Furthest Right



No one worries about the collapse of lower-IQ societies. Such societies exist at a subsistence level, so that catastrophes are actually not much of a threat to the society as a whole, and successes are so mild that they destabilize nothing.

These societies are the most individualistic on earth. The individual is encumbered by obedience to nothing but himself. He has his hut, his bush meat and back garden, and he eats, sleeps and fornicates when he wants. Any rules are simple and worked around with bribes or gifts that perform like bribes.

With higher IQ societies, there is the possibility of failure because the network of ideas and institutions upon which they rest is more developed and thus more fragile.

In fact, higher IQ societies seem to be prone to collapse, following a quick rise and extensive development. They burn out quickly because they are unstable, like a chemical reaction of an explosive nature. As if suffering from the same malady as their people, they become neurotic, or unable to ascertain the cause of any result they see, and so they venture into the nonsense secular mysticism of misunderstanding the reasons why things are as they are.

What kills them is the loss of direction. They start to focus on who is already there, and make all things a means to the end of those people, instead of realizing that all material things are the means to an end of ideas. Such as the transcendentals: the good, the excellent, and the true.

Now, the zombie Leftists in the audience ask, why could this not apply to an idea like Leftism? The answer is that Leftism is not an idea in the sense of a goal, but an anti-goal: it is based in equality, or using all things as a means to the end of those people, rewarding them with equality so that no individual — and these seemingly collectivist movements are individualistic at heart — is challenged to achieve something, or behave according to social standards, before he or she is accepted by society.

Ah, and there is the rub. The idea that is not an idea; the goal that is not a goal. Instead of having a goal, we just sit down at the table and serve ourselves a heaping helping of the seed corn, instead of planting for next season, or as sane people do, the season ten thousand years hence, because if life is good you want it to last that way forever, or as close as it can get.

Implicit in that is fatalism, or the belief that there can be no hope. This arises whenever there are too many fools to get anything done. When there are enough fools, they all gather up into a group, and freak out whenever someone proposes something realistic, and only shut up when the usual illusions are brought out to great applause. At that point, civilization cannot be saved, nor can anything realistic get done, so realistic/intelligent people become marginalized.

If anything, this suggests a Darwinistic nature to civilization: it either exterminates its fools, or it is exterminated by them.

Civilizations die when they lose purpose and it is replaced by a panoply of conflicting directions. This creates a type of background hum where the managerial overhead of thinking becomes awash in many different options, like a type of mental entropy.

When that background hum takes over, it means that the lowest common denominator — an intersectionality of convenience — will always prevail: this rewards the behavior typical to committees, corporations, mobs and the democracy brain fug that always rewards the most timorous solutions.

“Timorous” means both lowercase-c conservative, or the least deviation from the norm at that moment, and politically bold egalitarian solutions, because they flatter every individual in the crowd and therefore are non-controversial.

Smart societies fail because they expand the franchise of power beyond those who can create civilization to those who arrive afterwards and exist in a quasi-contributor, quasi-parasitic status. These people are not bad, but they are static in the transmission, confusing the mission and replacing it with their own neurosis.

Neurosis leads to policies which destroy people because those who are already quasi-parasitic want camouflage which can hide their own lack of self-discipline, self-esteem and clarity of moral and logical purpose. Those who fear they are wrong like nothing more than a cloud of chaos to obscure their own uselessness.

For example, socialism destroys people from within:

My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.

Anything the herd advocates is designed to destroy good people and replace them with more herd, or undifferentiated people. Here is the great William S. Burroughs on the nature of the undifferentiated, or viral and parasite:

After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That’s one thing the [parasite] couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.

There are people with purpose, and those who have no purpose. Those who have no purpose seek to destroy those with purpose. Fools, by the nature of their foolishness, have no purpose. They are also the most numerous type of human. Civilization thrives when fools are removed; it dies when they are tolerated.

In the question of civilization, survival is not hard. As in school, one can get a large number of questions wrong and still survive. This subsistence existence is the default state of humanity; maybe they get it 60% right and 40% wrong, but they still persist. So what destroys civilization?

If the mediocre can survive, and the excellent thrives, this means that the threat to civilization is that which is bad. The civilizations that endure are those which aggressively remove the bad. This is why the civilizations that thrive often have extensive taboos, social codes, cryptic standards and challenging rituals. This is their replacement for Darwinistic natural selection; they weed out those who need to be told what to do in order to succeed, and instead present their people with a general idea and see who can adapt that to a particular task and thrive.

Some policies destroy people: socialism, welfare, speech codes, regulations, managerial solutions, public education, etc. All are bad not just in real-world results, because these programs fail as well, but in the damage they do to the psychology of the people subjected to them.

Civilization makes itself neurotic, then makes its people neurotic, by pursuing these “ideal” solutions which are designed around the people as an ends and not a means. The goal is culture, greatness, excellence, biological health of the whole, and other intangibles; the means are the people. When the people become the goal, it destroys them in addition to destroying the civilization. This is the paradox of human civilization.

In the long-term view, one must view civilization through a biological filter. You either:

  1. Reward good behavior.

  2. Reward bad behavior (which includes: equalizing bad and good behavior).

The hidden trap here is that by saying all people and thus in effect that all behaviors are equal, one rewards the bad, because bad and good are rewarded the same and bad is always easier/more convenient than good.

There is no middle ground. One cannot duck the question of good/bad any more than one can duck the question of survival. Decisions must be made. They will reward one — good/higher evolution or bad/lower evolution — or the other, but not both.

This is heresy in social terms, because people universally want to believe that they can accept everyone and everything, and still be just fine. This avoids conflict, which upsets women and children, and makes it easier to manage the herd. Just tell them they are accepted, and then what to do in order to be good, which makes them into identical cogs of the system, since if you are telling everyone what to do, the goal must be universal or invariant between individuals despite the great variation between individuals, even if it appears that they are mostly the same.

Convincing people that there is a middle ground makes them neurotic, because they can no longer distinguish between the goal and distraction. The irrelevant and the relevant converge. This creates a mistaken association between false causes and effects.

For example, an article came out the other day that suggested that eating more fruits and vegetables made you smarter. Was that what the data said? No: it said that smarter people tended to eat more fruits or vegetables. Eating those will not make you smarter; those who are smarter do it, and so the result is false.

This is a classic example of Leftist inversion. Because they assume the equality of all people, anything that smart people do is not a result of their intelligence, but of the act itself. It is a cargo cult of methods in a field where the design of the human being — its biology and genetics — is what determines the result.

In turn, that leads us to an ugly realization. A society is only as good as its smartest people, if they are put in charge. This conflicts with the liberal idea that we can make everyone smart, and then by polling the crowd, have a better result than if we had a smart person in charge. But that notion has failed.

The reality is that the inverted society cannot survive. It becomes neurotic, and self destructs, because it is unrealistic. It is socially popular, so there are many smiling faces out there, but they neither know what is realistic nor care. They care only about convenient warm mental feelings of safety and security.

If a high-IQ society is to survive, it will do so by carefully separating its people. Those who are capable of leadership go in one silo, and those who are not go in another, where their opinions are scrupulously ignored and they are constantly reminded that they know nothing. The best must rise. Otherwise, the worst do.

This is the challenge to the west. In the smaller cycle, postwar Leftism — globalism, diversity, pluralism — has failed. In the bigger cycle, we are snapping out of the sleepwalk to oblivion that has gripped Western Civilization since at least The Enlightenment.â„¢ It was wrong, and everything that springs from it is also wrong.

Instead, we are looking toward a non-neurotic future. We must be realists, and that starts with disenfranchising those among us who are incapable of making leadership decisions. We need purpose, hierarchy, realism; we do not need more pleasant human feelings that are convenient but lead to neurosis and with that, doom.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn