FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Tag Archives: conformist

The Internet Makes Social Outliers Viable

Those who never knew the old world before high speed internet became commonplace would be hard-pressed to comprehend it.  For all of human history we had to form connections with the relative handful of people it’s possible to get to know face to face and from this tiny sample our concept of the entire society was formed.  If you couldn’t successfully form alliances within that small sample, you got weeded out, you starved, you died.
Survival has always before depended on getting along with those immediately around us.  Once we realize this it suddenly makes sense why people were willing to make suicidal charges on trenches with machine guns or actually believe in religions that tell us life is finally fair in a heaven no one has ever seen.  It was actually rational.
The chances of survival from charging a machine gun were greater than the odds of surviving social ostracism.  Humans have a primal fear of social rejection greater even than the fear of death.  For one might die and still leave behind memes and offspring, or at least a clean reputation so others sharing one’s genes might be in good standing with the pack.  So almost everyone was willing to risk their lives for stupid causes or believe in a flying spaghetti monster, if necessary, just to be able to belong.

These intense selective pressures have been there as long as there’s been people but there’s always been strange people, mutants who weren’t quite wired to think the same way as everyone else.  I figure someone just needs to have some mental quality that’s less frequent than every 1/300 or so that interferes with their ability to blend into the group.  That’s enough to make it likely, I suppose, that someone will be unable to relate to any of the people they meet.   If they were even suffered to exist in the past they were relegated to live as hermits.  In the best case, they could live in monasteries and even have the potential to contribute to their societies while being kept at a distance.  It’s surely no coincidence that these people became the sages and the first scientists.  The ability to think and act free of social pressures gave them the ability to deal with problems that more eusocial humans were constitutionally incapable of contemplating.
It’s always been dangerous to traffic in the ways of reality.  For humans, the real reality is almost always the consensus of the group.  Humans cling to their collective ideas even as Mongols gather outside the city walls.  Even where outlier people were allowed to contribute to society most social orders made sure they remained childless, ensuring their odd traits became even scarcer with each generation.
We look at those civilizations that have been around longest and sure enough, even where their average members have very high IQ, they tend to lack personal initiative and creativity.  Above all, living in big groups selects for people who feel comfortable fitting in with the group.
There’s always been plenty of people who had misgivings about the social order but enough wherewithal to blend in and sense enough to keep their mouths shut about the tribal taboos.  However even inner conflict puts one at a competitive disadvantage against those who are perfectly in their element and unable to question or think for themselves.

The internet though, has changed everything.  There was no internet until I was already well through childhood and dialup access when it arrived was something of a novelty no one my age quite knew what to do with yet.   High speed internet with modern search engines, a mature blogosphere, and social media didn’t start to become common until I was nearly out of high school.
So my case is illustrative because I was an isolated island all through my early life and about a decade behind in social skills by the time I left high school.  The internet saved my life.  I would at best have eked out a bare existence as a basement dweller forced to avoid most other human beings to get by.  It was brutally hard to catch up on years of missed early development as it was.
Being able to go to a website and read written explanations of human behavior in mechanistic terms I could understand was crucial for getting me started.  I never was able to “get” all the tacit understandings that seem to flow effortlessly between most people.  Having it all spelled out for me in logical terms was just what I needed.  After years of practice, I can play their games now.  Strangely enough, I find myself coming out on top now because I understand their underlying motivations better than they do.
Since the internet began to grow up, I’ve been able to look for people who have the most similar thought patterns and share ideas.  I’ve been able to put my own ideas out there for anyone who might be receptive.  Though I am very small as bloggers go, hundreds of thousands of pairs of eyes have seen my writings where without the world wide web, these thoughts would have been relegated to a personal notebook no one would ever read.  When even someone like me has access to several sports stadiums worth of people, it’s past time for the establishment to start worrying.

In the larger society, word of mouth, television, the news, a few publishing houses determined social reality for everyone with no real voice of dissent possible.  I can remember as a child in the 90s how journalists with newspaper columns seemed like minor gods and the voice of public opinion.  It seemed even more official when the newspaper was a physical thing that arrived on the doorstep every morning.  Now, less than two decades later, they’ve been reduced to a joke, their commenters often painfully more knowledgeable and open-minded than they are.  More telling still, their commenters aren’t bought and paid for by magnates who control their salary.
Freeing up thoughtful people who would otherwise have lived out their days as closeted outcasts has created critical weak points in the social consensus.
Outliers are by definition few in number but simply seeing anyone challenge the tribal taboos without consequence gives permission to millions of others to follow in apostasy.  Most people only believe the things they believe because they’re useful to social belonging.  Once these beliefs outlive their use, they are forgotten overnight.
We now see the rise of politicians that say what what people really think when they aren’t posing in social environments.

Most importantly, outliers are now able to thrive, gain influence, and have offspring.  For those who thrived best in the Old Consensus the present seems like the apocalypse as the world gets ever more complex and the last traditions fall apart.  For outliers who’ve always had to live in the shadows like cockroaches, there’s never been a better time to be alive.  Instead of being thankful to be allowed to live as celibates in a monastery or left unmolested as wandering sadhu ascetics, we are in the fray, able to participate and exert power for the first time ever.
Barely 6-7 years ago, heretical dissident groups like MRAs, MGTOWs, and gamers were seen by most as being in the same league with NAMBLA and the KKK.  And now, after years of aggressively growing their audience, these dissidents find they suddenly have an ideological influence over national politics.  Only the internet makes such a sudden seismic shift possible.  Along with them, many formerly covert schools of thought are finally able to make their presence felt.  Or rather, many disparate thinkers, have the opportunity now to found their school and compete directly for turf with tenured academics who punched all the right tickets.

See Also: On Herdbeasts

Overrated Rationality is the Enlightenment Mistake

If we look at animals, we notice 3 levels of awareness.

-First there is the realm of the “reptile brain” concerning itself the basic impulses, sensations, and instinct.  Hunger, lust, cold, warm, thirst. Most animals go no further than this.  They have no need to.

-We notice another tier in some higher animals with more complex instinctive behaviors, memory and learning, emotions  and social skills.

-Lastly, we see in some humans a limited form of what we call consciousness or self-awareness.

The philosophers of the enlightenment who created the ideas of modernity predicated their ideas on human society on the assumption that most humans are rational and self-aware.
This is of course not the case.

The vast majority of humans adhere to whatever ideas they are taught early in life without ever a thought.  For the most part, humans thrive by banding into tight collectives and living their lives railroaded by instinctual protocols of social interaction, courtship, and rearing offspring just like pretty much any other high level social mammal.  They can hardly be distinguished from wolves, baboons, dolphins, or chimpanzees.

The individual as enlightenment thinkers conceive of one, is a being who hardly exists amongst humans at all.  And only a significant minority come somewhat close to the ideal of being able to think objectively and then only some of the time about certain things.  We have only to read for 15 minutes about the inbuilt cognitive biases in humans and immediately begin to recall some of the stupid decisions we’ve all made.

From the erroneous underlying assumptions of human rationality and consciousness come the catastrophic ideologies spawned from the Enlightenment.
Capitalism and Marxism in their various forms are portrayed often as opposites, yet both come from the same source, Enlightenment thinkers who believed societies were composed of free rational individuals.

Marxism believes the masses of workers ought to rule and Capitalists believe a market formed by the purchases of the masses ought to rule.
Both try to solve the problems of a society of rational individuals, a fantasy society that doesn’t exist.  This is why both systems, despite their good intentions end up wrecking entire peoples.
The empowered workers end up creating a despotism that impoverishes them and even causes famines.
Market demand enshrined as God destroys everything in its path like an amnesiac beast enslaved to its present whims.  And in the end, what good is all the wealth in the world if the people meant to benefit are destroyed and the sterile units of money still counted dutifully by whirring machines, oblivious to the piles of dusty bones nearby?
Ultimately, humans are group selected, like other social and eusocial animals.  The ideas that stand the test of time and spread are those that help one group of humans outcompete another.
If we would have a successful way of improving life for most people, an idea must first provide for the spread and defense of its adopters.  Enlightenment thinkers provided no defense.  Their ideology is like a nation without a military.  They had no concept of the harsh realities of survival, preferring to live in their dream world.
Every surviving major religion has some directive that its followers go forth and multiply, to defend against outsiders, and in some strains to proselytize.
For nature doesn’t care if the most competitive system makes people happy or not so long as it proliferates.

No ideology will have its intended results unless it is grounded in a firm understanding of how people actually are in the real world.
Yet I can’t see how an ideology that shows people the unpleasant truth of how we really are could ever become very popular.
Its adoption would depend on those more capable of consciousness subjugating those less aware and the humans most Human in the Enlightenment sense adopting rule over human animals as man establishes rule over beast.
Perhaps a banker who rules over a million humans by extracting a penny from each every day through sleight of hand is the natural ruler, parasite, and predator of their herd.
Or the politician who outwits them all through sophisticated talk?
Perhaps their easy dominance over the many shows us how a well-intentioned philosopher could come along and use an engineer’s knowledge of societies to realize their vision.

Every Purchase Is A Vote

Whenever we walk into a store we can measure how much we’re like everyone else.  Imagine a planet where everyone was you.  What then would the inside of the store look like?  All the things you like would be available in abundance, their prices driven down by economy of scale.  How close then is the existing store to the theoretical ideal that serves you best?  We can’t expect everyone to be the same in real life; without the purchases of many different people, there could be no store.  So we must be willing to sacrifice some of our individual preferences to have a market.
The influence of our own vote though is tiny so we must have some significant overlap with other people for the offerings of the store to yield us benefits.  If most customers don’t want some of the same things we want, the store is useless to us.  A man, for instance, will likely never have any need for women’s clothing stores because he lacks overlap with the targeted electorate.
Imagine for a moment the store we’ve walked into is a grocery store.  The initial overlap in needs is very high.  Everyone gets hungry, so we have a great test case.  When we look at the store shelves, we see a purer sort of democracy than has ever existed in politics.  What’s for sale is what everybody wants.
What if most people want junk food though?  The grocery store will have lots of cheap junk food and the substantial food will be scarcer and higher in price.  Perhaps it just points to the reason why there never has been a true political democracy.  The masses might well make terrible decisions.  A people cannot survive leadership without some semblance of order and quality control.  But they can survive the consequences of eating too much cookie dough ice cream, at least in the short term.

We can draw a similar analogy with book stores.  We want to read, but the store is of no value to us if the only books available are sensational slush.  In this case, the mass of other people out there has proven to be a liability to our interests because of their lack of overlap concerning the details of an item we want.  And our paltry votes don’t even make a dent.

Let us look at the bestseller lists for books too, and the top 25 in music.  Or how about the most popular television shows and movies?  In a decently ok world, most items on these lists should be among the best, right?  But what if to our horror, we consistently see works of low quality, or insipid mediocrity exalted by the collective?
If you don’t like what most people like, you are in a way living in a zombie apocalypse, surrounded by shambling throngs of people whose tastes and interests run contrary to your own in every way imaginable.  Your voice is drowned out while everyone rushes to the theaters to see the next remake of a remake.

If you or I were to conclude our nature and preferences have remarkably little overlap with most other people out there, it does not make sense to make the sacrifices required to participate in their collective pools.  Banding with the masses proves more a liability than a benefit.  It makes far more sense to find those with a higher degree of overlap even if they’re just a few and pooling one’s demand with them instead, while isolating oneself from the slavering zombie hordes.

It is on this basis of collective compatibility that would underlie a modern caste system.  In the case of economics, each cluster of preferences would occupy separate markets from food, to clothing, and entertainment.  Perhaps such distinctions already exist informally, but it takes considerable knowledge, deep affiliations, and especially sheer wealth to sort out what belongs to one’s proper sphere.
In a more formalized order, each strata has no need to waste energy on self discovery, they naturally gravitate towards their proper places and live their whole lives therein, their votes compatible with the other voters of their breed.  With a more stable hierarchy, less struggle takes place and far more gets done.

If we consider grocery stores again.  There already are grocers that cater to different tastes, but they do so mostly through being more expensive.  They decisively segregate their clientele using high prices but in so doing produce a form of value signalling rather than pure optimization.
In a correctly stratified caste system, a store ought not to rely first on higher prices as an isolating mechanism but instead be able to focus on being able to provide the best possible value given the votes of the consumers of the higher castes.
We may consider pure status signalling such as paying extra for ‘organic’ produce a penalty that certain voters agree to pay in order to form a barrier.  But if such a barrier is already formalized by the agreement of voters, then there is no need to pay such penalties and all effort can be put into providing the best value possible for the voting coalition.
We can imagine similar principles applied to real estate.  Those who pay high prices to keep undesirables out of their supermarkets apply the same tactics to property ownership and school districts.  Again, the cadre of voters in an unstable hierarchy is forced to pay penalties to segregate themselves into a mutually beneficial electorate.  In a stable caste hierarchy, their neighborhoods and schools are delineated by force of their votes, leaving them free to build value rather than spend most of their wealth insulating themselves against incompatible demographics.
As it is, many people try to isolate themselves from the gales of popular mediocrity by working long hours for decades.  So hard is their task that they barely manage to reproduce, managing only to replace themselves in the best of times.  The most productive creatures effectively barely scrape by at subsistence.
Because their natural habitat is saturated by hostile tribes unless they build cost-prohibitive barriers, they are forced to spend most of their effort just trying to chisel out their desired place, which in a Correct order should be theirs by natural right.

As a final thought experiment, consider how idiotic most advertisements are on television, youtube, and in print.  This is what most people find persuasive or these ads would not exist.  Every advertisement is a glimpse into the heart of the average person.  Don’t like what you see?  Then you are participating in the wrong commercial electorate.
How would advertising change then if we dominated the commercial electorate?  Would it even exist in the same form?

See Also:  Shelters From Planned Obsolescence,
Friction of Association and Social Selectivity

Proles Are Inert

We have established that human societies everywhere settle into a stratified equilibrium.  Many other social species have hierarchy.  Amongst humans, there is the hierarchy of natural castes.

Societies thrive or collapse  in proportion that its class system reflects the reality on the ground.  A society fails when mediocre men become rulers and great men are made into poor peasants.
A society stagnates when the best outliers are made to live as exiles and the halls of
power belong to ordinary men.

In the modern west, we think of justice merely as fairness in meting out punishments, but it’s much more than that.  Justice is a person attaining whatever station and reward is justly theirs.
It is sad we mostly understand this in terms of petty criminals being punished.
Rarely, do we reflect that it is just those with prolish values and temperaments are proles, or that those of noble bearing and character ascend the heights.

All across the internet, one finds idealogues who expect enraged masses to rise up and have a revolution any day now to stop “big government.”  Their outrage always turns out to be nonsense of course.
The peasants have always had their champions—champions who nearly always fail and end up dead themselves.  The brothers Gracchi in the days of the Roman Republic are a classic example.  After the two brothers were murdered in succession trying to pass monopoly-busting land laws, further attempts at reform dwindled for some reason.  Despite their far greater numbers, the proles were unable to protect their champions or carry out an agenda themselves.  As usual, they missed opportunities their betters would have seized upon.  The proles have always been inert.

Like most Americans, I was taught the idea of a “common man” enshrined as some kind of God.  But within a few years of going out into the world to fend for myself, I had discovered that the common people are no God, they’re just the mob.

The first universal trait I noticed in their character was passivity.  Everywhere I’ve been, prolish folks endlessly complain about their lot and resent their superiors in life.  But it dawned on me one day—they never do anything about it, nor are they capable of action.
I looked back through history, since my own life is a narrow anecdotal slice, but the pattern of proles is timeless as the tides.
So long as their stomachs are full most of the time, even if they’re subsisting on junk, they grumble amongst themselves, mostly for stress relief, but utterly lack motivation for change until they are truly desperate.  They are constitutionally incapable of framing dissident thoughts of their own volition.  Actually, their defining quality is they lack volition and agency.  If they were not docile and gullible, societies of millions where just a few have all the wealth would  not be possible.  In a way, it is just.  Unable to defend themselves, they assume their proper place as preybeasts.
Across history and location poor peasants have always been proud supporters of the established order while the truly rebellious have always been educated young men who couldn’t quite make it into, or beyond the upper middle class.
Peasants have always had revolts,
Frustrated petit bourgeois, revolutions.

Proles are by nature obedient creatures that define themselves by working most of the time.  They love to brag about how busy they are, all the sacrifices they’ve made while working, the injuries they’ve gotten doing the dirty work of the affluent.  They are masochists eternally dying in mines and on battlefields for their masters.  They take comfort in repetition.  Proles always buy the same brands, drive the same route every day, work the same tedious work, and listen to the same 25 songs everyone else is listening to over and over again.
Proles take pride in collectivism and trust the herd.  In a prole bar one doesn’t try to to order craft beers or wine when everyone else has pitchers of coors light.  In Proleville, no man can be talked to if he can’t talk about sports—the fine art of watching the accomplishments of others rather than doing for oneself.  Eating different foods, learning another language, staying fit with exercise, anything everyone else isn’t doing is a quick ticket to being cast out.  Just as they would not let a dog or pig sit with them at the dinner table, they allow no one in their midst who they cannot identify as a fellow human.

Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, or Khmer Rouge Cambodia are fine examples of what happens when the common man becomes ruler.  Given far more power than befits his station, his natural loathing and envy of anyone different than himself manifests in hysterical witch hunts.  Men like Mao and Stalin understood the vastness of this ocean of envy for The Man and kept their populations appeased by allowing the peasants to terrorize the hated middle management—rich peasants, the landlords, the educated.  Given permission by the rulers themselves, their normally impotent rage at life poured forth to create some of history’s greatest disasters.

The majority of human beings are proles.  The family I come from were classic anxious upper proles desperately groveling for middle class acceptance.
Their neurotic habits led to the isolation that allowed me to grow up in a vacuum of sorts and eventually develop customs of my own.
I learned to understand the futility of their struggle and regard their subservient attitudes with contempt.
I am genetically a prole, more predisposed to an honest day’s labor than white collar “networking.”
But I have striven to become an active rather than passive individual, attempting to shape my own destiny rather than spending the rest of my life complaining during lunch break.  If I accept the universe is fundamentally just rather than unjust, then I must face the fact that I must be the change I wish to see.
I may have unfair obstacles in my path.  I can choose to suppose I got a bad lot in life.  It does not change my mission.

Some might call my sentiment here “elitist” but that is why proles stay proles.  They always stay steadfast that they are undeserving of the lot they’ve been given yet remain ignorant in an age of information and continue to squander their wealth on big trucks and houses they can’t afford, lotto tickets, slot machines, smokes, and red bull by the case.  Most importantly, though, they are eternally bereft of imagination and ideas—and that is why things are the way they are.

%d bloggers like this: