Amerika

Humanity needs a First Commandment, and it should probably be that we stop lying. Lies are addictive because they make life easier. Like caffeine or a sugar rush, maybe winning a few extra dollars at the one-armed bandit, they give us a boost without demanding much from us.

Our species, especially the smarter ones, are natural lottery players. That is, we are ready for risk in order to find an oasis or kill that extra-special mammoth (the tufted ones are tastiest). However, at some point, we start seeing the risk as the goal in itself, and we sort of fetishize risk.

This comes from fear. If you fear risk, you need constant affirmations that you can beat it. Instead of running off to hunt the mammoth, you go on down to your local card game, dice throw, or casino. Each time you win, you feel invincible; each time you lose, you simply feel more of the fear of risk, so you mortgage the house and try again.

Lying like gambling, sex, overeating, and drugs consists of a cask where we confused the method/tool for the goal/purpose. This resembles the classic “thesis in search of data, rather than data in search of thesis” inverted scientific reasoning. Most people cannot think, and so they go through life using this rationalization process.

Forward thinking means that you set a goal, find the methods to do it, and then put them in order and do them; inverted thinking means that you start with methods that everyone else does or that make you feel good (hint: these mostly overlap) and then see where they lead you.

This is a type of rationalization because instead of a clear line between intent and result, the person involved goes through a process and then rationalizes or justifies what he gets as desired because it is popular. He trusts in the same approved methods that everyone else uses, playing the lottery of assuming that a good result will occur.

Inverted thought naturally leads to lying. Inverted thought begins with a lie: “I intend…” — no, you did not. You followed what everyone else did, you competed with them by using the same methods they do, and then you rationalized the result as good.

What are some forms of rationalization? Lottery-playing, for one. You trust chance, and then rationalize the result as good. “It was just a cheap ticket anyway.” Democracy, for another. The election results are announced and you rave or rage but still accept that oh well, that is just how it goes, I suppose.

Ironically, “racism” and diversity have the same problem: they are rationalizations. The talisman-scapegoat dichotomy creates a talisman in which to place all faith for the future and a scapegoat to absorb whatever failures occur.

That dichotomy allows people to deny the need for concern about consequences and results in reality. Instead of asking if our actions achieved good results, we can simply point to allegiance to the talisman or banishing of the scapegoat. This is means-over-ends thinking at its terminus.

All of this creates a situation where lying is not anomalous, but normal. You lie to preserve the lie of the talisman and scapegoat, but even more, you lie to preserve your position in the system created by those two things. You lie to avoid being targeted for not upholding the lies that everyone else has told so far.

In a system of this nature, anything but the Narrative — the story of how the lie is good and leads to Utopia — is not tolerated, so you cannot point out obvious failings of different programs like diversity. You can only repeat “diversity is our strength,” take the promotion, and pretend that constant lying is not eating your soul.

When you leave the lie behind, you will be very hurt, angry, and suicidal. Your tendency is to treat the lie like a group and try to beat up its members. Therefore, if the lie involves diversity, you will be tempted to treat other races as if they were subhuman and beneath contempt.

That in turn leads to another talisman-scapegoat dichotomy, just from the other side of the mirror. Now the talisman is “racism,” or blaming other races for the lie of diversity, and the scapegoat is those other races who seem to be beneficiaries of the diversity system.

When we were kids, what we called “racism” was what the Hollywood types would later make into a stereotype: the low-income angry male ranting about how the government took what was his and gave it to those subhuman Negroes who were everything bad about humanity.

This attitude always appalled many of us, simply because it blames the ethnic Other for what has been done by the most massive failure of Western Civilization, democracy. That in turn arose from White individualism, apparently an inbuilt flaw in humans that produce successful civilizations.

The problem with “racism” — other than its inherent cruelty — is that it displaces the locus of control for our future to another group. It is scapegoating. It also alienates those who most likely agree with us that poly-ethnic societies of any composition are suicidal.

Growing up in the most diverse part of the world, as kids we knew people from every population and religion on Earth, and were fond of many of them. There are good people in every tribe. Usually, they suffer the same fate as good people everywhere, namely having everyone else gang up on them to prevent them from pointing out the obvious but inconvenient.

People who talk about hating Blacks for example have not had the experience of the American South, where all of us know good Black people and are friendly with them. At the end of the day, we go back to our separate neighborhoods and do our own cultural things because that type of social order preserves both ethnic groups.

“Racism” alienates people from one another and misdirects us from talking about the menace of diversity.

Diversity, no matter which ethnic groups are involved, so long as there is more than one ethnic group involved, is a form of civilizational suicide.

With diversity, you have many cultures instead of one, which means that no one gets their culture except as a hobby at home after work. This means that people retreat into their enclaves and homes, bolt the doors, and ignore society. This extends bourgeois individualism, or ignoring everything but self, to a ludicrous extreme.

Naturally many people have high hopes for diversity. It is a talisman. Democracy has destroyed our society, but maybe being diverse will help.

The bureaucrats love it as well. Once you have means-over-ends workers like bureaucrats, they will build a system to increase their power at the expense of the organic civilization. Diversity makes bureaucracy necessary by destroying culture and making all interactions financial, legal, or political.

Diverse societies can be easily identified because every decision involves massive amounts of painful discussion and negotiation. There are no standards, so we invent them ad hoc by compromise and quid pro quo, making civilization into little more than a bazaar.

As more people come to realize the failure of diversity, the bitter life failures will try to redict them into “racism” instead of honest anti-diversity activism. We have a chance instead to be fair and kind, and admit that diversity itself is the problem no matter which groups are involved.

Tags: crowdism, diversity, racism