Posts Tagged ‘the black pill’
Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Since colored pills seem to represent the modern desire for a one-step solution to the decline of Western Civilization, let us look at the grey pill: the notion that the world mirrors the self, instead of the other way around.
The essence of the grey pill is individualism, or the idea that the self is more important than reality. This idea comes both from our tendency to view our big brains as more real than the world around us because the sensations of thought are stronger, and our natural inclination to resent life for resisting our intent and urges.
As it happens with human intelligence, the grey pill manifests itself in universalism, which roughly speaking means that all people perceive and understand the same truths. This is a form of individualism expanded inside-out, because the implication is that what the individual thinks is what the rest of the world does or should think.
Universalism serves as the basis for The Enlightenment™ thought, because for us to place our faith in “human reason,” we must believe it is evenly distributed among humans, even though all evidence points to the contrary. With that notion in our heads, ideas like democracy, rule by law and not wise elders, diversity and equality suddenly seemed plausible, to the ruin of all.
In reality, esotericism makes more sense than the grey pill. In esotericism, understanding of symbols or truths is entirely dependent on the perceiver, and people are limited to variant — not equal — degrees by experience, genetic ability and dedication. This means that nothing can be “true” in a universal context; there is only reality, and some assessments of it, which are not shared completely between people.
In other words, the essence of esotericism is the black pill, or the notion that there are no inherent truths and human attempts to portray, communicate and moralize based on perceived truth are illusion. There is only a hierarchy of people, with some knowing more than others, and we either put those in charge to discipline the rest, or the rest oppress us all by insisting on ignorance.
Friday, December 9th, 2016
The important thing about the Alt Right is that — contrary to appearances — it shows the right growing up and merging its two threads, opposition to delusional Utopianism on one hand, and its resistance to “modern society” on the other.
Few are willing to mention the truth about the West, which is that it is soul-killing. Jobs are spirit subjugation; the cities are ugly; all of our products are designed to take advantage of us and deprive us of the function of that product. What kind of rising technological empire cannot make a refrigerator that lasts longer than ten years?
In the hands of the proles, the vote went to the people, and this seems to empower whoever wants to treat the population as a cash cow and milk it for all that it is worth. Governments are self-interested businesses, but so are regular businesses. All want to extract the most cash out of the population through deliberately broken policies, which then require more money to try to make them work, and planned obsolescence. The reason for this that these organizations are comprised of people, and each person wants a job forever and more money and power, and they are given an aegis of public interest behind which to engineer theft.
In social situations, people do the same thing. The name of the game is to take all that you can and externalize the costs. People are inept and do sloppy work, knowing someone else may have to clean it up. The ultimate modern symbol is litter because the citizen who enjoys his pleasures and then leaves behind a mess has externalized the cleanup, making him seem victorious for having taken more than he has given. All of these problems arise from a lack of purpose to society, which leaves it as a group of conflict special interests warring it out for power at the expense of the normal working population who just want stable lives.
We like to talk about how democracy freed us from insane wars and totalitarianism, but we live under “soft totalitarian” circumstances where the wrong opinion means losing jobs, home, family and friends; we also have under democracy embarked on two World Wars and many proxy conflicts in which nothing was permanently resolved. Our future is one of endless war in which those who fail to affirm the Narrative and its ideology are treated as enemies of the state, enforced through fear of collective punishment in which others shun the heretics in order to avoid being associated with heresy. Our modern life is more controlled than life under fascists or National Socialists, and seems to have replicated the conditions in the Soviet Union, albeit with better shopping and slicker products that nonetheless break after a few years.
In this modern totalitarian state, we live in misery. Jobs are jails because there is no focus on the end result, only appearances. This puts vicious manipulators in charge and marginalizes those who try to be efficient and do their job and get out with more free time. Those who spend the most time at the job succeed, even though this by definition implies inefficiency and ineptitude. The person who designs a product which is cheaply made and heavily advertised wins, because the highest margin of profit is achieved, while quality products are beaten out of the market because it is always easier to find ten idiots willing to buy junk than one person who values performance over price.
Most people are insane as a result. In order to handle a necrotic society of this nature, they must rationalize it as good, which means accepting dysfunction as function. This makes them prone to spend even more time on pointless activity and to resent those who do not, against whom they retaliate. Their search for some substitute for purpose and meaning causes them to become perverse and fetishize all sorts of broken behaviors just so they can feel important and that their lives are worth living, which furthers social decay.
The core of the revolution against modernity is realizing that our thinking is backward. Instead of finding positive goals and directing economics and society to achieve them, we work by attending to demotism — consumerism, democracy, popularity — and assume that it finds the right answers. Instead, it discovers inferior substitutes and makes them mandatory norms, which ensures that most of our time is wasted fighting back against the vast waves of dysfunction around us.
We need to discover values and purpose again. This requires identity, which is the core of Spencer’s speech: Amerika is not great because it is rotting from within, and the core of that rotting is the herd of cultureless, purposeless, and raceless grey lumpenproletariat that Leftism manufactures. We have no goals, nothing to strive for, and it is killing us. We either discover identity — which requires the most basic foundation of identity, which is race and ethnicity — or we are doomed to be nothing but servants to an ideological empire which values mediocrity and compliance over life itself.
In ideology, life is a means to an end, which is ideology. This circular reasoning turns us into “free” slaves toward the Utopian ends of our leaders, which are in public expressed as egalitarianism, but in private the profit taken from pitching an ideological product that people want, and from that, by achieving power and wealth as career criminals like the Clintons, Obama, Merkel and others demonstrate. Our leaders do not care about the results of their actions, only appearances, because like corporations selling planned obsolescence products, they are shilling a cheap substitute that the herd will buy in order to take profit out of the civilization.
We are ruled by parasites, and by our own hand. Who has sympathy for the worker? Any time a “free” government program, union benefit, or socially dysfunctional reduction of standards comes along, the workers vote for it because they perceive it to be in their interests. They are shocked and amazed when the free stuff turns out to have costs, and those costs make workers too expensive, so business offshores and outsources as a means of avoiding the parasitism. They blame business, but in this area, business is innocent; the parasitic nature of the voter/worker has driven them away in order to remain competitive.
Under the publicly permitted dialogue, we cannot say that we lack purpose and allow economics, politics and popularity to lead us around like a domesticated animal. After all, what is popular is perceived as us, but this fragments when we look around and see how we have little in common with others. That leads us to realize that we either choose values-first, or we end up with methods-first, which is the type of “means over ends” analysis that is favored by both the Left and people who fear that having goals will make them appear as having fallen short.
Spencer pointed out the root of this mentality:
America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.
He identifies the failing of the Right in America as occurring sometime over the previous century when it shifted from a perspective of “a people” to the notion of “an ideology,” but instead of accepting Leftist socialism, made capitalism the root of its belief. That created a permanent fusion between Left and Right because they both agreed on ideology over realism, and within that, wanted a hybrid of the capitalist state and the liberal social programs of Europe and the East.
That in turn represented a shift toward the herd mentality of the third-world and especially Asia, as exhibited to the West first by the Mongols. Third world societies tend to be defined by a lack of social order, and instead a need for strong power and granular power, usually a matriarchy. This enables them to hold themselves together despite having no unity, but the cost is that exceptional leaders and innovators are scarce if evident at all. This keeps them in the stage of doing the same things over and over, not improving.
This trend fits within the general path of the West for the past thousand years. With fixed civilization and excellence, people began to thrive, but this created a population bloom in which few had the aptitudes of the founders that enable them to collaborate. Western Civilization began splitting into different Special Interest Groups a thousand years ago, and with The Enlightenment,™ formalized this to the level of the atomized individual. With that, the roots of a rootless time were formed.
Modernity is thus not so much a technological level, but any time based on the intent of the individual instead of a collaborative will to thrive. Paradoxically, the intent of individuals forms a herd where collaboration does not, simply because groups of individuals converge on a lowest common denominator, which like the third world consists of everyone doing what they want except when it comes to whatever principle holds the society together like a fence around chickens, and that becomes sacred in a way that nothing else does.
That foundation of Control creates people who are incapable of independent thought and dependent on the herd for guidance, and creates an unhealthy focus on popularity and emulating others as a means of being included in the group. It is a pre-civilization state, not like hunter/gatherer wanderers, but like a civilization that has given up on the principle of civilization, which is working together to make life more pleasurable, intense and sacred. Not surprisingly, the flight from civilization ultimately manifests in a selfish mob manipulated by cruel parasites.
Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate.
With this, he positions the Alt Right against Modernity, which is what Right-wingers have been wanting for centuries. We dislike the industrialization of the countryside, the concentration of people into cities, the loss of traditional virtues and knowledge, and the rootless modern city where people are dedicated to self-pleasure that makes them miserable through its lack of meaning.
Modern society can then be described as meaningless because there is no purpose to civilization, and without that, each person is an island in himself. This in turn reverts human behavior to that of monkeys, self-interested to the point of excluding everything else, and gives us with no way to “reach out” to things of importance, including excellence in the physical and metaphysical realms. People will not give up the pretense and rationalization that this is good, because it gives them a sense of power — think of the One Ring in Lord of the Rings — but become existentially miserable.
The Right has traditionally espoused time-proven types of social order, heritage/identity, hierarchy, transcendental visions of nature and religion, and a pursuit of excellence as means toward not just functional society, but human thriving. These give us firm guidance and a sense of some things as immutably important such that we do not mind sacrificing for them, even before we realize how important they are to our own happiness. This is how to build a civilization, and with our retreat from it, we have failed; however, we can rise above that state.
This leads us to wonder what the soul of the West actually is. Some say it is conquest and aggression, others piety, and still others mention a sense of order, balance and harmony within a natural golden chain of being. All of these are true, but in my view, the root of the West is that it is reflective: we stop to reflect on life, and require meaning from it, because that is how we motivate ourselves to survive the difficult and rise above challenges.
Western man, by virtue of being reflective, discovers all these other aspects of life as parts of a natural order which make life significant to us. It is more than “human nature”; it is the mathematical structure of life itself that requires a center, constant struggle to affirm principles, and a hierarchy in which those who are best rise to the top so all may benefit from their insight. This in turn leads us to an understanding of an order to life, the interconnection of its parts — structure, design, form — as being more important than material, and that leads us to spiritual and mythic understanding.
Spencer has in the past pointed to the root of our downfall as “individualism,” against which he posits an aggressive realism. We must not project ourselves onto the world, but accept it as is, and then we see what we can do with it, instead of creating fantasy worlds of Utopian ideology and then insisting that others treat them as real.
This leads to a riff from Bruce Charlton that is both not quite correct, and more importantly, a good guide for the future. In his view, the Alt Right must tackle spirituality:
I don’t see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now – which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm – everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.
Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.
(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook – taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being — only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)
The idea of the Alt Right as materialist only makes sense when one takes into account that political learning is an arc and not a binary where one steps over an exoteric threshold and suddenly understands everything. The Alt Right is a bewildered people emerging from the Utopian dream of Leftism to realize that they had been seeing the world in symbols alone, and realizing these are empty, attempting to find the hidden meaning in reality. This is why some of us suggest the black pill as a means of removing the illusion which is communicated like a virus through social contact, and from that position of absolute emptiness, rediscovering reality.
These are all thoughts for the future. As Spencer pointed out, the Alt Right arose from the Leftist assimilation of the Right, causing those focused on sanity to reject the Right and Left alike and look toward a new beginning. That new beginning means that the Alt Right is nascent even as it appears to have certain conventions graven in stone, and that it has a future to discover through recapitulating the history of reaction, ancient conservatism and traditionalism.
On our way back from the event, we stopped in Brenham, Texas to visit the tobacco barn and enjoy some of the local scenery, despite discovering how much modernity has ravaged this isolated outpost of beauty. Of course, no Texas road trip is complete without a stop at Whataburger (pronounced roughly as “water burger” by locals). One does not have to believe in signs to imagine that the universe was winking at us.
Saturday, October 1st, 2016
We are always looking for a word for what ails us.
This world works by cause and effect. Each effect has exactly one cause; however, it is not true that because an effect has a cause, that cause is the only source of that effect. This means that for every ill of our modern time, there is a cause in the past.
It is no longer controversial that democracy is in decline worldwide. Everywhere it is tried, the fundamental bigotry of the human mind toward illusion and against reality comes out. And, as anyone who has ever sat through a decision by a committee knows, groups make terrible choices because they are fundamentally indecisive, timorous and influenced by social pressure more than knowledge of what worked in the past.
But somehow we got to this current phase, which is the result of a previous phase, and a long line of bad — or at least mediocre — decisions stretch back over decades, centuries, millennia.
Where did we go wrong?
We can identify individualism, or the eternal human temptation to make the ego more important than reality, as the mechanism of our decline. Many Rightists point to what they call “nihilism,” but might more properly be called pessimism, defeatism or fatalism, as the cause of that.
What they call nihilism is in fact something simpler: sour grapes. You may remember the old fairy tale. A fox wants some grapes, and cannot leap high enough to get them, so he declares that he never wanted them. They are sour, he says, and so he is better off not having them. This type of rationalization is the root of human error.
For starters, it makes us think backward. Instead of looking toward goals, and then making events happen in order to achieve those, we content ourselves with what is convenient, and then backward-justify or “rationalize” it as good. Good is redefined to be convenient; this means more than physically convenient, mentally convenient.
Individualism and rationalization have a symbiotic relationship. When we assume the individual is the source of all good, we rationalize every act as necessary based on the desires of the individual. When we think clearly, we see the individual as a means to an end, which is the experience of life and moral rightness, which is (believe it or not) needed for a good experience of life.
What the right calls nihilism is in fact fatalism, which is in fact “sour grapes.” In humans, it takes on a virulent form: if people cannot have reality in the way they desire, they seek to destroy what is there for having insulted them and oppressed them by depriving them of the belief in their own cleverness and goodness. It inspires rage, a consumptive and destructive rage.
This is why many Rightists are taking The Black Pill. We deny the importance of self, the ability to communicate with others, and the presence of universal value systems. Instead, we see only reality, and the esoteric prospect that it is perceived unequally on a biological level, therefore we need people like us around us and we need a hierarchy which puts the best perceivers at the top.
Even more, nihilism tells us exactly how venal and short-sighted most people are, because it explains how they are trapped in the self and unable to connect to the world beyond. Whether they become materialists or religious fanatics, they embrace the same dysfunction, which is idealizing the mental model of reality more than the quest to refine that model.
In so doing, they make themselves agents of the anti-real. Instead of a study of life, we have a study of the self, but only on the surface, because to look deep within — at the level of existential, moral, spiritual and intellectual growth — is to discover the necessity of reality. To avoid that, they fetishize the trivial as a means of aggrandizing the personal, and the result is a steady flow of mental spam and social demands.
Nihilism acts like a paint stripper, removing the false external and the herdist social control instinct, replacing it with a raw emptiness which will devour the personality unless a purpose related to reality intervenes:
The passage evokes a kind of impersonal awe, a cold rationalism, a null-state. In the late 1940s, the Japanese philosopher Keiji Nishitani would summarize Nietzsche’s fable in different terms. “The anthropomorphic view of the world,” he writes, “according to which the intention or will of someone lies behind events in the external world, has been totally refuted by science. Nietzsche wanted to erase the last vestiges of this anthropomorphism by applying the critique to the inner world as well.”
Both Nietzsche and Nishitani point to the horizon of nihilism – the granularity of the human.
Most people do not act except with a social target, which in turn flatters the ego because other minds like their own seem like extensions of their own minds at that point. The goal of the individual in this case is not to make the most of life, but to control what is convenient for them, so they can continue to think backward via rationalism.
In this sense, modern people are like Ahab in Moby-Dick: obsessed by the need to control that which refuses to bend to their will. This process is addiction like masochism or heroin, and it gradually destroys them, much as it eats up a society when it is weaponized in collectivized individualism, or Crowdism.
We can see two alternatives to this that do not work. The first is the raw unselfconscious impulsive behavior of third world societies; the other, the impassive solipsism of the Oriental religions. The former removes all function of the conscious mind in order to avoid the possibility of error, and the latter craftily confuses the mind with the world in the name of doing the opposite.
The Asiatic method renders the quest for reality as an entirely personal endeavor, at which point it takes on the aspects of backward rationalization: instead of pushing the individual to accept more of reality, it selects those parts of reality which are convenient, creating a “cherry-picking” effect. This is similar to Western dualism, which erects a false secondary “world” of theological symbolism that is designed to placate the individual.
The Black Pill is the only alternative. It removes the various crutches — material, ego, emotion — used by the individual, and renders the individual as a means to the end of perceiving reality and doing right by it. This de-emphasizes the individual and moves thought forward once again.
Sunday, September 11th, 2016
Those of us who are not liberals find ourselves grouped with conservatives, or those who believe in results more than feelings. For many of us, “conservative” means a variety of stupid that fails to address larger issues but is solidly focused on symbolic issues like prayer in schools, flag burning and pork-laden defense projects.
Conservatism contains an immortal truth, which is that it is necessary to “conserve” the methods that have worked since time immemorial for making a great civilization, or one that rises above the moribund third world status quo of human societies. These mixed-race, mixed-class disorganized subsistence states tend to be matriarchal and liberal.
Conservatives failed because they chose the wrong method. In order to manipulate their constituents, they declared an absolute moral truth comprised of religion, work ethic, chastity and defense. This forced people to either obey or be cast out as the enemy, which alienated new generations as they were told to obey but not told why.
When liberalism took over the West in the 1990s, those who saw through the facade sought a metaphor to describe their resistance. They found it in the 1999 movie The Matrix, where a magical Negro character offers two Alice in Wonderland-style pills to the protagonist: a red pill and a blue pill.
The blue pill is bourgeois oblivion. The person who takes this pill will never know how society works, but as a good obedient tool he will be popular, wealthier and normal which will grant him social success. He is spared unpleasant sensations by anaesthetic illusion and palliative deception.
The red pill, on the other hand, reveals the hidden power structure behind the illusion. People used this metaphor to criticize political correctness, feminism, equality, diversity and even democracy by seeing how these were used to manipulate and control us.
However, while the red pill debunked an illusion, like conservatism it did not show a path to truth or even better, realism. As soon as it was used to manipulate a group, the red pill became a blue pill because it also fell into an us-versus-them, good-versus-evil, individual-versus-society, rich-versus-poor narrative.
Realists choose The Black Pill instead. This pill removes not only the illusions of society created by the blue pill, but the illusions that reside within each of us because they arise from inherent human perceptual and moral failings. The Black Pill is how we overcome being human and rise above that state.
The Black Pill is Nihilism and it both liberates us from illusion and enslaves us to being aware. A reasonable definition of nihilism follows:
Nihilism is the belief that (1) all values are baseless and that (2) nothing can be known or communicated.
Someone who takes the black pill sees that there is no inherent truth, morality, religion or social order. All that remains is an infinite field of choice, which is liberating, but those choices define us and we are measured by their results, which forces us to escape narcissism and study reality.
Nihilism emphasizes cause-effect reasoning, which requires looking through choices made in the past to see what the likely results of any action are. This allows us to choose our actions based on the results we desire, and returns the question to us of what goals we should have.
It also recognizes that all goals are at least semi-arbitrary. There is no inherent superiority of first-world civilization to third-world civilization; each offers advantages. But the person who chooses first-world civilization shows a desire to not just exist at subsistence level, but to thrive and achieve supremacy.
When you take The Black Pill, you realize a few grim but soul-warming aspects of reality:
Nothing “means” anything. Meaning is understand in the individual mind and cannot be communicated. There is no single centralized truth. Instead, there are aspects of reality that we can discover, and assess not so much as true but as desired, and by choosing these, amplify their presence in our lives. As I have written in articles about mytic imagination in the past, this extends to spirituality.
There is no morality. Nature is amoral and non-judgmental. Some things survive, and those continue on and beget more of themselves. Others choose not to. Neither way is objectively correct, but it is clear who will be present in the future.
There is no communication. Words do not have meaning; they are tokens that people can exchange in order to understand each other but they only work when all parties understand roughly the same significance to them. People alter their interpretation of the meanings of words to assert “control” over the world with symbols. This causes huge variation between what is said and what is understood.
There is no truth. Our social brains have us think that when we find a truth in something and communicate it to others, that truth goes off to live among the stars and all must obey it. In reality, that truth is a transient moment shared only among those who perceive it accurately. This truth cannot be preserved, or even communicated, because others will interpret it as is convenient for them and their own needs.
Good intentions produce bad results. Human societies die by trying to do what is right and good. When a group decides what is right, they teaching those to others, but the understanding behind them is lost. This creates a death spiral where rebellion increases and is counteracted by accelerating enforcement, causing internal fracture.
Nihilism first seems like a path to death. Humans naturally prefer — this is a glitch in our basic operating system — to have a truth plainly written down that we can obey and be rewarded for doing so. The problem with this is that it rewards obedience, not understanding, and so it creates both a dysgenic effect and a power transfer into the hands of fools.
This is the innate problem of all control systems: they replace reality, and then select for those who are good at the game, who are not the same group that are good at reality. Democracy is one such example, but so are social success and economic success. These choose people with specific talents, not generalized ability as is needed to lead.
People with specific talents have another advantage. When the goal is only to win at the game, and not to achieve functional results that fulfill the goals outside of that game, those who try only to win at the game are more efficient than those who also try to achieve its goals.
Two metaphors serve us here. First is the classic “the map is not its territory,” and the second is “the spirit of the law.” Both address the difference between the interpretation of what is written and the actual reality of what it refers to; this is a widening gap as the years pass, leading to actual goals being replaced by the game itself.
Every human group including civilizations has failed because of this pitfall. Dark organizations, or negative forces which counteract the goal of a human group from within, arise because the game-players win out over the goal-seekers. Managers and voters favor the former group as they are simpler and easier to control.
The Black Pill moves humanity past the obedience/control problem that destroyed conservatism. It is not a philosophy for the weak, but as any athlete or military professional knows, making the hard decisions early will make a person stronger so that other decisions are easy.
Friedrich W. “Fred” Nietzsche wrote of this in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:
I love him whose soul is overfull so that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things spell his going under.
The Black Pill denies humanity. It says that we are not the measure of all things, but that reality is. It rejects the idea that our thoughts and feelings which do not correspond to reality are important in any way. And it points us back toward Darwinian adaptation, away from human social factors.
That impetus represents the “going under,” or forgetting of oneself, that is necessary to escape the human-centric perspective imposed by our big brains. Only one thing can occupy our focus: reality, or ourselves, and the Black Pill demands that we pay attention to reality and recognize our own frailty, smallness and tendency toward illusion.
Nihilism may be the most demonized philosophy of our time because it is very carefully not mentioned by most people, and crusaded against when mentioned by well-meaning conservatives. But it is also our salvation. We must escape ourselves, and discover what is real, before we become obsolete.
Thursday, August 18th, 2016
A researcher discovers Schopenhauer and The Black Pill in an essay about Systems Theory:
Systems Theory is a formalisation of the usual view of science – for example that we know about the world via senses which detect signals. The things ‘out there’ are detected by light, sound (etc.) communications; and in response to these communications our minds make ‘representations’ of the things.
Systems theory clarifies that communications cannot actually communicate – and our ‘knowledge’ of things is actually a representation which arises in the mind – and which indirectly interacts with the environment. By this account, we never actually know things, but only our models of things; and these ‘internal’ models are never more than un-disproven in our interactions with (what we cannot help but regard as) the outside world.
We might instead call Systems Theory by a rightful name, such as Upanishadic or Schopenhauerian information science. Schopenhauer after all wrote extensively about how humans interact with the world only through a “representation,” as he expressed in his monumental The World as Will and Representation. It seems a hard concept for most, but the world we know of as solid and real is in fact in our heads, a mental model based on data from our five senses (as William Blake reminded us: “How do you know but ev’ry Bird that cuts the airy way, Is an immense world of delight, clos’d by your senses five?”).
This was a revolution in thought which ultimately brought about relativity, which Einstein found in Schopenhauer and amplified with some clever mathematics. What upsets people about this line of thought is that it is pure Black Pill; it refutes the idea of a single, innate and knowable world and replaces it with a massive ambiguity which can only be deciphered by those who are diligent, and only then partially. In Schopenhauer’s view, there is an objective world, but humans will never know it. This leads back to the impossibility of communication.
Let us read together an insightful definition of nihilism, which is the root of The Black Pill:
Nihilism is the belief that (1) all values are baseless and that (2) nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.
…In the 20th century, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers.
Under the Red Pill and Blue Pill, an illusion still holds sway: that the world is how we perceive it. Under the Black Pill, we see that the world is not as it appears, and that choices cannot be made on anything but a semi-arbitrary basis. At the end of the day, we choose our paths, in the hermetic sense. This then leads to the second point: nothing can be known or communicated, because knowledge is specific to the individual, and language is deceptive.
This reveals to us the Black Pill world: humans have no “writing on the wall” which they must obey or be cast out from the sight of God, but endless choices and options which reveal who we are by our goals and what we hope to achieve. This seems counter-intuitive, but that is only the human intellect being placed in its proper role, as the brain of an animal and not a supernatural world that is more real than reality itself.
Monday, August 15th, 2016
When writing about nihilism, one runs into an old misconception:
Nihilism–the belief that there is no Absolute Truth, that all truth is relative–is, Eugene affirmed, the basic philosophy of the 20th century: “It has become, in our time, so widespread and pervasive, has entered so thoroughly and so deeply into the minds and hearts of all men living today, that there is no longer any ‘front’ on which it may be fought.” The heart of this philosophy, he said, was “expressed most clearly by Nietzsche and by a character of Dostoyevsky in the phrase: ‘God is dead, therefore man becomes God and everything is possible.”‘
In this view, there is an Absolute Truth in which all humans can share; we call this idea “universalism,” and it is the basis for the notion of equality, which is that instead of selecting those who understand and assigning them by degrees to a hierarchy, we can accept all people and simply educate them with this absolute truth. That method is sometimes called exotericism.
A more lucid definition of nihilism offers us:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
So what is the difference, sort through all of these abstractions?
Nihilism is the anti-universalism. It says that we do not all see the world the same way, but that the world alone is consistent. Therefore, there is no truth: truth is a human assessment, and it is not shared because it cannot be communicated, because any truth passed between people is re-interpreted. As a result of this, there is no universal morality either. There is only reality and our interpretations of it, which are not equal (universal) but vary with our ability, inclination, discipline, genetics, bias, and even energy level.
Insisting that there is some absolute truth which is shared between all people only creates a false target, which is the endless debate over interpreting this truth. Not all people can see it, and those that do see it will perceive it in different degrees. As a result, we must discard the universalist model, and focus on how to find the people who perceive the most and put them at the top of the stack.
In politics, this is aristocracy. In art and culture, it is elitism. In social order and the military, it is hierarchy. All of it implies an order defined by nature, not by human thought, in which those who perceive more should be given more power, and contra equality, most are assumed to perceive very little and accept as true even less.
Nihilism is anti-humanism. It is extreme realism. It is skepticism of the idea that human intentions can take the place of reality and solve our problems. It is a destroyer of the ego, and of the social worlds we create when we project our egos onto one another.
In my first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, addresses many of these confusions in the context of politics. It serves to liberate us from our fear of a false target (nihilism) and points us instead toward the actual threat to our existence, solipsism.
Many in the popular press associate Nietzsche with nihilism, but he was not an advocate of what he called nihilism, which more properly resembles fatalism or individualism: a concern with no values higher than individual comfort and convenience, rationalized from an acceptance of the failure of all human endeavors because of a lack of goodness in the world. A nihilist as described above would not speak of a lack of goodness, but of how things were bungled or ruined because they were unrealistic. Nietzsche is more akin to that outlook than to moral relativism or other escapes from realism.
This type of fatalism is a reaction to what nihilism uncovers, not nihilism itself. However, in their desire to prove universalism, many conservatives have understood the situation precisely backwards:
Old-World nihilism belongs to a handful of intellectuals persuaded by philosophical arguments that human knowledge, on the whole, is worthless as a reliable guide for living. Consider Heinrich von Kleist, the nineteenth century dramatist and short-story writer, who became intellectually unglued when he read Immanuel Kant’s The Critique of Pure Reason. In a letter to his fiancée, Wilhelmine von Zenge, Kleist describes how he was crushed by Kant’s philosophical argument that the senses do not report the world as it truly is: “If everyone wore green glasses instead of eyes, they would have to judge that the things they saw through them were green—and they could never decide whether their eyes showed them things as they are or whether something had been added that belonged not to the thing but to the eyes.” Kleist goes on to draw the obvious parallel with knowing. “We cannot decide whether what we call truth is truly the truth, or whether it only seems so to us.
…Kant claimed to effect a Copernican Revolution in the foundation for all the sciences. Copernicus shifted the viewpoint of astronomers from the Earth to the Sun. Similarly, Kant changed the viewpoint of philosophers from the objective, external laws of nature to the internal, fixed laws of how the human species perceives and understands the universe. Kleist despaired that after Kant science was no longer about the truth of things, for things-in-themselves were unknowable, but about the operations of the human mind.
…In the Sixties, the American academy embraced Old-World nihilism; as a result, the life of the mind for many academicians did not focus on the universality of human experience; and consequently, intellectual discourse eventually degenerated into an endless labyrinth of opinion. In an essay published by the American Council of Learned Societies, six eminent professors of literature proclaimed, “All thought inevitably derives from particular standpoints, perspectives, and interests.”
This argument is contrived to the point of nonsense. The truth of relativism is not that it says “anything goes,” but that it creates universalism out of the unequal perceptions of individuals adjusted to a mean, which is a sneaky way of establishing an absolute standard of “truth” and coordinating others toward it. That was the contribution of the 1960s, and by the end of it people agreed they could agree on nothing but the idea of universal equality taken farther than ever before.
On the contrary, nihilism states that the truth of a statement depends on the speaker, and is known only by that speaker, because others are interpreting the tokens used in language and do not receive an exact duplicate of the meaning. Not only that, but people are not autonomous agents, at least until they apply the self-discipline so that they make choices instead of acting on impulse. Generally, people act according to what they know and their emotions or desires. Logic and reality have very little to do with it, although they are often invoked as reasons for the behavior.
Taking a sensible view, the nihilists are not our problem; the individualists are. Individualists will type #yolo onto their phones, go to their jobs and flatter everyone with power, then go on shopping sprees before retiring home to hours of exciting television. They care about nothing and create nothing. Their sole utility is their obedience, and by being obedient to what the social group wants, they consider themselves entitled to all that society offers, even with no affirmative acts on their part to improve anything.
What Kant did was to orient humanity back to reality: we cannot know in a universal sense what is true, so we must rely on our intuition; Nietzsche grasped this and pointed out that with this in mind, we must find the people who are best — with the strongest intuition and tendency toward excellence — and put them in charge of interpretation, since we will never find an absolute and universal truth that all can agree on.
To contemporary Christians, few of whom understand much about their religion, this seems like blasphemy. They want an Absolute Truth that is written in a holy book that they can use like an ideology, and force all people to be equal in obedience to it. This represents Christianity as filtered through liberalism, and not any realistic assessment of the highly hierarchical and unequal world. Like all other human failings, it is us projecting our intentions and desires as if they were truth, when in actuality we are running from truth toward more ego and social illusion.
Another take on nihilism focuses on the nature of knowledge and morality:
Rosen understands the root of nihilism as the separation of “the conception of ‘reason’…from its traditional affiliation with the concept of ‘good'” (p. xiv) — of which the famous distinction between facts and values is one symptom — as a result of which, such a thing as “rational preference” is no longer supportable, and in Nietzsche’s words, “everything is permitted.”
Nietzsche strove to be somewhat of an ultimate realist, believing not only in material reality but in the possibilities offered by its structure, and how changing this structure could align more objects than the immediate material being manipulated. As a result, he saw human reason as human rationalization, or a determination to rely on materialism for the root of logic, and therefore, to see only that which can be manipulated as within our influence. That form of “materialism” arises from individualism, where the individual gives up on abstract and structural thinking, and focuses on physical safety and comfort instead of striving to implement the ideas that make a thriving civilization.
For this reason, a nihilist focuses not on enforcing a universal truth — determining what is permitted — but on a preference that is non-rational, i.e. forward-looking toward what is uncreated or dormant. In the Nietzschean world, aesthetics inform our intent, and cause-to-effect logic determines how serious we are about our intent, since answers can be found. A nihilist would agree with this general approach, since it is not truth-based but choice-based, and it is measured by results and not the soup of intentions, emotions, desires, social feelings and group compromise that normally informs human collective action.
Conservatives have refused to accept nihilism and, in doing so, have rejected realism and chosen a type of human projection instead. They write down their Absolute Truths and then depend on the herd to come together and enforce them equally, forgetting that in the process all meaning has been lost not so much by the machinations of language, but by the nature of humans themselves. People interpret reality as they can, and few can do it well, thus we require hierarchy. This is the realistic outlook that Leftists and most conservatives alike are fleeing from.
Tuesday, July 26th, 2016
The Black Pill terrifies us all: an admission that there is no innate purpose to the universe, that communication is at best a game of mutual guesswork, and that values are not universal.
It seems like a gateway to the kingdom of darkness from which no beauty, truth or goodness can emerge.
And yet, as will be demonstrated, it is the only way to get to those states, because everything else is human and therefore biased toward the tendency of humans, which is to revert to our simian state of desire, judgment and feelings taking precedence over reality. Some call it hubris, others simply individualism.
The Black Pill represents hard truths that cannot be reduced to simpler ideas that are more pleasant, or deflected into distracting tangents or scapegoats which make us feel better. The Black Pill is a hard confrontation with the emptiness of life and mortality, and people fear it.
Let us distill The Black Pill to its simplest idea: hard realism, based on what we can know rather than what we can opine. The Black Pill as a radical honesty, extremist realism and hard emphasis on the non-human conditions of existence does not negate any beliefs, only speaks to what we can know without doubt.
This is not limited to material reality, but it explicitly rejects human notions which are first presented as desirable, and later justified or explained in terms of selectively-chosen elements of reality. The core of the Black Pill is that the human observes first, and then finds a theory to fit all of the data, not the other way around as most people do.
Without this type of mentality clarity and self-discipline, all of human thinking becomes projection or an extension of the personality imagined as being part of the world. This especially happens in groups when people agree that something should be true, and therefore is true, or at least will seem to be true if they all insist on it.
What follows are some Black Pill truths. Warning: this will most likely offend you and may induce crippling existential doubt.
Morality. The herd morality is that you should never hurt anyone. The actual morality of life involves the results of what they were doing. If they were doing bad, hurting them is a good; if they were doing good, hurting them is a bad. It is all about results, and not about methods. You can see the fallacy of method-based reasoning when you contemplate someone trying to hurt your family. Would you harm them any way you could? Yes, but even more, you would act so that your family came to no harm, and the consequences to someone doing something stupid, destructive, pointless, degenerate, or criminal are of no concern to you. In fact, you might desire to destroy the people threatening your family so completely that the threat is forever terminated. The herd views this as bad because all of them are projecting themselves into the position of the person harmed, because that allows them to feel self-pity and therefore excuse their own venal and idiotic deeds through some philosophy of being victims of their world. “Sodomize the weak” is a better morality than “protect the weak” because with the latter, the evil quickly learn to disguise themselves as the weak.
Equality. The root of equality is the idea that “I want/see/recognize” is the beginning of an argument in favor of some action. The Black Pill says that it is not: the individual is usually mediocre and even if not, usually wrong, and inevitably driven by impulse and not reasoned action. There is no justification for an action or idea to be found in individual approval, nor in group approval; actions are only worthwhile if they will achieve results that are good, and “good” is both obvious and recorded by history. This does away with the questions of morons which float around “validity” and “who decides?” — unless one is a fool, the best people decide, and there is no validity, only accuracy. People tend toward evil. The best can be redirected with self-discipline but the rest need to be oppressed because their desires are destructive and oppressive toward all good things. More shocking to a herdsman is that people are born with not just their abilities, but their moral inclinations, and these do not change. Some are born bad, and some good. Within the good, a hierarchy exists as in nature of those who are best all the way down to those who are merely OK.
Radical evil. The Christian idea of “original sin” shocks people when first encountered. We are all sinners, and bad, and probably stupid and retarded? Emphatically, yes. The human mind prefers what is easy to grasp and rejects anything it cannot understand (the Dunning-Kruger effect). It is not lazy so much as biased toward stability; the human mind alternates between states of order and disorder, and when it can impose order by simplifying its representation of reality, it does so. The problem arising from this situation is that this creates an animal mind which is bigoted in favor of illusion. That in turn means that most of what people do, and think is right, is in fact wrong because they have based their idea of “right” in what is mentally convenient for them. For this reason, people need to deliberately turn away from evil and toward good through self-discipline in order to achieve good at all, and very few will do this. Instead, most wallow in what some call “radical evil”: everyday behaviors and events that are the opposite of good, but are considered good by most people because they have failed to investigate what actual good is. And what is good, asks the crowd? (They always think they are profound for asking non-questions). The obvious: survival, of us and our environment. Increase in or maintenance of quality. Focus on truth, goodness, honor and competence. All the things normal people fear because they have not polarized themselves toward achieving them.
Civilization. Your standard Republican idiot clings to a fiction whereby he can observe civilization around him failing, issue some pithy statement about going back to God or traditional value, and then go home and work hard and go to church and somehow come out OK despite his civilization failing around him. This is nonsense and stupidity. Our fortunes are determined by civilization unless we live alone where no one else can reach us, produce all of our own tools and goods, and have no children who need future spouses. No one lives like that because no one has ever lived like that. Human evolution resulted from simians herding together and developing skills. Early humans existed in wandering tribes. With fixed agriculture, we could build a broader base of tools and thus knowledge and from that came what most of us think of as “civilization,” with towns, cities, institutions and hierarchy. The eternal human fiction is that all we need are ourselves and a few of our favorite shops, i.e. “anarchy with grocery stores,” because that way nothing opposes us fulfilling our whims (calls for collective non-oversight like anarchy begin in the desire of the individual to escape judgment and notice). If you do not defend civilization, you will be ruled by non-civilization, even if in the guise of civilization as we currently have. The “individualistic fallacy” — that it is enough to simply act in immediate self-interest through hard work, religion and traditional values — kills societies because all the potentially good people marginalize themselves while the neurotics take over the public sphere and then educate the next generation in their propaganda.
Machiavelli. All things act in self-interest. This includes groups, individuals, genes and ideas. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile; this is the result of self-interest, but also explains how one arrives at a “tragedy of the commons” where individuals acting in self-interest over-exploit a resource, as happens with over-fishing and overpopulation. Machiavelli and others suggest we recognize the literality of self-interest, namely that it cannot be disclaimed by language, symbol and virtuous act, but is innate and unchanging in all things. This means that if you have a country, every other country on earth is acting against your interests, even if — especially if — they are your allies. Their goal is to put themselves first. In the same way, other people behave in self-interest and will always prioritize their needs before yours. There is wisdom in self-interest in that it never fails, and it is not ambiguous, unlike altruism which introduces a cloud of ambiguity, doubt, guilt, uncertainty and confusion. In a Machiavellian view, one must view others as destructive unless they are specifically incorporated in an agenda which marries their self-interest to group-interest; generally, only biological kinship does this, at the levels of race, ethnicity and class.
God. Despite what most people think, the Black Pill does not reject God and in fact is mute on the issue. We have no physical evidence because there cannot be physical evidence for the metaphysical, and asking for it is silly. Some concepts are also silly, like dualism where two worlds with different rules in each exist. We can reject that which is logically ill-constructed, but we are never going to have certainty of God’s existence or absence in this world, and claiming otherwise in either extreme is illogical and corrupts the thinking process. Most who oppose the Black Pill do so because it rejects their idea of God, which is as innate to existence to the degree that all must recognize him, or be seen as evil. This is a mistake because it reduces faith to conformity and obedience. It makes more sense to say that God is a choice that can only occur when the subject matter is understood, and that by using logical conjecture, some credible arguments can be made for his existence. Note that the same cannot be done for his non-existence, as there is no boundedness to the universe that allows us to claim it excludes certain potentials. Under the Black Pill, those who seek God have made a choice and have done so as a reflection of not just their inner needs, but their inner qualities. Under the Black Pill, no decision is innate or necessary, but all decisions reflect back on us and our place in the hierarchy of intelligence, ability and moral character. That scares people more than the (potential) presence of Hell.
As you can see, in a Black Pill view most of what humans consider to be sacred is based in the illusion created by humans to justify their desires, and what replaces it is a simpler, clearer and less “human” view of the world. This inhumanity allows humans to escape the animal confines of their own impulses, and demystifies the world but also reveals its mystery.
Until a civilization has people who can accept Black Pill reality in its leadership, it is doomed to regress to third world levels. Civilization can only occur where hard-core literalist realism is present. We need people who will open every door, unafraid of what they might find, because they are hard-minded to find excellence and beauty in life despite whatever they find.
To dodge the Black Pill is to permanently corrupt your own thinking. If you reject realism, you become an agent for the idea that human preferences and notions are more important than reality. This in turn makes you into a zombie who is addicted to the pathology that re-affirms that illusion, so you seek out other justifications and those who believe them, forming the basis for a Crowd.
Our civilization thrived when it was able to accept both the Black Pill and a huge degree of mystery. Do the gods exist? — It seems so. No one knows. No one will ever know. What is right? — there is no definitive answer, only good answers, but only good people can understand them. Mystery dominates.
With entry to the realm of the Black Pill through what I call radical realism or nihilism, one can confront reality in a condition as close to accurate as human beings can do. This enforces self-discipline on the individual, which brings the “inner world” of creativity, morality, honor and desire for excellence to the front of the mind.
Without a Black Pill approach, people live through filters imposed by their ideological need to validate a human perspective as more important than reality itself. This in turn causes their mental process to reverse, so that they are ascertaining truth through justifying what they already believe instead of perceiving what is before them.
In that distinction, we can see how societies fail. Those that accept the Black Pill — and the utter mystery of life — are able to think clearly and act in a forward motion. The others blunt themselves to reality, and instead become “Progressive” or increasing hell-bent on replacing reality with human notions, and shortly afterwards decline.
Sunday, April 17th, 2016
Thirty years ago, William Gibson wrote a series of cyberpunk stories — visual counterparts to the theories of Burroughs and Pynchon — which suggested a reality “underneath” the world of appearance and human “face value” assurances in which most of us live.
A terrible movie was made some years later to translate that simplification into an even simpler version. Called The Matrix, this movie gave the Hollywood treatment to cyberpunk but also gave us a powerful metaphor: the red pill.
In The Matrix, the protagonist was given the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill would make him see reality as it was, underneath the appearance; the blue pill would make him expert at the false reality. (Distracted observers may draw comparisons to the ring of Gyges from Plato and not be wrong).
While this movie was a fantasy, and its vision of actual reality in fact a false reality that scapegoated a centralized force instead of the decentralized decay we are experiencing, the metaphor sticks. Some people embrace the unpopular and unpleasant truths of life, where others just want to become good/successful at the illusion.
Some years later, my esteemed colleague Colin Liddell unleashed “The Black Pill”:
The Black Pill is the least dialectical of the three. It leads from actual inferiority back to actual inferiority. It is nihilism, but nihilism made flesh calls forth absolute egoism, a sense of the self detached from wider contexts and responsibilities—it is this that makes it evil and murderous.
The inferior person can either accept context and therefore inferiority, or fight it. The Blue Piller rejects his future inferiority by retreating backwards into illusion. The Red Piller rejects his present lack of superiority by marching forward through positive consciousness and action to redress the situation. The Black Piller, however, chooses neither the palliatives of illusion nor the challenge of positive action. He stares into the abyss—passively because his actions will never be capable of changing it—and, as Nietzsche so pertinently observed, the abyss stares back.
For almost thirty years, I have written about nihilism as a philosophy. In my view, nihilism is the gateway to all useful thought. It clears aside the human pretense and solipsistic illusion and replaces it with a cold, unflinching, logical and realistic look at our world and our place within it, including the Darwinian need to adapt. More disturbingly, it shows us that the standard of life is not how to explain away our failings, but that each time we observe a better method than our own, we will be dissatisfied and self-hating if we do not adopt it.
Without nihilism, religion becomes obedience out of fear, not a choice to seek out possible metaphysical dimensions to the universe. With nihilism, science becomes applied logic; literature becomes communication; art becomes Jungian symbolism. It is a gateway to a kingdom of darkness in which suddenly, the photonegative of normal human life — invert by social impulses, which are individual fears amplified and then placated by collective illusion — is negatived again, revealing that what we call “light” is darkness and vice-versa. Illusions fall in cold white flame.
In my view, nihilism is the black pill. It is not egoism, because nihilism denies the notion of humanity and the individual being the center of the world. In nihilism, as in the universe, the self is a tiny portion of a great vast space that is mostly emptiness. Nihilism is mostly negation, or destruction of human illusions and plans that turned out to be unrealistic. That process begins by attacking the deception of the mind by itself.
The black pill provides a gateway into an entirely different way of seeing the world. Where most people live in a purely social world, where they assume the goodwill of others, black pilled people see a natural struggle every bit as violent and constant as that experienced by a common mouse. Predators surround us and parasites infest us unless we actively and aggressively remove them without mercy.
In the black pill world, government is nothing more than a parasite. Salesmen are predators, hoping to convince you to pay high prices for something that is easy for them to acquire. Police and taxmen are parasites as well, looking for some way to justify taking money and time from you. Most people are parasites and predators alike who want to use you as a means toward their own aggrandizement. In addition, all but a few people — one in a hundred, maybe — are delusional to the edge of clinical insanity.
This is a new view of reality that has a tendency to snap into place suddenly so that thousands of details make sense at once as if aligned. It is a more realistic view, and statistically more likely true, than the happy world of “love and trust” (dependency and subsidies) erected by democratic society. It points out the obvious: humans are still mostly the same filthy little beasts that crawled out of the primordial ooze, and those who have risen above that state are targets of the rest.
One of the more recent black pill events in the news was philosopher John Gray:
Vice: First of all, could you explain what you mean by the term progress and why you think it’s a myth?
John Gray: I define progress in my new book as any kind of advance that’s cumulative, so that what’s achieved at one period is the basis for later achievement that then, over time, becomes more and more irreversible. In science and technology, progress isn’t a myth. However, the myth is that the progress achieved in science and technology can occur in ethics, politics, or, more simply, civilization. The myth is that the advances made in civilization can be the basis for a continuing, cumulative improvement.
This exchange is classic black pill. “Progress” is a myth told by salesmen to customers. The reality is that absent evolution or eugenics, humans do not change, and in fact have zero incentive to because they have made society parasite-friendly through egalitarianism. The myth exists only to justify the parasitism. “Progress” is like fashion in that it argues for something new you must buy or be inferior socially and (implicitly) evolutionarily.
Another great black pill example, noted by at least one alert reader as such, comes from an earlier article on this blog:
With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.
As long as civilizations make intelligent or semi-intelligent decisions, they thrive. When people start making stupid decisions, as has happened for the past thousand years, it means both that the future will be bad and that the past was bad, since no society gets to the point of making stupid decisions without somehow putting the stupid in power.
Once a civilization falls into decline, far more decisive action is required than its political, social and economic system allows. It requires the intervention of strong power to remove the rot and send it far away, then rebuild institutions around good people who can make the complex decisions that rules, elections and markets cannot. This means that many dreams will be smashed, and all parasitic people need to be disenfranchised if not outright removed.
These are hard truths. They are also a source of great joy for those who discover them because that revelation lifts the burden of having to uphold illusions and fantasies as reality. It also shows a path forward out of a situation where everything we do is bound to be adulterated and fail, and allows us hope for a better future through our own hands, not government or “We The People” surging in like the cavalry to save the heroine at a movie’s end.