People often talk of “human nature” but no one can define this beast. Most likely, any intelligent and autonomous creatures would encounter the same problems we do, one of the biggest facets of which is our tendency to adopt conjecture as wisdom until it seems to fail us.
This leads to two types of failures: first, we do things wrong for centuries until someone points out a better way, and second, if a failure occurs, we toss out good methods that failed for unrelated reasons, and then resume our conjectural, solipsistic “wisdom.”
In the classic study of survivorship bias, which is the first failure, planes returning from combat missions in WW2 were observed to have bullet holes in certain areas, and management wanted to armor those. However this missed the fact that the planes which had not returned had been shot in other areas.
In other words, they were doing things wrong because no one had pointed out the fallacy: the planes you want to study are the ones that did not make it back, but we will not have access to those, so instead people focus on what they know even if it is unrepresentative.
The second failure came about in the Vietnam conflict when a bombing campaign was going frightfully well, so much that the enemy was near collapse. However, it had not stopped the flow of supplies; the enemy had simply placed all of his resources in getting supplies across even as other infrastructure withered.
Frustrated at the continuing flow, high command stopped the bombing campaign, allowing the enemy to rebuild his infrastructure and therefore produce more supplies to offset previous losses. A successful policy had been reversed because of one loss in the longer Vietnam conflict.
This shows us the second type of error where by our preference for the tangible, we reject successful policies because of one instance of failure, negating the many times that they did work. Pain outweighs pleasure, so we panic at one failure but blink repeatedly at constant failure.
In the same way, first-world society has been sleepwalking into a long slow decline while rejecting all of the things that made it great. A single instance of outrage causes us to drop success; a constant background hum of failure gets no notice.
We might say that humans suffer from inertia based on what causes us pain.
Our current dilemma seems to involve free speech. It caused tangible pain, so most of our society currently wants to throw it out in order to keep the ongoing failure afloat for just a few more years. Maybe they all want to retire to Florida and make the problem something someone else must fix.
As the ruins of Western Civilization come to face our current dilemma, we see that a conflict between individual choice and forced tolerance: the citizen either has the ability to choose allegiance to the pluralistic program, or is forced to go along with it in the name of freedom of choice.
In other words, the group wants to force tolerance of the group on the individual, while many individuals want to choose what they accept as legitimate and good, and the tension between these two has been resolved mostly by ignoring the big problem while dropping previously successful ideas at a single clash.
The most recent example of this can be seen in the apparently pathological need to force people to bake cakes for those whose behaviors they do not accept:
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the refusal by Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop to make a cake requested by Autumn Scardina did not constitute free speech. The court also found it was illegal to refuse to provide services to people based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation.
The cake shop initially agree to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained it was going to be used to celebrate her transition from male to female, the court found.
Phillips said the cakes he makes are a form of free speech and plans to appeal the ruling.
The baker here is making a point by saying that forced tolerance equals the loss of choice, which forces conformity on us all in order to perpetuate failing ideas.
Pluralism — the idea that instead of choosing standards or direction, we let everyone have their own — inverts once it is seen as a good thing in itself, and not a method toward human thriving. At that point, pluralism becomes defensive and forces itself on the exceptions.
Simple pluralism can be seen in your neighborhood. Some water with sprinklers, others with in-ground systems, and still others basically spray a hose around while drinking sugary beer on the weekends. Should your HOA force everyone to use one method?
The pluralist answer is of course not; you let each person do what works for them. However, this leads to a wide variety in lawns. Some will be lush and green, and some will be ratty and sparse with lots of tan soil showing. The human desire for uniformity rises when an ugly exception is seen.
In the same way, right now our inertia rewards going with the flow. Everyone else seems to get along, why is this one guy standing out? Just bake the cake, take the cash, and move on. We see him as the exception, but the question is whether our society is the exception and the rule is about to kick in.
After all, humanity can survive just fine without LGBT+ people; they are not biologically necessary. Similarly, in nature the disabled, retarded, and insane tend to perish. They are a small slice of the population and can disappear without consequences.
Survivorship bias says that among those for whom the system is working, baking the gay cake seems to be perfectly normal. At least, they have not complained, therefore in a utilitarian calculus, the policy seems to work. Any deviation is punished. Even more, it is seen as an act of rebellion.
When an absolute standard like pluralism is adopted, the non-pluralistic must be punished, even if they are only asking for personal exceptions, because any exception invalidates the concept of pluralism. Thus, in the name of “freedom,” freedom must perish.
This comes about because we confuse causes and effects. In this case, the cause is what is functional and produces function; the effect is the methods we use to mediate that cause. Our society was basically working, but then we grafted pluralism on top of it to avoid conflict (second type of failure).
When we confuse cause and effect, such as seeing pluralism as the source of our prosperity instead of a program we grafted onto that source, the effect becomes mistaken for the cause, but because it is not a cause in itself, it is fragile and therefore dogma is invented to defend it.
If pluralism leads to better outcomes, that should be apparent at all times.
The tendency of thinking beings to prioritize the tangible — that which they feel they can control in their minds, at least as concept — over the intangible results in a pathology of whack-a-mole. We look for deviations and exceptions and swat them down, instead of re-assessing the utility of what we do.
Prioritizing the tangible leads to an obsession with pacifism, or removing “conflicts.” This creates the survivorship bias discussed above: when you categorize errors as deviations, you filter them out, and this allows you to continue thinking that the system is working when it is the source of those errors.
Our pluralistic free society has become tyrannical because it is obsessed with beating down these deviations such as people who do not want to bake gay cakes, recognize that diversity has failed, see that socialism destroys quality, or distrust bureaucracy as the universal method for civilization.
This shows us the problem of human groups, yet again. By favoring the tangible since it appeals to every member of the group, the group removes any noticing of the failures of its inertia, and therefore basically goes insane in a desire to keep itself together.
We see this problem most on committees (note: bureaucracy is composed of committees). The cause is the ostensible goal of the committee, but the effect is achieving a winning vote, so soon people address what they think they can get past others, not what needs to be done.
In this way every human society goes insane. It ignores the big issues, like the complex and intangible tangle of policies that produce the status quo. Instead, it focuses on details and amplifies them into goals in themselves, beating down exceptions and fighting small battles, ignoring the whole.
Pluralism inverts itself through this process, becoming a goal or cause in itself instead of a means to achieving that goal or an effect. At that point, egalitarianism morphs into racial egalitarianism or diversity:
In 1965, Congress overhauled the nation’s immigration policy by radically reducing immigration restrictions from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The Pew Research Center estimates that without the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, the American population in 2015 would have been only 252 million. In other words, the Hart Celler Act introduced 72 million more people into the country in the 50 years after its passage. Those 72 million new Americans overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party.
Encouraging mass immigration from countries with radically distinct cultures from our own was a mistake. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia, large communities of immigrants “will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.”
Without mass immigration, the Democratic Party could not electorally sustain its wild leftward turn. Immigration therefore is the single most important issue facing America. A nation is indistinguishable from the people who inhabit it. They are the raw material out of which lawgivers create regimes. Mass immigration radically transformed the American people and thereby radically changed the political possibilities available.
WW2 dovetailed with the original American mythos, its rewriting during the Civil War, and the futuristic world federalist Communist society that intellectuals since the 1920s had believed was inevitable. In other words, Leftism went further once it beat all of its opposition.
As the Soviet Union began to fail, Leftists turned on it for being a weak form of Leftism, not a strong one like the indirect soft tyranny of the West, which by its nature of not presenting hard targets guaranteed that it would rule in perpetuity.
As part of this WW2-era mythos, the American and Western European states re-wrote themselves into being the anti-Hitler. If he was “racist,” we were diverse; if he was nationalist, we were internationalist; if he liked hierarchy, we wanted absolute equality.
In this way, the French Revolution and American Revolution merged into one and Leftism took on its final form: a hybrid of capitalism and socialism that, in order to fund socialism, turned capitalism into a vicious margin-expanding and rent-seeking force that would steal all prosperity.
After the adoption of income tax in 1913, the social programs of the 1930s, and the war expenditures, it became clear that government would need more money to afford these things. Its solution was a Keynesian circular Ponzi scheme that imported cheap labor, dumped money on it, and taxed the output.
This conveyed the West into what we might call The Third World System, in which rich warlords own everything but give out frequent “gifts” to those who are loyal, essentially buying the compliance of society year after year and punishing anyone who defects against the idea of everyone being equal.
Diversity simply intensifies this crisis by occupying the population with constant race war, vengeance, victimhood, and retaliation. The warlords gain the assumption of legitimacy through democracy, but cruise through on the votes of the diversity much as Tammany Hall did on the Irish vote.
In other words, diversity leads to the type of Communist-like system which empowers organized crime, reduces quality, raises costs, and makes everyone equally poor and meaningless, over time destroying them genetically. The remains of great empires are all third-world wastelands today.
Warlords love diversity because for a warlord to rule, the society must be weak, which requires that the warlord suppress any successful patterns of civilization like ethnocentricism which can only thrive in the absence of diversity:
The fact that traitorous and selfish genotypes perform just as badly against humanitarians as they do against ethnocentrics, and the lack of any mediation effect of free-riding contradict the alternative mediation hypothesis that only ethnocentrics out-compete selfish free-riders. Although ethnocentrics can exploit selfish agents in neighboring clusters, the self-limiting properties of defection against the free-riders’ own gene pool tend to diminish this advantage. Under many conditions, there are not enough free-riders to allow this potential ethnocentric advantage to be widely used. Notice that the dominance of ethnocentrism over humanitarianism, and the marginalization of selfish and traitorous strategies, can be explained purely via individual selection, without recourse to group-selection mechanisms.
The free rider problem refers to people who consume but do not contribute enough, and Communism is a legitimization of free ridership. If a warlord can make free riders in an ethnically consistent society, he can weaken it and quickly bring in diversity to finish it off.
He sneaks in the diversity as usual by appealing to individualism, specifically the desire for low-risk high-reward business in the me-first individualist. First the diversity appear as labor, next as equals, and finally as the preferred actors for the state.
Warlords must suppress ethnocentricism because a healthy society will develop a healthy culture and push back against parasites. It does not need the warlords or their free gifts; it needs quality leaders because a healthy society is naturally productive and creative.
Ironically, the diversity agenda proves to be abusive to all participants, least of all the imported diversity who form a new serf class below the middle classes who exploit them:
Johnson finds particular significance in a letter Burroughs wrote to Ginsberg in 1948 railing against the criminality of “respectable” farmwork: “We farmers in the Rio Grande Valley depend entirely on Mexican laborers who enter the country illegally with our aid and connivance. The ‘civil liberties’ of these workers are violated repeatedly. They are often kept on the job at the point of gun . . . Workers who try to leave the field are shot. (I know of several instances.) In short my ethical position, now that I am a respectable farmer, is probably shakier than when I was pushing junk. Now, as then, I violate the law, but my present violations are condoned by a corrupt government.”
We find out again that the problem of pluralism is that of inversion itself: when you define something by what it is not, you end up with the same thing again just going in a different direction, a plague which affects the modern Left as much as it did National Socialists or the French Revolution, which ejected the kings only to get Napoleon and his Empire.
Right now, our pluralism has inverted itself so far that it is in open conflict against free speech, free choice, free association, and freedom of contract, all of which are implicated in the gay cake debacle. These things were prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Almost no Americans know this, and if any Europeans know, they keep it to themselves. The Fourteenth Amendment inverted the original idea of “freedom”: instead of freedom from control, the phrase “equal protection of the laws” meant that control invaded everything in the name of preserving “freedom.”
We find that modernity is filled with inverted things because the original idea of modernity was not creative and positive but negative and destructive: the middle classes hated the kings, so they needed a reason to justify removing them, and came up with “muh freedom.”
However, that method became a goal in itself, and at that point the “inverse 180 degree rule” applied, which meant that instead of “liberating” us from the past, the freedom agenda simply replicated the past without the goals that the past had, like making a good and excellent civilization.
Since then, our society has been at war with any health, intelligence, sanity, or strength that it can find because those are competitors for its absolute rule, which it justifies as pluralism, freedom, equality, and other negative goals or anti-goals that have no direction in themselves.
An anti-goal always consists of an effect made into a cause, and it always fails because these are theoretical and conjectural exercises not based in how reality works, therefore they are sensitive to criticism and competition and work ruthlessly to eliminated those, gutting the society in the process.
The latest gay cake case was decided on a 14A basis, citing a compelling government basis to achieve “equal protection of the laws” as cited in other cases, curiously not cited directly in an attempt to work around the collision between the equality of being forced to bake a cake for something repellent and the equality of being entitled to force others to bake such a cake:
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the state has a legitimate, indeed compelling, interest in eliminating discrimination from public accommodations. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 41 U.S. 574, 604 (1983) (government has compelling interest in eliminating racism from private education); Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 549 (1987) (government has compelling interest in eliminating gender discrimination in places of public accommodation); see also 303 Creative, 6 F.4th at 1190 (Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting same-sex couples from discrimination).
Government gained the power of acting wherever it found discrimination through the 14A, and consequently this amendment proves quite popular and has spawned all of our civil rights law, since this gives government enough emotional leverage to allow it to justify moving toward the Third World System.
Conservatives both public and underground have shown a remarkable unwillingness to target the 14A because they realize that it is the basis of our current government. If it goes, the modern state unravels, diversity dies, and pluralism will be rebuked.
This shows us the seductive power of egalitarianism. If we are equal as plaintiffs, we must be equal as voters; if we are equal as voters, we must be equal across racial and sexual lines. This by precedent naturally leads to the current insanity where normalcy is punished.
Democracy always inverts itself because it mistakes the system for the cause of our prosperity, when in fact the cause of our prosperity is our acting in accord with nature. Now that the arc of history has gone from rising to falling, we have nowhere to go but down under the doctrine of equality.