Societies start with autonomous people who can, if dropped in a forest somewhere, start providing food, shelter, water, defense, and entertainment for themselves. However a society becomes a replacement ecosystem and soon, a large number of people arise who could not exist without it.
These people have divergent needs from those of the autonomous people. As society goes on, the pretense of unity requires addressing these needs, at which point the lack of autonomous ability by individuals — by the social morality of guilt for those who are not having a good time — becomes viewed as a problem for society to solve.
From that inevitably comes bureaucracy, or a set of desks manned by faceless public servants to apply rules. The more rules you have, the more you need, because there are always exceptions. Where in nature the autonomous individual had to address these exceptions himself, in society he defers to the powers that be.
The replacement ecosystem of society operates by regulating who gets to succeed on social-moral grounds instead of purely functional ones. Where in nature, the person who feeds themselves survives, in society the person who makes other people feel warm, neutral, and safe gets ahead.
This means that within a few centuries of its founding, any human society drifts away from a realistic view of the world and instead becomes dependent on symbolism and emotional manipulation. What appeals to the group is seen as the best option; that the group might be delusional never occurs to them.
A more canny view of reality tells us that human groups usually are delusional because they focus on what they have in common and what they fear instead of what they would like to achieve, mainly because people fear the risk of standing up and trying to achieve something, since that carries the possibility of failing.
All human groups collapse this way, from rock bands to HOAs through church groups and corporations, all the way up to governments. They take on a committee mentality of compromise and bipartisan unity, then trade away what they need to achieve for the short-term jolt of dopamine that comes when everyone feels safe and comfortable.
Until humanity beats this level of evolution, we will be doomed to self-destruct in the name of good feelings. Everything we do will be like the space shuttle Challenger, a good idea hobbled by committee thinking that then becomes a focus in itself, causing us to deny hints from reality that all may not be well.
Most “liberals” do not really deny what is written above; rather, they choose to strategically ignore it because their main goal is to make people feel better and succeed in the replacement ecosystem. The liberal is the bourgeois; they exist because they want to stay in denial about the decline of society and make profit instead.
In some ways, theirs is a sensible view, evolutionarily speaking. Fool the rest of the idiots into self-destructing while you pile up money and live the good life, and you avoid joining the herd in its delusion for the low cost of only two-thirds of what you earn.
However, like most bad solutions, this partial truth leads down a path that ends in the collapse of civilization. It is easy to make money from idiots, but it also ends in horror as your society collapses. Soon you end up being the wealthiest segment of a third world society where everything sucks and nothing works.
It then becomes a question of who first breaks the taboo on mentioning that society is in decline because most people are non-autonomous, and non-autonomous people are waste humans who in nature would be the ones who keep the wolves busy while the others escape.
At this point, the Bell Curve of intelligence determines a great deal. The three-quarters of the population with the lowest IQs “think” that the current system is great because their minds grasp the world in two-week periods, and they got a new air fryer so everything is peachy.
The remaining quarter realize simultaneously that things are going badly and they will be hard to fix, which means that anyone trying to fix them will face some kind of doom. Therefore, time to truck off to work, pay the taxes, accept the decline, and acquire some interesting hobbies to pass the time before death.
This mentality killed masculinity in the West, because now the prudent thing to do is not masculine but conformist and passive, but also killed conservatives. They have no hope; they see that the arc of history is bent against them and toward slow suicide.
Consequently, conservatives act out through two behaviors: they cope by rationalizing the decay as positive like everyone else, and periodically, they fixate on some symbolic issue that makes them feel a sense of righteous victimhood against the system.
The events of January 6, 2021, will be remembered by history as a predictable riot weaponized into a Reichstag Fire style pretext for government takeover. There was an insurrection, but not the one that the unimind — media, science, politicians, and celebrities — tell us.
The unimind after all is selected only from those who are politically correct. Anyone who is not gets removed, as we see on a regular basis with the cycle of edgy comment, public outrage, fawning apology, and dismissal. They are all rationalizers, or those who want to explain our decline as progress.
Rationalization is the passive mindset of the person trying to establish unity with the non-autonomous and the replacement ecosystem of the perception of safety that they create. Once you accept one lie, you rationalize from that in order to explain your choices as consistent with it, and then you are compromised.
The basic lie in any society involves the replacement ecosystem. In order to have it, we must believe that nature is bad, which leads us to be aggressive toward intelligence, goodness, health, and success itself as well. We become the mob of losers attacking the idea of winners because nature has winners.
Once you accept the replacement ecosystem, you rationalize that it is good and from that, extend the precedent by rationalizing that subsequent developments are also good. Instead of simply saying that life is happiest when all are autonomous, you come up with proxies like freedom, equality, and socialism.
To the unimind, what keeps the system going is the best morality, and since that system is based in egalitarianism, anything that promotes equality is good. That requires tearing down all of those who rise above the mediocre average and replacing them with bureaucracy.
In the view of such people, January 6th was a rebellion against the bureaucracy and equality. For that reason, it must be considered unforgivable and demonized. Conservatives have made their usual mistake by assuming that adopting the opposite of the bureaucracy fights it, when in reality this merely strengthens it.
Consider how history will view this event: two groups wanted mob rule. One wanted mob rule through the diversity and soyboy vote, and the other wanted mob rule by staging a mass protest at the Capitol. The bureaucracy, seeing opportunity, simply relaxed security in order to make this a Reichstag Fire event.
We know that demands to reinforce the Capitol police forces were ignored. We know that FBI informants, including one who planted a non-functional bomb, did their best to fan the flames and incite the crowd. We know that the unimind quickly focused on eliminating future Trump presidencies as its goal and made him the scapegoat.
We also know that the conservative response has been ridiculous and insane. The mainstream conservatives joined forces with the Left — this is never a good sign — to declare that this was an insurrection and a threat to our democracy.
The underground Right fared little better. They sided with the rioters, accepted the insurrection narrative, and are now talking about how they are oppressed by their politicians, with some even posting pictures of guillotines. The French Revolution is the least conservative event in history; how could they support it?
The problem of symbols occurs when the other guy defines the symbol and you embrace the opposite. You have affirmed the symbol, and instead of aiming for a goal, have let him define your goal. Even more, your symbol of being against his symbol portrays you are the devil he claims you are, and misdirects you from what you must do.
Every bugbear of the Right — Negroes, Jews, politicians, corporations, Satan — fits into this model: the Left defined a symbol, and like trained Pavlovian dogs, we stepped into its opposite and then made ourselves into an unfit option to the Left.
Let us inject some brutal realism here.
If you riot at a government building, and either break in and or are let in, you are still trespassing. Even more, you are trespassing as part of a group in a situation where violence took place, so you are going to be assumed to approve of what the group is doing.
If in that government building, you peer through windows into a protected area that have been smashed by rioters, you will potentially be shot by a diversity hire who is more panicky and willing to take advantage of the opportunity for a free kill of someone from an Other tribe.
He will face no criminal prosecution because in the eyes of the law, he was doing his duty by using deadly force to protect the people he was assigned to defend. It does not matter that you were unarmed; he could not see that and know it with 100% certainty. This is why we forgive cops who shoot perps who reach suddenly toward their belts.
What happened to Ashli Babbitt is without doubt a travesty, an injustice, and very sad; she seemed like a nice lady who meant well. However, the real culprits are probably farther away, namely those who with FBI informants engineered a riot into a vandalism party, those who pulled back security, and those who whipped up the rage and chaos.
The Leftist narrative regarding the events of January 6th of course has zero merit; it is a political slur and nothing more. However, to avoid leaping into the position of the anti-symbol to their symbol, we on the Right should look more critically at the events as a whole and stop trying for the martyrs-versus-scapegoats narrative.
No sensible interpretation believes that Trump incited this riot. He had been talking about “fighting like Hell” for years, and he always meant using the methods of government against government itself. Trump is an autonomous human, and so to him the practical solution means using democracy to fix democracy first before we consider extreme methods.
No sensible interpretation holds that January 6th was treated fairly. After all, the country had just recovered from two years of race riots and anarchist vandalism as Black Lives Matter and Antifa burned their way across the country, leaving economic dead zones in which mostly Black people face a new ugly side of poverty.
No sensible interpretation will leave out the role of government informants, FBI manipulation of social media, the Clinton machine inventing false RussiaGate narratives, Obama spying on the Trump campaign, the abuse of Patriot Act powers revealed by Wikileaks, or the holding back of Capitol police. This was an engineered riot.
It is time for conservatives to finally grow up and stop reacting to whatever image the Left shows us. We stand for the autonomous people and a civilization that promotes the best instead of trying to subsidize the rest. And yet if you state anti-egalitarianism, most conservatives will attack you.
Most of them live in a state of cope and outrage. They defend the Leftism system of equality because they do not believe they can change it, then scream and throw fruit at its excesses. To them, conservatism means Christianity and libertarianism, and they oppose any who want to go further.
If we are to get anywhere in opposing the decline of our civilization, our task first starts in reforming conservatives to actually advocate for conservatism, including hierarchy, culture, and therefore, rejection of egalitarianism and its many branches like diversity, feminism, and socialism.
Until we get to that point, we are simply playing Whack-a-Mole with the symbols the Left offers us and therefore conveniently affirming their narrative while misdirecting ourselves from our actual goal. That path leads to lots of righteous anger and moral posturing, but not to victory, or change at all.