Suicide by Science

The progressive end game is for the very category of ‘enemy’ to be techno-scientifically annihilated. Emile Bruneau has the Zeitgeist good, and he’s determined to promote it:

“I wanted the research I was doing to match the stuff I was thinking about,” he says. “And I just felt more and more that the most relevant level of analysis for generating social change was the psychological level.”

The goal is to put an end to this sort of thing:

Evidence of the empathy gap abounds: in political discourse, across daily headlines, even in the simple act of watching a movie. “People will cry for the suffering of one main character,” Bruneau pointed out. “But then cheer for the slaughter of dozens of others.” The observation reminded me of watching “Captain Phillips” in a packed theater at Lincoln Center, of how much people applauded when the Somali pirates — whose lives back home had been portrayed as dire — were killed. They were the bad guys. Never mind that they had barely reached manhood or that their families were desperate and starving. Never mind that some were reluctant to turn to piracy in the first place.

The Kingdom cometh. Anybody without serious plans to get the hell out now better be resigning themselves to the mandatory-compassion Cathedral chip.

“I get that these are complicated problems,” [Bruneau] told me. “I get that there isn’t going to be any one magic solution. But if you trace even the biggest of these conflicts down to its roots, what you find are entrenched biases, and these sort-of calcified failures of empathy. So I think no matter what, we have to figure out how to root that out.”

This is the Bernays of the 21st century. Let no one say they weren’t warned.

March 25, 2015admin 40 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

40 Responses to this entry

  • Suicide by Science | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 5:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    `This is all part of the strong impulse to remove the political which is inherent in the Cathedral ideology. Remove the enemy and you remove the political. Remove the political and all are equal. You can not have dialogue with this level of monomania driven insanity.


    admin Reply:

    Of course, when preyed upon by pirates, the only thing that really matters is that you feel their pain.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Or, backprojected a few thousand years: When you are eaten by a tiger, the only thing that really matters is that it is a formidable, beautiful predator, and it just happens to be hungry.

    If we really had this level of empathy with everything, including attackers, we’d never even made it out of the forests. So what is the purpose of pretending to? Signaling superiority and distance?

    E.g. a thought process like “The somali pirates are so far below us, as animals in a zoo. Their motivations are interesting from an idle speculation angle, but don’t affect me in any way so I don’t feel threatened. Thus attacking them is comparable to torching kittens, pointless and cruel”.

    (… overlooking that a pirate with a 60’s machine gun can kill as thoroughly as an autonomous drone with hellfire missiles)

    Exploiting inbuilt sympathy that was evolved to protect the young, by applying it to pirates. It’s funny. Eye-in-the-sky universal empathy. Send gifts and educate them about the wrongness of their ways and be nice and maybe they’ll stop attacking our ships… And find more refined ways of scamming us.


    Hurlock Reply:

    This is not *just* about removing the political.

    E.g. insofar as formalism wants to achieve any maximization of social efficiency it seeks to minimize politics as much as possible to near redundancy. Yet, it doesn’t seek to achieve anything like this…


    Hurlock Reply:

    Actually, I don’t think this is about “removing the political” at all.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    For there to be politics there needs to be faction. There are a number of cases where faction is irrelevant. This is an attempt to negate faction entirely, by forcibly removing the category of enemy. Obviously, if this was once Christian, it is no longer. For to ‘love one’s enemies’ requires one to HAVE them.

    I wonder what sort of primal, irrational fear actually drives this behavior; it doesn’t seem to be the activity of a rational soul.

    Chris B Reply:

    “Actually, I don’t think this is about “removing the political” at all.” how? formalism is surely about reducing conflict by making the divisions inherent in the political clear, and to provide clear rules to all participants to avoid needless conflict. Progs like this lunatic want to remove the political. They want no division what so ever as Gray notes.

    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 5:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Benedict Says:

    Empathy is important because it lets you feel the cannibals satisfaction while he eats you.


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 9:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Suicide by Science | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 9:29 am Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    We’re about 10 years away from “bigotry” entering the DSM, with accompanying “empathy” pill.


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 9:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Hegemonizing Swarm Says:

    Off topic: does anyone have a copy of Nick Land’s articles and is willing to share them? Especially “Lure of the Void”. The original link doesn’t work anymore. Apparently they didn’t renew the domain:

    “Status: redemptionPeriod“.


    Miskatonic U. Human Resources Reply:

    This works for me:


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Thanks, that works for me as well. Good old web archive to the rescue, should have thought of that.


    Scharlach Reply:

    I’ll have it back up and running over the summer, in a format that’s not so dedicated to quarterly publication, since so few people are doing article-length posts these days.


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 12:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Derfel Says:

    Houellebecq predicted that one too, almost 20 years ago. In “The Elementary Particles”, human biochemistry is altered to create androgynous human beings that don’t suffer because they don’t actually feel anything. And then there is this:


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 4:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Toddy Cat Says:

    Of course, changing human beings so that they felt universal, paralyzing empathy for everyone and everything that might prey on them would also mean the end of the human race. But of course, we always knew that this was the goal, didn’t we? “Culture of Death”, indeed…


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 4:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • epicleses Says:

    we may ask: in what setting (and to who) are pathological empathisers useful tools or game-pieces? e.g. is there perhaps a society where such people are needed for a specific caste wirth a function in the wider whole? a conspiracy is not implied by this question: no one is assembling a new world order by creating a caste hierarchy based on capacity for empathy. but it does seem plausible that such a caste would be useful as a facilitator of communication between heterogeneous groups and a precursor to their assimilation. in other words, universalism. pathological empathisers are people driven to open borders, to merge groups, combine hierarchies, and so on – to mediate. discrimination, boundaries or judgement of any kind strikes them as wrong on a level below the intellectual – on the level that actually matters and actually leads to action. this is spengler’s faustian european taken to its ridiculous or absurd limit and then crossing that threshold.

    the problem is that these are probably very useful types to have around if you’re an emperor or a CEO – because his goal of expanding his territory or power is co-extensive with their goal of removing boundaries – so these have been adaptive traits throughout most of recent history, especially among the more educated classes. empathopaths are probably a decent social tech, but they work best in the middle of the hierarchy – put them at the top and the cathedral happens.


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 9:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    there’s a quote..a single death is a tragedy, multiple are a statistic


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 11:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    The perspective of the Yudkowskian rationalists is that when compared to any aliens that we may find in the future, any differences between humans is a rounding error. To unite humanity, one might need real aliens. But their perspective could be that contemplating the alienness of natural selection is sufficient for an intelligent person to think of all of humanity with empathy. When you think of Cthulhu or Azathoth, even the hardened SJW feels like a brother to a neoreactionary.

    Me against my brother, my brother and me against my cousin, me and my cousins against the rest of the tribe, the tribe against the rest of humanity, maybe just maybe, all of humanity against the cruel world ?

    The problems are telescopic attention allocation, when you empathise more with someone further than with someone nearer and the minimum intelligence required to even figure out how cruel natural selection really is.


    admin Reply:

    If you saw a bunch of SJWs being devoured by an Arachnomonstrosity from Yuggoth, you’d sympathize with the SJWs?


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    God, I wish your board allowed image macros right now.


    blogospheroid Reply:

    It depends on the speed with which the ur-spider is advancing. I would probably be terrified and running away. Think about it, it probably sees no difference between them and me. It got at them first, but no one knows if it would stop at them.


    admin Reply:

    A discriminating Yuggothian Arachnomonstrosity would be an even more obvious object of sympathy, certainly.

    Alrenous Reply:

    I want a pet discriminating Yuggothian Arachnomonstrosity.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Blogospheroid: This is a key point you raise. There’s a theory that one can think of two levels of reality: “Reality” and “reality.” In big R reality, we really ARE all one consciousness, as the Buddhists and Christian mystics assert. This is what the deeper and more serious of the New-Age groovies focus on. They are not all social justice warriors. Obviously SJWs are a very un-evolved, fear-based group. There is a much more serious and profound group, deep INFP and INFJ types — the ones who think about spiritual matters ALL DAY LONG with the same intensity that INTJs think about philosophical matters all day long. When these spiritually-focused people get together, they start talking about “planetary consciousness” within about 45 seconds. It’s where they instantly, naturally go.

    I can’t really blame them because from a capital-R Reality perspective they have a point. Many of these people are also wise and experienced enough in the real world to hold Realpolitik opinions about all the matters that Neoreactionaries are concerned about. As a general rule the planetary-consciousness NF groovies aren’t as well read on the political and economic texts because they don’t do standard philosophy.

    Anyway, their knock on Neoreaction is that we are ALSO stuck in fear-based consciousness — just like the SJWs. Simply the mirror image of them. I think they have a point.

    As Hurlock pointed out in the Ourobouros piece, capitalism is INHERENTLY fear-based: “The fear is not that your profit margin will decline. No, the fear is that you will starve.” What the Buddhists and their ilk seek to do is, on some sort of daily experiential basis, is move beyond fear-based consciousness. I think they are on the right track. As a finance dude I live in permanent fear of a market crash (and they seem to be happening more and more frequently. If it’s not US stocks it’s commodities. If it’s not commodities it’s EM currencies. Something is ALWAYS crashing. Fear, fear fear.)

    One of my favorite characters on Game of Thrones is Melissandra, the Red Queen. She is the consummate INFJ priestess. It’s an archtype that has always been with humanity.


    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    I’m not sure if you think of yourself as an INTJ, but the fact that you take such piffle seriously is all the proof I need that you are not an INTJ. (Either that, or it is proof that the Myers-Briggs test is a useless way of categorizing the world). For the record – no, these New Agers don’t have a “point”, and they are “serious” about planetary consciousness in the same way that a 5 year old girl is serious about the interior lives of her Barbie dolls.


    Lesser Bull Reply:


    At the same time, fear can be pretty disabling and even weapons-grade goofiness will be embraced if it eases the burden, which looks to be exactly the situation that our friend Kgaard is in.

    Hurlock Reply:


    Aeroguy Reply:


    Is your concern that the groovies are going to come up with a newer version of Christianity/Buddhism that will take the world by storm and paralyze any efforts to discriminate between good and bad? The universal consciousness idea is at least as old as Hinduism though theirs is balanced by having a duality to it. New age religions seem to be symptomatic with decline using the Romans as an example, though Christianity was one of them. I can be called defeatist in the sense that I see civilizations as cyclical and thus the Anglican Empire is as doomed as my own mortal flesh. You’re a conservative, you want to prolong the decline before collapse, I’m in the camp that’s already grieved, reached acceptance, and wants to accelerate the birth of the next civilization, anointing it as successor of the western tradition.

    I do see your point though, a Nietzschean counter to the religions of pathological empathy would be valuable either way. Are you suggesting that we need to recruit INFP/INFJ types to help forge compelling spiritual realities out of Nietzsche? Not a bad idea. Stopping the groovies all together on the other hand seems like tilling at windmills with interspersed head banging on brick walls.


    kgaard Reply:

    My main point is to draw a distinction between New Agers aspiring for a Buddhist-style planetary consciousness — which, as you say, is a stance that has been around for thousands of years — and SJWs suffering from fear-based hostility and pathological altruism.

    The better of the New Agers have a legitimate position. It’s basically Buddhism. I don’t think it’s going to take the world by storm for a variety of reasons, the most basic of which relates to the Neoreactionary insights about concentric degrees of empathy.

    I will say that Sailer’s comments about how things change when you get closer to the Canadian border are applicable here: The more homogeneous a community, the less aggravated people feel about the presence of a few outsiders. In strong communities marked by narrow DNA distribution and modest economic stress, I’m not sure how much they worry about neoreactionary sorts of issues in the first place. They will tend to have a more global spiritual view.

    Now … the question as to whether New Age is symptomatic of societal decline … I’m not sure how relevant of a point that is. I mean … Christianity consists of DEAD symbols and DEAD rituals. So of course there will be spiritual entrepreneurs who work to create new symbols and new rituals that resonate with people TODAY. This is the role of the spiritual artist, so to speak.

    This is an age of creative destruction. Network television is dying. Newspapers are dying. Public school is dying. etc etc etc. It’s all a function of the general acceleration. Religious practice falls under the same category. Creative destruction all around.

    kgaard Reply:

    Example: Let’s say I am a French immigration agent tasked with deciding whether to let a die-hard Muslim into France. A truly evolved view would go like this: “I accept you as a brother human. We are both manifestations of the all-that-is. That said, I also trust you to act on your beliefs. Those beliefs are repugnant to France. Islam calls for conquering of non-Muslim lands and allows for the raping of non-Muslim women (on the grounds that the recipients of these predations are being done a favor by being returned to Allah or introduced to Islam). Therefore, you can’t come in to France. If you do come in, we will imprison you or kick you out.

    Such a stance would be in keeping both with Buddhist planetary consciousness and Neoreactionary Realpolitik. The key phrase is “I trust you to act on your beliefs.”

    It’s worth noting at this point that it’s really the oligarchs and Bilderbergers at the top of the European food chain who pushed for this whole Eurabia concept in the first place. It was (and is) a sell-out of the salt-of-the-earth Europeans by their elite overlords. All the Orwellian doublespeak associated with multiculturalism is mandated from the top. Romano Prodi was among the key handmaidens-to-the-oligarchs in this process.

    And why did the oligarchs push this concept? It goes back to Ouroboros again: FEAR: Fear that they would not have markets into which to sell their goods. And thus fear that they would starve.

    Izak Reply:

    Kgaard, the reason new agers are basically worthless as a whole is because they’re completely incapable of reconciling these two positions you’re in agreement with and saying something like what you just presented as the ideal. If they think of NRx as a “fear based system” rather than one rooted in principles, I’d say they’re the ones who are afraid. People like this rarely know how to take their understanding of metaphysics and correctly apply it down to the level of the Earth.

    I also do not know why you keep labeling this thought process as “Buddhist,” when the Hindus also felt we’re all one under the aspect of Atman long before Siddhartha Gautama did, and in fact used such a metaphysics to create caste systems and justify principled warfare.

    I have no problems, for the record, with this kind of ‘new age’ style discourse coming from individuals — at least up until it becomes intermingled with politics and social questions. One of my favorite filmmakers/writers is Alejandro Jodorowsky, who always says stuff like, “My true self contains no race, no religion, no name, no sex” etc. etc. I get where he’s coming from. I agree with what he’s saying, I think. And yet very few people with this mentality, from my experiences, have the wisdom to reconcile these religious truths with the cold hard reality of human biomechanics.

    As an aside, have you read the traditionalists, like Rene Guenon? I think you’d get something out of The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. I mentioned them previously, but they’re key for their ability to demonstrate how new age is largely degenerated and lacking in intellectual depth compared to the once-vital tradition from which it emanates.

    kgaard Reply:


    Izak: Legit point about New Agers not being able to reconcile these two positions. NFs see the world as a pet shop with a never-ending supply of puppies to be cuddled. It is only after they are bitten 10-20 times that they become open to the notion that something is not right with the concept of universal unquestioning acceptance.

    I thought about it and can think of 6 New Agers or fellow travelers who can hold both these positions (neoreaction & planetary consciousness) in their head simultaneously. Keith Richards argues that 97% of all art is crap — but the other 3% makes it all worthwhile. If we apply the same standard to New Age we still may find some quality stuff in that remaining 3%.

    Kwisatz: Disagree that New Agers are not serious about planetary consciousness. Please see the 3% rule above.

    Lesser Bull and Hurlock: I will change the term “fear” to “vigilance” or “wariness” to describe a central element in the Neoreactionary worldview. Almost by definition this is part of it. Isn’t it a maxim that reactionaries are the first to see threats to a community? What else is that ability to see threats others don’t see other than some sort of permanent heightened vigilance or wariness?

    Izak: Bought the Rene Guenon book. Name sounded vaguely Camusian so I thought I’d peruse him and it does look interesting …

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    IN a functioning community, seeing threats others don’t might be a sign of heightened vigilance. In modern times, it means your brain hasn’t been consumed by worms.

    Was the boy who cried that the emperor had no clothes particularly fearful, wary, or vigilant?

    Sidenote: you are starting to talk like a religious zealot. Trust me, I’ve been around enough of them to know. If you were willing to apply the same utter leniency of 3% to Christianity or any other faith, you’d practically have to be a convert to them.

    Kgaard Reply:


    Nah … not a zealot. Just working through the logic to where it leads. I like some of the work the New Agers do. I am trying to de-sensitize to their universalist nonsense to get at the useful stuff underneath. Difficult balancing act but can be done.

    You could think of me as a Heidegerrian. In The Question Concerning Technology he wrestled at length with the problem of the de-mystification and de-sacralization of the land (and life itself) as land itself became a tool to be used in the capitalist process. The New Agers are developing new rituals (or recovering old ones) to try to revive that mystical sense. Actually, the recovering of out-of-use rituals is precisely a Heideggerian practice. He specifically calls for pursuing the odd, the minority, the out-of-fashion way, as a method for encountering life a-fresh.

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    @kgaard : One of the tragedies of the modern era is that our fight or flight mechanisms are totally inadequate for managing contemporary challenges. Replacing the core of fear with a positive visualisation is an ongoing project.

    @everyone – Thanks for the discussion, interesting throughout.


    Posted on March 26th, 2015 at 7:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Being a born-again Schmittian, this post deeply disturbed me. I can see how your will-to-fragment overlaps with ole’ Carl’s spatial-orientated anti-universalism (even if the scale is different, the ontology is the same).


    Posted on March 26th, 2015 at 10:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/03/27) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] excerpts in Select Quotes from Edward Bernays’s “Propaganda”. According to Nick Land, Emile Bruneau has taken Bernays’ mantle. Also from Donovan: Friday Frags—Emo-chick-pop-Donate-to-Bryce-Imma-Ex-Hedonist […]

    Posted on March 28th, 2015 at 5:49 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment