Amerika

Humanity, as a species, is arriving at the end of the first age of language, in which people took concepts at face value and imposed those categories upon nature. This age began with the Mongol invasions when use of language was democratized and pursued by ordinary people.

It turns out that humans are easy to manipulate, and language allows what previously had to be acted out or portrayed via image to be conveyed easily, creating a form of centralized harmonic control of a population. When the symbols change, people react, in order to avoid being seen as against the symbolic center of the society.

Does this reduce language to a complicated loyalty test? In the communications of average people, most language serves to exchange tokens that affirm good feelings about the mutual tenets of their lifestyles. Most office conversation consists of this, which is why it slants heavily toward sports, television, and lifestyle products.

For example, if you meet Dave (it is always Dave) at the water cooler and he asks how your weekend went, and you went fishing, you now have common ground because for Dave and everyone else in your social group, this is viewed positively as a decent way to spent the weekend. Same if you saw a new cool superhero film or whatever.

In this way, social groups over time affirm a lowest common denominator because it is the least threatening to everyone involved in the discussion. This arrives at “equality”: the notion that whatever does not threaten the lowest of the group is the only positive way to form the group.

This occurs through a process known as rationalization, or decompensating from cognitive dissonance by arguing that what we have is in fact what we wanted, and therefore is positive, even as it drifts further from reality through the process of justification of individualism:

Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

I was by no means the first person to get excited over Weber’s “status.” The concept was well known within the field of sociology, although it was more often expressed in such terms as “social class,” “social stratification,” “prestige systems,” and “mobility.” Six years later Weber’s terms “status-seeking” and “status symbols” began showing up in the press. Soon they were part of everyday language.

Sociologists never rejected Karl Marx’s brilliant breakdown of society into classes. But his idea of an upper class–the owners of “the means of production”–and their satellites, the bourgeoisie, in a struggle with the masses, the working class, was too rigid to describe competition among human beast in the 20th century. Weber’s entirely novel concept of “status groups” proved to be both more flexible and more penetrating psychologically.

It turns out that people are relatively easily manipulated with language that relates to human individuals. Abstractions do not bother them or motivate them, but when you get another human in the picture, they either identify with or project themselves onto the person in question, and sense themselves as reacting in his place.

This makes it easy to engender sympathy from an audience with a testimonial, or a character story involving a human. As it turns out, testimonials can change political beliefs by obscuring the abstract and realistic and replacing it with a shared emotion between listener and testimonial subject:

A study surveyed nearly 1,500 people on their attitudes about several controversial issues, including if they were in favor of or opposed to physician-assisted suicide. When they then read a testimonial that gave a moving account of a person’s lived experience with the issue, they were more likely to be receptive to an attitude different than their own than those who read an informative article on the same topic.

“At their core, testimonials are essentially the story of someone’s lived experience. They can be evocative or emotional. But much of the research on narratives tends to focus on much bigger productions like movies, television or books rather than how testimonials or simpler forms of stories affect people, but not on how effective they can be in everyday life,” said Judy Watts, assistant professor of journalism & mass communications at KU and lead author of the study.

We might blame language here, but more precisely, we should blame psychology. It makes sense to share feelings with others as a method of bonding, and in fact all pack animals, including humans, do this. Creatures in packs mob up for mutual strength:

In a 2017 report published in Current Zoology, the team showed that, although mobbing occurred most frequently near freshly killed food, hyenas also formed mobs when there was no obvious benefit.

In their new study, the researchers dug deeper into mobbing behavior to look at other motivations. In doing so, they also discovered that mobbing was more frequent when the risk of injury or death to hyenas was lower, even in the absence of a benefit.

For example, male lions are larger than females and more dangerous to hyenas. Hyenas were more likely to mob when there weren’t any male lions around. Conversely, in spotted hyenas, females are larger than males and females were more likely to join mobs.

The smaller the animal, the more it needs the mob, which is why females quickly join mobs. They are most likely to be victimized if a threat appears, and it makes sense to form a mob before the threat manifests. In humans, this mobbing occurs through socializing and popularity.

It is easy to form a mob: show vulnerability, which signals harmlessness and makes others see the appeal of your testimonial. They see you as like them, since your fears and their fears form a lowest common denominator and bond you, leading to ease of manipulation once you get the nonsense altruism out of the way:

By expressing humility, managers can transform performance reviews from monologs into dialogues, with greater learning and improvement as a result. Our studies indicate that when a team member expresses humility to a co-worker, it leads their partner to feel greater “psychological safety”—more comfortable sharing candid opinions and concerns without worrying about backlash or negative consequences. This, in turn, helps improve performance in the team.

Humility has a few key ingredients: You must be willing to view yourself accurately, as you really are. But that’s not enough to create a humble encounter. You must also show that you are teachable by exhibiting openness to feedback, ideas and suggestions. Finally, it’s critical that you acknowledge and express appreciation for the contributions that others make.

Future societies will record a distrust of altruism, humility, compassion, empathy, pity, and other forms of narcissistic manipulation. These include gaslighting, which means portraying reality as it is not in order to make people dependent on you as a source of truth, and thus to exclude all options for them but the one you want them to take.

If you create a sense psychological safety through feigned vulnerability, the mob forms, and it will defend you, even if you have done something wrong. They see you as one of them, and therefore allied with them against any threats, which in a world defined by jobs mostly means the judgment of others.

You can even fool them into trusting you merely by being indirect in your demands:

The study found that voice inquiry—or phrasing a work-related suggestion as a question—tends to get better results with managers than voice directness—or making a direct statement or assertion. The more dominant leadership style displayed by the manager, the more success the tactic can have.

Being indirect, especially as a dominant manager, signals sympathy for the individual, and they take the trade: your sympathy for their loyalty, so they will try to please you. By showing them vulnerability, you appeal to their vulnerability, which signals that you will not take advantage of it if they do what you want.

You will see these techniques used frequently in blog posts by noted political writers. They understand the emotional manipulation necessary for popular writing, and they use these techniques to make the audience mob up with them so that the individuals in the mob each think that the idea being conveyed was their own.

None of the above is controversial because humans like a narrative where the strong are manipulating the weak. However, the opposite can also occur: the weak can mob up, act together, and dominate those who are even weaker than them, forcing change even if it is insane, and it usually is if the less competent are promoting it.

We might see this as a template for revolution:

The researchers identified four main behaviors related to silence in meetings:

• Opportunism: a focus on individual career progress, in which self-interest outweighs organizational goals, leads to people not seeing value in contributing to organizational change;
• Convenience: a desire for an uncomplicated working life, in which silence during meetings is seen as the most efficient way to limit the need to take action on the undesired work processes;
• Ineptitude: the belief that only a few people possess the ability to lead and speak up in meetings;
• Detachment: related to the trend of “quiet quitting,” in which people focus solely on the narrow scope of things and do not feel responsibility for, or connection to, their workplace.

Professor Szkudlarek also suggested those workers already inclined to speak up should create alliances with their quieter colleagues.

“A collective voice has more power: think long term, stay engaged and exercise responsibility for enacting change,” she said.

Most people are apathetic (detached), unable (ineptitude), lazy (convenience), or career-only-oriented (opportunism) and therefore are paying almost no attention to any task and whether it should be done correctly or not. These are the raw material for forming a mob by appealing to their weakness and sense of need.

People of this nature are motivated by individualism, the myth at the center of “both sides,” which means “me first and everyone else pays”:

In a new book, “The Roots of American Individualism: Political Myth in the Age of Jackson,” Alex Zakaras, Ph.D., professor in the UVM Department of Political Science, argues this point, tracing the establishment of this ideal back to an often unsung time in the country’s history, and illustrates how it continues to pervade our society and political system to this day.

It is organized around three key myths—the myth of the rights-bearer, the myth of the independent proprietor, and the myth of the self-made man—and explores how these ideas were used in political argument and helped shape American political thinking.

If the current dialogue were framed around public health and safety as opposed to personal freedom, Zakaras says, we would think more about balancing such different interests as parents’ concern for their kids’ safety and the desire to own firearms for hunting and self-defense.

But, he adds, “rights language tends to entrench us in absolute claims, so that any incremental encroachment seems like an assault on one’s autonomy.” This kind of absolutism doesn’t leave a lot of room for middle ground or compromise in modern America when it comes to such issues as speech rights, abortion rights, or COVID policies, which are often seen as invasions of individual rights and freedoms.

Conservatives endorse “individualism” because they want to find some way to legalize keeping what you earn instead of throwing it into the infinite abyss of diversity, poverty, and third world foreign aid. The ancestors of these people were lower average IQ and therefore poor millennia ago, and nothing can change that in their descendants.

When they say “individualism” and “liberty” they simply mean not getting roped into whatever ideological passion has seized the crowd. They do not want to be forced to fund the poor, failing, insane, retarded, minorities, women, legless orphans with AIDS, or whatever. They want to have the choice to engage in charity.

Instead of simply saying this, they invent a justification for the idea that is both the most destructive in human history and the foundation of the Left. This tells you something about the quality of contemporary “conservatives”: they are of the same bargain basement DNA as the Leftists.

Individualism however is a variant of solipsism and the parent of narcissism. People who put themselves first before all else are deniers of reality; this then leads to the dark vortex of solipsism. It turns out that narcissists are drawn to power:

Relying on three studies in the United States and Denmark, two nationally representative, we find that those scoring higher in narcissism, as measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory–40 (NPI-40), participate more in politics, including contacting politicians, signing petitions, joining demonstrations, donating money, and voting in midterm elections. Both agentic and antagonistic components of narcissism were positively and negatively related to different types of political participation when exploring the subfactors independently. Superiority and Authority/Leadership were positively related to participation, while Self Sufficiency was negatively related to participation.

In a democracy, this means that we are ruled by narcissists, and they make laws for their convenience, not ours. The minority of people who are narcissists get ahead because narcissists are perfect for bureaucracy, including jobs. They can be manipulated by their egos; they are fanatical; they bully everyone else into line.

Narcissists know how to manipulate people, so they distill complex problems down to simple but wrong solutions. Because people can understand these ideas, and not the complexity, they support narcissists. Psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and neurotics will always be more popular because they make their audience feel smart.

In the meantime, the narcissists get ahead because unlike most people who stumble through life hoping something will come their way that will solve their problems, narcissists are pro-active: they care about one thing only, social status, and are laser-focused on increasing their social status through manipulating opinion:

Narcissists vigilantly attend to cues related to the status they and others have in these situations and, on the basis of these perceived cues, appraise whether they can elevate their status or reduce the status of others. Narcissists engage in self-promotion (admiration pathway) or other-derogation (rivalry pathway) in accordance with these appraisals. Each pathway has unique consequences for how narcissists are perceived by others, thus shaping their social status over time. The model demonstrates how narcissism manifests itself as a stable and consistent cluster of behaviors in pursuit of social status and how it develops and maintains itself over time.

Not surprisingly, narcissists tend to lean toward egalitarian, altruistic, compassionate, and tolerant pluralistic policies because these make it easier to manipulate crowds:

Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to remain a significant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions.

Crowds are comprised of individuals and united by the lowest common denominator between them, which is fear especially of insufficiency, so the narcissist begins manipulating the herd by telling everyone that they are OK, which means that they do not have to change at all. Then they offer spacegoats and talismans.

• Scapegoats: symbols upon which one can blame all of the problems of the world.
• Talismans: symbols which suggest that everything will be OK if you just do this one simple thing.

All advertising works by this dual thought process: the acne on your face is why your life is so meaningless and insignificant, so use our product to end the acne, and everything else — social success, career success, wealth, and importance — will magically come attached to that talisman.

At the extreme end, idols (our original primitive gods) are just talismans that have been taken to the extreme of addressing all of reality. Worship the golden calf, but stay away from Morgoth, and your peers will approve, therefore you will have social success, which in the bourgeois world leads to success elsewhere.

Interestingly, narcissists are captured by their own manipulations. Crazy people, after all, are also subject to their own craziness. The lies they tell others worm their way into the mind of the narcissist, and eventually, they find themselves dragged down by the same self-destructive behaviors.

Narcissism ultimately represents a type of “turning away” from the world, and going not deep within to intuition, but to the level where everything is “safe,” meaning not touching the deeper points where there is more wisdom but also topics that we fear. Avoiding the scary topics means keeping the mental dialogue light and inconsequential.

For this reason, we see both active and passive narcissists:

The narcissistic personality in males appears to be more commonly associated with the traditional concepts of narcissism, expressed as grandiosity, exhibitionism, entitlement, and inflated self-esteem. Conversely, narcissism in females appears to more commonly reflect the feminine form displayed by Echo, characterized by shame, hypersensitivity and low self-esteem.

In both cases, the people involved have turned away from the world and instead are focused on themselves. One projects outward, as if seeking a scapegoat to crush; the other hides behind defensiveness, as if looking for a talisman. These two probably alternate more than the sex roles indicate.

It turns out that a more accurate division sees people as self-pitying in two ways, either withdrawing into defensiveness or taking that defensiveness out on other preemptively, giving us grandiose and vulnerable as the two types of narcissism:

“Vulnerable narcissism” characterized by low self-esteem, anxiety about attachments and extreme sensitivity to criticism and “grandiose narcissism”, which manifests as high self-esteem, self-aggrandizement and self-importance (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003; Rohmann, Neumann, Herner, & Bierhoff, 2012; Wink, 1991). This distinction has shown itself to be fruitful – vulnerable narcissism is associated with low self-esteem, life-satisfaction, and interdependent self-construct. Conversely, grandiose narcissism is associated with high self-esteem and life-satisfaction and an independent self-construction (Rohmann, Hanke, & Bierhoff, 2019; Rose, 2002).

Grandiose narcissism seems to resemble psychopathy in many respects, which raises the possibility that the tessellation of these conditions could be improved. It appears to be the case that grandiose narcissism might be better understood as a manifestation of psychopathy.

Reinforcing our notion that narcissism is born of insecurity and is linked to self-elevating behavior, both narcissism and FLEX also significantly correlate with insecurity.

Interestingly here, the root of both is “insecurity,” or the fear that life is not significant or not stable. People who live in fear are insecure, and they retaliate by becoming narcissistic, or withdrawing into their selves and discounting the world, which eventually migrates to denying it and trying to obliterate realistic thought.

They have learned that by promoting themselves in social situations, they can raise their social status and do not need reality:

Narcissists vigilantly attend to cues related to the status they and others have in these situations and, on the basis of these perceived cues, appraise whether they can elevate their status or reduce the status of others. Narcissists engage in self-promotion (admiration pathway) or other-derogation (rivalry pathway) in accordance with these appraisals. Each pathway has unique consequences for how narcissists are perceived by others, thus shaping their social status over time. The model demonstrates how narcissism manifests itself as a stable and consistent cluster of behaviors in pursuit of social status and how it develops and maintains itself over time.

Thanks to the individualism of others, people seek what makes them feel a reduction in fear, which plays into the hands of narcissists, who “sell” ideologies like egalitarianism and dualism because the individualistic Crowd wants to “buy” them.

Most people simply follow trends; if you do what everyone else is doing, you at least do not fail, and even if things go badly, you are considered blameless by others because you did what everyone else was doing. When individualism spreads, everyone does it, and the narcissists learn how to use it as a way to cultivate an audience.

Your individualist, like the bourgeois, rejects any meaning outside of themselves or anything higher than the material. For them, all that matters is wealth, social status, and power; these are how they gain comfort, or relief from insecurity through money and the knowledge that others will defend them if something goes wrong.

Consequently narcissists always turn to crowd-pleasing behaviors, knowing that if they tell the Crowd what it wants to hear, it will buy their products, promote them, defend them, and raise their social status. This draws narcissists to egalitarian ideas because they make the best advertising and sales job:

Also, higher pathological narcissism was related to stronger self-identification as a feminist; however, pathological narcissistic grandiosity explained some variance in the involvement in feminist activism over and above feminist self-identification. In exploratory secondary analyses, we found that higher pathological narcissism was associated with specific feminist conversational interaction behaviors (e.g., correcting other’s non-feminist language).

They choose to become defenders of others so that others defend them, and even more, so that they can seize positions of importance and leadership in order to advance their own social status. This is why narcissists are always defenders of the meek:

The results of the multiple regression analysis showed that higher narcissistic traits predicted an individual’s higher involvement in anti-sexual assault activism over and above the covariates. However, this relationship was evident only for the women in this sample. Notably, a higher level of altruism in an individual was also substantially associated with higher involvement in anti-sexual assault activism.

Interestingly, their individualism arising from insecurity makes them more likely to use scapegoats as a means of maintaining power:

We show that grandiose narcissists’ overconfidence, impulsivity, and a willingness to ignore expert advice results in a higher likelihood of making a bad decision. In addition, after getting the wrong answer, grandiose narcissists are more likely to blame others and remain self-confident in their judgment.

Narcissists are reality-deniers; all individualists are this way, since they prioritize the individual — self and others — above reality, which they see as bad for restricting individual desires. They might even call nature “fascist” for not simply giving them what they want right now and having someone else clean up the mess.

Reality-deniers tend to have frequent collisions with reality because its rules control our world. If you leave a rake lying in the grass and step on it, the handle will be levered up to whap you in the face. We have all done this by dropping a rake and forgetting it or being lazy, but some do it as a matter of personal ideology.

The only plausible reason to deny reality is insecurity, which causes people to stop caring about what is right and real, and start being concerned only with manipulating enough morons in order to have wealth and social status so that problems no longer threaten them.

In this way, desperate people become narcissists, since they as individualists believe they deserve enough material power to act out their desires, and as insecure people, crave social status as a means of avoiding lack of money and the consequent insecurity it brings:

[H]is wife had a more pressing concern: money. The ousted governor needed a job, the family needed a place to live, and moving out of the governor’s mansion meant losing the help they had as they raised their 9-month-old daughter, Chelsea.

Mr. Clinton was of little use as he fixated on voters’ rejection. And for the first time, friends said, Mrs. Clinton glimpsed fragility in the future she had moved to Arkansas to pursue. She worried about saving for Chelsea’s college, caring for her aging parents, and even possibly supporting herself should the marriage or their political dreams dissolve.

Hillary Clinton’s relationship with money has long puzzled even some of her closest supporters: Despite choosing a life in government, she has appeared eager to make money, driven to provide for her family and helping amass a fortune of more than $50 million with her husband.

Where this gets interesting is that she does not need to have fifty million dollars, but when she has enough money to survive any disaster, she might finally feel a lack of insecurity. Supposing the stock market crashes like in 1932; she has enough. If a hurricane wipes out their house? She has enough. And so on.

Narcissism is not a healthy mental state, and generally represents a break from stability, possibly brought on by trauma:

While previous research has focused on how specific moments — or traumas — may trigger a decline in mental health, this study aimed to look at how people’s repetitive “reconstruction” of events and repetitive emotional responses can play a specific role in psychopathology, the researchers say.

The authors of this study suggest that negative emotions tied to specific memories can lead to worse symptoms in certain mental health disorders.

Losing an election, going broke, and having a husband drift off into some kind of depression could bring about enough trauma to drive someone to an extreme state of wanting to accumulate power, wealth, and status in order to avoid insecurity. Like inflammation in the body, trauma in the mind provokes a disproportionate response.

Equality produces the groundwork for this state. When everyone is equal, no one has anything, and so everyone must “prove themselves” worthy to a society that judges them much like a narcissistic parent or bad, image-conscious middle manager. Equality produces the mental state of narcissism even in those not inclined to it.

Add to that the individualism that equality induces by rejection of any hierarchy, which requires eliminating right answers, because if anything is right, then some will rise above others. Equality is individualism promoted by groups because of the fears of all being what they have in common.

In nature, we do not face the egalitarian state. We start out as part of a family and inherit a role, even if just as defender and cultivator of land, or hunter of certain forests, and begin our lives as a continuation of the past into the future. We have a place, an identity, and a sense of purpose; equality erases all of those.

Egalitarianism makes groups into narcissistic manipulators but in the process both drives them insane and makes them resented, leading to the expectable backlash:

To be clear, it is important to understand that there is no conspiracy among Jews, no Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to advance this view because it benefits them as a group. In fact, it is the opposite—these views are suicidal to all higher people, particularly the Jews.

It is dangerous to believe in the inherent equality of groups because it leads to such questions as: Why are the Jews nearly always at the top rung of every society? Why are they invariably the most educated and the wealthiest? If one believes all groups are equal, then the Jews must be doing something especially deceitful and clever, not to mention evil.

The belief in group equality is the most harmful and dangerous notion today. It is the basis for all policies regarding immigration, education, and Civil Rights in the US, as well as all Western societies. Despite reams of scientific evidence that supports racial differences throughout the body, from differing diseases, rates of cancer, hypertension, reactions to drugs, all types of physical attributes, etc., for some reason we are to believe that these differences stop at the brain. And the fact that Jews succeed in every society wildly out of proportion to their numbers cannot be discussed.

When a society places itself into the grips of the most dangerous mental virus humanity has encountered, anyone who rises above the group is seen as a challenge to the group, and therefore gets swatted down viciously. Again, the farmer who invents irrigation is most likely to burn at the stake for making everyone else look dumb for doing it the other way.

Plato forms the cornerstone of the Western tradition — many years before Christ and Abraham — and he observed, through Socrates, that democracy drove people insane by removing any point to life. It turns out that socialism and diversity do the same, but those like democracy are derived from the idea of equality.

As Socrates explained it, equality produced narcissism by making people seek out ways to be different from each other:

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.
After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.
Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others –whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

This shows us the triumph of means-over-ends thinking. Early societies have transcendental goals, including the building of civilization, that they do for the sake of thing itself; their goal is excellence with what is real. Once the civilization is built, this inverts like the arc of a rocket caught by gravity, and they head toward collapse.

This collapse rejects the ends-over-means thinking, or achieving goals by any methods necessary, for means-over-ends thinking, which restricts the use of some methods in order to make people feel safe so that their fears will be allayed and they can work together toward maintaining the system, losing the sense of why in the process.

Equality is means-over-ends; realism and the hierarchy it requires are ends-over-means. When a society grows toward collapse, it becomes inward-looking at the same time its citizens become individualistic and fall into the solipsism that has made humans ignore reality periodically since the dawn of time.

This allows people to manipulate each other, but then they become addicted to the manipulation, and so the mental virus of equality spreads like monkeypox in a naked Redditor hug pile:

When laws are viewed as sacrosanct, control over interpretation and implementation can be seen as the responsibility of a privileged few, according to the research, published in Recht der Werkelijkheid.

Those who see equality and human rights law as malleable believe they should not be judged or assessed separately, but integrated into everything that the organization does.

Most public bodies in England and Wales are subject to equality and human rights duties, which require them to implement the values of equality and human rights into all areas of their work.

In other words, because equality worships the human self, it becomes like a religion, and cannot be implemented in only one area, but infests everything, including the thinking of the average person, who then immediately looks for a narcissist to implement it.

Humanity is coming out of a dark time in which we thought we had all the answers, but had merely enabled our old vices like solipsism, lottery playing, overindulgence, and short-term thinking to dominate. We were able to stay ahead of our decline through wealth primarily but also technology, but now the entropy has caught up with us.

Whenever a human group gathers, it tends to unite on the lowest common denominator of its fears, and then excludes mention of them, which sets off a Hegelian stepladder toward anti-realism in a group pathology of individualism known as Crowdism.

The only solution to Crowdism seems to be a focus on reality, which requires parallelism or considering all of the facts in a causal pattern, to avoid getting fixated on a single action (like a fear) and therefore, rejecting reality and retreating into the self.

Equality as it turns out makes people insane, so they seek narcissists to lead them, and then while everyone screws off with whatever they think makes them “different,” these narcissists run society into the ground and leave behind a ruin of grey race mixed-origin people who have none of the abilities of the original founders.

Tags: egoism, egotism, equality, individualism, narcissism, solipsism