Friday, 8 June 2018

Progressivism, slave morality and the siren song of 'equality'

At this point in the 21st century, it's pretty clear fascism no longer exists. It's as dead as Odinism. You can reinvent Odinism, but it's not Odinism, it's fake Odinism. Unless it's a joke, it's pathetic. Actually, the fact that the internet has made Hitler funny is the best evidence that Hitler is completely dead.

But what's alive is the ideological system that defeated fascism – which committed plenty of atrocities of its own. Of our own. When we think about crimes from the last century, it seems more relevant to think about the crimes we committed, not those they committed.

What is fascism? It's exactly what everyone thinks it is. The conventional wisdom is perfectly correct. Our historians have a merciless, laser-sharp understanding of everything bad that fascism was and everything it did wrong. What hasn't been done is turning this same laser on our own institutions and the ideology of progressivism.

Progressives know that people left to their own devices and will-to-power will reach goals commensurate with their intelligence and dexterity. This creates disparate outcomes among the population along a Pareto optimisation, which for some reason they refuse to believe exists. Everyone wants to think of themselves as powerless and/or oppressed. But actual power dynamics are not hard to find.

In contemporary progressive philosophy, the rich are considered sinful (“And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”). This is the basis for the progressive belief that inequality is bad and it comes directly from Christianity. But to remove inequality, people cannot be trusted with freedom, so the progressives must micromanage what people think, not what people do.

That way, in their utopia, the result must be equality. Differences in a progressive utopian future are undesirable because that would lead to inequality. The end-point of this philosophy is to control the individual to the point where there is no individual. In other words, to create a single race, culture, language, ideal, society, government, sex, etc. Uniformity is beautiful. Difference is horror.

It is a wholesale remaking of human beings by building a totalitarian democratic state. This is the philosophy of slaves who cannot accept the tapestry of nature. Their disavowed Christian belief is that evil exists as a force in the universe and it is evil's that keeps slaves where they are and masters in their high position. To a slave, it cannot be that he is inadequate. His psychological survival depends on believing in evil and good, and that he occupies the realm of good due to his suffering and pain.

Friedrich Nietzsche had a lot to say about this mindset. He explained that all higher civilisations arose from a will and desire for power by people who preyed upon the weaker, moral and peaceful societies. A healthy society exists for the sake of a higher type of person who can grasp the Will to Power as the dominant principle of organic life. Without the Will to Power exploiting the sentimental idea of equality among weaker people, society cannot develop. The Will to Power is the Will to Life.

Nietzsche says the “over-man” is not subject to the morality of the lower-type of meek and common people who speak of good and evil in terms of equality. He is not subject to the morality of the herd. Morality favours mediocrity and standing beyond good and evil is primarily about rising above the herd.

The two types of morality, according to Nietzsche, are master morality and slave morality. Master morality is a “yes-saying” attitude where “good” and “bad” are equivalent to “noble” and “despicable” and the master creates value. But slave morality is a “nay-saying” attitude from a herd morality which only cares about what is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. Their virtues are sympathy, kindness and humility and to the slave, strong and independent individuals are seen as evil.

The history of morals is the conflict of these two moral perspectives. The higher type creates his own values out of strength while the meek and powerless build their morals from resentment. Coexistence is impossible because the herd seeks to impose its values universally. For Nietzsche, vanity is the mark of the meek and powerless. The slave manufactures a good opinion of themselves and is subject to flattery because he knows he doesn’t deserve praise yet believes it when praised by the master since he lacks the ability to create value. Vanity is a consequence of inferiority.

The slave is a weak human being who suffers from his own weakness and is filled with what Nietzsche called “ressentiment,” a brooding hatred of life generated by an impotence against an external reality felt to be overwhelming and threatening.
There is among men as in every other animal species an excess of failures, of the sick, degenerating, infirm, who suffer necessarily; the successful cases are, among men, too, always the exception.” (Beyond Good and Evil)
He says ressentiment makes the slave envy all those who do not suffer as he does, especially the higher human beings. This envy motivates the slave to take revenge on the strong human beings, conspiring together with other slaves so they can feel a communal sense of power – the only type of power available to the slave. Under the pretext of “equality,” the slave tears down to a more mediocre level all those higher than him through the construction of a slave or herd morality.
The morality that would un-self man is the morality of decline par excellence – the face, “I am declining,” transposed into the imperative, “all of you ought to decline”…This only morality that has been taught so far, that of un-selfing, reveals a will to the end; fundamentally, it negates life.” (Ecco Homo)
Their herd morality inverts the natural values of life. The strong and independent person who becomes powerful through his creative endeavours and health is seen by slave or herd morality to be evil. But, all those who belong to the herd, the mediocre Last Man and the weak and impotent slaves – the hateful disguised as judges – are simply slaves who see themselves as on the side of goodness.
Finally – this is what is more terrible of all – the concept of the good man signifies that one sides with all that is weak, sick, failure, suffering of itself…the principles of selection is crossed – an ideal is fabricated from the contradiction against the proud and well-turned-out human being who says Yes, who is the future, who guarantees the future – and he is now called evil. And all this was believed, as morality!” (Ecco Homo)
Nietzsche calls herd morality the “danger of dangers” because it diverts people away from effort. The weak are understandably anxious about the possibility of uncertainty and isolation by failing to achieve greatness. But herd morality is a seduction, offering slaves an excuse to escape the burden of striving, and to return to the comfort of mediocrity in the herd. As slave morality tears down all that is high and extraordinary, nihilism takes over the world.

Without the higher values personified by the higher men, no one will create works of astounding beauty or strive for ideals. Instead, the values of comfort, so valued by the herd, will be worshipped. As a result, the herd will submerge humanity and “existence will be deprived of its great character.”
We can see nothing today that wants to grow greater, we suspect that things will continue to go down, down, to become thinner, more good-natured, more prudent, more comfortable, more mediocre, more indifferent…Here precisely is what has become a fatality…together with the fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him. The sight of man now makes us weary – what is nihilism today if it is not that? We are weary of man.” (On the Genealogy of Morality)
Nietzsche predicted the hateful levelling effect would ruin everything and wanted to give higher men a way to succeed. He knew herd morality is not an objective and universal morality binding on all but is just “one type of human morality beside which, before which, and after which many other types, above all higher moralities, are, or ought to be possible.” While herd morality “says stubbornly…“I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality,” the higher individual must realise that “the ideas of the herd should rule in the herd – but not reach out beyond it.”

The strong man must pay no attention to a slave’s claims to universal morality, but instead must discover his own higher values to assist him in accomplishing his unifying life project or hero story. The strong man must realise that as an individual with a unique vision of life, his good is his alone. Therefore, he must not preach or impose his higher morality on others.
My brother, if you have a virtue and she is your virtue, then you have her in common with nobody. Even naming one’s virtue would make her too common; if one must speak of her, it should be: This is my good; this I love; it pleases me wholly; thus alone do I will the good. I do not will it the law of a god; I do not will it as human statue and need.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
Today the slave morality mindset is most prominent in progressive ideology. They desire to persecute and bring down anyone who rises above the mediocre mass, masking their envy with claims to “equality.” Nietzsche’s ideas about the importance of the higher man seem elitist and distasteful to most people, but they weren’t meant for the herd.
Our highest insights must – and should – sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them.” (Beyond Good and Evil)
He hoped the world would remain fertile for the growth of true human excellence. Nietzsche wrote for the higher man alone, urging him to rise above the temptations of comfort and herd morality and forge his own heroic life path and inspire for future generations of potential higher men. But he wasn’t optimistic that higher human beings would ever be admired. Herd morality is a powerful force and has waged “a common war on all that is rare, strange, privileged, the higher man, the higher soul, and the abundance of creative power and masterfulness.”

Nietzsche called progressives “socialist dolts and flatheads” who wish to bring about the “degeneration and diminution of man into the perfect herd animal.” Today’s social justice movements are part of a new wave of herd morality aiming to transform institutions and legislation. Is greatness possible when the slave doesn’t really want to change the world for the better? Nietzsche wrote, “when some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do they exclaim angrily, ‘May the whole world perish!’ This repulsive emotion is the pinnacle of envy, whose implication is ‘If I cannot have something, no one can have anything, no one is to be anything.”

Slave morality results in a society that refuses to see the nature of reality. They can't believe what is right in front of their eyes that some humans are naturally better than others. To a slave, the only weapon he has is chaos, because even he knows that the moment things begin to coalesce into order, he might not be at the top. But at least in a world of chaos, there is no top and the slave feels secure that if he can't be important, then no one will be important. Better a world of potential than to have that potential collapse into clear and defined identity.

The slave desires an equal world where all morality is power-games between oppressor and oppressed – not between competent and inadequate. To the slave, the fight is not between the good and evil within his own heart. Evil is outside and must be defeated. But the Revolution can never be finally over because at that moment the chaos solidifies into order and the higher will rise above the herd once again, and Revolution’s effort will be all for nought.

The Revolution must continue. New oppressors must be located. Accusatory fingers are pointed, and new crimes invented to feed the gallows. The enemy is reborn in a nauseating flat circle, without a telos until the very energy of the sun sputters and is lost to the cold, dark void. In the slave’s utopia, nothing can grow, nothing can become, because some things that grow stretch taller than their neighbours.

There is nothing in slave morality except spiralling suffering, the desired outcome, and in that final moment before raising his blade the resentful slave remains convinced the oppressor's spirit lives on in the eyes of the infant on the block before him. Only when the earth turns silent will the victory of the slaves be fully realised.

Viva la Revolution...

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

What comes next after postmodernism?


The frustration that led to Brexit and Trump hasn't dissipated. You can feel it out there.

I've been re-reading sections of A Thousand Plateaus because of how accurately it describes these movements, these interrelated continuous series of actions taking place locally in time, to use its impossible language.

The ideas in that book, despite their obtuse postmodern presentation, are invaluable to understanding events. Social networks have unblocked "flows" – exchanges of ideas, sentiments, cultures – that were long blocked by the system by encapsulating events into "stories" and compartmentalising them as "international news" or "foreign policy" and ignored. No longer.

But as ideas and sentiments flow simultaneously among people without filter or interruption, events are unleashed in their true form. The disruption is happening here. Not to the same degree of course, but it is happening. The frustrated stones crash into the Potomac, creating ripples which extend to LA, London, NYC and even Auckland. Those ripples are softened only by distance, which in this postmodern world is nearly irrelevant.

People on Twitter echo to a muted degree the feelings of the people in the streets. We are at the back of the crowd, far enough to be totally safe, but in the crowd nonetheless. We are so far back that we are facing the other way, facing our own local "regimes." We are not simply lending the streets our support, we are staging a much quieter riot against our own systems.

The purpose of whatever comes after postmodernism is to restore the appreciation of meaning within things that formerly were given a postmodern gutting. The point isn’t to argue that postmodernism is wrong, it's to say, "so what?" to every single one of its critiques or deconstructions.

I understand I’m arguing against the prevailing trend in pop culture. I appreciate that the notion of "I really like cake" is enough to get two shows put on television about decorating cakes. I know that I am not ever supposed to judge things.

But I'm doing it anyway. A show about decorating cake is stupid. There, I said it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it. By all means, watch it. I like junk TV as much as the next person. But I know it's junk. Don't try to elevate it, because doing so degrades everything that should be elevated. That’s the feeling I’m talking about.

That’s what’s coming.


Most governments don't get what is happening or why these demonstrations are suddenly so effective when in generations past they were not.

The mating of social networks with masses of the dispossessed is giving rise to what Gilles Deleuze called a “war machine.” Don't be put off by that phrase. It simply means a spontaneously emerging, flowing, evolving social force that deactivates the powers of the system from within its own borders in response to a prolonged marginalisation of a group of people by that system. Here are some assorted excerpts from A Thousand Plateaus to explain:
"Either the State has at its disposal a violence that is not channelled through war; either it uses police officers and jailers in place of warriors...preventing all combat or, the State acquires an army, but in a way that presupposes a juridical integration of war and the organization of a military function. As for the war machine in itself, it seems to be irreducible to the State apparatus, to be outside its sovereignty and prior to its law: it comes from elsewhere... 
“...The State has no war machine of its own; it can only appropriate one in the form of a military institution, one that will continually cause it problems. 
“The law of the State is not the law of All or Nothing (State societies or counter-State societies) but that of interior and exterior. The State is sovereignty. But sovereignty only reigns over what it is capable of internalising, of appropriating locally. Not only is there no universal State, but the outside of States cannot be reduced to "foreign policy," that is, to a set of relations among States. The outside appears simultaneously in two directions... but also the local mechanisms of bands, margins, minorities, which continue to affirm the rights of segmentary societies in opposition to the organs of State power... 
“But the war machine's form of exteriority is such that it exists only in its own metamorphoses; it exists in an industrial innovation as well as in a technological invention, in a commercial circuit as well as in a religious creation, in all flows and currents that only secondarily allow themselves to be appropriated by the State. 
“[E]ach time there is an operation against the State: insubordination, rioting, guerrilla warfare, or revolution as act, it can be said that a war machine has revived, that a new nomadic potential has appeared, accompanied by the reconstitution of a smooth space or a manner of being in space as though it were smooth (Virilio discusses the importance of the riot or revolutionary theme of "holding the street"). It is in this sense that the response of the State against all that threatens to move beyond it is to striate space...when a State does not succeed in striating its interior or neighboring space, the flows traversing that State necessarily adopt the stance of a war machine directed against it, deployed in a hostile or rebellious smooth space"
This is what our future looks like. We’ve been overtaken by nothing but sheer power, sheer will. We’ve lost any presence of the grand, beautiful, sublime, mystical. The progression of the positivist ideal has seen little pieces of philosophy carved off into scientific (or quasi-/pseudo-scientific) disciplines precisely insofar as they reduce their subjects of study to what is quantifiable, mechanical, immanent. We’re choking out all the transcendent, and the great postmodernist Jacques Derrida says we want it back. But the transcendent can’t be constructed of the immanent, by definition.

At the centre is our particular configuration of sign versus signified. It’s not in-sign-ificant that Descartes follows Nominalism. This is why we can only fetishise the Authentic, not attain it: Rather than abandon the self-referential semiotics of postmodernism for “Authenticity” we must try to reunite sign and signified, headline and article, trucker hat and trucker. And this can only happen when there’s something at once above and behind both sign and signified, something transcendent.


A Thousand Plateaus is a vital text for decoding what has happened – and what will happen – in the 21st century as we ask “what comes after postmodernism”?

Postmodernism isn’t dead, just like modernism or classicism aren’t dead either. People will continue to produce postmodern works or take postmodern approaches to culture, just as they continue to do with modernism or any other "-ism." What is changing is that postmodernism is no longer the dominant form and a newly dominant form is emerging.

Over the past decade, postmodernism became, well, obvious.

Irony saturates everything, the questioning of all beliefs and narratives became the default. We all came to accept that identity is constructed, and we even embrace new tools like blogs, Facebook and the internet so we can not only construct our identities with great efficiency but also project it to the world in ever more refined iterations.

At some point, however, it stopped working. It stopped being relevant. Or maybe people just got tired of it. The response to the postmodern itself became, “Whatever…”

Maybe we saw that everyone could do it, or because we felt at some level it was just superficial semiotic play. Postmodern works became self-deconstructing and appreciation of culture dissolved into nothing more than solving puzzles by following clues left deliberately by the authors. Maybe it was a heightened sense of reality after 9/11, or maybe the 2008 Recession makes the cultural pastiche central to postmodern culture seem trite. Or maybe the philosophy is simply exhausted.

Postmodernism is no longer the vanguard. So, what is? What comes next? What are this new form’s characteristics, its defining features? What does it conspicuously lack, and conspicuously have?

I think what comes next is something more Authentic, more sincere, more earnest, less ironic, less sarcastic. What I think comes next is the death of cool. The detachment and aloofness that defined "cool" are no longer palatable to younger generations. “Whatever,” followed by some glib deconstruction of motives, intent and meaning is no longer an acceptable response to an idea or question. Deconstruction is no longer an excuse for inaction or withdrawal.


In the late 19th century, a progression eventually leading to Dostoyevsky and the polyphonic, deep-psychological novel arose from an atmosphere of nihilism and political upheaval.

Then Europe and Russia were struck by the Great Binge, the October Revolution and two world wars, effectively crushing the humanistic optimist worldview and paving the way for modernism, existentialism and nihilism 2.0. We were back to the homophonic novels, which were almost stripped to their bare minimum (see anything by Beckett) to unveil the absurdity and futility of man.

Such a view, of course, would be too dreadful to cope, so along came postmodernism, which nicely turned the spotlight back to You. Everything is individualistic, and nothing can be trusted. No wonder there are so many narcissists today. The ultimate folly of postmodernism is that the further down you dig, the more likely you’ll find yourself staring back. Narcissism wrecks generations.

We seem to be returning to the view held by Dostoyevsky. Even though he was a religious man, you’d be hard-pressed to find a Christian ideology in his works. He lets his characters develop a fully personal voice with as much leverage as the next one. You can find the existential absurdity of Sartre or Camus in Dostoyevsky, but it is always surrounded by a humanistic, meaningful glow.

In this new philosophy, the preferred response seems to be “I know you can’t trust it, I know you can’t be sure, but still…”

Postmodernism began in architecture (or at least, the postmodern attack on modernism began in architecture). From there it spread through society before making its way into politics during Generation X’s political awakening. But today’s social condition, namely the GFC and the uninspiring future it portends, is felt most acutely by younger generations for whom the well-worn life paths walked by older generations are no longer reliable – or even exist anymore.

After giving this some thought, I think whatever comes next will start in music, where we already find a succinct response to postmodernism. Take, for example, “Month of May” by Arcade Fire:
Now the kids are all standing with their arms folded tight
Kids are all standing with their arms folded tight
Well, some things are pure and some things are right
But the kids are still standing with their arms folded tight
I said some things are pure, and some things are right
But the kids are still standing with their arms folded tight
So young, so young 
So much pain for someone so young
Well, I know it’s heavy, I know it ain’t light
But how you gonna lift it with your arms folded tight?
What matters is not that the lyrics directly question the hipster/GenX detachment. Messages like this have existed for decades, but they were presented as alternatives to the postmodern worldview, and consequently never became very popular. Now that has changed. Messages like this are becoming more popular and common. And unlike the past, this worldview is not presented as an alternative to postmodernism, but as a response to it.

People are starting to admit that while postmodernism is a box with some really useful tools, it’s not actually an answer to anything, and no help at all if you’re trying to figure out how to raise your kids. If some things are pure and some things are right, then you are obliged to write those things down, work out their consequences, and live in the new house you’ve built.

I know many people don't like him, but Derrida’s progression is worth following for what might be coming next. Early on, his life is all deconstruction, all immanent hydraulics, basically an extension of modern critique. But then toward the end of his life he takes a different turn toward the transcendent. He notices that justice can’t be deconstructed, so he starts looking at religion seriously.

His was basically a cry for some apocalyptic irruption into this immanent frame, some reconnection with the transcendent. You’d think that 9/11 would have been irruptive enough, but no dice.


Quite opposed to stepping beyond the cynicism of postmodernism in pop-culture into something “pure” and “true,” that Arcade Fire song reflects the guarded desire within postmodernism that despite no discourse achieving the consistency of Universality, there is an exception to the project.

There's a secret suspicion in postmodernism that while all discourses are false, there is one (out there) that is true. Arcade Fire is not beyond postmodernism but still within it experiencing a fetishised, disavowed version. At its core, postmodernism is a defensive form of a return to total belief in an Omnipotent Other following modernism’s attempt to undermine it by creating a new Universal. As Nietzsche said, God was dead before modernism began, but postmodernism cannot let go of God’s dead body; God’s dead body is still in the unconscious.

Postmodernism will finally be over when people are not only ready to intellectually accept the complete absence of an Omnipotent Other as an inevitability, but when they are ready to embrace the absence of an Omnipotent Other as the ultimate source of freedom within human creativity. A new Authenticity is the willful engagement of people in the structure of their own discourse, not for the sake of Universality, but fully accepting a complete absence of teleology. Meaning becomes a perpetual process with no ultimate end and something which will never be complete.

We are not in an age where a million little things need re-discovering or critiquing. We are in an age where a few things need a massive overhaul, and where everyone needs to work extremely hard for a lot less than they expected so that the next generation grows up in a better country than the one we found.

My personal bias aside, I think we’re moving towards an intellectual fragmentation as a result of the new internet technology. Because of the internet, the future will include all "-isms" and more, but there will never be enough support for any single idea to dominate the others. The future will be so many things that you won’t be able to point at one and say, “This is what comes next.” That’s what’s coming next.


“Well, some things are pure and some things are right” is a rejection of postmodernism’s rejection of grand narratives.

The response to the default postmodern assumptions is like the response the kids' grandfather would give: “How are you going to lift it with your arms folded tight?” You must lift it, on behalf of all values of “you” and “it,” because no one else will. I know the younger generation rejects its parents’ generation but rarely do they reach out to their grandparents or great-grandparents for inspiration. Something in society is screaming out for repair, not to be torn down. Isn't that the whole point of Deconstruction?
“It strikes me that the only reason to take apart a pocket watch, or a car engine, aside from the simple delight of disassembly, is to find out how it works. To understand it, so you can put it back together again better than before, or build a new one that goes beyond what the old one could do. We’ve been taking apart the superhero for ten years or more; it’s time to put it back together and wind it up, time to take it out on the road and floor it, see what it’ll do.”
— Kurt Busiek, Astro City.
I think the message of engaging in something requiring effort, patience and skill; of pulling together in hard times; and of making attachments to others rather than affecting a cool detachment are all hallmarks of the Next Big “-ism.” It is impossible to say what shape it will take because it’s in flux, but these messages are resonating with the public.

Of course, the postmodern response to the Arcade Fire song would be to deconstruct it, point out that if I’m listening to it, it’s for me. A postmodern response would identify the underlying power structures that made the song’s popularity possible – that a record label of older Boomers released the album that was promoted through large corporations and media companies for turning a profit, etc.

It would cynically say the band and the album capitalised on the economic fear and uncertainty of the GFC to deliver a message that makes them feel better or hopeful. The postmodern response would say the band’s identity is no less constructed that any from a generation ago, only it is constructed in the hipster, faux-1930’s through 1950’s style.

And my response would be, “that’s true, but still…”

Tuesday, 5 June 2018

This isn’t persecution, it’s just business, baby

"What makes this audacious and unwanted encroachment on our right to speak and think freely all the more insidious is that this proposed ban on "disharmonious speech" would not apply equally to the criticism of all religions."
Stop it. The Human Rights Commission's new laws suggestions have NOTHING to do with free speech. You have to quit talking about it like this.

In order to see how the human rights movement has not only stalled but has become damaging for all of humanity, you have to consider how this looks from the perspective of the ethnic minorities. The Commission is doing such a disservice because they are taking their narcissism and repackaging it as a human rights issue. When I say narcissism, I mean systemic narcissism: the belief that your cultural history is the main character and all others are supporting cast.

My point isn’t that ethnic minorities don’t have legitimate gripes with the system, or that there isn’t racism still around, my point is that most of the good and righteous people think is “human rights” is really a work, a gimmick, a marketing scheme. It is straight up consumerism. Sure, I agree Christianity is being attacked. But it wasn’t being attacked like this 30 years ago. What happened in 1989 that could possibly have compelled the system to remove the dominance of one religion and start “protecting” all the others?

From the eyes of the global consumerist system, Christianity is a problem only insofar as it dominates all the shopping malls. When Christianity is the ink in the pen of all decisions, there’s no room left for “celebrating” the other religions by creating new holidays, encouraging gift buying/giving, supplying reasons for gluttonous and wasteful food eating and all the rest of the spend, spend, spend model. Global consumption can’t operate with just Christianity front-and-centre. Too few people are “celebrating” Christian holidays today because of that pesky atheism. That means companies have no way to increase consumption, so Christianity has gotta go.

There’s nothing left to squeeze from secularised, zombie Christianity. Everyone knows the Christmas tree comes from Pagan rituals. Same goes for the Easter Eggs, Santa, Winter Solstice, etc, etc. But no one has cared for almost 100 years because the system tells us it’s ok. Nothing to see here. Move on. Why get rid of Christianity when it could act as a perfect Trojan Horse to convince its pious hordes to part with their hard-earned cash, which is all They care about anyway. But now with the advent of globalisation, container shipping and the WorldWide Web, there’s a whole planet of rituals ripe for the Beast.

These people trying to “help” ethnic minorities are just the willing pawns of a consumerist system that treats everyone as equal – as batteries. Solidarity has been framed for them as ensuring as many people as possible can get money to buy stuff. To them, the only thing that matters is that people are “included,” not that they are free. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey. Consumerism has already decided what ethnic minorities are worth, and the value is the same as yours – whatever you can consume/produce. What no one at the Commission understands is that their powers are on loan, they are a vassal, a tool.

What bothers me isn’t the laws. Rules change all the time, and besides, they’re just a piece of paper. No, what bothers me is how simple it was to get people from different places with a completely different history to accept consumerism, to give up their own system of repression in favour of a new one.

There’s your “human rights,” there’s your progress, catastrophically subverted from the outside in. But at least the duvets are warm.

Saturday, 2 June 2018

Women want to be loved, but they don't know how to be liked

Women think they have a choice of men. They get so much attention all day, why wouldn't they think this?

When a guy talks to her on the street and says he doesn't have a girlfriend, I know he's got ten girlfriends – at a minimum. Men don't deal in quality, we deal in quantity. If 25 guys on the street say you have a nice ass, do you think we said that just to you? We said it to every girl. If he's talking to you and you're beautiful, ladies, you must assume you are competing for his attention, and will always be competing.

Men are constantly told women “choose” us. But they don’t. We’re getting it backwards. Men set up the conditions within which her choice is made. Girls simply survey the (few) men who approach and pick. Her skill is her beauty so that he will come over with his skills. She doesn’t know how to get a man or to talk her way into things. She's never had to move, act or figure things out because she isn’t regularly rejected. That's not her existence.

Here’s an example of what I mean. A girl I was seeing a while back asked me which side of the bed I wanted, so I pointed. But she said, "then I won't be able to see the TV!" That’s passive aggression. Thinking later about why it bothered me so much, I realised she set the whole thing up because she was afraid I might reject her choice if she had just told me which side of the bed she wanted.

That’s when I figured out why girls never ask men for sex. Because it would hurt too much if a guy says no. And not only does she lack the skills to deal with the pain, all she’s ever needed to do was argue up until the point where a man was scared he wasn't going to get sex. Her problem is that guys will pretend to love her rather force her to actively decide what she wants in the relationship.

This mutual lying creates a world full of girls who lack any ability to get a man other than standing there with her boobs out implying sex. She doesn't know how to approach a guy and say; "hey, how you doing? You're looking really nice," and convince a guy to love her if he wasn't attracted to her in the first place. Packed in with those girls are men who learn techniques that, just like make-up, conceal who we really are by building an empty pretence of implied love.

Women do not do things righteously, they always have a pretence. If she says she wants an open relationship, you can assume another guy has already seduced her and now she's telling you in a dishonest way what the relationship will be. She won’t suggest an open relationship so she can find another man because that would require action. Women aren't looking for sex when they cheat, they're looking for a better guy. She’s looking for someone she can look up to, someone in comparison to her existing man. Her entire life consists of waiting for a man to catch her.

When a guy says he wants an open relationship, he really means he's getting sick of her and wants to have sex with other women. He might not necessarily have found another girl at that moment. But since he’s been trained to lie about what he wants, and told from day dot that everything that makes him happy is evil and horrendous, he won’t just say he wants both intimacy from his girl and new vagina because he fears hurting his girl’s feelings and losing that bond to intimacy. He won't tell the truth if it means losing his girl because he still sees her as an object over which he has ownership.

Just remember that she’s looking for love but doesn’t know how to get it. Women are in love with the idea of love – the titles, the marriage, and what they think they're supposed to be in love with. But they need love to come into their life, like a lottery ticket. That’s why a woman's choice of a man is unsatisfying because she is basically scratching a lottery ticket hoping he's the man who will make her happy.

Men choose women first and the woman says "yes" or "no." Tall and beautiful girls aren’t approached by young men, so those girls think there's something wrong with their personality and try to compensate by developing a personality. Then when they get a bit older, the guys who have figured out how to talk to women start to approach but those girls make the mistake of assuming it was their personality that made them attractive. It’s not. Men don’t care about your personality at first, we only care about your bra size.

That's why fat and ugly girls have boyfriends. Guys approach them with the proper manly confidence. He doesn't say the words, "hey, fat bitch," but that's the aura he projects. That's the magic. Beautiful women are constantly heartbroken because guys will lie to get sex. Men imply love and be loveable just to get sex. We will tell her she’s the best girl we've seen today and try to make her feel special. We won’t say, "damn girl, look at that titty meat hanging out!"

Of course, she’ll notice he’s trying to make her feel special to get sex. But she won’t realise the guy knows that she knows. In other words, her knowledge doesn't matter. Chess is a game that requires thinking 12 steps ahead, and women are terrible at that game. In the same way, they don't have multiple levels to counter a guy’s bullshit. She never needs a different way of thinking other than standing there and waiting for a man to approach her.

You must talk around her rules. Her principles are based on feelings, but she’ll pretend like they're deep ideas. You just need to slow down and use some I'm-not-anxious logic. Every time she says something from emotion, say something quick that makes sense logically. But don’t do it like you’re trying to get something. It only works when you’re trying to help her to not be so ridiculous.

Give a girl no other choice than to like you. Make them think being with someone like you is awesome. You do this by becoming someone awesome. Women love anything that has a sense of belonging. If you want to greet women with a hug and a kiss, do it with the intention that you're not giving them another option – it’s just how you greet women. Never give anyone a reason to protest liking you.

Men actively find happiness. We don't go out to find love or that “special someone.” In a man’s search for happiness – which begins with sex – men will lie about providing love to trick her into giving up sex. That's the predicament women are in. Men have the skills to get a girl, but girls don't have the skills to get what they want, which is love. Either the man brings it to her, or she doesn’t get it.

Men learn to lie to women because women are trained from birth to expect everything to be given to them. Men start at the bottom of the value ladder. He needs to bust his ass every day just so he can maybe – potentially – reach the level of value at which a woman begins her life when she grows breasts. A girl only needs makeup and a tight dress before men will approach her selling love.

Women don't want to be an object of desire, but they are. And they do this to themselves. Women can develop a personality or transcend the value of their vagina, but they choose not to. Instead, they force guys to look at them better than they look at themselves. Why is it my job to find all the things about you that you haven't found in yourself?

The resentment men feel for women is the knowledge that she often has nothing to offer other than her beauty and yet she is considered more valuable as a person and it is he who must do the work to become something of value. Because of the effort he puts into building himself, the man knows he's better than her, yet she still signals that she considers herself to be better than him because of her vagina. She chooses him, but not because she's better. She gets to choose because she has a vagina.

The problem is, women don't know how to be loveable, but they want love. Relationships often end because love, charm and likeability are essentially the man's vagina, and we are willing to give it away freely. We give women the love they want, and only reluctantly do women give men the sex we want because of some phoney dignity and self-prescribed “value” women think they have. But what men give women is much more valuable in the long run, especially when we learn there’s plenty of other fish in the sea.

Friday, 1 June 2018

Putting a price on success

The disconnect between childhood and adulthood is that in childhood, success is measured by how smart, bright, or curious the kid is. In adulthood, success and being "gifted" is measured in terms of money.

The two things are entirely different. You can be an idiot and make a lot of money by working extremely hard, and you can be a genius and not make any money because you lack the requisite social skills that would place you in a position to convert your intelligence into money. A lot of very smart people work in government. Most of them don't make over $100,000 a year, which isn't what most would generally call "successful."

But there's a corollary to this. Adults are admonished for curiosity or intellectual breadth because those are seen as indicators of lack of focus. You are supposed to be an expert as an adult - depth but no breadth.

The irony is that the really successful people - the people who have changed the world - are both intellectually curious and hard workers. But in a world that rewards hard work, it is their intellect that stands out.

It's a lot harder to explain to people why they should learn a bit of history, philosophy and physics before they get an MBA than it is to tell them to "just focus on your goal," which is invariably some dollar figure.

I have a problem with the idea that effort trumps all. I understand that children need self-discipline, but it's wrong to turn them into achievement machines. At some point, it's better that they have some degree of insight to ask why they are doing some task. If a child who loves to write is struggling with maths, is it better to force that child to spend hours struggling with math or to spend hours writing?

Most kids never shoot off a model rocket, learn how to draw, or watch birds peck away at a pumpkin until there's only skin and fibre left. They wanted to do those things, but because of tick-box tasks and procrastination they kept putting them off (not this weekend, paper due, not that weekend, studying for tests, etc).

I suspect many of my peers would have been better off with slightly worse grades if it meant possessing the memory of all those experiences that never were. It probably would have taken a lot more effort to learn to draw, I'm just not sure it would have seemed like "effort."

Praising the process is helpful, but I wonder if that's because it forces the kid to be more self-aware than he otherwise would be. To praise the process is to force kids to recognise the process and be aware of it when it works and more importantly when it doesn't, and then prepare the kid for the much more complex task of deconstructing and modifying the process, and then internalising the new process.

But praising process is not the same as mandating effort for effort's sake. You sort of have to teach the kid how to learn to do things he doesn't know how to do without having to be taught it, and that requires insight (I mean sight into oneself, not a spark of inspiration). For every task, there is a person who can accomplish it with considerably less effort than you'd think, only because they have learned how to think about the task in a certain way that you haven't.

The point of public education is not to create thinkers, it's to create consumers and future good employees. Any changes in schools over the last 30 years relating to improving education (e.g. computers in the classroom) are merely a nod to the fact that New Zealand and other advanced countries are service-based, rather than factory-based. This is also why science education is the absolute worst - we don't need engineers. That's what Asia is for. We need salesmen.

This isn't some conspiracy theory fringe nonsense. The public school system is designed for the masses, or more succinctly, for the children of the masses. Those same masses for whom television and shopping malls are designed. The children of educated people go to private schools.

Look at the curriculum of private schools and notice how they stress music and art education, among other things. Also, notice how unstructured the day is compared to public school's wall-to-wall classes.

Of course, that's for $25,000 a year.

Public school is responsible for the prejudice that smart kids are nerds and kids who are different likely are mentally ill.

Growing up homeschooled, most people asked me if I had friends. Only later did I realise what they really were asking was: will I be able to ask a girl out on a date? It's a natural question, but it's misguided. Most guys I know who were once nervous about asking girls on a date developed that anxiety based on experiences in public school or their perceived social status in that school that they carry forward into the rest of their life.

Public school in no way prepares you for real life other than to make you a good little worker bee who sees success in terms of the size of their bank accounts.