To some degree, nature rewards the vicious because nature is the ultimate ends-over-means system of thought.
You either adapt or die; you can adapt by any method (means) you want, including what humans would call theft, murder, rape, and parasitism, although each method produces its own quality of experience.
That is, if you are a virus, you are a slave always seeking a master even if you go full French Revolution and kill him.
If you are a cuckoo, laying its eggs in the nests of other birds, you are bound to them forever and never develop an identity of your own, sort of like the feeble attemps by Black Lives Matter, Aztlan, Asian Pride, and other racial minority organizations to invent cultures for those of mixed ethnic groups within a race.
If you are a blue jay, obsessed with stealing shiny objects, you eventually give way to your pathology and become known for that more than your beautiful feathers.
Conservatives and liberals have different views of nature. Conservatives, like nature selection, are post-processors; we set a goal and reward those who achieve it while clearing away those who stand in the way. Viciously, deliciously.
Liberals are the self-pitiers. They feel that humanity suffers under nature and therefore, will demonize anything natural, healthy, sane, logical, balanced, stable, excellent, powerful, and good.
They are pre-processors; they set a series of approved methods and reward those who conform while punishing those who deviate. They cloak this in liberation of the individual because ultimately that is their aim: to abolish reality and replace it with the human Ego and its reign of Control, the psychological process of beating something into conformity so that the external environment becomes something which does not challenge the Ego, allowing it to have a pleasant state of mind.
This never works, of course, just like the dream of the parasite — I live as I want, and do not have to generate anything of my own — is subverted by its ensuing dependency on the host. In liberalism, humanity replaces reality, the human herd becomes the host, and the same methods of Control that bind the host to the individual also force the individual to conform with mass pathology like trends, panics, manias, cults, and group emotional expression.
Democracy is liberalism. We all accept this, no? If not, start at the beginning. Democracy is based on equality, and equality is based on individualism.
Both of these demand a humans-versus-nature outlook that only those who are disconnected from both nature and each other can have. Society replaces reality because at the end of the day, your social status score determines your paycheck.
This creates a situation where people live in fear, no matter how subtle.
When you have an actual challenge from nature, hierarchy results. Ivar is better with the big spear than Bjorn, so you take down the mammoth together with Bjorn using the axe to distract the beast so Ivar can get into position.
When the mammoths are dead and everyone gets fat and lazy from wheat carbo-loading, then Ivar is not so important anymore. Bjorn was clever and got the land near the river, so now Bjorn grows more wheat and is a big shot.
At this point, having Bjorn like you is more important than being good with a spear.
The only escape from this insanity is war, since there Ivar is again good with the spear. A sane society therefore rewards Ivar handsomely so that it can have an aristocracy to keep the Bjorns of the world (and worse, Dmitri the shopkeeper) from dominating everything.
This is how society decays, and why the best societies decay the fastest. The more we build in replacement of nature, starting with farms and factories, the quicker we detach from the invisible framework of patterns that is actual reality, instead of the material substrate most would identify as reality.
Take a clump of trees. To most people, it consists of trees. In structure however, it is wind patterns, sunlight, water, seed, migrating birds, soil fertilizer, and sediment. Without those, it does not exist and cannot perpetuate itself, so that if those things change, it goes away, even if it takes months, years, or decades.
Structure exists in time or, more accurately, outside of The Now, the present moment in which humans live because we must and because here we are powerful, where over time we forget important things, newness and novelty fade from what fascinated us a moment ago, we age, entropy accumulates, our influence declines, meaning erodes, and we become helpless, tiny boats bouncing over giant waves in a vast sea of complexity and possibility.
Our distant ancestors knew structure, process, time, and pattern. You have to know these things if you are a hunter, nomad, or early farmer. Get enough irrigation, machinery, and financial planning involved, however, and you need experts in human systems, not nature. You replace reality and nature with humanity and socializing, politics and status.
Democracy recognizes this transition. Once humans dominate nature, almost all remaining questions are human questions. Once humans replace reality, survival becomes determined not by the right answer, but by the answer that pleases the most people around you. From this comes bureaucracy, democracy, and consumerism.
We might see democracy as a stage in the evolution of our species. Or rather, a stumbling point. Our best civilizations get destroyed by it, every time, usually within two and a half centuries; this means that it is a threat to our survival. We either find a better way than democracy, or we self-destruct.
Many still do not understand that we are already deeply in decay. Two groups immediately spring up once we realize we are in decay: the standard lazy-stupid human “wow it’s all doomed, no point in doing anything” response, and the “we must cling to what we still have” group. The latter sort of get it, but not fully.
If you have a garden and are sent out of town for a few months, you will return to a ruin. Overgrown with weeds, ridden with rotted plants, layered in dead leaves, and possibly now inhabited by wild animals, your garden is a working model of nature (which itself models a fully complex system fairly well, so you can draw parallels to any situation of sufficient complexity via this model).
In all situations, your approach is the same: remove parasites and unwanted plants, remove the sick, clean up the mess, and nurture the health of those plants you want.
Weeding is, if viewed properly, a tragedy. Here I am on my hands and knees, yanking out grasses, clover, dandelion, and broadleaf that I would otherwise be very happy to see on the edge of a forest where I could selectively harvest them, dandelion for tea, clover for poultice, and broadleaf for salad.
And yet, if I want the tomatoes, eggplant, onions, peppers, chives, garlic, stringbeans, cabbage, and mustard to thrive, I need to yank out these otherwise functional plants — now categorized as “weeds” — and allow the plants I need to take up the sunlight, water, space, and fertilizer that otherwise would be siphoned off by the others.
Weeds, by the way, show us economics in action. Even a five percent loss of inputs — the sunlight, water, dirt, and nutrition mentioned above — to weeds or bad plant placement can reduce a crop by half. That may not matter so much for ornamental gardens, but if you plan to feed your family with those plants, it is instantly a very big deal.
Gardens separate humanity into two groups, much as society does. On one side you have the realists, who recognize that whatever must be done to make the garden grow to the maximum should be done; this is a morality of realism, or reality first.
The other side consists of both liberals and religious conservatives. They talk about what should be done, and from that list, want to select the methods that can be used in the garden. This is classic Control: exclude any methods that are unwanted, and then by managing the methods used by others, create an external situation designed to manage human inner mental state. Instead of self-control and positive motivation, you have negative motivation (political correctness, Biblical morality, social disapproval, shareholder revolt) paired to external control, with the idea that you will have no inner structure whatsoever because you have given it all up for the mental comfort of the group.
In this way, our morality comes down to two forms. The realists figure for ends-over-means, signifying that what should be done is what is functional; the humanists look toward means-over-ends, proclaiming what should be done and then trying to shoehorn function into what is left. All humanist groups eventually become narcissistic, solipsistic, and egotistic like the Communists and, by catering to every human, provide for none, and self-destruct.
Democracy just takes a slightly slower boat especially when mediated by capitalism as it has been in America. Europe has doomed itself by neutering itself; as the Russian military struggles through Ukraine, we might all reflect that this shows us Europe before Genghis Khan’s Mongols arrived: so accustomed to our own battles that we downgraded to an efficient optimum and equilibrium, we were unprepared for anyone using other tactics, even if these were widely known. Contemporary Europe, like the Russian army, has downgraded itself to meet the threats it likely faces, all of whom are sickened by the same weeds of socialism and diversity, not the Black Swan threat it should prepare for since that will be its test of survival.
This means that democracy has reached its endgame. The weeds have won; a third of the garden is growing random plants that serve none of our purposes, and the others have accepted a life of taking less and producing less, year after year, hastening our inevitable Soviet-style decline when our system can no longer produce what we need.
Check out how rapidly collapse became culture:
Antonio García Martínez, sharpest wit on Twitter, wrote last fall: “One of the great mysteries is how every elite institution, from universities to corporations to media to even Sesame Street, all spontaneously coalesced on the same narrow set of values all of a sudden.”
The set of values in question belongs to the cult of identity—a ramshackle creed that maintains, for example, that the term “Latinx” signifies an actual human group. Once the province of pretentious professors and their captive students, the cult has leaked out of the cannabis-scented halls of academia to infect an astonishing number of people in power. García Martínez is right. In the scope and rapidity of institutional embrace, nothing like it has transpired since the conversion of Constantine.
Identity as a sectarian faith genuflects before conflicting human ideals. It affirms that anyone can become anything—even, at its most exuberant, that everyone can become everything. This tendency proliferates pronouns and aims to obliterate standards and differences: between citizen and alien, for example, or between being a man and being a woman. It’s all personal choice, with life pared down to an extreme utopian individualism.
They actually manage to spit out the truth: it is individualism. It always was, but now that it has almost totally taken over the garden, it can take its final form.
Naturally — since individualism is based on rationalization, justification, and validation, as any artificial or humanistic philosophy must be — it took over through use of the pitied, starting with the poor, moving on to women and homosexuals, then minority races and transsexuals, and finally the insane and idiotic themselves. Rome went out the same way, in an orgy of degeneracy at the end, because equality is individualism enforced by the collective, and in order to make itself palatable, it operates through those who are beyond criticism because they are victims, namely the poor, stupid, and insane in various forms.
Sound harsh? You either believe (a) that certain social classes, ethnic groups, and individuals are blighted by poverty and dysfunction because they are stupid and/or insane, or (b) that some evil Satanic god has been plaguing them constantly for no reason. The latter requires you believe in human equality; the former requires realism.
Technically, this is not even “racist.” We can look at groups of poor whites — Appalachia, Russia, Ireland, Italy — and see how deleterious mutations, racial admixture, low IQs, insanity, and low productivity go hand-in-hand with the decline. These groups are what you get after a civilization dies. The third world is just an aggregate of these.
My guess is that we will find someday that modern humans have been around for millions of years. We came from one root, probably somewhere north of Turkey and south of Kirovsk, which later cast off members of the group in the East, where they bred with Denisovans who are probably descended from wolves, and in the South where they bred with some form of near-relative great ape. All of our modern evolution is crap because we imposed a linear timeline on a cyclic process and ignored the tendency of Darwinian evolution to hit plateaus.
Your average third world population consists of those cast-offs who assemble when a civilization fails, a group that have achieved the dangerous territory that is the inverse of inbreeding, namely an accumulation of deleterious mutations. This explains the routine insanity, incompetence, and obliviousness we see in the third world from Iraq to Spain.
Individualism always uses the pitied. If that other guy who is obviously insane, idiotic, oblivious, and selfish must be accepted, then I with fewer problems will be accepted. So goes the calculus of the Herd.
Naturally, this always leads us to diversity, which obliterates both national culture and social trust, leading to a nation of stranges:
The United States is a nation with an incredible amount of racial, political, religious and geographical diversity. It’s no wonder that we don’t often agree with each other. But diversity is not the source of our current problems. Instead, it’s that we have become deeply incurious about each other, no longer interested in getting to know even the people who live next door. We live in a nation of strangers.
Check out the sleight-of-hand there: diversity is what has defined us, buuuutttt it is not the root of our problem, which is the (drum roll) consequences of diversity, not diversity itself. The disease is the symptom, not the pathogen. The fire is the spark, not the fuel. At least, this is the humanist view.
A realist looks at history. If your problems began at a certain point, look toward what changed. Let us focus on America after the world wars and civil war: we added diversity, starting with “white” ethnic diversity and later branching out to other races. Each time, things got worse and we became more a nation of strangers.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.
In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
Unlike the “racists,” Putnam did not find apocalyptic conflict like the LA or BLM riots to be the end result, but that entropy would win through a kind of social heat-death brought on by diversity:
“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.
In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.
In other words, diversity divides a population against itself and replaces internal order — the type of stuff we know through intuition, shared genetics, cultural memory, and social capital — with external order like ideology, religion as an ideology, and economics as an ideology, the type of thing favored by both mainstream GOP RINO politicians and the Left.
For centuries, we have been running a “color revolution” on ourselves by dividing our societies with foreign religions, foreign immigrants, and foreign ideas like Asiatic tyranny. Instead of being true to ourselves, we have embraced the foreign. You see variations of this approach, which we might refer to as planting weeds in the garden to make the plants so fearful that they obey your Control, everywhere including Russian foreign policy:
Chief of the Russian General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, in 2013 wrote a famous article that with Russia’s 2014 capture of Crimea was seen as a how-to-guide for overthrowing governments in nearby countries. Russia would use social media and covert interference to turn the population against its government, use economic measures to make it poor, and diplomatic measures to make sure it had no friends. Right at the end of this long, drawn out process, a small Russian invading force would attack, inspiring the populace to rise up and mount a coup that would install a pliant leader.
How do you take over a place? Turn them against each other with “new” ideas that present a contrarian/ironist view that is anti-realist. Then starve them by planting weeds and making them poor; isolate them, by spinning them as being anti-Humanist (a.k.a. Nazi, almost as bad as being Realist to Humanists). Finally, attack and stick in a Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, then declare that you have found a new way that is less painful for everyone to accept than the hard work of undoing the mess and going back to the old way. You have conquered the place.
This is how our society conquered itself. Forget the people raving about The Jews,™ the Elites,™ the Illuminati,™ the Freemasons,™ and the Eternal Anglo.™ All of these are looking for a scapegoat that they can argue has wielded centralized power against the rest of us; the reality is that a lack of power created a competitive market for lies, the rest of us chose what seemed the least likely to stir us from our armchairs, and we got disaster as a result. In other words, democracy is the illness and the voters are to blame.
Until you are ready to accept that clear historical conclusion, set down the keyboard, log off, and go do something else until you are, because until you accept it, you are just another variety of Leftist. Almost all conservatives now are just Leftists who want lower taxes, less diversity, more Jesus, and more patriotism. You have no ideas except that you dislike the immediate present and want to roll back a little bit, which is not bad, but you never go far back enough. We want to go so far back that we are in the future, the place where humanity goes after it gets over its democratic hump.
Your leaders, by the way, are thorough postmodernists. They realize that anything said in public must be a lie because only lies communicate to a group of people whose IQs range from ninety to 130. Your lowest common denominator will lump on the under 110 side because that is where, statistically, most of the voters are, which means that everything must be a manipulative lie because people cannot handle reality:
Rosenberg’s story is significant. It exposes the fact that America’s newspaper of record tells one thing to the public, but presents a very different view in private. The implication seems to be that us rubes can’t handle the truth. We must let the professionals massage reality for us, lest we try – God forbid! – to make up our own minds.
Our leaders (political, economic, media, cultural) have known this for centuries. If you address a human group, you have to pitch them lies, or they will simply go next door to the person telling them things that they understand and make them feel powerful. This is why people complain about capitalism: the herd will always choose the easier, stupider, less realistic, and lazier option. Democracy is rule by the herd.
However, as said above, different methods of adaptation provide different qualities of experience. Democracy seems to work, until you realize that everything has dumbed down and become mediocre, at which point you are at the third world level. This pleases the Catholic priests and democratic leaders, who realize that they will have more power if ruling over morons than they will if trying to lead smart people.
We recognize this pattern, too. It comes to us from Asiatic tyrants like Darius and Genghis Khan, but even more from nature, which when the organisms are dumb enough, resorts to a tyrannical centralized order where a tiny brain commands many impoverished and idiotic peasants:
Their lifecycle is built on the work of sterile worker ants who support a small number of reproductive individuals.
This is what happens when a society adopts democracy, which leads it to diversity, which ultimately scrambles its DNA and turns it into a generic third world society of mixed-race grey people. You have a few smart people who control everything and they pass the power on to their kids, while you have lots of idiotic prole worker drones out there doing all of the basic work.
This is not aristocracy; it is the opposite. Aristocracy rewards the best and breeds them for service. Tyranny finds the person who can control the group by whatever means necessary and then rewards them with more like them. Cruelty rules the herd because the herd will overthrow anything else.
That in turn creates a pseudo-hierarchy based on meritocracy, or obedience to the ruling dogma. This dogma is created by the needs of Control, which are brought about because nothing else can constrain the herding behavior or swarming of the Crowd.
People are freaking out about Ukraine now but without good reason. Russia is ten or more times the size of Ukraine, which I am told by an alert reader is not physically small, being the largest country in central Europe (née Eurasia). However, it is not large compared to the US, NATO, or
USSRRussia, and its economy cannot compare there. Consequently it is doomed; Russia will roll over it eventually, although it stands a chance for a negotiated peace at the cost of ceding some of its territory. This is unlikely to escalate into WW3, although the raging incompetence of not just American but European and Russian leaders makes this a possibility.
More likely, the Ukraine war means the end of the oblivious innocence. That is: the postwar order, by which global liberal democratic market socialism kept us at peace, has ended. We thought this order was supreme when it beat the Nazis and Soviets, but like the American Civil War, this was simply us suppressing a problem instead of addressing it.
Now we are back to where we started: the post-aristocratic order has failed once again, and in the same tiresome ways. Hilariously, we have massgraves on the menu once again:
The return of mass graves is a shock for Ukrainians. Many have bitter family memories of World War Two, when Jews and Soviet partisans were murdered by Nazis, and the Holodomor – the famine created in Ukraine by Soviet seizure of grain and livestock in the 1930s.
“My uncle is 92 and even he compared it with his childhood in the war,” said Ms Skoryk-Shkarivska, who emphasised it is “important for us to bury relatives traditionally, the Christian way, with praying”.
Christianity will not save you; it is an offshoot of Judaism, itself an attempt to resurrect a culture after race-mixing shattered it. Like Judaism, it aims at regulating the external in order to correct the internal, and similarly, it fails because it rewards the wrong things, although Judaism at least maintains a focus on reality and on being competitive, where Christianity seems to space people out into la-la land even more than LSD.
As someone who enjoys tradition, I love the old churches and hymns, and I would never be caught dead being an atheist, since atheism is boring and idiotic, probably far worse than religion could ever be. Nor would I be one of these low-T western laggots who discovers Buddhism or Hinduism and tries to make a foreign faith his own; these people are lost and looking for easy answers, and probably the right thing to do is for the Buddhists to lead them into the wilderness as food for the tigers. Westerners who switch to Islam are similarly comical; Christianity is a better religion. However, all three of the Abrahamic religions — Islam, Judaism, and Christianity — have their root in the proto-Gnostic ideals of the Babylonians, namely the thought that we can use external symbols to capture Truth and therefore enforce it on everyone, achieving Control. No, that too is democracy, and therefore a path to death.
The gods — when you have multiple gods, you portray reality as the result of clashing forces which sustain an order through cycles, far saner than the notion that the objective, absolute, and universal Word is the command which creates reality implicit in monotheism — must be laughing at us. We try the same things, again and again, and then react with shock and confusion when we get the same type of results. We are like toddlers who steal the cake when Nurse is not looking. We gorge, then are disappointed when after dinner, there is no cake because toddlers cannot bake replacement cakes.
If we look at all of our errors, they consist of us fleeing from the vicious gardener and running to the tolerant gardener. We all fear being weeds, and instead of making ourselves into the plants that no gardener would discard, we band together and ban the possibility of having gardeners instead. Then the garden becomes overgrown, and to manage it, progressive tyrants emerge who cut every plant to the same shape and size so that we are equal, which both kills off the good plants and lets the nastiest weeds take over. Then the war comes, the mass graves appear, the idiotic wailing commences, and the cycle begins again.