Let's get this (b)log rolling

Today, a thought occurred to me. Among America's elite caste, which the powerful Sith Lord Darth Moldbug refers to as the Brahmins, there is a certain wistfulness for the simple, the rustic, and the primitive. Seminal Brahmin works, such as Walden extoll the virtues of simple living, and it is many a young Progressive's dream to attain status, and then eventually secure it by living in the woods in a log cabin not unlike Abraham Lincoln's (few Progressives I know would feel rebuked by this comparison). It is all the rage among that caste to tend a backyard garden, even if the tomatoes and strawberries they grow are more disease-prone, not as fresh, taste worse, and cost more than those bought from the store (I, too, was a Brahmin once).

I am sure that I don't need to go into detail; one can find in-depth descriptions of all manner of Brahmin proclivities over at SWPL, and even then, it would probably only serve to confirm what most likely readers of this blog already know. How does one live in a Kingdom without knowing its royalty?

But it seems counter-intuitive for the ruling class to want to move backwards, live in a log cabin, grow their own food, and expose themselves to all kinds of unnecessary trouble. Hmmm. Perhaps there is an explanation for this.

One might be tempted to assume this is all part of the Brahmins' collective courtship of the Dalits and Helots via a reinforcing of the idea that "we are like you, we have to deal with the problems you do, and we solve them as simply as you do", but that explanation doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons. Firstly, what Dalit or Helot lives primitively? Despite being underclasses, you will find few of examples of these castes who live in the woods in a log cabin and grow their own food. The second is that these displays are primarily targeted towards other Brahmins. Indeed, Brahmins have become so obsessed with showing off how "simply" they can live to other Brahmins that a simplicity arms race of sorts has developed, resulting in large sections of the "organic/natural/authentic" industry you see today (all sprung up like weeds to feed on the sweet, sweet vanity of our ruling class.).

So, then, what does explain this behavior? Surely, pissing matches are no new thing, but why have the Brahmins chosen to pursue this particular path of showing off, instead of, say, building taller and taller houses, and buying shinier and shinier cars? It's just a guess, but it's one that makes sense the more I think about it: Brahmins are cargo-cultists. There are other examples of this that I am more certain of, but this explanation is particularly elegant: The Brahmins do not understand how social order and personal contentedness are generated, only that they don't have enough of either, and that the people who did (who are all long gone; the war's over, and they lost) lived more primitively than they do now. In fact, Brahmins have taken this to such an extreme as to drive many of their living habits back a hundred years or more. This is seen to them as a validation that they, too, can raise children properly, live in a well-ordered household with many extended relatives who get along, and keep order in the wider world as a whole. Perversely, this has caused them to worship backward cultures that still exist, many of whom are suffering from the most acute ill affects of Progressive world rule. We can see many examples of this in modern media, where Brahmin films about beautiful indigenous African tribes who live off the land and are suddenly thrust into deadly conflicts between warlords and South African mercenaries who have more technology than they, their lives never to be the same, are a dime a dozen. The message here is that technology is the culprit, and that to escape this waking nightmare, the good Brahmin must live as the primitives do, and eschew all things modern and "fake", lest they, too, be corrupted. Of course, the modern Progressive elite never considers that Progressivism is actually the culprit, that the African tribe had a nasty habit of cannibalism before they ever came along, and that the fact that Progressives have technology is entirely incidental.

The Worth of Pomp and Circumstance

See a trend here?

Looking for a Progressive Myth?

This is a good one.

It hits all the points of a good myth; a supernatural realm which fscks with the real world unseen; clear sides of light and dark, and mortal characters caught between the two. It features spunky, Progressive protagonists (the purpose of which is unclear) a world that operates on bizarre causality, and even solidly defined Progressive morals at the end! If you are an avid student of the myths and legends of the Progressive religion, this is a pretty good start. You can even tell which side a character is on by whether they wear clothing made of natural materials or plastic!

To step out of jest for a moment, Ink does lay it on thick, but if you can ignore the fact that it's built around the Progressive pulpit (the good guys are literally the embodiments of Shame, fighting, of course, against the avatars of Pride) for the duration, it's actually quite entertaining. There's some good writing to be had, though some bad writing, as well, and the characters and acting are solid.

The Hows and Whys of Explaining Your Empire to The Drooling Masses

Or: Religion and Its Applications in Government

In March I explained why religion behaves as it does, why people feel compelled to join religions, and what religions do to people.

In that entry, I did say that religions are inherently pretentious. This is not quite 100% true, though for all modern religions that have little or no connection to either the current power structure or to scientific fact yet profess to know the keys to metaphysical concepts are quite pretentious. However, in the past there have been what we'd recognize as religions that show us that it's possible to have a religion with little or no pretense. These religions drew clear lines to actual power and authority, whereby worship was given to a real entity with real power over the worshippers.

Now, we need to get a couple of concepts out of the way before this concept can really gel in our head. The first is what is meant by "God". In the Abrahamic religions, which most readers will be familiar with, "God" is this all powerful, birthless, deathless being who is the virtual embodiment of the universe. This concept of God contrasts with the classical idea of a god, which to our current mind just means any entity who has overwhelming power and unusually long life. You will note that this is not at all incompatible with a strong central government, that wields overwhelming power and exists for many decades. Hmm. We'll come back to this.

The second concept is to assume, for a moment, that God is real, and all the crazy Christians/Muslims/Jews in the world aren't just talking to themselves. What, then, do we make of all their prayers, rituals, etc? Well, it turns out that these activities make a lot of sense, if God is actually real. Prayer is a request to a superior, rituals show both your solidarity to the leader and your submission to his will. As a bonus, the feeling the people get from being a part of a large and powerful monkey troop religion acts as a buffer against public unrest.* Huzzah for God!

Of course, no God by the Abrahamic tradition exists, to the best of our knowledge, and worshiping the Universe itself seems pretty silly, since it can't address your concerns, accept your praise, or appreciate your loyalty to it.

Clearly, for an authoritarian, reactionary government, these mechanics are highly desirable. A well-defined communication method** with the sovereign, endorphin rewards for loyalty to the King, AND a buffer against public unrest? Where do I sign up?

But wait! There's more!

While most modern religions use their tribal influence as a conduit for falsehood, it's possible to use religion as a conduit for truth. Consider, for instance, that a God who is not expected to be entirely omniscient has no dogmatic qualms. If the science changes, his dogma changes, simple as that. In order to illustrate how smoothly this change can occur, we shall take a brief look at the Chinese Communist Party leader, Deng Xiaoping, who successfully reversed Maoist policy without significant backlash. As a second illustration of the merits of state religion, consider beginner science texts, such as A Briefer History of Time, which illustrates advanced scientific concepts in an easily digestible way. Its explanations may not be entirely perfect from a scientific perspective, but they're good enough for the average Joe. In a similar fashion, a state religion can be an explanation of advanced governance concepts, which would otherwise be inaccessible to the common person. It is probably this quality that makes a state religion most desirable to the reactionary, since one of the most prized aspects of reactionary government is honesty. With a state religion, the government can be open, using the pulpit to explain complex concepts in simple terms, in a way more elegant than just handing out copies of The Government For Dummies.

How does one establish this state religion on top of the mess of various religions who have all been shown "tolerance" for many decades? Well, it's reasonably simple. People tend to worship anything that seems like a good idea, from Jesus, to Elvis, to Naruto characters, which means that the first step is to get yourself power*** as the sovereign. The second is for you, the sovereign to revitalize the country, and cause the majority of people to love you. For this you must court the people, an activity distinct from being beholden to the people. Is Lady Gaga popular? Yes. Do her fans collectively determine her touring schedule? No. The final step, after the corners of your society begin to wear amulets to you around their necks, is to culture this budding religion, guide it, and ensure that it works to your aims. Voila, you are now a God-Emperor!

Whoopsie, did I just propose an Empire where the leader is literally worshipped by the people as a God? My bad.

*For an illustration of just how powerful this effect can be, observe the differences in attitudes of the Japanese soldiers towards the end of the Second World War and Russian soldiers toward the end of the First. Striking, isn't it?

**In this system, prayer would be via letter or email. We have not yet developed the technology to mentally communicate directly with your sovereign. Sorry.

***Or, you know, someone else, if you are too much of a pussy to do it yourself.

More on Rights

Way back in September, I explained why we don't have the rights we think we do and why the concept of modern human rights is stupid. In this post, I'll explain what rights really are, and why that differs from public opinion of what they are.

I'm good at being blunt. The declaration of a right is a threat.

We've already established that the idea of "inalienable" rights is stupid. I can alienate you from your guns, from your tongue, and from your head. If I am strong enough, there's nothing you can possibly do about this. Even if you were Lord High Emperor of America, with all her assets, if I were stronger, I could still alienate any of the commonly so-called "inalienable" rights from you. So, then, what is a right? Surely these animals are not mythical, like unicorns or benevolent African dictators.

A right is an ability protected by law, and thus force of arms.

As a brief tangent before we dive into the meat of this article, I ask you: Are any of the things you would commonly ascribe as your "rights" actually rights? As in, will the government, with their force of arms defend your "right" to free speech, to keep and bear arms, or to not have troops quartered in your house consistently and predictably?

The answer, of course, is no, they won't.

A right, for example, the right of a King to choose his bride, or the right of a government to quell dissent, whether declared or not is something that you can expect violent reprisal for violating. If you try to deny the King his chosen bride, Jessica Alba (presumably because you're on of her many stalkers adoring fans), the King will respond in force. He may just arrest you (let's face, it, you're just not that big of a threat), or he may decide to kill you. That's his right, and yes, it's because he said so (he has all the tanks and nukes, after all).

So, then, what precisely is happening when a Tea Partier says "I have a right to free speech!" or a pro-abortion activist says "I have a right to my own body (and to do with my fetuses how I choose)!"?

They're threatening you with violence if you don't do as they say. This in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but when 300 million citizens, no matter how sociopathic or deluded they may be, believe they have more rights than you can even think of (ranging from a right to "the pursuit of happiness" to the right to assassinate public officials), you end up with situations like this (warning, disturbing and graphic).

By my definition, did that man have a right to do what he did? He successfully defended it with force... Until they caught him and executed him.

Now, a government may have good reason to use violence. It might need to defend itself from foreign invaders. It might need to keep civil order. Thus, the government declaring rights for itself isn't a bad thing, because that declaration is an honest threat, presuming the government actually retains dominion over its claimed territory. It is warning you: Don't fuck with me, I have tanks.

It's important for the populace to know where the line is. Thus, a right when applied to a government becomes a law, and laws are important.

The Nature of Religion

Why does religion exist? Why do so many people with perfectly functioning logical facilities join religions that make no sense? Why is a large religion considered legitimate, and a small one, even one of similar quality, considered a cult?

I will attempt to answer these questions and more in the following blog post.

Firstly, why does religion exist? It's sort of easy to assume that religion is a flawed search for truth, but wouldn't that make science a religion (science clearly being imperfect)? Clearly this reasoning is invalid; as science doesn't resemble religion in the least. There are not wars fought over the definition of the speed of light, while several have been fought over whether Jesus was a prophet or a demigod. Thus, another explanation is desired. The best explanation I've come up with is that religion is in fact a particular manifestation of the monkey troop. Religions exist not as a search for truth, but as a search for belonging, for safety in numbers, and for the support of the monkey troop. Humans being the apex monkey, this is not altogether surprising. In fact, this explanation provides answers to many old questions: Why are small systems of spiritual belief considered cults, and derided as absurd, or even highly dangerous, while large systems of belief, which may be equally absurd, are considered religions, and respected as perfectly valid? Well, it's for the same reason that Somalia is laughed at, but the United States is respected and honored: size, and cohesion. Note that age alone does not typically correlate with how a spiritual belief system is treated: many ancient religions, like Zoroastrianism, are treated similarly to cults, while new, up-and-coming ones, like Wicca or Mormonism, are treated as legitimate religions. Now, these are typically exceptions, but only because age and number of members and cohesion typically correlate. Zoroastrianism is small, but old. Mormonism is large, but new. Scientology is small and new. Christianity is large and old. Judaism is old, and has never quite reached anything resembling a plurality, and thus it's the old standby religion if you need one to pick on.

If religions are fundamentally considered to be attractive because of their strength in numbers value, then the reasons people join them make much more sense. People join religions under the pretense of seeking truth, but in reality, and what they may not know is that they really joined to belong. This is not an intangible thing. I willingly was baptized Episcopalian when I was 13, and for two weeks I felt awesome. I, like nearly everyone, mistook this for "finding God", when, in reality, my brain was releasing endorphins because I'd just joined a really strong monkey troop.

It's this same quality that makes people who talk religion seriously sound like total assholes to those of us who find no need for it: It's pretentious. It's pretentious, by definition. Religion pretends to be a way to enlightenment, to the highest pursuit of man, but what it actually is is the indulgence of one of the most basal aspects of primatehood: Finding and joining the strongest monkey troop you can.

Having said all that, religion isn't bad. There are a few ways in this world to get those precious endorphins, and among them is belonging to a large powerful monkey troop. Some of us need this, some of us have sufficient alternative catalysts of endorphins. This might be why hippies, who do lots of drugs and have lots of sex, typically do not form big religions, but rather, drum circles.

Excuses

This is little more than an excuse to quit teaching our children altogether.

I've experienced "21st Century learning", and I didn't learn anything.

It's good old fashioned 19th Century learning that's actually making me fit to be seen in public.