Posts Tagged ‘universalism’

We Need a Worldview, Not a Universal Outlook

Monday, October 30th, 2017

Let’s assume that Realism is a worldview opposed to any rightist or leftist views. From there we can see that nature may have its own view and that a human Realism should not be seen in isolation. Given that nature likes to experiment where the “winner” does not need to be “good,” this presents humans with a dilemma, because religion always tend to style itself as the good, which places it at odds with nature.

Religion relies on a transcendental state for its meaning. However, transcendence is not of this world; it is abstract and intuitive. While it may calm and focus humans, it does not actually do anything tangible, like create spaceships. In fact it may make matters worse by telling people that they cannot die in an attempt to soothe our loss of family members. Even the Bantu do not believe their elders actually die.

When it comes to real world practicality of the kind that creates spaceships, we must accept that humans die as part of nature’s experiments. In order to understand our fate better, we need to understand the experiments of nature. This gives us a worldview that cannot be tainted by political outlooks, which tend to color our interpretation by making themselves the base assumptions through which we filter our perceptions.

That in turn clashes with politics, which seems to be based on lying. People lie because they think others don’t know they are lying (disregarding that truth itself is not the issue). It is therefore impossible for a politician not to lie. In fact the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wrote, “if you want honesty, you start your own party.”

I agree with that sentiment, even if it is shocking. It is only shocking because I never realized it. But I have met representatives and some of them were obviously “salesmen” while others were apparently initially honest. My limited experience with these representatives shows that they spend a lot of time influencing people, but when they get the seat, they have no idea what to do, as Steve Bannon noted recently.

These parliamentarians are suddenly viewed with enormous respect, while they have no idea what their world view is or should be. They are therefore incompetent, all of them. Sometimes knowledgeable business people that understand “the way of the world” gets the opportunity to affect change, but even then their world view is limited by screeching of the proletariat.

One can almost say that even great leaders get distracted by their children, or in other words, their constituents. This applies to Trump as well. He was recently caught in an untruth when he said that G.W. Bush never called families of fallen soldiers. Once we get over moralizing about the tendency to lie, we can see that instead he is playing a game.

In his world, like the amoral and dispassionate worldview of nature, everything is a game and the best player wins. In the game of restoring America, Trump wants to put America to work which is probably not a lie, because as a developer and businessman he and his friends like workers, because workers are consumers.

The real lie is that Americans wants to work. They actually don’t. In fact they want to talk, a lot. Where at first they had to wait for the Sunday newspaper, they can now express their own views every weekday. You can see this in the rising social media industries now abbreviated as FANG. But you can also see it in American industry.

Returning to the world view discussion, one can say that Africa also like talking a lot. That put them at the lowest ranks of the Competitiveness Index. But it also puts them in a strong position as migrants to bring Western Civilization down to those same levels. Even though Westerners can and want to talk a lot, migrants have the upper hand genetically. They reproduce faster than we do.

A worldview, as opposed to a universal outlook which favors truth and goodness over effects in reality, dictates that Americans must start to work. To convince them will take some time because they have to understand that change is really necessary. The Mandela experiment is an example of where a Western oriented country realized they had to change, setting in motion a grand political effort driven by mass media and education.

The point in South Africa was to allow “acculturation” of all its peoples towards a Western type culture (democracy at the time), but back-fired, because it should have acculturated to the African culture (tribal at the time). Nature’s order wins out: we may think we are more “good,” but really, only what works is what is good, and so instead of projecting onto it, we must accept reality as we find it.

If America wants to make a change, it should acculturate to a tribal dispensation and in my view a semi-re-enactment towards a States’ Rights model prioritizing trade between States as opposed to global trade. This acknowledges the nature of America, instead of the universal morality that we try to convince ourselves is true.

The successor to Trump will have a world view, not a universal outlook, and as a result will be willing to re-write the founding documents to choose a system that works for what America is and has been. They will do this because other tribes are taking to the global stage first, which is putting America in the camp of political lies and not hard realism, which it needs in order to survive and succeed.

The Grey 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.

Inner Self As The Opposite Of Individualism

Thursday, October 27th, 2016


We live in an individualistic time, which means that people think of their personal desires before considering how realistic they are. Our concept of equality is designed to sever needs from wants because no one can say “no” to someone who pursues the unrealistic because that person is “equal.”

As the notion of equality settles into a society, all acts become “symbolic” or gestures designed to communicate intent. The essence of equality is that there can be no purpose for the society except to facilitate the desires of its citizens. This means there is no hierarchy except socializing, and one socializes by convincing other people to like oneself based on these benevolent, empathic gestures.

This quickly converts the value of every act into symbolism. Politicians kiss babies because it is easier and more effective than ensuring that those babies have a healthy civilization in which to grow up. Salesmen always take your side. Actors follow whatever trend is popular. All of these signal a desire for acceptance.

Domination By Symbolic Thinking

The problem with the external symbolism that is native to human consciousness is that it ignores the inner self. The inner self is the part of us that cannot be defined: the intuition, the instinct and the moral core. This does not fit into tidy boxes and visual symbols for others to appreciate.

External symbolism replaces the inner self. As people use symbolism to communicate with others, the tokens in their minds are adjusted to fit what the group demands. This introduces internal inconsistency and by nature of the social force being stronger, replaces inner knowledge with external demands.

This creates a dictatorship of the ego distributed among all people in the civilization. The inner self is suppressed because it cannot be controlled and is replaced by the external self, or what the group thinks by consensus. This can be carefully manipulated.

In effect, this means that the inner self is squeezed out of people. It represents a risk; that which conflicts with what the herd believes can cause loss of friends, jobs, homes, mates and professional contacts. The inner self represents nothing but risk because it addresses the ambiguous and that which is outside human control.

Crushing The Intuition

This causes us to ask: “What is the inner self?” It is that which is real, whether derived from intuition or reality. To understand intuition, the mind must be clear enough to see it; to understand the external world, the inner self must be clearly understood, and open to more than the individual because it is confident.

The inner self is uniquely satisfying because unlike fantasies of controlling the outside world, it consists of desires which can be achieved. The intuition understands the world, and for that reason, selects options which are not just pleasing but also within the realm of everyday possibility.

On the other hand, it is terrifying. Intuition knows no boundaries, and does not fall into the safe categories of social logic. The ego generally blocks the inner self because it is formless and terrifying. This explains the default human behavior of preferring destructive and chaotic decisions to sane ones.

For this reason, people prefer individualism. This forms an isolated container for the self where it is measured entirely by appearance to the social group, which is easier to achieve than inner satisfaction. Individualism is tangible and can be controlled, where the intuition remains an unknown land in twilight.

Individualism presents an opposite to the inner self. The ego knows itself only through its external reflection, like someone preening in a mirror, and this must exclude inner measurement. By the same token, knowledge of the inner self deprives the external ego of its shine and renders the social world useless.

As an exchange for this convenience, individualism puts the individual into a terrible position. All questions are transferred to the external, which means that failure is attributable to someone else, but so is success. This creates an individual unaware of itself, feeling constantly controlled because of its externalized nexus.

This individual finds no comfort. No successes belong to the self, only to the herd; similarly, no comfort can be found in the self, only in the group. This in turn creates a situation where the individual can find no happiness, but must forever seek affirmation from the group.

The Modern Psychology

In that psychology we see the ultimate evolution of the modern person. When they are displeased, they blame the world around them because they have assigned the choice of happiness to this world. When they are not displeased, they assume it is the world around them, sacrificing the inner self at the altar of conformity.

This creates a situation where the existential discomfort of the individual is transferred to the external. The rage of someone who cannot connect to the inner self becomes a cause for action to change the external so that it comforts the individual.

The glitch there is that the problem does not lie in the external, and scapegoating it does not revive the inner self and make the individual feel complete, possibly even discovering a soul. The loss of inner self creates a classic pathology, or behavior repeated despite achieving bad results, because the self-concept of the individual and its self-esteem rest on the fiction that the behavior is important.

Pervasive Loneliness and Alienation

Individualism replaces the core of a person with a deference to the external in order to create external forces to bolster the ego. At first, this seems like a good idea, as it avoids the hard questions of life including morality, purpose and the genre of aesthetics that lets us appreciate transcendental beauty and excellence.

Over time, it becomes a corrupting force, much like in the book The Portrait of Dorian Grey where the selfish deeds of the protagonist distort his image and turn it into a decayed vision. The more we pursue the nonsense out of a desire for spiritual convenience, the more twisted we become within.

We currently live in a society that has been in the grips of this pathology for a century. People work more, notice less, and spend their time dealing with the incompetence and threat of the herd, rather than enjoying life. Intellectual and cultural life has descended into the trash-heap. Existential misery is widespread.

Any movement which hopes to conquer our future will need to address the fundamental cultural shift in the West: “progress” has made us miserable by denying our inner selves through its need to enforce universalism and egalitarianism. We can do better, and if we do not, we will die out from broken hearts.

“An Introduction To Nihilism” And An Interview With Brett Stevens

Friday, October 21st, 2016


Over at Manticore Press, a short writing entitled “An Introduction To Nihilism” which explains in straightforward terms the philosophy applied in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Perhaps its most biting moment:

By facing the darkness of life directly and allowing the cold wind of the abyss to lick our faces, nihilism creates acceptance of the world as it is, and then embarks on a search for meaning that is not “social meaning” because it is interpreted according to the individual based on the capacity of that individual. Nihilism is esoteric in that it rejects the idea of a truth that can be communicated to everyone, but by freeing us from the idea that whatever truths we encounter must include everyone, allows for lone explorers to delve deeper and climb higher, if they have the biological requirements for the mental ability involved.

For this reason, nihilism is transformative. We go into it as equal members of the modern zombie automaton cult, convinced that there is objective truth and we have subjective preferences. We come out realizing that our preferences are entirely a function of our abilities and biology, and that “objective” truth is as much an idol as the Golden Calf of Moses’ time: a fiction and consensual reality created to keep a troupe of slightly smarter than average monkeys working together.

Its most interesting part however may be its clarity on the idea of nihilism as a different method of finding reality than the intermediaries and symbolic realities normally chosen by humans:

Nihilism rejects the ideas of universalism, rationalism and empiricism which have ruled the West for centuries. These ideas arise from our social impulses, or the desire to include others as a group and motivate them with what is perceived as objective truth.

Universalism holds that all people are essentially the same, and therefore that values are a matter of respecting the choices of each person, truth is what can be verified in a way a group can understand, and communication relies on words which have immutable meaning. Rationalism supposes that the workings our minds can tell us what is true in the world without testing, and implies universalism, or that the workings of our minds are all the same. Empiricism, now linked to its cousin logical positivism, states that truth is only found in observable and testable, replicable observations.

In addition, for your reading pleasure, Everritt over at A Natural Reaction has published “An Interview with Author and Philosopher Brett Stevens” in which he asks the big questions and some subtler ones that reinforce them. This was a well-executed interview.

Apparently this section has generated the most reaction:

Do you have hope for the future? If so why?

There is always hope. Humans can change themselves, or at least some can, and they tend to influence others by their natural leadership abilities. Right now, every Leftist policy is failing at once, and so history will force us to make a change. In my view, it will shift toward the vision of futurism and not the old, tired, and failed system of liberal democracy.

You may also notice that we have a new site design. This arose from practical concerns — how to make the text more readable, work around some technical glitches and support mobile devices — but also as an upgrade to our aging three-year-old site design. There will be minor corrections over the next few weeks as there always are, but if you spot something that has gone wrong, please mention it.

Civil Rights Absorbs All Other Issues Into Its Abyss

Monday, October 10th, 2016


Civil rights: This is a good thing, no? No? Maybe not so much.

At first the people were without any rights. Then there were civil rights. Then followed human rights. Now the feminists are talking about universal human rights. So you can see the massive expansion.

This is why people used to say that if you give a finger, you will lose your whole hand. If you give an inch, they will take a mile.

The idea that there are human rights implies that there is something that connects us all as one whole, as humans, when really all people and peoples are very different. This human commonality is more important than anything else, such as borders and citizenship. It is because the one universal trait of people is to desire as much as they can have, passively, for themselves. So they are entitled to this, only for being human, in their eyes humans must be very great.

Human rights is the next step after civil rights which goes beyond citizenship to include anyone that is “human.” Obviously anyone that is human should have their human rights, and so the left disregard everything that discriminates one human from another and deem all discrimination evil. After all, it is counter to humanity which the leftist is part of.

To the left these “human rights” should prevail all over the planet because everyone from all over is human, and so these rights must spread to encompass everyone everywhere. It’s not just that anyone within your own nation should have them. These are very aggressive politics; it should be recognized that hidden behind their agenda the Left is seeking world domination. Just like the Islamic State which seeks to build a world-encompassing caliphate, except that the Leftists desire a globalized, socialist state. They have come very far already with the European Union.

This proves how dangerous it is to derail from reality, even just a little. It all began with giving your citizens the finger of civil rights, and ended with universal human rights. I say to give the human rights activists the finger, and they can go and get lost, before they swallow us whole.

Civilization Is A Trap

Thursday, September 29th, 2016


Civilization is a disease which is almost invariably fatal.1

The rich are different than you and me. In particular, they are better at making money, which requires having the pulse of trends and being able to see to some degree where they are going. From a story about bunkers/panic rooms for the wealthy comes this tasty tidbit:

Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: “People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected.”

What do they know that the rest of us do not? They have probably noticed the downfall of the Obama years — the declining currency, increasing corruption, decreasing competence — and view the current presidential contest as a disaster, perhaps because of Hillary Clinton’s ability to evade prosecution for obvious lawbreaking and the tendency of media to act as her propaganda organ. These are third world events, not first one ones.

We are now at a point of what Guillaume Faye calls a “convergence of catastrophes.” This refers to what happens when 227 years of bad politics and seventy years of extremely bad Leftist rule drive a civilization, like Western Civilization, to the point of collapse. Ecopocalypse hovers on the horizon, either from environmental crash or the rising amount of environmental pollution that will eventually render the planet inhospitable. The economy is not just crashing, but leaves behind record debt and devastated industries destroyed by globalism. Political instability is at an all-time high. Leftism will leave us in a cloud of shame, again, as the destroyer of all that is good, based on an idea — equality — that was really popular because it sounded good. Appearance is not reality.

In addition, modern life is hell. Cities are designed around retreat to the home and blocking out of life around us. Jobs are tedious and pointless, usually achieving nothing but make-work and titles to peacock around with. The consummate ugliness of our architecture, graffiti, urban decay and product-oriented lifestyle is repellent. Social groups are warzones between races, ethnic groups, social classes and political factions. We are surrounded by “null culture,” or music, art and literature advertising fatalism and self-indulgence without any glimpse of what is real, beautiful or accurate.

People are asking how we got to this point. The answer is that we got conned, but as every good con man knows, the person who is conned is a collaborator in the deception because of his desires and fears. In our case, the desire to be important and to have our intent — not our will, because that would be unequal — render unto reality has made us egomaniacs, and our fear of being not equal enough has made us into nasty, squabbling people who treat everything like a negotiation at a bazaar.

How did it all come down to this?

The answer is that civilization is a deviation from the balance of nature, and unless that is compensated for, civilization quickly self destructs. The most intelligent civilizations seem to rise the fastest and fall the hardest. This points toward a disparity between what humans think they should do, and what they actually should do. The problem lies in human intent.

Intent defines our lives. We seek to adapt to our world and put plans in motion toward that end. Those plans are based on what we know of the world, plus a hypothesis about what will achieve the results we intend. The question arises then whether those results are actually the results we need. Our brains like nice, orderly, equality-based structures where each part is divisible and replaceable, where nature prefers complex tiered orders of inter-related balances based on inequality, with each part serving a different role in the organic method.

In designing human society, this leads us toward the idea of the one-step solution. If there are too many people, put them in apartments in big cities for convenience. If people are displeased, make them equal. If the group fragments, implement an ideology to keep the team together. If some do not fit in, beat them down until they do; if some fall behind, subsidize them. If it is too large to know who is good, implement proxies — tests, certifications, schools, laws, middle management — to choose the ones who can implement the goal.

The root of this failure is control. Control occurs when humans micromanage by deciding that instead of having unequal people working in parallel toward a goal, they want to specify that goal and force it to be applied exactly as they intend. It is a mark of bad leadership, and also of a situation where there are too many fools to be trusted with their own work. There is a path to power in organizing all of the fools together and telling them exactly what to do like equal interchangeable cogs, and this is the order that overwhelms all civilizations.

At the right level of zoom, humans and yeast become nearly indistinguishable in this regard. They encounter an opportunity, multiply beyond carrying capacity, and then die out. The civilization of the future is the one that solves this problem.

Amerika is a blog for hard truths, which is why it is not as popular as the blogs from the easy answers crowd, which takes infinite forms and so can come from any orientation, outlook, ideology, discipline or perspective. As such, the texts on Amerika appear to be absurdly effete, stating plain observations without the usual emotional agitation and calls for extreme action; then again, the blogs that succumb to those tendencies are either from the easy answers crowd or inevitably assimilated by it as the blog owners attempt to remain relevant and popular.

We now have a mandate for extreme change. Most people have no idea how big the screw-up is. Leftism, and its final stage globalism, have left a ruin of the first world and made its citizens so existentially miserable that they are refusing to reproduce and in many cases, refusing to leave the house. Globalism has collapsed just like the previous Leftist scheme, world Communism, has. Like the Soviet Union, it has fallen apart in a shambles of the failure of its own policies. It has no one to blame, and people are struggling out of their democratic stupor to reach this realization.

That leaves humanity with a long trail of failed Systems. National Socialism failed, Communism failed, and now it seems like liberal democracy and its socialistic understructure has failed, leaving us wondering what could possibly come next. This gives us a hint: not a System.

Systems rely on the modern notion of the mass. A mass is formed of equal people who have no hierarchy but are ruled by government. They act in self-interest disconnected from its effects on civilization or nature, a condition called individualism around here.

This mass motion acts according to human social rules, meaning that it is based on appearance and including all others in order to keep the group together. This is the basis of the universalist values that since the Enlightenment™ have formed the basis of Western political thinking. This is not unique to the modern West; universalist values arise any time a society has lost purpose, and instead of finding one, chooses control as a means to keep itself together.

Whenever people are grouped together in a mass, or group without internal hierarchy, and herded through mass motion, a System results. This contrasts the hierarchical and tiered orders of nature in which each type of thing has a role and fulfills that activity alone, relying on the combined actions of all parts in balance to produce the stability of the order.

In order for a System to work, it must create a consensual hallucination of an objective space in which symbols are actuality. We reference this space any time we say “science proves it” or “it is recognized that” in reference to an idea. The space of ideas, in a universalist system, is assumed to be shared equally among all people and therefore, people react to ideas as if they were programming distributed through a computer network.

From this come the pitfalls of civilization: the cities where people are anonymous, the accumulation of broken people and deleterious mutations, the loss of any culture or idea which cannot be spread universally, which requires it to be very simple and based on the archetype of the idea of universalism itself. These ideas flow from the basic assumption of egalitarianism which arises when a civilization becomes prosperous enough to lose its implicit goal of establishing itself against the restrictions of nature and lack of knowledge of the world, and become the toxin that destroys it.

Civilization is a trap. We go in expecting to make things better, but by improving our lot, we create a path to fatality. When civilization goes, all that we have contributed is lost. In the process, civilization forms its own sort of Darwinism that selects not for the smartest and strongest, but for the least offensive. It turns Vikings into pajama boys. It takes a thriving people, and leaves behind a stupider, more docile version, as if they were domesticated animals.

What can be done? This task seems hopeless. And yet, as the good book says, our suffering is what makes us know who we are; it is a gift from God (this is not of much comfort during the suffering, however). This is a challenge which demands our best of intellect and heart, and charges us to rise above the malaise and sloth into which we have fallen.

Instead of relying on Systems, we can move toward a traditional civilization. This will include, in addition to the “big theory” four pillars, the following methods:

  • Anti-Formalism. Instead of rules and laws, depend on people. That is: put your best people in power, and let them learn what life is, organically. This means a lack of uniformity, which offends our minds and pretense, but a breeding ground for people of more complex understanding.

  • Localism. Big, anonymous cities are death. Small cities and towns provide places where each person knows everyone else. This encourages decisions based not in the moment, but upon what someone has done with their life. Anonymity destroys trust.

  • Anti-Control. Control seeks to rule details from a centralized place of abstraction; traditional societies allow a cascade of authorities, from the highest to lowest, with each one managing only its domain.

  • Hierarchy. This has two parts: first, we elevate our best people — morally, intellectually, by character — to positions of authority, so that they may oppress the rest, as a binary option to the inverse, where the rest oppress the best. Second, we allow Darwinistic competition, including in free markets, to fill in where authority is not needed.

  • Incompleteness. The societies that thrive are those which preserve an internal dialogue and combat between extremes. This reinforces the reasons why for positions, instead of merely repeating thing, and strengthens them by testing.

  • Darwinism. In every society, some will arise who are either chronically negative or without any direction. Natural selection demands these be exiled, along with any defectives, for the greater strength of those who remain. Nature is cruel; so must we be.

Civilization creates proxies, or intermediates which can be gamed by the unscrupulous, wherever it is afraid to directly confront the question of hierarchy. It works best when administered by culture, not government, and kept focused on ongoing and unattainable goals like excellence. These things seem contrary to the very idea of civilization itself in appearance, and so they are rejected universally, despite being salvation.

As we approach the doom of this particular instance of civilization, it will cheer us to know that many civilizations have died before. This one is no different. We chose a wrong path, and now it is time to find a better one. As we discover it, we can let go of the past like memories of a fever, and instead aspire to the greatness to come.

1 — William Ralph Inge, “The Idea of Progress”, Romanes Lecture (27 May 1920), reprinted in Outspoken Essays: Second Series (1922).

On “Promiscuous Altruism”

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

From an in-depth look at runaway universalism:

In most societies across the world (i.e., clannish ones), there are weak and highly conditional attitudes towards reciprocity. The primary targets of altruism are kin. Prosociality is maintained through various forms of social honor and shame or at worst, fear of reprisal from the aggrieved or by the state. Dealings between non-kin typically take place warily and with many measures to ensure honesty by all participants. Trust is very low and is not given freely.

By contrast, NW Europeans have evolved a sense of reciprocal altruism and can deal much more readily with non-related individuals. Trust is extended. The other party is presumed to act honestly. Indeed, favors will be extended to others because the recipient may one day return the favor (or at the very least, the helping individual may earn a reputation for generosity that may parlay into favors from others).

…Having a sense of reciprocal altruism (which actively seeks targets with which to trade favors) – along with a suite of other traits that co-evolved with this (such as a sense of fairness and a belief in the equality of all in-group members) – there is little to prevent extending the (soft) cognitive barrier those presently in an outgroup when new information serves to humanize this outgroup (by appealing to affective empathy). And since no outgroup is really any different from any other (being effectively equally unrelated), there’s nothing to stop this process from repeating once new outgroups become humanized. Runaway universalism was thus inevitable.

Universalism, or the idea that every person is equal and therefore the same methods can be used on all people, seems like it would arise from this reciprocal altruism turned into promiscuous altruism. However, there is an elephant in the room.

All human civilizations so far have gone out after achieving success. With this success came primary factors of Progress, like industry and universalism. Secondary factors like diversity and instability were both symptoms and direct causes of the disintegration.

Universalism arises from socializing. When you hang out with other people, the correct way to make them happy is to emphasize a sense of group togetherness. This requires including all of these people without looking too deeply into their failings. This is why successful societies develop universalism: what we call bourgeois values are in fact commercial values, which are social values, and demand equal inclusion which produces universalism.

From this comes the altruism we see, because altruism is a virtue signal for universalism.

Not to ruin an excellent analysis by Jayman, but if we look at the psychology involved, we can see he has the causality backward. The societies that succeed adopt a commercial/social mentality and it is what kills them. As we are starting to see, Progress and formalization are a death-trap, and these arise from the same impulse.

Unsurprisingly it also brings altruistic universalism that pervasively infiltrates our minds, starting with the smartest. This explains why civilizations succeed and then self-destruct, not the other way around.

Particularity and Equilibrium

Thursday, June 16th, 2016


It should inform us of where we are in history right now that support for capitalism is viewed as sign of a bad character. After all, capitalism is what built this modern world; then again — and they lack the boldness to say this — most people hate the modern world, yet cannot articulate that or why, or better what they would prefer instead.

As with many things, I take a nuanced position on capitalism. Socialism is clearly adding sewage to milk, in that you might not notice a small amount but it sickens you slowly from within, so I could never support that. But on the other hand, I do not see capitalism alone as a solution, which is why the larger category that encloses it — positive reward systems — is one of the four pillars, but not a plan in itself.

Positive reward systems have two advantages: they are less likely to succumb to exploitation, and they are highly particular.

Exploitation occurs when someone is able to either be a free rider, and do nothing but still be granted a place and sustenance by society — in other words a parasite, or worse, to go from parasite to predator and take from society by injecting something hostile to it in place of a contribution (all Leftists fit this category). Any political system that gives reward before it demands performance is likely to be corrupted, but trying to manage reward through a bureaucracy is miserable also.

The only sensible way is this: provide reward for results without defining what form those results should take; use goals instead. “Stop the flooding!” or “Defend us against the Mongols!” are positive reward systems, but “Construct a 72m dike using eco-friendly materials” and “Produce NATO-compliant 2m longbows” are managed targets. In this way, the goal is highly particular, which means that decisions about what is appropriate are made at the most local level possible, which is closest to where the actual application occurs.

Leftism and other ideological systems work on generality or universality; they create one principle that is applied equally in all situations. The option to this is to be highly particular, or to note that all judgments are situational and all choices are ends over means, because by keeping a goal in mind we allow ourselves to choose what works in that particular combination of events, constraints, people and natural laws instead of trying to smash into it with an abstract but irrelevant principle and then rationalizing the results as “good” because they are symbolically good, not good in result.

Capitalism is highly particular. If I need a new irrigation system, I find someone who can construct it (or do it myself). He then looks at the situation and does what is needed, and exactly what is needed. If government intervenes with standards and regulations, these accelerate entropy by creating inexact responses to the situation at hand, which creates waste and through that, a loss of energy and the production of a contravening force, which is the tendency of waste to make more waste through breakdown. The more we standardize, the less efficient we are, even though it appears that the opposite would be true.

Nature works by this principle. Every mouse must find a way to survive. Those that discover they can eat something new, or a new way to burrow or travel through the underbrush, will succeed more than others if this method works. Thus the particular is communicated back to the abstract, and the mouse species gradually takes on the new discovery as a normal mode of behavior. This is the opposite from declaring a standard and making all mice obey it even when it does not apply, or worse, does not exactly reply, creating a comedic-tragic knee-jerk action of pounding round pegs into square holes.

Particularism allows nature to reach states of equilibrium, which are the opposite of entropy-dominant states. In equilibrium, multiple forces balance each other on a statistical level, meaning that there are minute-by-minute variations but that the system always returns to a sensible medium. This is highly efficient in that it both does not create waste and, by not being static or unchanging, is able to keep the elements held in balance strong by constantly testing them and weeding out any weaknesses discovered.

This is why I incorporate positive reward systems — which necessarily includes capitalism — into the four pillars. Particular methods are essential to adaptation. Universal methods adapt only to the human mind. If we are serious about survival, we will adapt to reality and not our own mental comfort.

The Curse Of Universalism

Thursday, April 14th, 2016


Kenan Malik has an interesting analysis of the diversity situation:

For Johann Gottfried Herder, the German philosopher who best articulated the Romantic notion of culture, what made each people – or “volk” – unique was its particular language, history and modes of living. The unique nature of each volk was expressed through its “volksgeist” – the unchanging spirit of a people refined through history.

…Those ideas became central to racial thinking – the notion of the volksgeist was transformed into the concept of racial make-up – and fuelled the belief that non-Western societies were “backward” because of their “backward” cultures.

Radicals challenging racism and colonialism rejected the Romantic view of culture, adopting instead a universalist perspective. From the struggle against slavery to the anti-colonial movements, the aim not to protect one’s own special culture but to create a more universal culture in which all could participate on equal terms.

You rarely see it spelled out so clearly: in order for non-Western societies to be comfortable, we must create a universal culture, which in turn requires obliterating all unique cultures.

That is the mission of diversity. Its goal is genocide, or destruction of culture and its genetic carrier, ethnic group/race. The Leftists will only be happy when no Western cultures or peoples exist. It would have been easier just to shoot all of us.

In doing so, of course, they’re making the same mistake that later colonialists did. You cannot assume that other groups are the same as you. The tendency is to say, “Well, behaviors can be learned,” and to some degree, that is true. But not to enough of a degree. The hardware is different and its interpretations of the same ideas vary wildly.

And so here we are again in the West, chasing an ancient and illusory dream in the name of the feelings of others. It would be less futile and self-destructive to attempt a second tower of Babel, but even that might not produce the good feelings of “we are all one” and “nothing is different between us but chance.”

Morality Does Not Require God

Tuesday, April 12th, 2016


For some reason, many people of a traditional bent believe they are fighting against “nihilism,” or the denial of innate value and purpose to life.

They view life as having one of two options: either there is a plan which we must all obey, or all choices are optional, and we might as well do whatever.

That notion, as you will see in the forthcoming words, is an artifact of our time and its belief in equality. It is a false dichotomy and a pointless choice.

Here, for example, from someone who should know better, is a clear statement of their fear:

To take one example, if you say there is no God and then turn around and tell me I should not be a racist, or that I should help someone in need, and I say, “why should I?” how do you respond? If we are all evolutionary accidents, why can’t I believe and practice anything I wish?

Let us refresh our historical memories with a short insight from Friedrich Nietzsche:

“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Nietzsche’s point is that God did not die by his own hand, but by ours. We forgot how to value and notice God, and so He passed out of our consciousness.

In other words, choosing God is like everything else, a choice. Before we can make that choice, we must choose to choose, which means we must decide to be good, or that we value good more than its alternatives. Then we can discover what is good and pursue it, but not before we make the conscious election to want good and not any other option.

It is a narrow path, as they say.

It is the same with God. We must choose Him. Otherwise, we continue to live like the other beasts, limited in what they can do. And in fact, many humans have no choice but to be godless as they are unaware of many things. They lack the wiring to understand things more complex than cheeseburgers and the time period until the next paycheck.

We also do not need God for morality. We can choose to be moral the same way.

We need God for an entirely different reason: God is part of reality, and the only sensible answer to many of our questions. Reality without God is incomplete, but reality without being able to speak German is incomplete, too. This is not a binary choice, but an option to optimize our experience.

Pursuit of God is like the pursuit of any other transcendental — such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” — in that these are things above and beyond mere survival, but they enhance life from subsisting to thriving. Thus to those who reach a certain level of understanding, they become essential. This is the philosophy called esotericism.

A human needs food, shelter, and water to survive. Above that, life becomes better, but only when those basics are so well taken care of that the mind can look to other things. This is both Mazlow’s hierarchy and our own evolution. As we became more powerful, we turned to questions that required more power.

But in each individual, evolution is recapitulated: we must develop ourselves to the highest levels we can, and we are limited by what we are given to work with. Someone with an IQ of a hundred has far fewer options than someone with an IQ of 130.

Morality comes from realism. We are here to adapt to this world in all of its complexity and, once we become aware of an option, we must either choose it and rise or remain where we are. There is no Hell, only a knowledge of “what could have been” which is beaten into our heads by time. Foreclosure and regret and strong teachers!

All traditional morality consists of choosing the things that work out better than others. The family, culture, tradition, even religion itself — these things are important to us because like other methods of survival, they work better than the other options.

And yet there is no need to choose them. Not everyone can, and not everyone wants to. The human notion of rationalism — based in the presumed but unproven and illogical belief that all people are “equal,” an algebraic notion applied to a multi-dimensional space — demands that we see God as universal and therefore accessible to all.

But in reality, like understanding The Republic, God is not open to all. God is not a machine or a wonder-drug. God is first and foremost a state we must reach within ourselves to choose God.

There is no equality. Equality is the death of God because it assumes that what is shared between humans, the human form, is perfection and is therefore superior to God’s order a.k.a. reality. Egalitarianism is our arrogance and denial of God, but most insist that it is necessary so that God can be universal instead of optional.

But He is optional, like every other good thing. He is also “racist”: God made the different groups with different abilities, and they serve different roles. Race, too, is not universal. Universalism is the bigotry of humans against the complexity and unknowability (for everyone) of God.

And yet, we must beat back our raging human Ego. What is important is reality, including its transcendental dimensions if we can fire up the inner gumption to seek them out. And with that, we will rediscover God, and he will no longer remain dead.

Recommended Reading