Posts Tagged ‘tyranny’

Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Control And Cooperation

Monday, March 13th, 2017

Silent chuckling:

A correction to a frequently cited 2012 study has been issued, after researchers discovered they mixed up results purporting to show conservatives are more likely than liberals to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

…The study also posited those who are socially liberal are more likely to possess behaviors associated with “Social Desirability,” or the desire to get along with others, than those who are socially conservative.

But in an erratum issued by the journal, first reported by Retraction Watch, the authors said those two findings were “exactly reversed.”

It’s lügen-everything these days. There is no reason to trust published science because it is made by people, and those are self-interested actors who are selling a product to an audience that likes to confirm its Leftist bias. In addition, they are trying to get promoted within a system that exclusively swims Leftward.

Authoritarianism and tyranny are misunderstood terms. The Left likes to think that methods determine intent; in reality, intent determines methods. In an emergency, everyone is an authoritarian because the consequence of not ordering people around is that they panic like disorderly sheep and this results in mass carnage.

This means that we cannot talk about “authoritarians” or “tyrants” by their methods, such as strong power, as this study hopes to. Intead we have to look at the reasons behind their efforts: tyrants are self-serving, the Right exerts strong power as a means of preserving civilization as a whole, and the Left achieves tyranny through good intentions and passive methods.

For that reason, criticizing someone as an “authoritarian” is like the term “racist” just a throwaway line, or a way to dispel critics without actually looking at their arguments. This is typical of the passive-aggressive approach of the Left.

On the other hand, we can look at what Leftists actually want: Control. Control occurs when a two-layer hierarchy is present of a few strong leaders and masses who are required to do the same exact thing over and over again as a means of advancing an ideological agenda. Control is the opposite of strong leadership, which produces a space for natural growth and rewards the good.

The Left has flirted with Control because this is an extension of its dominant philosophy, individualism. The individual wants to make himself more important than the world and other people so that he can use them as means-to-an-end of his own gratification. In a group, this becomes Control, in which people are made equal so they can be subservient to the ideology and its Narrative.

Cooperation is the opposite of Control. When cooperating, humans unite unequally on the basis of principles and goals. They work together without being the same and operate organically, where good behavior is rewarded and bad punished, but people are not expected to do exactly the same thing like a machine in a factory.

Even when Control is not authoritarian — and it frequently is not, for the same reason evil always appears well-dressed and seductively attractive — it seeks to make everyone act in the same way, a conformity of obedience designed to make them extensions of the design of the controller, and it punishes not enemies but those who fail to comply.

Control is what happens when human order breaks down, and Leftism both rationalizes and promotes it.

Why Automation Has Failed In The Past

Thursday, September 15th, 2016


Automation is a vexing subject because it costs money and results in less profit. It should improve profits, but somehow in the past, it has always ended up costing more.

Any system or structure requires control. In the case of the US Democratic Party control is achieved by fear i.e. Hillary’s tantrums lasting longer than her speeches.  Screaming at your own employees is a routinely applied technique and some CEOs even disconnect electronic monitoring of their boardrooms to hide that fact. Hillary does not have “control” over independent media journalists but will apparently not hesitate to scream at the major shareholders who “control” that media, which in turn “control” those silly journalists.

It would be fair to say that Hillary has very effective “control” measures in place. The interesting part of her technique is that it does not cost her money. The reason is that it is part of her natural personality and therefore inherent in her “system” design.

An industrial comparison to Hillary’s control “mechanism” is bi-metal actuators. These are little metal strips that consist of two plates of dissimilar metals i.e. soft steel and copper joined together. This allows the strip to bend due an increase in ambient temperature. The natural bending motion allows the strip to activate a switch, which in turn activates a cooling fan.

In the first instance the temperature is controlled by the fan, but the fan itself requires no additional control and finally, the bi-metal strip itself, requires no control either. One can imagine that the temperature inside such a facility would fluctuate within an acceptable range of 10 degrees.

This is different to temperature control inside an industrial oven where a smaller “range” is specified e.g. one degree. In such a case a temperature probe, controller, energy actuator and an exhaust actuator is required. However, additional control elements are required to “check” on the “control loop”, such as an exhaust flue temperature detector and indicator, actuator alarm detector with alarm activation and finally a human operator backed-up by an automation technician for maintenance.

Clearly, the smaller the range of operations, the more control is required which in turn requires a bigger investment.  It can happen that operational control gets so important, that the control requirement exceeds the priority (and the cost) of the operation.

Control really gets important when one designs a missile. It has very strict limitations but also very specific operational range requirements. For example, Hollywood thinks that missiles move in straight lines while they (in most cases) do not. One reason is that wing control is not always proportional and that it is more effective for the entire missile to move in a spiral towards a point ahead of its target. One example of such a wing control mechanism is a binary approach where the wing is either kept open or shut i.e. not proportional. The “control” in this case is cheaper because the wing is literally opened and shut thousands of times where just the open periodic timeframe is changed as required.

So, what is the point of control, really?

Control is required to improve the operation. But operations itself is an activity or only one function of a system, that requires its own control at a higher level.  Therefore, taken the entire industrial requirements for control together, the point would be to improve industry (as an operation). However, if Industry is an operation, then the civilization must decide on control of industry. If there is more than one production activity in a civilization, then controls must be described for all those as well.

The best method of control as described above is natural control. But it appears as if the opposite is happening today. Unnatural control is blooming, for example, artificial intelligence because it is unclear what production this will benefit. Drone warfare is another example where it is obviously cheaper than fighter aircraft, but what production does (having this control) really improve? Medical Aid is becoming a control measure in search of a service, paying tax is a control measure in search of an investment, property ownership is a control measure iso a wealth creator and education is a control measure in search of a knowledge expander.

It is not clear what production is required by civilization anymore, but what is transparent is this absolute drive to expand centralization and control i.e. Big government and Big metropolitan areas where government does not have borders, Cities do not have borders and humans have “trans”-borders nowadays.

They say population control has become necessary, why? Natural control is better. They say economics control require migrant labor, why? Natural control is better.

Technically, when controls starts to control, control, then failures increase, because maintenance requirements increase, which increase centralization, which increase failures even more. Production becomes control and control prophesies itself as God even after production came to a stop. Since technology fads improve control, politicians increase spending on this wrong technology in search of production.

The ironic part of all the control spending is that the “range” of production increased which is the opposite of good governance expected. As controls fail, it simply demands even more spending and bigger controls.

Spending money on control for the sake of control is wrong; it is not economic and will increase fatalities, decrease production, destroy competitiveness and end civilization. Leadership has been captured by dark organization when it idealizes control for its own sake, and recovers when it recognizes that every control mechanism needs a purpose other than itself.

The Evil Emperors of The Amerikan Empire III: Richard Milhous Nixon

Friday, September 2nd, 2016


Democracy fetishists like to claim Democracies will consistently avoid really bad leaders. They’ll readily admit to not exactly nominating Charlemagne for the presidency in recent US elections. But they’ll insist that the democratic rise of Hitler was far more of a Black Swan Event than the reigns of Roman Emperors Commodus or Elegabolus.

Strip away the shrink-wrap cocoon of ego-gratifying, jingoistic Whig History and we discover that at least six recent Amerikan Emporers could qualify as legitimate evil emporers who have materially and morally worsened the commonweal of the average decent American citizen. Today we describe the nefarious contributions of the odious Richard Milhous Nixon.

There is a correct way and an erroneous way to react to getting jobbed. You can either hate, revile and refuse to be anything like your enemy, or you can become that enemy and bring down destruction upon your very own principles. Richard Milhous Nixon is a man who failed to make this choice properly, and thereby came to identify with and imitate the malefactors who defrauded him. Nixon, you see, was totally defrauded of an election victory in the 1960 Presidential Election.

In 1968, Richard Nixon had seemed to have put the frustration and unfulfillment of 1960 behind him successfully. He had just outlasted Hubert Humphrey and carried a mandate to “Bring America Together Again.” Yet he had two tragic flaws that brought down his Presidency and rendered him an evil Amerikan Emperor. These two flaws were cowardice and bitterness. He lacked the courage to abolish Liberal government programs that he knew were harmful to the commonweal. His bitterness towards his enemies led him to behave in dishonest and unethical ways that delivered him into legal jeopardy at the hands of his duplicitous enemies. If Watergate was a constitutionally legal coup, then it was President Nixon who handed Brutus and Cassius the knives.

Nixon came into office faced with two situations that required his remediation in order for his Presidency to be a success. He had to solve Vietnam and he had to fix LBJ’s disastrous Great Society Gimme-dat State. Both the war in Vietnam and the metaphorical one on poverty had two potential solutions.

  1. Get out and not fight unnecessary conflicts.

  2. Ensure rapid and overwhelming victory.

Nixon went for an option #3. He continued to wage each in a manner that was not ferocious enough to produce victory. By so doing, Nixon prolonged both terrible policies and failed to achieve what could have been a positive outcome from either. It was the worst of both worlds. It helped make the Nixon Presidency utterly 70s.

In Vietnam, Nixon’s endorsement of airpower was a strategic improvement over LBJ’s. Operation Linebacker I created an opportunity to win. It took a portion of the war into North Vietnam. It wasn’t just Saigon or Huey getting turned into junkyards. Blowing up North Vietnam’s fuel storage capacity and dropping their key bridges stopped their army in its tracks. But it didn’t happen until Nixon had begun winding the US presence down.

Linebacker was a thing out of season. It was rain after the hay was in the barn. To win that war, Nixon had to run Linebacker, followed by Operation Full-House Blitz. Full-House Blitz would have been the ground invasion of the North to annihilate their land forces until at the very least, they renounced all future claims to Southern Vietnamese territory. But instead, Nixon continued dropping the bombs while he watched the South Vietnamese bungle. If there was no plan to finish the job, Nixon should have terminated the entire conflict. All US participation should have ended prior to the Election of 1972. Either we blow them away or we blow out of town.

Nixon inherited a similar quagmire to Vietnam in the form of LBJ’s War on Poverty. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned him to get out of dodge. Back in 1965, Moynihan produced a landmark sociology paper entitled “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action.” His commentary on the negative impact of the AFDC program was a warning of what The Great Society would do to help turn America into Amerika.

The Breakdown of the Negro Family Has Led to a Startling Increase in Welfare Dependency. The majority of Negro children receive public assistance under the AFDC program at one point or another in their childhood. In the beginning, the number of AFDC families in which the father was absent because of desertion was less than a third of the total. Today it is two-thirds. HEW estimates “that between two-thirds and three-fourths of the 50 percent increase from 1948 to 1955 in the number of absent-father families receiving ADC may be explained by an increase in broken homes in the population.” A 1960 study of Aid to Dependent Children in Cook County, Ill. stated:

“The ‘typical’ ADC mother in Cook County was married and had children by her husband, who deserted; his whereabouts are unknown, and he does not contribute to the support of his children. She is not free to remarry and has had an illegitimate child since her husband left. (Almost 90 percent of the ADC families are Negro.)”

So Richard Milhous Nixon could have nipped the situation way before Baltimore got turned into Harm City or before Detroit looked more bombed out than Hiroshima. He could have gotten the government out of the ghetto. He could have prevented anything like ObamaCare from ever have had a prayer of passing. But no. His solution to the problems of The Welfare State was to make it more efficient. All that accomplished was to make more room available on the parasite bus. He created more government and allowed American cities to turn increasingly Amerikan.

And then we come to Nixon’s ethical collapse. He was impeached and resigned to avoid political checkmate. Impeachment is entirely cynical. It’s a way to allow for coups and still maintain the US Constitution. It reduces rebellion to an anomaly. It’s like how the Matrix had already planned for Neo. If the Zeitgeist had ever turned on Barack Obama, Lindsay Graham could have impeached him for halitosis. Barack Hussein Obama could brush, floss and mouthwash all he wanted before he read off his teleprompter. Impeachment is pure political lawfare against the Executive Branch.

By failing at ethics, Nixon gave his enemies the pretense with which they ultimately destroyed him. He may not have felt like a crook, but he became one. Seeing a member of the greasy, loathsome, mobbed-up Kennedy Klan lionized for having founded Camelot on The Potomac made Richard Nixon’s soul seethe. Nixon came to believe Mordred had a point. Mordred way well have had a point, but it didn’t change the fact that Mordred d’Orkney was a bastard. The fact this led Mordred to feel resentment, didn’t justify Mordred destroying what Arthur Pendragon had built. It all just made Mordred an evil bastard.

So Nixon got jobbed in 1960. It caused him to become entitled and paranoid. He adopted the whole LBJ credo of “if you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.” He figured it was win at all cost, and would do anything to win. Breaking into the Democratic Party Headquarters at The Watergate was just one example. Impounding the funds appropriated by Congress and refusing to spend them rather than vetoing wasteful spending bills was another. Nixon’s paranoia manifested itself when he made his enemies list and went about using the IRS to Obama the crap out of them. As much as Conservatives hate Lois Lerner, she wasn’t the first to use the taxing power of the state as a political weapon. The Tea Party got screwed by Lois Lerner utilizing a tool Richard Nixon dropped into the DC political toolbox.

The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon read like a Clinton or Obama Administration SOP for dealing with enemies. So not only did he fail to get them back for 1960, but he brought about his own political downfall. Not only did he bring about his own political downfall, but he gave the iniquitous bastards some nifty evil ideas. If only he had asked himself what cheating his way into power ended up doing for JFK in the end.

Richard Nixon was an intelligent man with potential for greatness. But he was seduced into amorality by defeats at the hands of scoundrels. He betrayed both his party and his nation by adapting their disingenuous tactics for his own cause. He failed at solving the two major problems his administration faced by being too half-hearted and timid to drive the broadsword through to the bloody hilt. He who isn’t willing to die gets killed in a war. He who gets killed dies a failure. Richard Milhous Nixon’s cowardice and dishonesty make him an evil Amerikan Emperor.

The Great Division

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016


Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History And The Last Man and shocked Generation X awake with his thesis: modernity had won. The modern wallpaper of society — liberal democracy, consumerism, diversity and the regulatory state — had won out over the older and presumably more primitive forms.

In stating thus, Fukuyama gave a new generation something to rebel against. Where their parents were rebelling against a conservative (or really, neoconservative or conservative methods with liberal goals) society, Generation X was confronting a society in which Progress of both industry and egalitarianism had won out against culture, honor, values, pride and history.

The years following brought an uneasy peace. The Left did crazy things and left it to conservative presidents to inherit the mess, thanks to a Left-slanted media. The Right tried to clean up, but it was like trying to plug a dike with ten thousand holes and only ten fingers. The result was a consistent Leftward drift, urged on by industry and a post-1965 electorate that wanted benefits more than stable living.

As things stand now, the wonderful Barack Obama presidency — a gift from the gods — has shown us the future of a Leftist Amerika: everyone living in apartments, working all the time, receiving some benefits but not as much as the lower contributors, and everything being very expensive, dividing this country into the super-rich (or simply: vested in government) and everyone else, much as Leftism did in Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, and so on.

The result is that Left and Right are diverging along the lines of “we cannot coexist.” Or rather, the Left has diverged from everyone else, who gets lumped into the Right because the only objections one can have to the Left are on the basis of realism: Leftism does not work, it makes life worse, and so on. But how do you argue against an emotional and populist argument like “equality”?

There is no solution.

Ergo, the two will split. The American Civil War never ended because, contrary to what the Left tells us, the war was not about slavery although the touchstone issue was found in slavery. The war was fought over the ability of people to have states which did not follow the Northeast model of big cities, industrial and social Progress, and other emotive but ill-conceived schemes that have destroyed empires throughout history.

Our problem is fundamentally a leadership problem. When the vote is handed to an ever-increasing pool of people with less skin in the game — starting with women, who if single will work until they die and want everyone else to suffer the same fate, and extending to children who want free things and minority groups who because they cannot have self-determination wish to be subsidized by their de facto rulers — society goes only one direction. All democracies come to that state, interestingly enough.

Some suggest reforms to democracy, but this is impossible. The problem is deeper than that: Western Civilization is in decline and has been for thousands of years. We need to go back to the ancient principles that made us strong, and that requires doing away with democracy, because as part of that ancient wisdom we realize that all of us are ranked on a hierarchy of quality and most people are little more than “talking monkeys with car keys” whose every opinion is poisonous, insane, stupid and destructive.

This is what the Christians call “original sin”: without improvement by self-discipline, most people are merely monkeys, and even when self-disciplined, only very few are ready for leadership and the rest are not only bad at it, but will choose a suicidal path because they prefer pleasant social appearances over literal reality. Welcome to the Black Pill, which is the gateway to all wisdom.

Even if we killed off most of humanity, the problem would replicate. The small group that would remain has the same innate tendencies as the rest of humanity and so would replicate our situation. Even if we killed off the stupid, those who are intelligent fall prey to the same idiocy, in fact perhaps more so because of their arrogance at how intelligent they are, and so we would find ourselves on the same path.

No. There is one solution, and it involves re-structuring our societies around culture, heritage, values, hierarchy and transcendental goals. I call these the “four pillars” because they distill to four concepts — aristocracy, positive reward, nationalism/culturism and transcendentalism — but they appear throughout history in many forms.

When we choose the order of our society, we have two basic options:

  1. Lottery-ism. Set up a game and see who wins. Of course, since the game — consumerism, democracy, popularity, sexual attraction — is artificial and based on appearance, it is easily cheated by those who are both fanatical and amoral. That, then, is who will rule us.

  2. Excellence. Directly assess who is good, and entrust them with power, wealth and prestige to be used in the ways that have made these people excellent. This creates a natural hierarchy where people compete to be good, instead of toward winning the game.

Increasingly, I see the latter as the only option. It is both frightening and chillingly clear, which creates an inner warmth at having an answer, no matter how grim, but also invokes fear and trembling among the population now. They are afraid of what will happen to them, which is why the leadership that comes must be excellent, not merely brutal in the way of tyrants.

We have tried every permutation possible of the first path, and it has failed, where only two generations ago the old order still held sway and granted us with competent (but not perfect, as nothing is) leaders and social order. Now in our revolutionary fervor, we have undone it all, and as a result we live in a third-world type society where chaos and cruelty rule us.

Somehow The Bad Guys Were Right All Along

Wednesday, July 6th, 2016


Someday, humanity will have to recognize the unpopular truth about itself: what we think we want as individuals is usually not only not what we need but self-destructive, and what we desire as groups inevitably reflects fear and convenience more than even the basics of analysis of the issue at hand.

In other words, we are a suicidal species. I see this all the time: people convince themselves the grass is greener somewhere else, and go chasing an illusion. And so they buy sports cars in middle age instead of the things they will need over the next twenty years, escape marriages in exchange for a series of bad relationships, and demand free things from government that end up sabotaging business, making life miserable and conveying their society into a death spiral of incompetence.

Our politics reflect this: people in groups make terrible decisions and then go looking for someone to blame instead of tackling the issues head-on. This is why democracy inevitably drifts Leftward as voters chase pleasant illusions, then when their plans fail, blame whatever vestiges of social order remain.

This results in the ugly truth that the bad guys were right all along:

The current hot-button issue for Klan members — fighting immigration and closing U.S. borders — is one of the most talked-about topics in the presidential election. Klan leaders say Donald Trump’s immigration position and his ascendancy in the GOP are signs things are going their way.

“You know, we began 40 years ago saying we need to build a wall,” Arkansas-based Klan leader Thomas Robb said.

The reason for this is simple: appearance and structure differ. In fact, they tend to work in inverse, as Plato suggested. A good man will hide his good deeds, and a bad man will hide his bad deeds, leaving him looking good while the good man does not.

Bad guys understand power. They do not operate on the level of appearance, but structure, which means that they do what is necessary in order to make things work out for the best. This is seen as “means over ends” analysis by the herd, but it is more accurately known as adaptation to reality, instead of telling reality what we want it to do as if it were a food service worker or subordinate.

This brings us to the Nietzschean idea of power, which is that it flows to those who understand power. Equality-based politics — all of Leftism and its hybrids — seeks to avoid power, to diffuse it and adulterate it. Bad guys concentrate power and then make stuff happen. In the process, because they are driven by results and hence refine their own competence, they become good at ruling.

At that point, however, another problem arises: they may be good at ruling, but are the good at the game of civilization? It is for this reason that Schopenhauer suggests that more than finding simply the most aggressively competent at power, we find the best people, or those geared toward excellence on an aesthetic and transcendental level, and give them power so that they keep it from others and use it well.

This avoids the constant cycle in which we find ourselves, where our group denial bubbles over and insanity results, then the counter-reaction is too obsessive:

The fact that Hitler and his party came to power from electoral obscurity within two years should serve as a warning just how quickly society can change, how quickly the abnormal can become normal and how the frustrations of a population can change from simmering discontent to a fully-fledged inferno of rage.

In the here and now, many people feel as though the ground is shifting under their feet politically, socially and financially. It should not go unnoticed that, running alongside these perceived shifting sands, issues of racism have increasingly been dominating our airwaves.

As we head into more uncertain times after a millennia or so of them thanks to the most recent resurgence of egalitarian/individualist thought, it is important to remember this: we cannot formulate goals out of what we hate, only what we love. We love excellence and rising civilizations. Everything else is just chatter.

Plato, Andrew Sullivan and Orlando

Monday, June 13th, 2016


…tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy. – Plato

Plato describes the joys of Democracy well in The Republic. Andrew (((Sullivan))) muses on what the great philosopher has to tell us about our current society.

  1. The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable.

    Can anyone doubt that this has happened both on The Left and on The Right. George Soros wisely LBO’d both Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter so that the Leftist cattle would be herded and eventually stashed back into their veal fattening pens. The Right seems more pleasantly rogue with Donald Trump attempting to grow into the role of Optimate. With the left populists properly babysat and dominated by their Silicon Valley Overkings; the extent to which the Cathedral is threatened by resentment of the elite will be decided by one simple question. Whither/wither Right Wing Populism?

  2. Patriarchy is also dismantled…Family hierarchies are inverted…

    The end result of feminism is something that a lot of men really enjoy. They get widened sexual access and no real responsibility for the resulting offspring. For women on an intellectual, social and professional level of Carly Fiorina, feminism is a screaming buy. For those who struggle without structure and who get picked off by high time-preference, low moral fiber, sexually predatory men; this is what feminism does for them.

    The consequential impact of the “Hey Mister” society is that 41% of the children in Amerika are bastards. Plato predicted how this would work out as well. Sullivan continues his philosophy discussion below.

  3. “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents.” In classrooms, “as the teacher … is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.”

    YouTuber Tommy Sotomayor has mused on how this has worked out and chronicled it in all of its phantasmagoric detestability here, here, here, and here.

So you destroy the elite, you destroy the dad, you go rip-@ss on what’s left of the family. This ripens your society for what? Well, at first, it’s Ollie, Ollie Oxen. Free! Free! Free! But as the consequences of freedumb pile up and we begin amusing ourselves to death; we begin to see the horror. How does one react to horror? Plato, Andrew Sullivan and Kevin Williamson all opine that you ultimately get the Father Führer. I think you’re lucky if that’s as bad as it gets.

You see we’ve posited a society that is supposed to take diverse parts and fuse them like a McDonald’s Chicken McNugget into some form of workable hybrid. E Pluribus Unum, I presume. But here’s what happens instead. You get lots of people that just can’t make this work. You trust them with more power and responsibility than they will ever be worthy of. They have more freedumb than they know how to handle. It leaves this Mook to wonder “E Pluribus WTF?”

They know of their personal failures. It eats at them. It frustrates them. They go get brainwashed into finding a scapegoat. They are given a mission be an evil enemy. They go boom!

The tyranny Andrew Sullivan soils his shorts over is just the mechanism. This, right here is how democracies all ultimately die.

Stumbling Into Tyranny

Friday, May 13th, 2016


Down at the local pub, the Voters were having a conversation. “You see, the Problem keeps getting worse. The riots last month showed us that,” said a concerned soul.

“No matter what we do, the Problem crops up again,” said a resigned voice. “Well, I’m off to plow the fields.”

“We need a solution to the Problem,” the other Voters agreed.

Their wives, who they met at the shopping district, thought the Problem of primary importance. “I am afraid for our future,” said a wife while watching television on one of the outdoors screens. “If someone does not get the Problem under control, we are going to have a panic on our hands.”

The television changed. The daytime talk-show host was now discussing her next topic, “The Problem: Doom Of Our Time, Or Doom For All Time?” Her guest, an industry consultant whose book on the topic had just been published, said that the Problem would change life as we know it in every detail. It was possible, she hinted, that Earth could burn.

“We will do anything for a solution to the Problem,” said the wives.

This created a market for discussion about solutions to the Problem. Online sites sold ads by the truckload and books by the pallet. Flagging television shows did episodes on the Problem, which made the workers in those studios feel good about how they were educating the public. Students in school were taught about the Problem and how it would truncate those student lives.

Mass-panic reigned. And then, a voice spoke out of the darkness: “I will fix the Problem,” he said. “I will end your suffering.”

Heads turned like a giant row of dominoes. “Really?” asked the Voters.

“Absolutely,” said the Candidate. “Our quandary is simple: we have not used enough force to fix the Problem. Although it seems to appear naturally, we can smash it down using superior human abilities. We need a War on the Problem.”

An opinion poll — conducted by calling 2,000 people during the daytime and asking them simple questions — revealed that most citizens feared the Problem more than anything else.

One young wife, stopped on the street by a reporter, said that for her the election was simple. “All the candidates are good, but I am going to vote for the Candidate. He is best on the Problem issue.”

Let me tell you, friends, that election was a sight to be seen. The polls were crowded with wives and students. They marched in there with purpose in their gaits and yanked those levers for the Candidate. Records were set. The election was easily decided.

During his acceptance speech, the Candidate declared that soon the Problem would be over.

The Voters were excited. The Problem had dominated their conversation, movies, books, television and fears for so long they could remember nothing else. The entire society, like a magnet, had polarized itself toward the Problem. This was war, and until the Problem was defeated, the good times they all remembered — some from the 50s, some from the 60s — would not return.

The Candidate reminded the Voters of his promise to fix the Problem by force. Where the Problem flared up, he deployed the Army. He changed the way laws were interpreted so that the Problem was written into every area of our legal code, and the solution of force was mandated. The Voters applauded.

Amid high public polls, the Candidate set up financial incentives, which create equal and opposing disincentives, and so any business that did not obey was made weak. He created a federal Agency to take control of all industries affected by or involved with the Problem, and soon they were busily issuing rules, judgments, interpretations and regulations.

“The solution to the Problem is force,” said the Candidate in his weekly televised speech. “Humans have triumphed over nature whenever we, using our superior judgment, have forced order upon the chaos. We are going to smash the Problem down wherever it appears.”

Many fortunes were made during the War on the Problem. New rules meant that products conforming to those new rules were demanded; it also created a market for those with expertise that was compliant with the new War. Hundreds of thousands of people flocked to government agencies and the thousands of consultants and pundits who served them.

The Voters watched avidly. Better than football, this was a war, and they were on the edge of their seats. Would we win? The enemy was terrifying; if our guys are better than it, that will be really cool. If not we are all doomed, and that is far more interesting than our daily lives. People talked about the War constantly.

The Candidate came on television one week and explained that the War was going well, but not well enough. Everyone needed to pitch in, and by the way, Government needed to assume total control in order to really fix the Problem. The Voters thought this was a good idea.

“If we are going to wage total war, we need total control,” one said. “Like when you are going to squash a bug: get the biggest hammer you can, and knock that sucker flat.”

“But I am concerned for our civil rights,” said another. “Government can make do with only semi-total control, and that will make me happy.”

A hairy, drunken, unwashed, hallucinating anarchist walked through the conversation. “No gods, no masters,” he said. “People power can unite to fix the Problem.” Then he passed out.

One of the wives spoke more sensibly. “The Problem is our greatest fear, and all our other problems originate from it, so we need to do whatever we can to solve this problem. Just tell me how much and I’ll write the check.”

Government cashed that check. New rules came out, telling people where they must live, how they must behave, and what ideas were unacceptable if we were to solve this Problem. The schools taught this rigorously, as did the televisions. Those who refused to obey were hounded out of polite society.

People awoke with a start one morning to hear that an Assassin had tried to kill the Candidate! Outrage was massive. New rules were passed. Most importantly, the Candidate was given a private security force over which he had direct control, and police officers were told that if they caught an Assassin, their career trajectory would be straight up.

“It is good this situation is under control,” one of the wives said. “Political violence is bad, and if we make it illegal and arrest the bad people, we will all live in peace.”

Her husband, done with his trivial job for the day and now into his fourth beer and second video game of the night, echoed the sentiment. “Peace…” he giggled. “Groovy. Whatever. Government is just another predator that we have to avoid. Speeding tickets, taxes, rules, I just ignore it all.”

There was no awakening at a specific moment to the changes that had occurred in their society. But at one point, a wife noticed that there were soldiers on every corner, all of the television and radio had started to sound the same as if it were authored by the same hand, and you just could not do a lot of stuff.

You could not leave; that made the Problem worse. You were told who to hire, befriend, live near, work with, and listen to. There was an official right way to do things, an anyone who did not get with the program would never amount to much. Those who acted against this change were Assassins and were shot.

Since it cropped up naturally, the Problem had not been defeated. It merely went underground. Whenever people did anything, the Problem popped up in the details, like a face seen through television static. But now it could not be mentioned because officially, the Problem was defeated. To say it still existed was to become an enemy of the state.

This is how civilizations stumble into tyranny. The Problem can be anything that seems to affect everyone — global warming, race relations, inequality — that galvanizes popular fear. The population does not fall prey to a tyrant, but creates him. This process is happening now in Amerika and the EU.

Caesar Comes To Fill A Vacuum

Thursday, April 21st, 2016


So guess what life is like once !THE PEOPLE! Are put in charge. We’ll make this easy for you. Bloomberg News is covering the Venezuelan Lifestyle for us.

The tap in her apartment yields water only every two weeks. It comes out yellow. Her 8-month-old granddaughter is ill. And as Yajaira Espinoza, a 55-year-old hairdresser, made her way down the halls of Caracas university hospital on Friday, Zika cases evident in the rooms around her, a dense ash-filled smog enveloped the city.

Verily the Venezuelan Lifestyle is downstream from the Venezuelan Government. The Venezuelan Government is as malignant and petty as the sort of mean thing that high school bullies like to do to the Special Education kids. But that’s unfair! Not all socialists are like that (((NASALT))). I mean the North Korean and Brazilian ones are such nicer human beings. Oh, wait

Brazil’s leftist President Dilma Rousseff suffered a humiliating loss in a crucial impeachment vote in the lower house of Congress on Sunday and is almost certain to be forced from office months before the nation hosts the Olympics. Fireworks lit up the night sky in Brazil’s megacities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro after the opposition comfortably surpassed the two-thirds majority needed to send Rousseff for trial in the Senate on charges of manipulating budget accounts.

But the impeachment of a dishonest Socialist (sorry for the repetitive syntax) is relatively minor. It doesn’t mar all the wonderful things Brazil has accomplished as an emerging economy. Well, except for one tiny, little problem. President Dilma Rousseff is the rule instead of the exception. She only got in trouble when the entire culture of corruption and Mokita went stale and drowned in the high-crime drainage ditch that is Brazilian politics.

You see, this is the 28th effort that has been made to impeach President Rousseff. The other 27 were all put to bed by the “opposition” lead parliamentarian. The charges simply didn’t rise to the level of such a difficult proceeding. They didn’t until said parliamentarian was put under indictment himself by someone in Rousseff’s nefarious alliance. And these two aren’t the only ones corrupted. An estimated 60% of Brazil’s political leadership is potentially indictable under a variety of scandals and ethical lapses. What The Economist Magazine euphemistically dubs “The Petrobras Affair” offers a typical example of what happens when ethical diversity is your strength.

The key things to note here are that The Petrobras Affair sucks in myriad levels of Brazilian Government and thereby effects regulatory capture across a wide swath of governing and regulatory functions. No institution remains completely uncompromised. Another key thing to note is that all the major parties are involved. Nobody can run on clean government next election because they all have blood and dirt under their fingernails. If one guy squeals, he gets hammered. By his own as well as the opposition.

Well, one idiot didn’t get the Mutually Assured Destruction Memorandum. The Brazilian Federal Police have launched Operation Car Wash. President Rousseff should give it up. She isn’t ever going to come clean. The dirt is out there. Rousseff is going down. Her partisans will take down the opposition leads along with her. Nothing will be left in Brazil except !THE PEOPLE! who were dumb enough to hire this disreputable lot of tossers in the first place.

Then what comes along other than The Zika Virus and environmental collapse? Then we get the Restitutor Orbis. El Guapo. The Big, Shwingin’ Dick. People lose faith in the leadership. They fail to admit that the leadership reflects them. They hang or burn the leaders. They pledge their fealty to any Caesar who will clean up the drinking water, kill the mosquitoes and effectively make the trains run on time.

Napoleon rightfully claims that he found the crown of France lying in the gutter so he bent over and picked it up. The gutter is where the crown winds up if a Democratic Republic is overrun by demotism. The Caesar is the first guy willing to clean up the resulting mess. He is coming in Brazil and Venezuela both. He may not be too far away from our border either. Forget Whig History. Winter is coming.

The Stanford Prison Experiment at the shopping mall

Sunday, September 20th, 2015


The man behind the counter leaned forward so he could look directly at the customer. “You need to stay in the store, ma’am, when you have items on call. I’ve been calling you several times.”

She made the right murmured apology but he still fixed her with an angry stare. His time had been wasted, he felt. Even though he could have put the item back on the shelf and waited, he had called. These people — customers — are the worst on earth. They are the reason this job is so bad, he thought. And in the back of his mind a little voice spoke up and said: and they need to respect your authority, whatever little it is, because this job is horrible and they owe it to you.

What made this ironic, in the hip boutique that fronted the main drag of the mall, was that the counterman was wearing a t-shirt from the band Discharge that was part of the iconic anti-authoritarian hardcore punk movement. Here he was, a low-echelon worker with pro-freedom sentiments, and he was berating her exactly like the fascist leaders and corporate overlords he doubtless felt were ruining the world.

In other words, the oppressed had become the oppressor.

We see this pattern happen every time democracy is tried. In fact, it seems to arise anywhere humans are together. When given power, most people enforce it for their personal convenience. Philip Zimbardo conducted the classic Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 by assigning students as guards and prisoners in a test environment. He found that some of the guards become strictly authoritarian, and some of the students became reckless rebels. But the undercurrent he discovered evoked the experiments of Dr. Stanley Milgram, who tested the willingness of average people to administer shocks to others in the guise of enforcing the scientific authority of a test. He found that 65% of participants were willing to push those signals into the lethal range, in theory “killing” the test subject in their experiment while being a test subject in Milgram’s experiment.

Echoing sentiments like “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” these tests seemed to suggest that people are tyrants waiting to happen. But this interpretation runs shallow. More likely, it suggests that most people do not have a moral compass because they are accustomed to deferring to authority, possibly because they are threatened by authority in a mental state similar to the Stockholm Syndrome, where captives bond with their terrorist jailkeepers and even defend them years later. People depend on authority. For this reason, they defer to it unless they are given a chance to enforce it, thinking that by doing its bidding they are gaining its favor. Milgram, Zimbardo and Stockholm were misunderstood: they do not imply that authority is a problem, but that free societies create tyranny, much as Plato argued years ago.

The Crowd has authority over us. We become accustomed to having that authority do our thinking for us, and to avoid offending it. When our turn comes for power, we are filled with pent-up rage and wish to subjugate others in turn, but at the same time we see an opportunity to — like all the others we have seen succeed around us — implement the orthodoxy that supports the authority and by doing so, demonstrate our worthiness to the powers that be. The justification for exercise of power is what makes this possible. The man behind the counter sees a moment where he is behaving by the rules and someone else is not, so uses this as a chance to subjugate them and make them subordinate to his will in order to make himself feel better about this dead-end job in a go-nowhere-do-nothing mall. He derives a personal satisfaction from, for once, being in charge, and having an excuse to feel righteous about it.

We see this pattern repeated time and again in liberal revolutions. Once they believe they are the defenders of the poor, any amount of gulags or guillotines are not only acceptable but necessary. They are acting out revenge because they see this revenge as justified. They have rationalized their own low position by scapegoating another, and now the other must die. It does not matter if they were formerly oppressed; they will oppress, and take it to the next extreme, because their rage and instability is so great.

Traditional society offers an option to this perpetual power dynamic. It constrains the lust for power through roles, and measures success by goals and morals instead of how well rules are applied. This means that the petty tyrants and kings for a day of the world see themselves as working together toward a shared end, and they never have a position of absolute authority but are channeled through the context of a role. In the Milgram experiment, random college students were given absolute authority. In a traditional society, they would never reach this position because traditional societies recognized that power could be wielded by only a few who have overcome our glorious simian heritage and the emotional instability, scapegoating, rage and resentment inherent within it.

All of us live in a time without context now. We are all independent actors, living in worlds of ourselves, and so any act that displeases us is a personal insult which can only be matched with an insane acceleration of authority to the point of cruelty. Paradoxically, to our minds, this situation originates in freedom. With freedom, context (role) is removed and all authority is absolute, but as a result, no single person controls the Crowd and it is never accountable. This creates shell-shocked zombies, staggering out of the ugly cities, feeling intense fear of the authority imposed on them and desperate for some excuse to exert it on someone else with maximal cruelty in the hope that this will fill the void in their souls.

Recommended Reading