Twitter cuts (#27)

This (cubed).

It shouldn’t even be difficult. Could any ‘rectification of names’ be more straightforward? If the word is grasped with any lucidity, the more diversity the better. Every problem that the (non-totalitarian) right has with ‘diversity’ is in fact a rejection of homogenization. To allow the prevailing pattern of usage to continue unchallenged is an absurdity.

‘Diversity’ already tilts into non-universality, and that is meta-level rightism itself.

The diversity between diversity and non-diversity is the best diversity.

September 8, 2015admin 59 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

59 Responses to this entry

  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Ummm….

    http://ask.fm/Nick_B_Steves/answer/132470887341

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Yes, good.

    [Reply]

    AugustusPugin Reply:

    Has there ever been an example of the right “reclaiming” a Universalist power word? It seems completely strategically naive. Saying “we are the REAL believers in diversity!” just smacks of the conservative opining that “the left are the REAL racists!” You are trying to use a leftist weapon for your own advantage and pwning yourself in the process – any attempt to do so is just going to re-inflate and re-justify the entire concept of diversity (as a Universalist proxy) in the first place. There is far too much residual mental goo around the concept for that to ever work. It doesn’t matter that the concept in itself favours heterogeneity, because if words actually meant anything to them we wouldn’t be in the spot in the first place.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Letting your enemies define your words is pwnage plain and simple. In effect, the degree of willingness to concede the semantic field to what is essentially error can be considered a litmus test for compelling reasoning. ‘Race’ and ‘racist’ are words that change meaning with the frequency of their speaker, but should we say ‘no race exists’ because progressives do so? The whole purpose of terror as a means for social control is to remove logic and install confusion in its place, to contribute to that process of disinformation is to act as an aid for noisome tyranny, which damage an attitude of enlightened cynicism does not mitigate.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Augustus raises a good point. Formulations of the form ‘ ““we are the REAL believers in diversity!” ‘ basically concede to allow the left to define the rules of the game, and must be avoided. That would be the cuckservative approach. However, this is not the NRx approach. NRx does not profess ‘belief’, it acknowledges reality. In order to push back race denialism, you don’t engage in sophistical redefinitions of terms, you look at the science and talk about haplogroups, lactose tolerance, aggression, IQ and the like.

    Any strategy that restricts its purview to the semantic ground automatically cedes victory to whatever force controls the media.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “In order to push back race denialism, you don’t engage in sophistical redefinitions of terms, you look at the science and talk about haplogroups, lactose tolerance, aggression, IQ and the like.”

    And, could you please tell me, what is the name of this race science?

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “Any strategy that restricts its purview to the semantic ground automatically cedes victory to whatever force controls the media.”

    Democracy demands propaganda to the same extent that its people demand to be lied to (which is constantly). It follows that semantic legitimacy will corrode in direct proportion as populist agitation increases.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    “And, could you please tell me, what is the name of this race science?”

    Why are you fixated on onomastics?

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Because I like making sense when I speak, though I know i’m in the minority there.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Pardon me if referring to haplogroups and the study of IQ on a NRx blog is not making sense.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Yeah it’s almost like you could say there’s a diver… oh forget it.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    You know what HBD is. We’re all very impressed.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Perhaps I’ve been mistaken and the argument in this thread has not been about whether there is some kind of homogeneous block of genetic grey-matter acting as the ‘standard base’ to which all genes are inadvertently related in degrees of proximity or distance. HBD suggests there is no essential genetic make-up that could be nominated as the evolutionary ‘stable-state’ of a population, and that the reality is a much more varied reproduction and die-off. In other words, there is simply ‘diversity’ and nothing else.

    Also, I remember one of the HBD bloggers criticizing the idea that sub-Sahara holds the greatest amount of diversity in human biology, and instead argued that there is the same degree of qualified differences in all world populations, with ‘minor’ genetic modification causing ‘disproportional’ impact as IQ increases. (I wish I could remember the post.)

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    I thought I should look for a reference to back up that last speculative paragraph but I only found this:

    http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2014/12/the-best-kept-secret-in-populaton-genetics-or-truth-about-african-genetic-diversity/

    “Fundamentally, there are two kinds of genetic diversity: intergroup (between-group, among-groups) diversity and intragroup (within-group) diversity. The two diversity measures are dialectically intertwined, so that an increase in one kind of diversity leads to a decrease in the other kind of diversity. As divergent populations merge, they lose some of their intergroup diversity and become more similar to each other but they gain intragroup diversity because now they are enriched with two or more sets of alleles that evolved separately during the time the populations were isolated from each other. As populations drift apart, their intergroup diversity increases, while their intragroup diversity decreases as alleles get lost through drift … when it comes to intergroup diversity, Africans are only moderately differentiated and so are far from being the “most diverse” among human populations.”

    “So, if looked from an out-of-America angle, human evolutionary history is the process of progressive “deracialization” (or detribalization) of human populations and their agglomeration into more cosmopolitan entities.” –
    http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/04/out-of-america-theory-and-the-race-debate/

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    This particular thread is about prioritizing science over getting pwned by the language games of progs. If it turns out that diversity is all there is, then NRx should embrace it, because whatever the reality of the matter is, leftism is invested in suppressing it and NRx should be invested in discovering it.

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 3:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Skilluminati Says:

    By 2025, I reckon the list of nouns we’ll need to reclaim — for the sake of simple coherence, if nothing else — will resemble a complete copy of the Oxford English.

    And that’s…problematic.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    not to worry, by then we will have invented the Problemation!

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 3:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Im sure we could point out all sorts of absurd contradictions in liberal talking points most of us spent half our lives doing this. The only way it works is to slowly entrap one of the well meaning types to face the implications of their thinking or rather lack of thinking. first you need to find one also capable of thinking and has to be of the type that wont at the end simply say well that may be true but I feel differently.
    But hope springs eternal
    First you have to appeal to their moral values not yours remember Haidt
    and you have to use their moral talking points not yours this is possible because doublethink
    you have to signify for instance never say dont the English have a right to preserve their culture pick exotic examples like Hungary.
    Support it with their own memes like consumerist culture,localism,self determination,
    Point out how massive immigration hurts the immigrants home countries through brain drain,women and child abandonment, power vacuum,etc
    appeal on leftist economic grounds,stress wage depression on local labor,exploitation by employers and one world oligarch conspiracy.
    Point out the irresponsible nature of immigration and foreign aid that creates baby booms leftists are essentially having children they dont intend to raise,
    Appeal to future generations interests.
    scare them with chinese rule if the west is no longer able to administer the world.
    scare them with a world without a west once the west is overun.
    point out peasants are happier in the lands and cultures they are adapted for rather than the indignity of competing in foreign lands they are not prepared for trading a heard of goats for a 16 hour shift driving a cab is not very BOBO.
    give them ideas for projects like an app to sell organic goat milk and meat to whole foods
    show them things like the vice video on liberia or south african necklacing
    remind them all non whites not just blacks get first choice of jobs through affirmative action and this is no longer confined to the civil service and construction
    tell the truth that globalists are pwning PC for control of the world
    point to how the immigrants culture is subsumed by mcdonalds and video games
    how diversity has led to no significant cultural achievements in decades
    divershity
    diversity =?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    multiculturalism= mono cultural ism
    diversity = western suicide
    If you diversify over western civilization and it doesnt work out there are no do overs
    war is peace freedom is slavery diversity is strength
    multiculturalism =globalism
    diversity is a strength?
    Diversity means conform to my values or else
    would you be ok with doing to others countries what you support being done to your own?
    diversity is a punishment for what again?
    so after we are completely diverse then what happens?
    how can anyones culture thrive without a safe space
    diversity for me but not for thee?

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    What is needed is a Devil’s Dictionary for NRx.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 3:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#27) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 6:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • AugustusPugin Says:

    The only type of diversity tolerated by Universalists is the superficial and cosmetic kind. All religions are welcomed, so long as they are simply a different shell for the Universalist kernel, or have sufficient potential for assimilation. All peoples are welcomed, and their meaningless surface level distinctions e.g. melanin count are safely championed because such things could never lead to conflict in the way that an under the skin reappraisal which violates the equality axiom might.

    Not to go all Zizek, but these types of obvious internal contradictions, hypocrisies and deceptions are absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Universalist order because dishonesty is its sweet ichorous lifeblood which keeps its host pliant, unaware and numb enough to keep perpetually propagating it.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “All religions are welcomed, so long as they are simply a different shell for the Universalist kernel, or have sufficient potential for assimilation.”

    Given the way they treat the Islamic world and its denizens and expatriates, one would have to conclude that Islam is either compatible with their view of Universalism, or can somehow be assimilated. Both conclusions are demonstrably false. So what, then, of Islam?

    Alternate hypothesis: The Universalist set of religions no longer satisfies the spiritual needs of the people. European Man has thus descended into nihilism, which leads to the sort of decadence a late-empire Roman would recognize, and which is the ruin of civilizations. Islam is strong, simple, and ascendant — and the Godless Universalist West suffers from such ennui that it cannot lift a finger to defend itself. Instead, it hopes to rationalize and somehow excuse its decadence and impending downfall, from which follows the strange and listless obsession with “diversity” and “multiculturalism.”

    …Which rather brings to mind the reviews I’ve read of Houellebecq’s Submission. The English translation shall be released here in the UK in a couple of days, so we’ll soon see what the book actually says…

    [Reply]

    AugustusPugin Reply:

    My experience so far is that any evidence of Islam’s indissoluble qualities are suppressed, marginalised and ignored in order to keep Universalist spirits high. Insofar as people are hostile to Islam, I do not believe they are acting in a Universalist capacity.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I think the Progressive leaders regard Islam as a stick with which to poke Christians and conservative atheists. Progressives either think that they can control Islam in the long run, or else they haven’t thought beyond the immediate emotional and political payoffs.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Progressivism entails constitutional inability to think beyond short-term emotional and political payoffs, so you tell me.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Postscript:

    Maybe progs are betting that when wintertime rolls around the jihadis will simply freeze to death.

    Mike Reply:

    Given the way they treat the Islamic world and its denizens and expatriates, one would have to conclude that Islam is either compatible with their view of Universalism, or can somehow be assimilated. Both conclusions are demonstrably false. So what, then, of Islam?

    To expand on Peter’s reply, I think Islam is just a prosaic example of using the far enemy against the near enemy. Universalists don’t like Islam much more than we do (possibly, they like it even less): they simply see it as strategically useful against people like us.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Islam is simple enough to easily garner support of those with two digit IQ.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ted Swanson Says:

    The difference between diversity and homogenenity is dependent on how subtle your sense perception is. A blockhead’s homogenenity is the subtle mind’s diversity. If you need to be smacked in the face with extreme difference to get the picture you lack imagination.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 10:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Minter Says:

    Liberal “Diversity” is about “toleration”.

    The first two Webster definitions of ‘tolerate’ are:

    : to allow (something that is bad, unpleasant, etc.) to exist, happen, or be done

    : to experience (something harmful or unpleasant) without being harmed

    One doesn’t have to “tolerate” chocolate, good behavior, great art, wonderful food, good neighbors, competent co-workers, pleasant spouses, the well informed and well educated.

    The smart tolerate the stupid; adults tolerate children; the well behaved tolerate badly behaved; the efficient tolerate the inefficient; the good tolerate the “less good”, the worse.

    “Diversity” demands you accept less, that you tolerate the lesser, the inferior, that you subsume your own excellence and do not expect it from others.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The exact opposite of diversity then — de-differentiation, homogenenization, universal mediocrity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 8th, 2015 at 10:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    https://mildcolonialboy.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/how-newspeak-works/

    “Note the recent career of the word “diversity.” This term denotes a key conservative theme. As is pointed out by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in writings including his classic Leftism (1974), a devotion to diversity arguably distinguishes the Right from the Left. The elements of this devotion are many; consider, for example, respect for regional traditions, the insistence that human beings are not interchangeable, the tendency to think in terms of distinct persons rather than large classes of people, support for various institutions that shield individuals from the State, as well as the related belief in decentralization. We are now expected to restrict the term to one explicit, technical meaning, one that refers to a specific demographic distribution. Not surprisingly, the new usage is explained and enforced by a phalanx of experts. Note also that, in a characteristic tour de force, the term is now compatible, not only with intellectual conformism, but also with the pursuit of economic and political integration on a global scale.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 2:36 am Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    Did the Song dynasty have any lubricating diversity?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Of course. The Silk Road was a cultural conveyor stretching all the way to the Mediterranean. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all entered China on it. Tang and Song artworks depicting foreigners (merchants usually, as one would expect) are often very amusing.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    The Song lost access to the Silk Road to the Tanguts. They did have plenty of maritime trade; but the Song were hardly as cosmopolitan as the early Tang.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… hardly as cosmopolitan as the early Tang.” — That leaves lots of room for cosmopolitan commercialism.

    Chris B Reply:

    Cosmopolitan as an assumed good both assumes the sale (that cosmopolitan is not up for discusion) and presumes to dictate how the sovereign should orientate society.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Cosmopolitanism is under constant frenzied assault on the dissident right, so it’s hardly as if I don’t understand it hasn’t “made the sale” (except to the tech-comm fringe) and never will.

    Neither cosmopolitanism or parochialism is the kind of value likely to be casually amenable to ‘correction’, or to be considered negotiable on either side. It’s an opportunity for diversity.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    There’s that negotionable thing again. “You have your wish, I have mine, lets discuss it.” Really?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Where does the discussion bit come in? “You want your social arrangements, I want mine, cut the pointless argument, let’s split.”

    The entire rationale for ‘zero voice, maximum exit’ is to eliminate all (object-level) discussion about political organization.

    Moldbug’s key insight here, surely, is that when you enter into a commercial transaction with a business entity of any kind, it never occurs to you to start second-guessing (still less arguing) with the management. That’s Neocameral political culture.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    Not really. The whole neocam model rests on each sov corp being owned and therefore run by a sovereign. The whole point as I gather is that is is comprised of rational actors. Sov corps, quasi monarchies in effect. Your extension of this to “you have A, I will have B” is a subtle corruption of this.

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 3:06 am Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    A diversity in which all elements appear different but are basically interchangeable and equal is the leftist definition of diversity. If we’re talking ‘the diversity between’ we’ve already slipped back into the old usage, in which diversity went along with strife. Like ‘freedom’ it is a word missing a qualifier – Bismarck taught them well that everyone misses an omission.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 3:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Benedict Says:

    Calling wealth inequality ‘financial diversity’ would make a pretty good troll meme.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 3:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    If you allow radical fragmentation of society along feudal lines then all of these buzzwords from the age of masses and democracy will become irrelevant.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 4:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Exfernal Says:

    Diversity with or without compartmentalization? Here lies the rub.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 10:03 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Anyone still caught in the stage of lamenting Orwellian Newspeak, and not actively disassembling it, is part of the problem.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    not so easily done the misuse of those words are their battle medals, decoder rings, uniform,secret language or what what have you. they are how they identify and rank each other. Years ago far less actually understood the real game so ir was easier to ridicule leftist absurdity to those only on the fringes of the left, but so much of it has become so mainstream and doublethink so commonplace its hard to find an audience not prepared to joust.
    It might be worth assembling a history of successes and seeing what worked. remember when all we had to worry about was the left making us change from crippled to handicapped to disabled.
    The problem with DIVERSITY is its inverse roughly translates to whites only thats a really hard one to take head on.
    I have though for years someone with the fire power ought to do a really comprehensive study o the true cost of diversity. Its got to be staggering. A lot of the costs are well hidden. but if you included it all like lost productivity from affirmative action, the consequences of an inferior civil service, the cost of courts prison police border and immigration controls, the fraud the lawsuits the welfare,the massive corporate shakedowns like the mortgage fiasco, the schools system, the cost of out best and brightest dedicating their talents to being apologists for this. well like i said its massive and a comprehensive study ought to be done.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    “…lost productivity from affirmative action, the consequences of an inferior civil service, the cost of courts prison police border and immigration controls, the fraud the lawsuits the welfare,the massive corporate shakedowns like the mortgage fiasco, the schools system, the cost of out best and brightest dedicating their talents to being apologists for this. ”

    You won’t find me arguing with you against the destructiveness of, what I shall call, ‘intersectional diversity’. The question is, who is responsible for filling suburbs with Muslims with 2-digit IQ’s? In my experience (at uni etc.) the most pernicious examples of the multi-cult were found, time and again, among WHITE students. I remember silly Muslim girls from Kuwait (whose parents were cousins) who were instantly transformed into SJW’s after they encountered the white victim-hood cult, and they were converted by white professors and white student socialist groups. The Muslim girls would soon learn to parrot lines about ‘white privilege’ to the beaming pride of their new communist overseers. The funny thing was, when the Muslim girls began to denounce Islam from a European feminist perspective all their white ‘allies’ would grow very silent. Not long after their arrival the girls from Kuwait descended into full-prog cross-dressing transvestism (no joke). Anyway, I’m not sure what the moral of the story is, other than ‘whites are mental’. Also, NE Asians do not incur the ‘costs of diversity’ you point out here, its mainly blacks, Hispanics, and women, but I can’t see how the cause is anyone other than white males. They (white men) introduced these measures to ensure greater equality of outcome in their god-given democracy, and they are the ones fighting to open the borders. Been listening to the pope recently?

    The battle for the European majority is being waged between national socialism (ENR) and international communism (EU).

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 11:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    All indications are that democratic noise-pollution and cathedr-al-ized racial white-out have done a tremendously efficient job in eradicating, within their known vicinity, all lucid grasp of the diversity of contingency. The only time modern Europeans are interested in diversity is after they’ve been injected with a concentrated dose of cannibal warriors right out of the Syrian desert. It’s how we get our buzz now, straight up fixin’ on battery acid, watching our skin peel.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 12:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Selection pressure usually abolishes diversity in the fullness of time. Beneficial genes usually run to diploid fixation, and while it might be possible that the most stable configuration of a population will be multiple inter-compatible species, this has never been proven to my knowledge. What we see in nature is that, inter-species the number of species in a niche will get, and intra-species, the most beneficial alleles are conserved. When the ferment subsides, a crystalline forms in the freeze. Abstract selection pressure is a high-dimensional vector, true, but all vectors can only point in one direction at a time – even if we can’t conceptualize that direction from three space.

    Hey, did you know that the human population of sub-Saharan Africa has more diversity than the rest of the world combined?

    What is true for genes will be true for ideas, since, at the appropriate level of abstraction, these machines are the same machine.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    what about an R/K oscillation? if a remnant can survive.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    r/K oscillation is one that is known

    Then there is the Common Side-blotched Lizard [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard]

    These are dynamically stable under some conditions but there will be limits.

    More to the point, it’s not clear that we want an oscilliator. Even if we do, we definitely won’t want oscilliation for its own sake.

    Casting the seeds and hoping for the best seems very un-NRx to me. I want a manicured garden – Disneyland With the Death Penalty – not a bed of wildflowers. Sure, I don’t care if there’s a bed of wildflowers, biting insects, and grungy hippies in the next field over, but these things never seem to stay in the next field over. The flowers will go to seed and infect my bed, the insects will ignore my Keep Out signs, and the grungy hippies will be sneaking over to take a dump in the trashcans.

    Then some ethnonats will decide they need some more Lebensraum, and the Patchwork is over. Whoever wins the ensuing war will naturally consolidate the gains – if only to preempt future wars.

    [Reply]

    Chuck Reply:

    “‘Diversity’ already tilts into non-universality, and that is meta-level rightism itself”

    This!

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 1:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    @Kwisatz Haderach

    1. I need to drink coffee before proofreading.
    2. I think the same dynamic will be at play in the patchwork. Sure, we start off at N patches, but as the wheels of time grind on, there will be a consolidation. Perhaps there are some specific multi-species configurations of machines that will work, but simply scattering the seeds and hoping for the best won’t get us from here to there. If we want some kind of stable patchwork, then we need a theory of stability which we don’t have.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    And to pre-empt the obvious. I understand that we aren’t trying to preserve individual sub-species. But presumably we want to preserve the stability of the patchwork itself. I believe we won’t get this latter except, possibly, with some specifically chosen starting conditions. In the same way that tornadoes don’t assemble 747’s, even if you pass them through cosmic junkyards, Pan Secessionism doesn’t form a patchwork without some intelligent engineering.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    This is a topic of discussion indeed – what is stability or sustainability? Obviously you have to define ‘what is being preserved’ and then ‘how preserving that thing creates the proper feedback loops to allow it to continue without costly intervention’.

    Stability tends to focus on the negative; how to stop it from breaking down. Sustainability tends to focus on the positive: how to stop it from growing out of control and burning out.

    There are different ‘values’ in play here, but that’s merely a way to say, ‘diversity in the leftist sense’. Values imply interchangeable and ultimately ‘personal’ in the pejorative sense, ideas. “I may disagree but it won’t change the course of history.”

    The suggestion that I can think of, off the top of my head, is that since virtue is the excellence of a thing doing what it is that it does, each of these so-called ‘values’ really is a proxy for an end (we like the word ‘telos’ and ‘teleology’) and the acquisition of that end provides the basis for figuring out what is being preserved.

    The feudal patchwork may be worth creating and preserving merely because it is the prerequisite for the emergence of new adaptations socially, teleologically, etc, that a highly centralized system stifles because it creates and maintains its own environment solely for the preservation of the centralized system – which means atomization before the face of it alone, and dependence on it alone.

    Atomization is best seen as a step in a process, the ‘breaking down’ of bonds – what is pernicious is not that men are able to be atoms but that they must remain so or the system is threatened. Naturally, the integration into a Central type of power will be artificial. so the broken-down remain separated and are disabled from contributing strength except as directed by that power.

    Atomization as a ‘stable end state’ is inherently unstable since men are inherently social-communal individuals, thus it as a prerequisite (and not merely as a possible choice) means the degradation of the quality of men – and thus the degradation of the quality of the centralized power and its demise possibly into a heap of savage rabble.

    Envy fuels the cycle of liberation – the chains of the other always seem lighter than the chains of one’s own. So long as the only great prestige comes with the golden chains of the Cathedral, it will continue to break down and atomize, even out of control, all other forms of coercion until only it remains.

    To annihilate or attenuate that cycle is necessary for mankind to escape the gravity well of this local maximization, the local maximization of end-point cultures where every man is incompetent except for the Big Man, and infantilized by habit to maintain his rule alone. At this point no more centralization is possible since no one is competent to rule himself, much less anyone else. The big man rules by superstition alone.

    Escape velocity is needed to exit from this ‘eternal return’ I hesitate to call it the next stage in man’s evolution – since I do not believe in progress. However, for man to finish his work he must mature – he must reach his end. If we see his growth is being drawn towards a gravity well of a singularity – we know well that one does not come back from those, and in fact, they are places where time stops (or gets so close to stopping there’s little way to tell.) A bottomless pit is an end of a sort, I suppose.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 2:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Patchwork is a nice vision, but trends in technology, mass communication, English as a common language, easy travel, etc. seem to favor increasing homogenization, rather than increased diversity.

    People aren’t going to be isolated enough to come up with cool, unique cultures on their own, the way they did in the past. They’re going to be watching and copying what is happening in the great centralization hubs.

    There will still be a number of variations in how people react to this (see for example, ISIS), but unless you predict collapse or think that a lot of countries will want to go full North Korea, it seems like we’re looking at a far less diverse future.

    But of course, there is still the potential to change the terms on which that homogenization will occur. Right now it looks like it is going to occur in the worst possible way (whole world turns into Africa).

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    @Benedict
    Been doing this for years although I use “wealth diversity”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 9th, 2015 at 3:28 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment