’t intend go dark but the thing is, the more the days went by, the easier it was to not blog and just live. The idea of sitting down to edit images and compose a post just seemed totally unfulfilling. I’d rather take the 1-2 hours and hang out with my kids, connect with my husband, enjoy the outdoors with my dogs. Cook, exercise, read a book. Lounge on the sofa in the sunshine and stare at the ceiling. Really, anything but comb the internet for ideas and images to write a blogpost.

The last thing I want to do is apologize for not sitting down to blog because I’ve been busy living and experiencing that wonderful thing called real life. I don’t like it when bloggers apologize for not meeting some number of posts because of x, y and z. The kids were sick! We’ve been SO BUSY. My internet was out! I promise to be back next week!

These things happen and it’s called life. Blogging ≠ Life.

My perspective has definitely shifted over the last couple years. You may have noticed, I rarely share images of my kids anymore (here or elsewhere) and don’t really blog about anything very personal. I decided about 2 years ago to reclaim the private moments in our lives, saving them (for the most part) just for us to experience instead of plastering them all over the www. It wasn’t anything I announced or talked about, and there wasn’t any single incident that pushed me towards making that decision. It’s just what felt right to me and to my husband and what felt best for our family. It’s almost like I woke up one day and hit my limit on sharing. Let’s face it, the internet isn’t what it used to be.

I do miss the good old days of blogging, long before every little slice of life was monetized in some way. Snacks, outfits, family trips. I’ve struggled with this for years. Some people handle this delicate balance really well – and I sincerely mean that. But I truly believe that in many cases, the money behind a post really changes the author’s voice. A blog post reads like an advertisement. From a reader perspective, things feel less genuine, less reader-blogger connected. Instead things feel at times competitive and incredibly superficial with product pushing, mile long gift guides riddled with affiliate links. Those posts are not fun to put together, I know from experience. They’re also not fun (for me) to read. I have ZERO interest in spending my few spare moments on something like that. I’m not singling out any one blog/blogger, but rather speaking to the overwhelming feeling I have that everywhere I turn, I’m being sold something.

I miss the days of having a real community. Of sharing for the sake of connecting. Of being genuinely inspired. Maybe I’m looking in all the wrong places. If you know of well written, honest, non-sponsored content, please share. Because nowadays a lot of folks are up on their writer-editor-tastemaker high horse and images are curated to the teeth and WHAT IS LIFE because I’m not so sure about all of this. I’d be the first one to admit that it’s easy to fall into that perfect image trap. You want to share something lovely, you want to share something nice. But at what point does lovely and nice turn into phony and absurd? (This a bit of an aside and I am going out on a limb but: I don’t consider myself a writer. I don’t want to offend the real writers of the world. However, it is important to me that I hit the submit button on a post that is not just visually beautiful but also well written (to the best of my ability) and free of any spelling and grammatical errors. I do spend more than a few minutes editing and revising because it matters. For example, this post currently has 34 revisions and I’ve spent more than two hours on it. I feel like it’s the least you can do (especially if you’re getting paid to do it).
 Grammar Girl is your friend. Also, things like aThesaurus! The Idiom and Phrase finder! Put those in your bag of tricks. Just might be enough to sink a ship.

ANYHOW, I wonder why I even want to be a part of it any more. Is it more out of habit? A pull that I feel because it’s something I’ve done for so long that it feels weird to not be involved? It’s a total yes on this one. And it’s funny because sometimes I still wake up in the middle of the night and write blog posts in my head. The blog weighs on me like a ton of bricks. At 4 am they always seem really great and share-worthy. But it’s the middle of the night! And I should be sleeping! What the hell am I doing! And then morning comes and with it my ability to see things more clearly. I go about all my usual business, which as of late does not seem to have any space for this here blog.

It’s a square peg, round hole kind of situation.

I’m pulling the plug at the end of the month. It feels so silly to pay hosting fees, etc. for something I’m just not doing with any kind of regularity (or enthusiasm) anymore. If I can muster up the energy to figure out how to export over to a free platform, then maybe I’ll do that. Maybe the mood will strike – it’s been a LONG WINTER after all.

The last time I quit a blog, it was so emotional for me! I agonized over the decision and it felt like I was jumping off the edge of something because it had been a part of my life for so long. This time it’s a no brainer – it was fun until it wasn’t. I’m truly ready to move on to different things. I’m enrolled in spring classes and I’m so excited about it. This next year is going to be a really busy one as we focus on selling our house and beginning a new chapter for our family. New house, new hood, new schools, new work, all off the blog.

I have so much appreciation for all of you loyal readers and customers throughout the years. Your support, your kindness, your friendship. Thanks for reading and being a part of this thing for so long.

I will leave you with one last thing: I stumbled across a quote online last year sometime, probably on one of those silly Pinterest boards with all the quotes (I used to have one, no worries) and it read: DO ONE THING AND DO IT WELL. And that sucker smacked me sideways. I’ve been a proud multitasker for as long as I can remember, but the minute I decided to clear my plate and put my energy towards fewer things in a more effective way, the better I felt. And the better I was at those things. Win, win.

In the experiences of these bloggers, we see the modern parable: people made responsible to the Crowd through self-image, which in turn forces them to edit that image until it appeals to the Crowd, not just so they can get ahead but so they are not left behind. Every whitelist — list of good people — also contains an implicit blacklist — list of bad people — because if you are not on the whitelist, you are de facto on the blacklist.

This creates a horrific world where nothing is authentic, where everyone is a salesman, and where all “truths” are image designed to manipulate you, and nothing more. The experience of bloggers and their meltdowns is nothing less than what our society as a whole faces as its attention whoring falls flat and it must confront the emptiness of a life lived for image in denial of reality.

Is “Anti-Racism” Simply Another Form of Anti-Darwinism?

Monday, April 18th, 2016

Clarence Darrow, a famous Chicago lawyer, and William Jennings Bryan, defender of Fundamentalism, have a friendly chat in a courtroom during the Scopes evolution trial.  Darrow defended John T. Scopes, a biology teacher, who decided to test the new Tenessee law banning the teaching of evolution. Bryan took the stand for the prosecution as a bible expert. The trial in 1925 ended in conviction of Scopes. ca. 1925 Dayton, Tennessee, USA

Charles Darwin wrote his groundbreaking work in the late nineteenth century and early in the following century, it had already become politically controversial. The idea of evolution offended people, both on a religious and secular basis, and so hysterical historical events like the Scopes Monkey Trial came to pass.

Even through the present day, many oppose the idea of Darwinism. To them, it either denies our divine origin as the deliberate act of God, or refutes the idea of human uniqueness upon which the liberal philosophy of secular humanism is constructed. Darwinism lives on through the latter in anti-racism.

If people have been disturbed by Darwinism since its inception, and if most people act by “rationalizing” their opposition to something — finding some argument to use against it, rather than becoming against it because of an innate conflict — then it is likely the same condition continues today. With “blank slate” ideologies, we see a counter-Darwin narrative being launched.

Under the blank slate idea, all people are the same and simply await the right mental programming — education, propaganda, law, rules, regulations — to make them act in self-interest toward what is right. True blank-slaters believe there are no biological differences between social classes, sexes, races and regional groups. In other words, there is no evolution going on right now, and it never could have existed, since we are all equal as if… created by a benevolent God in that state.

Of course our “scientific” society denies the existence of a benevolent God, but we are content with substitutes that do not involve an orderly force to the universe which might judge us as insufficient for our impulsive, venal and incontinent actions. For this reason, the idea of equality takes on a religious dimension.

But as others point out, Darwin remains with us, as a challenge to our sense of being “in control” through his assertion of human and racial inequality:

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his revolutionary book, The Origin of Species. Actually, the full title of the work is The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or, The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. In this book, the author contended that higher levels of biological existence are attained as the strong eliminate the weak in the struggle for survival.

Subsequently, Darwin produced yet another work, The Descent of Man (1871), in which he wrote even more explicitly:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigourous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (Darwin 1872, 130; emphasis added).

Something about Darwin offends us in our very soul. It says that we are not the creators of ourselves, but that we are effects of causes in the past. This affirms our impotence, degrades our egos, and makes us feel as if a Natural Selection Event (NSE) could be lurking right around the corner at any minute… and no prey creature wants to feel that.

Anti-racism came from this anti-Darwinistic movement. If it is heresy to assault the idea that all people are equal, doing so in such a highly visible way as to deny racial equality is the ultimate apostasy. The good people say we are all the same; the bad people say not only that we are different, but that we should aspire to be more than what we are, based on the best among us and the logical extension of where they are. The real blasphemy is saying that people need to adapt to reality and improve themselves, and that this happens over multiple lifetimes, which makes the individual feel impotent and mortal.

The fanatical anti-racism of the West can be understood this way. By categorizing Creationism as anti-Darwinism, by inversion we can imply that only Creationism is anti-Darwinism, which allows other forms of anti-Darwinism to go unrecognized for what they are. Racism addresses a primal fear: if there are differences among the races, then there must be among classes, and individuals, which means we are not equal, which means that our egos in not responsible for who we are. Thus we are not in Control, which means we exist at the whim of the universe or God …not a very flattering concept.

Anti-Racism is another form of anti-Darwinism similar to the Creationism on exhibit at the Scopes Monkey Trial. The same human impulse lies behind it: a desire for the individual to be the Creator of himself, and for that reason, to be omniscient and omnipotent among the events of life. This implies that the individual wields the power here, and not the world, so the individual does not need to adapt to the world, but in fact the converse: the world must adapt to the individual.

At the core of every human dysfunction, we find the same thing: a monkey preening over its fine fur, and at the same time, puffing itself up to scare away its enemies both real and imagined. A self-important organism, in other words, which is vested in denying reality. Except that with humans, the consequences of this are vast and negative, where for monkeys it is just a few more moments of contentment before the strike of the snake or wildcat.

Which way, dissident Right?

Monday, February 22nd, 2016


With the Trump campaign, as predicted, convergence occurred between underground and mainstream right, forcing a recognition of underlying issues which are outside of the Leftist scope of concern and so not articulable in the postwar West. The question now sits before us: where to from here?

As I articulate in the theory of Crowdism, most human endeavors fail because they are invisibly infected by individualism weaponized into a collectivist mentality. That is, a group decides that they will become a collective for the defense of individualism, or the lack of accountability of the individual to reality and the natural hierarchy of humans and ideas.

This thought process corresponds to both what the Greeks called hubris and the sin described in the Garden of Eden: desiring to be above one’s place in the natural hierarchy, and using subterfuge in human opinions both internal (self) and external (Crowd) to achieve the simulation of that. Like all illusions, this one ends in tears, but that happens at a distant time, so for those who can shorten the scale of their perception to the immediate, it seems like a win.

Since ability to think long-term correlates highly with intelligence, we might see hubris in groups as a victory for the statistically-prevalent lower 80% of the Bell Curve, who by the Dunning-Kruger effect lack the ability to understand what is above that cognitive level. This is the human problem; all else flows from this, and it is also what ends human civilizations by reducing them to third-world levels of inefficacy.

Crowdism can infiltrate any field, even those which nominally brand themselves as being against it. Any time the truth is adjusted to fit its audience, and not the other way around — adjusting the audience to fit reality, known as “natural selection” — Crowdism enters and through the misplaced self-interest of individuals, takes over. I say “misplaced” because putting oneself and all those similar to you on a path to certain destruction is never wise. It guarantees all that you do will be wasted.

Like all evil outside books that involve orcs and wizards, the evil of Crowdism comes not in a terrifying form but a beautiful, kind, compassionate, loving, gentle and socially inclusive one. It accepts all who are willing to formally adopt a basic outlook, and then in the name of keeping the group together, includes all in its focus even when their ideas begin to erode the fundamental truth.

This is the great ugly secret of humanity: reality is the one truth, and we either obey it or self-destruct. All of our errors consist of adjusting truth to fit what we wish were true, and all of our successes come from accepting reality as it is and then acting to improve it qualitatively, which means not finding a “different” way but taking the obvious way and doing what we can to make it better for those who are better. Crowdism is merely a clever sleight-of-hand around this obvious and time-honored path.

The dissident Right — alternative right, neoreaction, new right, red pill and others who see that the foundational myths of democracy, equality and pluralism are the cause of our civilization’s dysfunction and imminent failure — has come far by rejecting the Leftist-tinged ideals of the compliant cuckservative mainstream Right, but we must make sure we do not fall prey to the same syndrome that took them out. Crowdism lurks for us in doing what is popular, not what is right, and our future legitimacy rests on our ability to beat this cognitive error.

As mentioned early on, the dissident Right struggles with its desire for novelty and thus its tendency toward Crowdism. Its main function has been to widen the Overton window so that we can talk about topics like HBD, nationalism, the inherent failure of socialism and other negations of the Leftist ideal. But in trying to popularize these ideas, it can fall prey to popularization itself, and become a lesser method of what it needs to be.

What has always plagued the Right is lack of ability to state what it wants. We know that Leftism is a stream and once a toe is dipped in it, the current carries us forever further Left. The only solution is to affirm a Right society that does not have any Leftism in it, and that requires facing some unpopular truths. That in turn requires taking a difficult stand that will not be popular, but if our leaders affirm it, the others will fall in line and follow. The dog must wag the tail again, instead of the tail (popularity) wagging the dog (goal).

Currently the dissident Right is caught in a loop of rehashing its criticisms of the Left but it is unable to make the step toward the difficult stage of demanding actual change because this conflicts with Crowdist elements in its audience. We have lots of blogs rehashing ideas that myself and others covered 20 years ago, and while that is great, it has become preaching to the choir. We either take the next step or vanish in irrelevance.

Amerika’s quarterback, Johnny Manziel

Saturday, January 9th, 2016


Does sport matter? Some say it doesn’t, referring to it dismissively as “Sportsball.” Others say it matters in a negative way. It’s a part of the Matrix. Paul Kersey (of SBPDL fame) referred to college football as “The Opiate of America.” I tend to respectfully disagree with both of these points of view. I look at sport the way the Ancient Greeks looked at tragedy. The games provide catharsis and teach us lessons. They reveal truth within the crucible of competition. As Legendary UCLA Basketball Coach John Wooden put it: “Competition doesn’t build character. It reveals it.” We can see the character of who we are reflected in who gets to play our games on the biggest stages. Take the example of Amerika’s Quarterback, Johnny Manziel.

Sport doesn’t just reveal the character of the player. It also reveals the character of the people selecting and training the player. Peeling this onion back another layer, the people who decide who gets to be QB come from somewhere and are raised and educated by someone. Their decision is partially informed by that. When “Turds” like Johnny Manziel get entrusted with important decisions (even in the context of “Sportsball”), it reveals the character of the people who decide who gets to decide. So how did Johnny Football get turned into Johnny F@#$tard, and why is he Amerika’s QB?

Amerika turns its children into the most special of special little snowflakes and in so doing, we make a tragic mistake in malfeasant parenting. Nobody ever told Johnny Manziel that he sucked at anything. Manziel was the son of a Texas football legend and predictably matured into an outstanding high school QB. The misplaced hero worship started right there. So special was the Great White Snowflake, that he earned an athletic scholarship to the prestigious and world-renowned Texas Art and Music University*.

It was in college where Manziel’s specialness first turned into rot. He won many great games, went to many wild parties and developed a reputation for acting like quite the wild douche-nozzle. By the time Johnny Manziel graduated, he had a Heisman Trophy, a chemical dependency, and a reputation that scared off serious-minded NFL General Managers that strove to build workable teams in the quest for Super Bowl glory. Luckily for Johnny Football, the Cleveland Browns have an NFL franchise as well. This franchise accurately represented the brainpower and moral character of Cleveland, Ohio by selecting Manziel in the 1st Round.

It would have gone so much better for Special Little Johnny if he had been a back-up QB who spent a few years freezing his butt cheeks off on the sidelines at Michigan before getting a chance to start. Then he could spend the last Semester of his senior year, sobering up, passing a few classes and sprucing up his resume. It’s the whole process of not really knowing whether you are going to make it that helps develop the character that oh, winning a bunch of super bowls successfully revealed in Thomas E. Brady.

And what character traits make Johnny Manziel Amerika’s Quarterback? He quickly got into trouble in his first NFL training camp because he wasn’t the man and couldn’t handle being nothing special. His play was sporadic. His crazy life off the field prevented him from achieving success. He promptly finished his disastrous rookie year with a stint of rehab worthy of a Motley Crue Rhythm Guitarist. Like many special people, Manziel found rehab tiring. It drained his soul. He needed a vacation. So he decided to do something original like go to Vegas and drink.

As a result of reposing their trust, confidence, a nuclear kiloton of bank in Johnny Manziel, the Cleveland Browns got a 3-13 record, a fired Head Coach, a fired General Manager, and didn’t even quite stink badly enough to get the number one pick in next year’s draft. The entire organization, not just Manziel, will be spending the offseason getting rehabbed. And that is both condign and fitting. When the entire outfit stinks like a butthole, you can pretty much expect them to hire and promote people who, to quote Thomas E. Brady, Defending Super Bowl Champion, are basically turds.

This is why Johnny Manziel is America’s QB. He is overrated, spoiled, indulged, insulated from consequence and then put in a position he has been given no preparation to succeed in at all. And then we furrow our brows and wonder why he habitually craps on anyone who rewards him with good faith and trust. It almost reminds you of the guy we have in the White House. You could just about learn a lesson from the tragic and cathartic downfall of a guy like Johnny Speedball, oops I mean Football and not put a guy like that in charge of anything that really mattered. You could, of course, if you didn’t just consider things like NFL Games, corporate hiring decisions, Presidential Elections et al., all just “Sportsball.”

*- TAMU – If I owned a dairy cow, I’d name her that.