Humanity — not just the West — finds itself at a crucial point. We are currently deciding whether we want to get our act together or pass out of history.
There are some arguments for simply dying out. In particular, death itself seems stressful for people above a certain IQ. Daily life is a hassle. Any time groups of people get together, they start doing stupid things and this is maddening and makes us want to just fade away.
On the flip side, we might be able to cure most or all of these problems. We can get organized. We can become more moral and alert. We can stop the red tape and social bickering. We may even be able to extend human life or discover a life beyond physicality.
Looking further, there are benefits to being human and alive. As living beings we can have consciousness, make choices, learn, discover, and most of all, experience goodness; these things are unique and wonderful.
If we are to survive however, we are going to have to get our act together, both as individuals and as a species. This requires understanding what we are doing wrong right now.
Plenty of people have opinions on this topic, and that in itself shows us a problem. We have no clear idea, probably because we are relying on the notion that there is some universal truth that applies to everyone, when in fact the reality is, as usual, a bit more complex.
Generally speaking, our species lacks any direction beyond the individual. This era was ruled by individualism: what you want to do, who you want to be, what you can buy, social mobility, and the notion that self-expression is sacred and important no matter what it is.
This all comes from the Enlightenment™ notion that “man is the measure of all things” or rather, that the individual is, and that all individuals share an equal minimum capacity for reason which enables them to make decisions about how to best live their lives.
Ideas of this nature replaced the old order, tradition, in which we perceived an order larger than ourselves. This was part the workings of civilization, part the patterns of nature, and to some degree, the hierarchy and rewards structure of the divine.
That went away, and since that moment, things have been steadily heading downhill.
We can navel-gaze over where we went wrong and go looking for a reason, but in my analysis, we simply fell into the same trap that afflicts every advanced civilization. As individuals mature, they face new challenges; the same applies to civilizations.
Any civilization which fails to identify and pursue a working adaptive strategy for a new challenge will be forced to go into denial of the existence of that challenge, since otherwise it would remain in constant crisis, and will exterminate itself by being unrealistic in all other areas.
That process kills all civilizations, just like it destroys any smaller human groups eventually; it is an in-built flaw in humanity or at least a risk, a misstep like over-eating or seeing objects at the wrong place when underwater.
In other words, societies are not killed; they self-destruct, and they do this through a tendency of human groups that we call Crowdism:
No human organization in history has been so well-managed that it could pull off a conspiracy of this nature without revealing itself or collapsing in infighting. Whatever engendered this particular mess did not have a leader, or a central organizing principle, although it has manifested itself in centralized authority. A systematic change to this kind of order comes through a shared assumption, much like when a group of friends, upon perceiving their favorite bar is closed, meet at the next most likely place without having to communicate the name amongst themselves. More than a leaderless revolution, it was an unconscious one: those who brought it about had no idea they shared an ideology, or no idea what its name might be, or even why they did it. They simply did it because it was natural to do, and because nothing has since opposed it, it continues to this day in grossly simplified form.
Think for a moment: what sort of problem is it that one cannot identify and root out? The simple answer: one you cannot tell to another person, and therefore, even if you know it, no one else can work on the problem – and in modern society, every problem is too big for one man. Imagine working with another police inspector on this case. You can tell the guy everything except that which might potentially hurt his feelings. So the investigation goes on, and despite your partner being slower than you are, he puts his heart into it. At the end you have no answers, because both of you don’t know the answer, even though it’s in your knowledge.
The dirty little secret of the West’s collapse is that it has come from within…It is a belief system based on appearances: emotions come before logic, personal boundaries come before the necessity of doing what is right for all, and abstract divisions of “good” and “evil” regarding intent come before a realization of the effect of any action. In short, this is a belief system which manipulates by preventing certain actions rather than by recommending others, and it attacks before any action is ever committed.
What reveals its nature the most however is understanding the type of mentality that produces it. To do this, we must go to folk wisdom, in which it is recognized that what people would not do as individuals they will do as a mob. Under social pressure, people will take drugs, torture one another, steal, lie, cheat and delude themselves. If they internalize that social pressure, they will do these things without the presence of others because they are aware of the eventuality of having to interact with those others. In this sense, the mob mentality can extend to those who are alone, because in their minds the rest of the mob is always there.
The belief, whether known in language to its bearer or not, that the individual should predominate over all other concerns is Crowdism. We name it according to the crowd because crowds are the fastest to defend individual autonomy; if any of its members are singled out, and doubt thrown upon their activities or intentions, the crowd is fragmented and loses its power. What makes crowds strong is an inability of any to criticize their members, or to suggest any kind of goal that unites people, because what makes for the best crowds is a lack of goal. Without a higher vision or ideal, crowds rapidly degenerate into raiding parties, although of a passive nature. They argue for greater “freedom.” They want more wealth. Anything they see they feel should be divided up among the crowd.
Crowdism strikes anyone who values individual comfort and wealth more than doing what is right.
Big point is: human groups succumb to the same failing when they get large and successful enough to have extra wealth, power, and status, since that means that their decisions can become more arbitrary and are less tied to immediately defeating some tangible problem.
Corporations, HOAs, communes, gangs, friend groups, PTA meetings, executive boards, and democratic electorates all face the same behavior, which is that they start behaving like a committee, which means that (1) they choose whatever solution they think the group will support and (2) they act toward keeping the group together instead of the goal of the group.
In any group of sufficient size and wealth, a dark organization emerges when people begin acting in favor of their own careers instead of the advancement of the goals of the organization. This, too, is Crowdism.
Recognizing the rise of Crowdism can allow you to save your own society. When you see Crowdism take root, if you then identify it, you can diagnose the rising anarchy as not a political movement but psychological breakdown brought on by groupthink, a force of entropy:
Crowdism is what happens when individuals, deciding to act in their own interests, band together to make any rule other than “the individual does what the individual wants” taboo. This occurs in gradual stages, and can happen at any level of politics, family, society, culture or any other form of decisionmaking.
The key to this is that it’s a paradox. “Anarchists unite!” makes no sense to most people (it always made sense to me; if you want to change the world, you’re going to do it in a group, even if advocating no group control). Crowdists are radical individualists who are in a group only to use guilt to compel others to yield to them.
When you see individualism replace the idea of order, or patterns larger than the will of the individual rooted in reality, nature, the transcendental, or the divine, you can tell that your society has given up on health and has turned on itself, which means that you are heading toward tyranny and totalitarianism because there is no longer a center of agreement on purpose that unites the society:
The audience defines the product; whoever offers that product will be rewarded, unless held back by those with more mental power. This means that like weeds and parasites in nature, a new Cathedral springs up wherever human society is established — unless it is suppressed. Other self-organizing forms of parasitic human behavior like gangs, prostitutes/pimps, beggar colonies and hobo camps create themselves the same way. People want these things, or at least, some people do.
This will manifest as collectivized individualism, or a selfish crowd of people manipulating each other in order to take control of your society:
In order to avoid constant internal fighting, we made a truce called The Enlightenment.™ In it, we chucked out the idea of an order above human beings. That means a mathematical pattern or series of patterns to nature in which an ultimately good resulted emerged, visible through the “transcendental” union of imagination and analysis, which exists outside the individual but in which the individual may participate. We got rid of that, and focused on the individualism.
This new individualism was an ism, or a symbolic belief system which placed its object before all else. The individual came before nature, culture, heritage, continuity with past and future, gods/God, and most of all, any kind of common sense. That took centuries to fully take effect, but peaked in the 1960s since we had beaten back all non-Leftist orders in the civilized world and now, Leftism only had to avoid going full Soviet.
At this point, we replaced reality with society. We stopped caring about what worked, and worried about what other people would support (utilitarianism). This caused us to stop looking at an order of nature and the right way to behave, and instead to assume that our way would never change, and all we had to do was beat back problems. “Putting out fires” is the management term for this, and it always implies a loss of direction.
Replacing reality with society creates a significant problem: instead of looking for what works in nature, including in the abstract order of nature that we see in hierarchy and balance and harmony of order, we look for what we can explain to society as a reason for us receiving some benefit or consideration. This outlook reverses thought from “data in search of a thesis” to “a thesis in search of data,” or cherry-picking and rationalization or arguing after-the-fact for a presumed right on the basis of effects (how things turned out) and not causes (our actions that achieved those effects).
Our society completely lost direction once individualism came around. We stopped looking at the causes of our problems, and instead addressed the symptoms (or effects) without changing the underlying disconnects. This loss of direction caused us to ignore the root of all of our issues, and instead to apply what looked a lot like palliative care, e.g. making the patient comfortable as he waits for the cessation of consciousness known as death.
It is important to give it a name because most people will not recognize it as the most fundamental human pitfall, hubris, and the corresponding lack of meaning that comes when you shrink your world down to the desires, comfort, and convenience of the individualist:
The interesting thing about the Black Pill is that it unites Darwinism and Christianity by recognizing evil. To a Christian, evil is a type of error committed out of a spiritual ethic of convenience; to a Darwinist, evil is any persistent illusory thought that allows the animal to avoid adaptation. In humans, illusion occurs at the personal level through narcissism and solipsism, a type of self-worship that allows the individual to negate risk by altering the conception of it in their minds, in other words: explaining away actual problems, and inventing distracting mysticism that includes scapegoats to deflect from the actual problems. In groups, this solipsism becomes a phenomenon of mass-insanity, a trance-like state in which people slavishly emulate a social successful behavior even though it is obviously false.
Like most evils, it presents itself not just as a good, but as the ultimate good, meaning the solution to all problems in one idea, something which serves to invert cause and effect and project human emotions onto reality instead:
In a group, the way to win the game is to make everyone feel comfortable by including them. It is more important to have everyone get along than it is to reach any certain conclusion. In this way, the committee mentality arrives. When everyone at the table is invited to participate, someone balances all of their concerns and comes up with a solution that avoids inconveniencing anyone terribly. The result is that the original goal is long forgotten, and in the name of pacifism and making everyone feel included, a non-solution is erected. Repeat this by tens of thousands of times — in congresses, boardrooms, voting booths, bars and churches — and you get a civilization dedicated to keeping everyone together instead of cooperating toward any kind of sensible behavior. The problem is us because in groups, we behave like nitwits, no matter how educated or intelligent we are. The situation itself creates the bad results.
This allows the formation of a mob, cult, herd, riot, gang, clique, or other dark organization within the larger organization known as society, formed of the utilitarian impulse:
When we peer into that, we see one of the dark regions of human psychology. If you want something for yourself, the only way to defend against criticism is also to offer it to everyone else. Therefore, you are not asking for yourself, but for the group, and therefore have zero accountability and will receive zero blame.
In turn, the group assumes responsibility, but since “the group” is an abstract entity which does not exist in reality, only as a perception, no one assumes responsibility. They can all blame the group for its bad decisions even if they actively supported the making of those choices.
That reveals to us the core of an unhealthy relationship: individuals using the group for their own ends, and the group using them to make it more powerful, because it benefits other selfish individuals.
In turn, this mental shift orients society toward control, or the use of a Narrative to regulate method so that actions shape minds toward compliance with the dominant paradigm:
The Age of Human Intentions reflects what happens when people are able to impose their will on the order around them through making others act as if those intentions were actual reality. This is a method of control, or obedience by using only approved methods in order to protect the power structure.
Control takes advantage of human herd behavior. In groups, humans settle on whatever lowest common denominator thought pleases the largest number in the group, and then act as if it is law. When your ancestors talked about “freedom,” they meant the ability to break away from this herd behavior hive mind.
Human intentions generally fail because they are based around how our minds work, not the more complex mechanisms of cause-and-effect at play in reality outside our heads.
People in the grips of this mental virus know that they have been deceived but cannot identify the source of the deception, causing them to look to external causes that are all false, since the actual cause is a bad idea in which they are participating:
The human being wants to have power over his world not at a physical level, but an intellectual one. He wants to be able to explain the world in such a way that proves that he is “in control.”
We might call this The Ahab Principle after the unfortunate character from Moby-Dick who would rather destroy his ship, his men, and even his own life than admit that a whale had bested him. To him, being right in the end was more important than survival. This, not awareness of mortality, is what makes humans unique. We have a need to control.
When we herd a bunch of humans together, it amplifies their fear and doubt, and so the need to control accelerates. Instead of accepting that some are doomed and some are born to greatness, this group tries to ensure that everyone will have some kind of greatness, even if that means that we all get an average instead of peaks and valleys.
We might see this as a product of disorganization, since a civilization that loses a sense of purpose — including through diversity — has no central core and therefore, quickly becomes a loose bad for storing citizens, and turns its focus toward individual self-expression instead of orders larger than the individual:
The disorganized have none of that, and act through reacting, sensing either internal needs (desires, wants, biology) or external needs, usually through the social group. Since an organized mind has an external purpose paired to an inner sense of meaning, it organizes itself around that center; a disorganized mind, lacking that, falls back into a preemptive defensive posture, looking to protect the individual against an outside world that it also perceives as disorganized.
From those feelings come the natural tendency of a crowd, which as a group of individuals which is accountable to nothing, consists of blaming something other than the group for everything that is wrong. Crowds demand equality, diversity, tolerance, pacifism, and inclusion. Like the disorganized individual mind, the disorganized group mind has no purpose, so its purpose becomes defending against those who recognize its lack of purpose.
The disorganized mind exists in a state of illusion, since it has to tell itself a little story in order to make life seem semi-coherent. If they had a sense of purpose, they would not need such stories, but because they have no purpose, they have to invent the pretense of having one
These stories are little more than pre-emptive excuses, justifications, validations, and rationalizations for why the disorganized mind is good, and they usually take the form of revenge fantasies, where the world has somehow wronged the disorganized mind and therefore the disorganized mind is justified in striking back and taking everything that it wants. We see this all the time in people who go to restaurants, looking for something that the restaurant might be doing wrong, just so that they can demand free food; this parallels the French Revolution, where the proles made themselves poor and then used that poverty as an excuse to demand the overthrow of their more intelligent leaders. Disorganized minds are thus passive-aggressive, and use the sense of being victimized as an excuse to be “entitled,” or deserving of what they want being provided by society at large.
That in turn creates a pathological rejection of reality not just as a value and concept but as a point of reference; instead, people want to go further into navel-gazing and self-worship in order to avoid seeing the abyss yawning beneath them:
In order to prioritize the individual and its intent over results in reality, the person afflicted must reject the idea of natural order entirely, including any sense of cause and effect, also including primal causes such as the origin of the universe or the reason for its order. Individualism creates a pathology of denying sanity so that the individual can appear to be the cause of the world.
In turn, this makes the individual unstable, because that which was not intended by the individual thus appears as a variety of evil, which is unfortunate since all but a very small part of the world is not guided by intent of the individual. This inverts good and evil; natural order becomes “evil,” and individual pretense and reality-denial becomes “good.”
The mentality of rationalization arises from that, by which people look at what already exists and mentally program themselves to like it and choose the best option within it, instead of programming their minds toward natural independence, by which they would actually create a life tailored to themselves:
Rationality starts with deduction, and ends with broad almost religious conclusions, but in the middle there is the imposition of assumptions about logic. Rationalists tend to assume that the boundaries of a category are more important than its center, in the same way the nuances of words in interpreting law has become more important than the spirit of the law. “Technically correct” is the hallmark of rationalism.
What seems like a society gone mad in an orgy of political power and consumer excess in fact consists of people choosing from the options available to them, and finding that denial is a better deal than struggle against the Narrative and the vast majority of people brainwashed into not just supporting it, but enforcing it on each other:
Normally it goes like this: a civilization becomes prosperous because of good — perhaps too good — leadership. It beats back threats both natural and human, organizes itself to be efficient, and now can support more people.
At this point, society becomes a form of insulation or insurance against the consequences of our actions. If you forget to set aside food for winter, you can take out a loan, or get a job, and earn money to take care of yourself. You can survive without thinking.
Knowing to some degree that the free money raid cannot last forever, these “good people” (German: gutmenschen) engage in a fiction that their actions have no consequence beyond the immediate.
This bourgeois mentality announces itself any time you hear people say things like, “Just work hard, go to church, and pay your taxes, and everything will be alright.” They ignore the need to keep society functional or invest in the future.
All that matters is consumption, right now.
That externalization of thought process makes people unable to solve problems other than those which involve the mechanisms of society, effectively neutering them and making them blind to nature, natural order, the transcendent, and the divine:
Civilization fails once it seems to offer support to people, because then they can conveniently blame it for their own failings; it has, after all, assumed responsibility for them on some level and as a result, they will assume none of their own.
They defend this zombie- or robot-like state by arguing for more equality, since they assume that they are victims of a scapegoat instead of self-victimizing and self-deluding mooks duped by their own scam:
If you look at the reality of “freedom,” you will notice that not all people have equal faculties of judgment, so demanding the freedom of all is an insistence that the rest of us pay for the insanity, laziness, ineptitude, and parasitism of others.
When people in the older times talked about “freedom,” they meant freedom from other people and their bad choices, and recognized that this required strong leadership and a sense of purpose to a group. Only with unity comes freedom; otherwise we serve the least disciplined among us.
In turn, people become perverse, because they need a way to lash out without violating the Narrative, and only gluttony, libertinism, and other mundane sins offer that possibility:
Control is destructive because it forces people to externalize the process of making decisions to the rules. People no longer think about the consequences of their actions; they think about the rules, and whether they will be seen as good or bad for their attitude toward the rules. Authority and leadership are replaced by power.
In long term physical consequences, control creates societies that are destructive for the same reason that red tides — algal blooms that absorb all the oxygen and choke all life in ponds and oceans — are devastating. With no need to be focused on purpose, people expand in every direction chaotically, and this encourages reckless growth in order to sustain the vast number of people doing nothing particularly important.
The greatest damage however is done inside of people. When they defer responsibility to external forces, they lose the ability to make decisions. This in turn savages their ability to understand what is important, and what their own values are. Soon only two things exist: against-the-rules and permitted by dint of not being prohibited. This fosters random behavior, perversity, parasitism and other human ills that civilization needs to keep in check.
As the virus spreads, people use demonstrations of oblique obedience as a means of social success:
It spreads like a virus. People want to get ahead, socially, and the best way to do that is to commiserate with others, which takes the form of explaining away their failures as victimhood and agreeing that the world is unfair and horrible, and “we” — a quantity never defined — should do something about it. This thinking will be familiar to anyone who has encountered a child having a tantrum when dinner was not what they expected, or when they could not go to the park because it had rained. Leftism says to people that reality is bad, so whatever you think should be real is good, and since we are good people, we will replace that bad reality with the good fantasy. This is not philosophy; it is neurosis.
Despite the many conspiracy theories that you will hear, this disease comes from within where it takes advantage of human weakness:
The best part is that this is not done through a coordinated and centralized campaign. Instead, it is effected through a swarm: many individuals, each doing crazy things, because each one needs to believe that the illusion is true so that they feel better about themselves.
This leads to a mathematical postulate: in groups, the weakness of humans is cumulative, where strengths remain at the level to which they are shared between members of the group. This occurs because weakness always involves denial of reality, and this creates a feedback loop where the denial becomes popular or in other words becomes denied a second time.
It takes control through formalization, or the making of method into goal and thus the forgetting of cause/effect relationships, since this interrupts the need for people to understand their world and reduces their necessary scope to understanding other human beings. Formalization is the root of centralization, standardization, and means-over-ends reasoning, all of which are signposts for the modern era and its debilitating mind-virus:
As such, formalization is a removal of responsibility. Instead of being accountable for end results, people are assessed by the fulfillment of tasks designed artificially: doing their work on homework assignments, filling out the right paperwork, saying the right thing in a political speech or social engagement.
Formalization rewards lowercase-c conservatism, or conformity to process, past successes and the opinions of others. Someone who does a task in a different way is at risk even if he succeeds, but someone who follows the process will be rewarded even if she fails.
This mental virus spreads through socially shared emotion:
We often talk about a mental virus here, but these researchers are discussing an emotional virus, spread through (in their words) “contagion.” This means that people natively lack these tendencies, but adopt them in order to get along with a group. In other words, emotional contagion is the essence of control.
Many have noted the disproportionate success of sociopaths in this society, and the sometimes superhuman abilities of autistic people such as Asperger’s patients. It is likely that, by avoiding this contagion, they are able to see the situation as a whole more clearly instead of focusing on the people in it.
We are blind to it because it feels natural, simply because it is natural like any other excess, which means that a normal mundane thing takes the place of something else in a pattern like superstition or neurosis:
You might ask, “But if it is natural, why do we fight it?” The answer is that nature is always pushing back against us, whether through gravity, disease, war, adversity, storms, time, or entropy. It is our job to renew what we have endlessly in order to keep it strong.
Even more, the disease has mild effects so long as most people in the society are indoctrinated in it, since then they act in unison as a mass and provide great power to whoever controls them:
Systems rely on the modern notion of the mass. A mass is formed of equal people who have no hierarchy but are ruled by government. They act in self-interest disconnected from its effects on civilization or nature, a condition called individualism around here.
In this way, humans become inculcated in reacting to the individual or group, but forgetting the transcendent knowledge of the patterns of reality that is required in order to have a goal. Without a goal, we revert to individualism, victimhood, scapegoating, and struggles for power since we know nothing beyond the bounds of the individual:
Human reasoning comes in three varieties: deference to the individual, or individualism; deference to the group, or collectivism; and deference to principle, logic, knowledge of nature, science and other abstractions that reflect an understanding of how the world works. Ironically, while the first two are purely social determinations, religion and philosophy belong to the latter, because they too are based on principles of how our world is composed and how acts in it tend to resolve, and from that, how to make the most of what we have.
That in turn increases existential stress with a morbid fixation on the cessation of the individual in death, the paranoia of neurotic belief that the world centers on oneself, the emptiness of daily life, and the existential void of navel-gazing narcissism:
The individual wants “freedom,” so that his or her choices cannot be critiqued as being selfish, insane, corrupt, or inane. This helps the individual hide where it is broken and disguise that pathological behavior as a “choice,” when in fact it is the acting out of past trauma.
It is the collective need of individuals for these rules to be upheld that bonds them together into a mob, and removes their individualism in favor of adherence to the dogma of individualism, like someone confusing the signal of an event for its reality.
Freedom is slavery turns out to be true after all.
Backward thinking results; instead of reasoning from cause to effect, we rationalize from the formalized assumptions of our civilization, its narrative, and our social group, which excludes anything but further conformity to the narrative and in doing so, inverts all meaning by removing the off-narrative parts that made words, symbols, and ideas distinct from the narrative in the first place. All becomes repetition of Narrative in order to keep the group together:
With the rise of parasitism, all values and meanings are inverted, meaning that they come to mean the opposite of what they were originally intended to mean. The reason for this is that equality demands inversion. To include everyone equally, one must remove any differences between choices, and even words themselves, by making them mean the same thing, ideologically. This means that any terms describing something other than the ideology must be inverted.
This backward thinking makes people feel intelligent and profound for rejecting anything but that which makes them feel warm and happy, which causes a linear fixation on the ego and makes people fully reject reality beyond their own desires and self-expression:
Perhaps the most tenacious cult is that of the ego, or individualism. People who join this cult agree first and foremost on positivity. They live for love, peace, happiness, fulfillment, uniqueness and any other term that flatters their self-conception. The price for entry to this cult is to ignore the megalomania of others in exchange for them doing the same to you. This allows cult members to compete on bases other than reality, such as actual achievements, using image alone to show that they are in fact leading the perfect life and are worth admiring.
This cult takes many forms. The bloggers who post pictures of their children and perfect homes, carefully angling the camera to avoid the rotting fence or drunk husband on the couch. The New Age adventurers who want nothing more than a chance to tell their story of divinity and have others act as if it were irrefutable fact. The self-help and support groups where each person wants not to heal, but to commiserate, and feel justified in remaining locked in the circle of their own misery. Even heroin addicts, camped out in airless tenements, form a cult of self-pity where entry requires finding the world distasteful and praising heroin as not just compensation, but enlightenment.
Perhaps the worst thing about this mental virus is that you take it with you since it has programmed itself into your assumptions about life, which means that as you act, you naturally reproduce the virus. You will go from one thing to another, wrecking them and then wandering off to find something new to wreck, like an infectious disease:
This void propels them forward into outer space as it sucks them into inner space, turning them into a type of yeast which consumes all resources and then either moves on or dies. They are their own self-destruction but, unable to suicide, they perpetrate that destruction on others.
For those of us who grew up in Generation X, both stories were familiar. We saw firsthand as our childhood play areas were consumed by an endless procession of condominiums, apartments, factories and skyscrapers. We were told by well-meaning but fatalistic adults that this was simply progress, or humanity advancing, and that all these new people needed places to sleep, work and live. But it also rang hollow, because we saw the haunted looks on the faces of adults going to work and the misery and rage they took out on us after another fun day at the office
No one wants to hear this because everyone wants a tangible enemy. You know, “kill off X group” or “remove all of Y law” or even “adopt all of Z economic theory.” Those are purely material, which is important because they are external to us, so we can adopt them without having to change ourselves.
In fact, the root unity of all Crowdism is the desire to accept everyone as they are without placing on them the burden to adapt, self-actualize, mature, and respond with accountability and purposeful intent to reality. Crowdism is like advertising or drug addiction in that it says you are fine just the way you are and there is no need to strive.
However, striving is part of life. Crowdism is a form of entropy since by eliminating our forward direction through striving, it causes a loss of meaning since we no longer regularly affirm our mission while trying to carry it out, and therefore we lose sight of our future and past alike.
Like any other form of breakdown, it happens naturally unless we constantly push back against it, much as we push back against gaining weight, muscle atrophy, memory loss, and other portions of the human condition. Crowdism is giving in to entropy, and in so doing, it makes entropy king. What you tolerate, you get more of.
If humanity has a future, it consists in recognizing Crowdism whenever it arises and pushing back, but also realizing that the rise of Crowdism is a sign that we must re-affirm our goals — even long-term vague ones like nurturing and maintaining the best civilization on Earth or among the stars — and that we must improve ourselves in a Nietzschean sense, becoming “aristocrats of the soul” who are militarily intolerant of anything but that which is both realistic and reaching toward transcendental beauty.
First, however, we must stop the bleeding of modernity and rebuild, and this requires gaining political control, un-doing the appendages of Crowdism, repairing the damage where it can be done and throwing out the dead, then rebuilding toward sanity, health, and stability.
This requires us to let go of ourselves and to give ourselves to the order around us, to become one with the patterns of both nature and logic, even as we find them in “unnatural” and “artificial” places like technology. We must rise above ourselves by first escaping ourselves, then learning ourselves.
All of humanity joins us on this mission. Western Civilization was the first to rise high enough that it encountered these problems, and now we will defeat them using the same methods that made us great in the first place, then with our new knowledge, rise above any state previous that we have experienced.