Amerika

Back in the hazy days of the 1990s — the haze was probably mostly smoke — it seemed that our problem as humanity was some kind of simple cognitive deficit. We relied too much on x=y logic, was commonly told at the time, and were not postmodern enough, or able to see every angle as equally valid.

The hippie explanation only goes so far. We know that humans have basic cognitive deficits just like mice do, and the mice that forget to pay attention to predators get eaten. The humans that cannot pay attention to reality however get promoted into email jobs so they can breed more mentally-defective people in the suburbs.

Our success is our enemy, as a species. Whenever a group of us rises, it also lifts up the people who could not make that success. That group then becomes a parasite and eventually consumes the original group, so you are left with a society whose institutions are not just dysfunctional but also parasitic. We call it the “the third world.”

However, the 1990s made a point: somewhere we had made a mental wrong turn. Something we rely on every day to think through problems is broken. To my mind, it seemed like this was linearity, or the assumption that every step of the process is equal and that categories could be used to infer traits.

Let us dial back that abstraction a little bit: linearity assumes that a runner will be moving at a steady speed, which makes no sense on a varied topography like one finds in nature; categories imply that because what defines a runner is running, anyone can be made a runner by making them run, even if their aptitude and attitude are lacking or missing.

To translate this into job-speak, if you need a package taken across the country by a runner, you hire a certain number of runners to cover a certain amount of territory at a certain speed, and assume that all the details are the same because a mile is a category and that is more absolute than the topography.

This kind of thinking is not the foundation of the West. Our essential contribution was to diagnose from effect back to cause instead of to a symbol, idol, or witchcraft. We operated logically, through diagnostics, which required an appreciation for reality and a willingness to look at cause-effect relationships in their complexity.

With linearity, we got away from that; all that matters were what categories and symbols we offered, and we assumed that those would magically project their attributes onto anything we applied them to, like people who go to rock concerts at some level believe that they are the stars onstage and all of this is for them.

That is backward thinking, but when organizations or societies age, people stop working toward goals and start working toward job descriptions. They do what others want them to do and put concern for the results of those actions — the other end of the cause-effect chain — out of their minds. This is the bourgeois mentality, compartmentalization.

At this point, you have two options in our political system: the “kill the strong” party or the “kill the weak” party. The former wants to blame whoever is in power and take their stuff to subsidize the rest; the latter wants Social Darwinism so “the rest” die out and only the proactive, competent, productive, and purposeful people remain.

If you redistribute wealth in a socialist manner, it takes from the productive and gives to the unproductive, making the productive effectively slaves and penalizing them for being productive. Eventually they stop trying. When their money can no longer buy them escape from the madness, they focus on fitting in and not standing out instead.

The “kill the strong” party wants The Rich™ dead like it wants any other strong group dead. It wants Whites dead, and even Hwites, but especially strong intelligent healthy masculine White men. It does not actually target Christians; churches idealize weakness, and so anyone who approaches religion sincerely becomes weak as well.

In a post-linear frame of mind, we can see that politics is a zero-sum game. Power in the future is not, but power right now is, and when you take from one group to give to another, you make a different future, a darker one. Linearity has us believe in politics at face value; post-linearity has us see all politics as types of Darwinism.

And so we have two options. We either save the weak by sacrificing the strong, or grow more strong by sacrificing the weak. Either the best oppress the rest, or the rest oppress the best. These are your two political options: “kill the strong” or “kill the weak.”

Cutting benefits kills the weak by eliminating these socialist-style subsidies. Increasing benefits kills the strong by draining them with taxes and making society unstable, at which point the strong stop breeding at replacement rates.

Most elections go to “moderates” who try to balance both approaches, but all this does is entrench a massive bureaucracy that writes billions of little rules which restrict productivity, making everyone equally poor. Your politicians know the system does not work; they are simply trying to make careers — for themselves.

At the core of the democratic system is the assumption that we can force everyone to behave. This, too, is linearity; if you run one mile in five minutes, you should be able to run any mile in five minutes, and so we force the topography to behave through our power of symbols, numbers, and categories.

But reality does not work this way.

However, confronting reality is unpopular. The rule of herds is that they are comprised of selfish individuals because no one who is productive needs selfishness or the herd. These herds dodge hard problems and gangrush the easy or emotional ones, resulting in a type of idol-worship of symbols like “=” that make people vote happily in oblivion.

At the end of the day, your society is choosing a direction. If it opts for killing the strong, it is on its way to being a third-world dystopian wasteland. If it opts to kill the weak, it heads toward being of higher quality, therefore higher productivity, therefore more order and capability.

No one wants to choose between “kill the strong” and “kill the weak.” We must, however, because this crisis is upon us. Those voting for populists want the 1980s back when KTW was ascendant and KTS was in decline. Everyone else wants to keep patching up the failed system in the hopes that things will magically get better someday.

Tags: dunning-kruger narcissism, idiocracy, kill the intelligent, kill the stupid, natural selection, post-linearity, social darwinism, zero-sum