Humans encountered a new set of challenges when we adopted permanent civilization. Instead of flexible groups where the like-minded formed their own traveling societies, people were obligated to deal with one another.
This brought about a new human technology: manipulation in order to motivate other people to do what needed to be done. To get the work done, you had to convince others that it was in their best interests to do it.
Some societies escaped this for a time. When there were actual struggles with nature or enemies, groups found themselves motivated by mutual survival. As soon as things got good, however, motivation began to fade away.
Unfortunately for these societies, when things got good, they also experienced a population bloom. It became easier to live and therefore, people took no risks and demonstrated no competence except obedience, but were able to reproduce.
The root of civilization failure came about when societies were unwilling to send away people who were not self-motivating. Instead, it tried to motivate them with carrot and stick, usually paychecks and poverty respectively.
The death of meaning began at this point. Instead of working toward a goal, people were working toward placating authority, and therefore did exactly what they were told to do as method instead of staying focused on the goal.
From that came a series of attempts to make people start acting out the “spirit” of their goal versus the verbal definition of their role, and out of this came bureaucracy, or an attempt to scientifically manage human motivation.
Any notion of civilization as a good thing was replaced at this point by a feeling of victimization on the part of those who needed to be motivated. Even worse, a new class of people arose who made a living selling products to the unmotivated.
Two political methods arose from this. The authoritarians wanted to use the stick first and then the carrot, and the humanists wanted to use the carrot first but keep the stick close at hand.
Both of these backfired in spectacular ways. The stick-first approach created feelings of victimhood even when not present, and the carrot-first allowed people to do the minimum and pass the cost on to society.
Had society decided to simply send away the amotivated, it could have preserved itself, but deporting the weaker created the same feelings of victimization as stick-first methods.
Consequently civilization changed from people working together toward a common goal to people obeying the rules, trying to get as much of the carrot as possible and avoid the stick by technically staying within bounds.
By this point, the unmotivated could simply attend jobs and either do the minimum or act aggressively for their own interests at the expense of their goals and the group.
That process inverted civilization. The goal, certain results in reality, had been replaced by the symbol formed of the visible act of conforming to the demand that job-employees used certain methods.
You did what you were told, instead of what needed to be done. As this failed, society scaled back its expectations and focused on conformity, obedience, and non-threatening behavior instead of achieving results in reality.
That created the primal rationalization. Instead of thinking forward toward results, people thought backward toward how to justify, excuse, and explain their behavior as falling within the limits of the rules.
People found themselves no longer working together toward a goal, but working to keep society together against an onslaught of outsiders, mid-IQ narcissists working aggressively for their own interest at the expense of others, and low-IQ unmotivated people who simply wanted to do the minimum and get by.
Initially societies kept this behavior in check by rewarding the good. If you achieved results, you were rewarded. A market had arisen however for justifications of universal brotherhood, which meant accepting the unmotivated as well as the motivated.
To address this market, religions and humanism proclaimed the equality of all people and hid at its heart what they feared — the exile or removal of the unmotivated — so that a sense of unity could be achieved.
Naturally this produced a neurotic, dishonest, and manipulative society. It gave rise to Control, or the tendency to viciously subdue others using authority so that they use the prescribed methods so that they maintain a mental state of unity.
This produced our first goodthinkers or those who, using rationalization, would accept whatever went wrong but find a way to argue that it was good because it had not disrupted the egalitarian commandment to include all people.
Liberals, or those who wanted to make social standards more permissive so that more people could be included, quickly rose in importance because they preserved the sense of unity. Their ideas made people feel good because they were safe from critique as long as they followed the rule to the letter and ignored the spirit.
Meaning decayed further at this point. A thought that moves from goal to selecting the right action has dimension; categorical thinking, or selecting what is approved and rejecting what is not, has no such foresight into the future or awareness of anything but the act of conformity.
Thinking of this nature eventually infected our language, imagery, and stories so that what was considered “good” meant first not criticizing anyone else for being amotivated, and secondarily doing something useful.
At this point we saw the triumph of social influences and peer pressure over meaning. In any group, most people want to be accepted but are uncertain that they would be based on their productive actions alone, so they demand tolerance.
This allows groups in the name of tolerance to wield the authoritarian stick, demanding first that people conform to the method of tolerance, and only secondarily that they do anything creative, productive, or excellent.
Bully groups of this nature used a simple method to maintain dominance, namely driving out anyone who was not part of their group. They created a tolerant society by destroying anyone who knew better or saw the flaws in their plan.
At that point, society began to favor the weak — amotivated, incapable, incompetent, uncreative, illogical, unrealistic — by punishing or destroying the strong, who were able to produce without requiring external motivation.
Like social media, society became a loser nexus that drove away the strong in order to curate the weak. Every year things got worse, but it happened so slowly that the stronger did not notice the rise of the weaker.
In this way, every civilization dies unless it has both prongs of a eugenics component, namely both ensuring that the productive, creative, and good always get rewarded and removing the amotivated, oblivious, and bad.
This group wants to continue the policy of Control, or regulating the mental state of society by prohibiting any actions which are too realistic, since those favor the strong. It pursues illusion; this is the root of human self-destructiveness.
When you have too many rules, you punish the creative (ends-over-means) and keep the obedient (means-over-ends). That leads to structure of the third world, which is strong authority gatekeeping the carrots and making society so degraded that normal life is the stick. You want to rise because the misery is so profound.
Ironically, this means that tyranny arises from measures taken against authoritarianism. Stick-first methods keep order, but carrot-first methods bleed away productivity until equal misery compels people to live in fear of the stick.
As this process accelerates, so does the goodthinker mentality. Goodthinkers rationalize society as good because it is egalitarian, accepting the weak/bad as well as the strong/good.
Goodthinkers will use every object or idea in their possession to keep justifying egalitarianism, and because society is steadily becoming more egalitarian, will explain away its dysfunction and failure as in fact function and triumph.
If you notice that people in society at every level seem to be repeating the same dogma, reflect that perhaps you are seeing a market. Society rewards goodthink; it punishes deviation, or failure to rationalize from the precedent of a viral pathology of equality.
This conformity makes us think that perhaps some hidden hand, the Illuminati or Freemasons or “ZOG,” manipulates us, but in fact the Cathedral is simply conformity to peer pressure that is happening in parallel because of a centralized symbol of what is “good” made to equal “equality”:
In Yarvin’s worldview, what keeps American democracy running today is not elections but illusions projected by a set of institutions, including the press and universities, that work in tandem with the federal bureaucracy in a complex he calls the Cathedral. “The mystery of the Cathedral,” Yarvin writes, “is that all the modern world’s legitimate and prestigious intellectual institutions, even though they have no central organizational connection, behave in many ways as if they were a single organizational structure.”
Imagine advocating some pointless and destructive behavior like dynamiting squirrels in front of preschools. You would soon find that you had no friends, no one would hire you, no one would date you, and no one would rent to you.
That is social control, and that is the essence of the Cathedral which is not a tangible thing as Yarvin seems to argue, but merely social conformity by independent market actors (i.e. citizens) trying to demand their slice of the carrot.
Identifying the Cathedral externally serves one goal well: it perpetuates the Cathedral by allowing to assume that by not joining in official goodthink, we can remain goodthinkers with just a few edgy comments to make.
However, conservatives have spent the past few decades doing anything but admitting that the goodthink is within, and it is united not by Satan or Leftism, but by a desire for social conformity that rationalizes civilization decay as “good.”
Conservatives will fail pursuing this strategy. They will take power but then, having failed to purge goodthink — rationalization — from their minds, will re-create the same problem they were elected to fix.
At that point, they will get voted out and the crisis will resume.
No civilization can survive unless it can expel people. It must be able to exile, repatriate, relocate, or remove individuals who require external motivation, since such people are either a net drain on resources because they must be babysat, or are vicious narcissistic sociopaths who steal everything they can find.
On one hand you have George Floyd, and on the other, Hunter Biden. These are incompatible with functional society.
To bail out our civilization, we need to establish above all else the rule that only those who independently achieve their part of the goal will be rewarded. We cannot rely on means-over-ends logic like telling people what methods to use.
This would emulate both the American frontier and medieval Europe. You get told to grow the grain, fight the enemy, rule the local area, or make the tools needed for those, but you do it by your own methods.
From that approach a vastly diverse society appears since in every area, people are doing things as they see fit, and the ones who succeed rise, so they take it seriously. The stick returns to be nature and reality themselves.
Centralization is the opposite of this process since it relies on getting everyone to use the same methods in order to control them in order to regulate their mental state so the carrot-and-stick order continues.
We cannot externally motivate people. Some desire good, and a sane society will reward them and remove those who cannot motivate themselves. Eugenics is the prince of all sciences.
On this site, our writers often discuss dark organizations, or the groups within groups that arise to take advantage of the group. Dark organizations are exclusively created by formalization, or method-based control.
Currently most portray our struggle as “elites” versus masses, and while there is some truth to this, the bigger picture involves the goodthinkers enforcing a Cathedral on humanity in order to avoid doing the one thing that will stop our self-destruction.
Humanity remains enmeshed in conflict against our own tendency toward manipulation, with those who do not require manipulation seeing advantages of a realistic approach instead even if it preserves the natural selection that many fear.
Our species never succeeded in dominating nature. We treated it like a Cathedral and subdued it, forgetting that nature is not a thing but an order of patterns, and then the dark patterns that rose in us dominated us and we began our decline.