Amerika

It is funny, living in a dying age: everything except something you hear three times in your life is probably a lie. That is, someone will tell you a whole realistic view of a situation maybe three times, if you are lucky, and the rest will be copes, hopes, and dopes projecting their desires all over you.

This means that, as Mr Vikernes said, you are saturated in lies every day. Your friends repeat them to you. The television and internet bleat them at you. Every authority figure must repeat the same lies, or they get fired, so it is you or them and they represent those lies as the most essential truths ever truthed.

What society aims for is flocking behavior. This means that everyone tries to get close to the center of the herd, which protects them against threats by using others as a shield, although this means that people constantly jockey for position.

However, the behavior society needs is critters on the edge of the flock who are willing to lead anywhere but into traps. The herd that runs into a valley enclosed on the far side, after all, is a dead herd… or at least a greatly thinned one. Same with dashing over cliffs, but just about anything else is better than standing still.

Left up to the Crowd, a human group in the presence of predators will stand in the same place, but with lots of internal movement as individuals jockey for positions farthest from the kill zone. The rationalists rationalize predation as a fact of life and try to minimize individual risk while maximizing profit.

The realists, on the other hand, have a simple suggesting: get moving. A herd in motion defeats most stealth tactics and exhausts its predators, who must expend more energy in stalking and dashing than a herd does in marching over a relatively stable terrain.

Leftists are rationalists. That is, rather than have a clear direction, they want to protect their individual desires against Order, including natural law and culture. They destroy the notion of direction out of fear that it might conflict with their individual desires, judgments, and justifications.

Socializing produces such people. A group has nothing in common except fear of inadequacy, and so when a group gets together, it wants (1) anarchism: no rules, (2) socialism: subsidies from those who have money, and (3) totalitarianism: oppression of any who disagree.

This thinking comes from the nature of jobs, which must satisfy other people (a narrow channel) instead of the whole of nature and reality (a broad channel). In jobs, fear of peer rejection dominates, and so people tend toward rules which make peer rejection impossible.

The fear of peer rejection animates societies:

The study found that children who feel anxious about being rejected are more likely to conform to academic expectations like studying harder or following classroom rules. They’re also less likely to engage in troublemaking behaviors. On the other hand, children who actively expect rejection tend to resist conforming to both academic behaviors and popular trends.

Rejection sensitivity refers to two categories of reactions to potential rejection: rejection expectancy, a cognitive tendency to expect rejection, and anxious or angry anticipation, the emotion felt when anticipating rejection.

In order to weaken the possibility of rejection, herds turn on their own civilizations and try to weaken them. The reasoning goes that if Order is weaker, the individual is stronger, which at least initially is true until the lack of Order reduces quality of life and prosperity for the individual.

Not only does flocking or herding behavior grant advantage to the individual by lowering their risk of predation, but creating a massive group of confused animals also increases the chance of mating for lower-valued members of the herd.

When there are too many options, the individual cannot distinguish himself, but standardization on a location increases the ability to mate by chance, in the same way that being in the big city makes it easier to find jobs and girlfriends, which is how herding improves chances of success but reduces quality simultaneously:

Under some circumstances, individuals improve their survival potential by modifying their local environment by aggregating. In situations where the animals have to choose among identical resource sites, and there is no cost associated with competition at the site, the highest individual benefit is reached when all individuals are aggregated at the site.

It assumes identical animals. If you move into a city, you end up mating with some approximate animal, not something really like you, which is why the bourgeois urbanites are xenophiles. They know they are going to become mystery meat over time, so they embrace that in order to rationalize it as good.

It turns out that herding behavior reduces Darwinian stress by not only reducing predation, but increasing population:

Allee effects reduce population growth at low population densities. This may happen when a lack of pollen depresses plant populations at low densities or when vertebrates need other members of their species to collaborate on hunting or rearing of young.

Leftists fear rejection, so they embrace lower quality higher quantity existence as a solution to their fear. Their problems begin and end in their own minds. Unfortunately, by addressing effect (mental fear) and not cause (need to evolve) they become zealous and narcissistic devolution advocates.

Tags: aggregating, allee effects, devolution, flocking, herding