For the sake of
(a Letter to The European Parliament)
In December 2019, a totalitarian and communist regime started to cover up the spreading of a new variant of coronavirus in one of its cities. This led to a pandemic, and something really wrong is happening since then, no matter which view you have on the topic, collectivism is on the rise. I never would have thought that my letter would be of urgent practical help to understand what communism is and more broadly collectivism, and its predilection to mass killing, but here I am, and let state it right away, communism is a monstrosity. There are no left and right categories, we are in a battle for civilization and what it means to be human, not a political, philosophical, or economical battle. We fight the will by some for the return to the primitive tribe. That discourse, that thinking, and the choice of words may be new to you, but collectivism is not a new problem, it's an old one. However, our capacity to clearly express what it is and its origin are new. The letter explains it, but it is very important to be persuaded that it is an old problem that predates our civilization and that our civilization was not build to solve it, we didn't have the knowledge and we had other priorities like to spread civilization (institutions, infrastructures, the use of our cognitive functions...). Patching our civilization will not work. We need a new model, a next-generation civilization, which will go beyond the Greek/Christian model while keeping the best of it. As painful as it is to acknowledge it, most of our western intellectuals and power elites have surrendered to that collectivism. Not only do they lie to the population, but they are convinced that lying is morally justified, and beyond they believe to accomplish a prophecy (Historicism: Plato, Hegel, Marx). They are the messiah of a new order. That's not all, a large part of the population hears the call of the herd, it gives them life and they are ready to fight anybody who wants to cut their umbilical cordon to the herd. You can't save them and everything that had to be said has been said. The discussion is over. It was over, long before the civilized tribe realizes it was.
The lockdown and all that comes with it happened because something is definitively wrong in our world, and my work might help people, so I decided to change my plan. Everything below focuses more on my little hobby, a next generation of civilization, than on the letter. I still have to finish the letter and publish it before presenting my project. Fortunately, the letter makes good use of deep explanations regarding collectivism and therefore, will provide a first aid kit to understand what is happening to us and why. The civilization project answer how to build a new generation of civilization including mechanisms that will forbid collectivism to take ground again because we have the knowledge to get to its true roots and stop it or nullified it. I hope that the first step will happen in the coming months and the whole project presented this year. Collectivism is not the future of human civilization, it's a remnant of what we were a long time before we started to become civilized and we can't go back.
The letter can be seen as a list of dark places, and nobody wants to be in those places, nor read about them, but it has to be done because we let them grown, we are guilty of that. Darkness is upon us and you need to know about those dark places and face them if you want to know the direction to take to move to the light. It's up to you to decide, but make it quick. The first dark place that most of you will encounter is revealed by the difficulties you will have to understand all the knowledge and reasoning the letter makes use of (even if we put aside my English shortcomings - smile). You shouldn't have those difficulties and be more knowledgeable. Most of that knowledge exists for decades and even centuries. The reason you never have heard of it is that there are people who relentlessly and carefully work to make sure that it will never come to your attention, nor that you have the mental tools to deal with that knowledge. I call it manipulation by a deficit of information. How it works and why it's so effective are explained in the letter. If you're book-hungry a list is waiting for you at the end of the letter, it's a start. In a near future, you will have, we will all have to make difficult decisions and this letter will be of great help, at least that's my hope.
We have been and are educated to separate knowledge and ideas from what defines us, from what we are. When the Tyrants come, it's not to describe what they are and what they do, that matter but what we're going to do against them, that means to start by answering - Who am I? There is a chain of reasoning that take many paths, that I will examine with you, but at the end of that road you will find something that we have forgotten, something higher than ourselves, higher than our family, and for which we are ready to stand for, no matter how strong the storm will be. You have to come to that truth by yourself, as an individual part of a community, and fight for it willingly, not because of fear of the collective that owns you. You will not fight alone, you can't, but with others who share a common understanding of life and what it means to be human. This will produce the glue and it is trust. That's the part we call 'individual' in the civilized tribe, you understand and accept who you are, the world around you, what it takes to make it work and you make a choice, be part of it or not. That choice belongs to you and only you. The glue of the collectivists, of the primitives, is fear. They have no choice, they only follow their instincts on which they have no control, they don't want to. To accept his nature allow the civilized to have some control over his instincts. The primitives do not know who they are because they reject their nature.
We, the civilized, aim for civilization but the primitives aim for the return of the tribe, the way we were a long time ago. The tyrants are the new alpha of that old tribe, and they want to take down civilization. It's not political, it's existential. So make up your mind, stand for civilization because the tyrants can't tolerate it and are afraid of it. Of course, they are not afraid of you as an isolated individual, but as a group of individuals with a common goal. The individuals are the civilized because they are the builders of civilization, but they are also those who put down tyrants. The tyrants lie constantly to distilled doubts in your heads, which stop you to make the final decision of taking them down. What does it mean to take them down? In one swift move, the people decide to take down the tyrants and everything in their path that holds their hands gets the same treatment. There is no return and a new society will be built. Why does it work? It is the ratio between the tyrannical elites and the population that makes it works. That's why they want a reduction of the population in the first place, to be able to control them more easily.
In the letter and in that introduction, a large amount of knowledge awaits you, but all that knowledge is pointless if it has no impact on you, positive or negative I don't care. Knowledge is a human experience, not a bibelot you put on a shelf. It is a struggle that will transform you and you have to ask for it. Ideas matter and they are alive. If that's not what you ask when you acquire knowledge, then you haven't a soul in the sense of a mind of your own, and no answer to why you're here.
To be human means to have a purpose, collectivism takes away your purpose because they decide, and by doing so they take away your humanity. Knowledge is here precisely to help you to fulfill a purpose and when you become more experienced you will be driven by ideas fueled by knowledge. In a few sentences you will read about the primitive and civilized tribes, but it's not about creating categories to organized information (even if it's important to master knowledge), but about you, about us. Who are you, a primitive or a civilized man? You will learn about human nature, your nature but then what! What will you do with that knowledge? To show how smart you are during a cocktail? What about using that knowledge to transform you into a war machine against tyrants. You will read about how I insist on the necessity of a value system to help our primitive self to mature and become the civilized man and how God and reality as external points of reference judge us and help us to walk the path of civilization (it's a non-religious statement. How that's possible is up to you to learn by reading what comes next). Reason, truth, individuality, humility, courage, honesty, forgiveness, responsibility,... are those words, only words or do they resonate in all parts of your body and defines you? Those are the words of life. Too many insist on God, but by doing so, what they expect when the tyrants come, is that God solves their problem. He will not because there is no good God that does not expect the best of you. We may have a different understanding of what God is. My God is the God of civilization in the sense that I have to take the supernatural out of it, so that the collectivists, the primitive cannot attack it. In Europe half of the Christians have become pagan, they believe in energy, they worship the gods of the forest often presented as animals. They ask for love but it's not the love of God and a fatherhood love, but a motherhood love, a selfish and narcissistic love. They ask for peace, but they don't talk about turning the cheek, but to build camps they hide, to put those who reject their cult. The burden is always put on someone else. They ask for justice, but it is not to be judged by God, but by themselves, the justice warriors. The primitives will always be amongst us, we are born primitives and we become civilized. It is a maturation process. We have that ability but it needs to be revealed like language. When the maturation process failed we stay primitive.
We will all be judged, no matter how - by our self, our family, our friends, society, and even history. That judgment will not be based on how many prayers we have said, but on the result of the prayers to ask for the strength needed to fight the tyrants and to bring civilization back on our planet. We are accused of genocide by having brought civilization to primitives or partially civilized regions on Earth. We have stolen their lands and destroyed their culture. Reality is, we are guilty of nothing but proud to be the true heirs of our ancestors. They had understood something, which is now a forsaken truth. The way of human beings is civilization and we can't go back. There is no noble savage. We stop slavery, they bring it back. We value each individual with dignity and as an important member of society while they produce monsters whose only function is to serve the collective which is always in need of blood to escape the responsibility of its own monstrosity. The structures we build serve the people. They enslave the people to nourish a god-like elite incapable of managing the resources of our planet. They don't understand their role on that earth.
We need to build a new civilization. Stop expecting a self-resolution of the problem, and those who do, are dragging us to the worse outcome possible. How do we know they are not doing the right job by trying to relaunch our civilization? Behind all the discussions, articles, and videos the only thing that they have all come up with, is to make endless lists of everything wrong and lost due to the collectivists. They have no clue, no idea what to do. But that's not all, they're not honest. They want to keep things as they were because they are afraid. Unfortunately, this is exploited by the collectivists who let the conversation going on, but behind that facade, they build and fortify their positions. The collectivists are not the solution, they never were, nor aren't those who hope to rebuild the fallen civilization. The tools of our civilization have failed to stop the return of the primitive tribe which has taken the form of a powerful state that centralizes and plans everything, under the control of an elite, the alpha. We call that modern form of the primitive tribe, collectivism. We need new tools, to build a better house for humanity, and the good news is that we have them. However, to leave our home for a new one that is not yet built takes courage and sheer will. It is not your sheer will and courage that are needed, but your sheer will and courage within a group to make us greater and more powerful than the sum of what we are as individuals. That group is defined on a set of values and concepts, that we endorse and cherish.
From that point on, I will provide some explanations to give you a quick overview, of a next-generation civilization, BUT... no matter what the explanations are, you need to accept the basic premise that what we are facing is the result of a very, very old problem. All the modern concepts globalism, nations, western civilization, feminism, Marxism, conservatism, enlightenment... are just superficial expressions of a much deeper problem. Let's see what it is.
We have two serious problems: collectivism and the elites and they are linked together. I guess you have figured that out by now, but they are the tip of the iceberg. If we dive into the dark water of collectivism, we will find three root causes. I will first state them and then go into the details. However, before I start I have to speak my mind about one observation. Karl Popper is the author of a book (the open society and its enemies) which is one of the most important books written for the last century, and yet it is nearly impossible the hear or read any philosopher or intellectual making any reference or comment on that very book. This is quite remarkable and one may question if people truly want to fix the problem of our civilization because the book is a war book (Popper's words) against those who want the breakdown of civilization. He explains not only those three root causes but also the role of Essentialism as a tool by which collectivists organize and produce their thoughts. It is a completely forgotten knowledge nowadays, for strategic reasons thanks to the collectivists. Popper also demonstrates how Plato's thinking has influenced our elites to produce a collectivist and totalitarian system and how they form a coalition to avoid conflicts between them which is the embryo of communism. He shows that the war between Athens and Sparta was the war between the closed society, a society of warriors which value the tribe, and the open society, a society of merchants which value the individual. That the evolution of human society is mostly due to external pressures, in particular, population increase, and that individualism is the answer. He has shown that the tribe model is heavily motivated by emotions while the individual is by reason. When you take all these together you have an explanatory model of the evolution of our civilization, and this is extremely valuable because that type of model (in opposition to descriptive models) can tell you what direction to take to make enhance society and how.
1) The laws that drive the evolution of human society can be found in the history of that society. That belief is called historicism. Those who find those laws and follow them believe they are fulfilling a prophecy, no less. Historicism produces self-fulfilling laws. You manage the society based on laws that are based on the history of the management of that very society.
2) The closed society is based on the inability of its members to distinguish natural laws from man-made laws. They use magical thinking which is to believe that you can ignore natural laws. The distinction between the two kinds of law can be observed if you compare the laws that each tribe around the world follows. Those which are common to each tribe are generally natural laws, those which vary are man-made laws.
3) For Collectivists, men must be driven by their instincts and not reason. Only reason allows you to solve problems because it offers a feedback loop with an external point of reference we call reality. Reason will tell you when you go in the wrong direction even if you don't like it.
All three have a common element, collectivists use themselves or the human society as points of reference to understand the world, which makes them the point of origin of reality, their reality. The autonomous individual of the open society thinks 1) External factors pressure the human society to force it to evolve, like population growth. 2) Natural laws exist independently of us, we have no power over them and man-made laws depend on them. 3) Reason is the means by which we question the world as an external point of reference. Reason also symbolizes the superiority of cognitive function over instincts.
The work of Popper dated from the 1940s, while still rich and useful, other concepts based on the theory of evolution have been developed since the 1960s and provided even deeper understandings of the origin of the big divide. Steven Pinker shows that three philosophical understand of human nature are now at odds with our modern understanding of human nature the blank slate followed by the Noble savage and Ghost in the machine. Moreover, he shows that they are connected to each other, so they work together to reinforce the belief of those who believe in them. Thomas Sowell goes even further to explain the modern denial of human nature, that there are weaknesses and flaws in our nature and those cannot be addressed by us or the society. We have to live with them. To accept our human nature is not only to accept that we can not become whatever we are, but that we have redeemable flaws. The question 'Who am I', starts with the acceptance, or not, of our human nature and this goes with the acceptance, or not, of an external reality. The relation is that the natural laws that exist in that external reality (in opposition to the inner reality of the collectivists) are the same that produce our human nature.
Twenty-four centuries ago there was a war, between Sparta the city of the warriors, and Athens the city of the merchants. It is the first war between the primitive tribe and the civilized tribe, between collectivists and individualists with the sense of the autonomous individual. Obviously, primitive does not mean stupid, with no knowledge and competences but it's related to the social organization of the society. Another observation is that the primitive tribe gives some autonomy to the individual, but for the most part, it remains a rigid society organized by classes and taboos so that the order of the society is never put into question.
In a primitive tribe, no matter how technically advanced it is, knowledge is subordinate to the truth of the dominant class. It can be resume by the following sentence "I have spoken, it is (therefore) written, it shall be done", and the herd obeys. The law that the elite produces, is equivalent to natural laws, and make no mistake, they truly believe it because they don't make the distinction. This deep belief hurts the development of knowledge and limits strongly the autonomy of the individual and later restricts his abilities to adapt and evolve. Collectivist societies don't change, don't evolve, they collapse.
The primitive tribe is a closed society not only because its social organization is just an adaptation to the rigid alpha/herd model, but because the truths come from the inside. Their point of reference for knowing what is true or false is internal. There is no reality outside the tribe. The consequence of it is that they do not use reason to dialogue with the outside world. The unity of measurement of what is true or false is their emotions, their feelings. On the contrary, the civilized tribe or open society gets its knowledge by using reality as an external point of reference. We use reason to measure the validity of our thinking by establishing a feedback loop with reality. If reality says we are wrong, then we are wrong and we adapt. Primitives are never wrong and they don't adapt. Civilized people always considered that possibility - to be wrong - which allows them to enhance themselves and to build a better world. Another consequence (or it is a cause? Difficult discussion) is that the primitives are unable to conceive that randomness can produce patterns in general (distribution laws) and more particularly order. Therefore if they do not control everything, order will not be achieved, chaos will come and they will die. That's why they can't grasp, the very notion of evolution, and when they say they do it's in fact the Lamarckian theory, not the Darwinian one.
The underlying model of all collectivism is the primitive tribe and there is a little dirty secret. Collectivism always works even unconsciously to recover the ratio herd/alpha at a level that makes the primitive tribe work and the autonomous individual useless. You have to accept that we are still wrestling with that question, and reason, truth, knowledge, and reality are hostages of that conflict.
Education should focus on brain maturation and I will explain what it is, with formal teaching which focuses on knowledge and not skills. As Thomas Sowell said, It's not that the collectivists can't produce a reasoning, it's that they believe that having emotions is reasoning. We become civilized, the brain has a maturation to achieve to get to that point. This means
2) They must adhere to the principle of reality, that it is unique and its existence doesn't depend on what we would like it to be.
3) To learn to use reason as a feedback loop with reality, which implies learning to accept to be wrong and learn with reason to enhance oneself, your ideas, your projects, etc.
Essentialism started with Plato and was refined by Aristotle. A large chapter is dedicated to it so I will only make a quick explanation. Essentialism is related to language and is the tool by which the collectivists create a map of the world, to understand and navigate into that world. What opposes essentialism is another tool called the scientific method. With the scientific method, you observe the properties of things and when you have a theory and explanation you give them a name. Like gravity. We first observe it, find laws to describe it, and then give it a name and then a definition. Karl Popper says that with the scientific method we read the world from the right to the left. With essentialism we do the reverse, we read the world from the left to the right. We have a thing, we give it a name first and then we find its essence, hence essentialism. You get the essence of things or properties with some intuitive knowledge (Plato), but what happens is that we use our emotions and therefore we connect words to them.
With essentialism there is a feedback loop between language and emotions, it's internal, while with the scientific method we observe properties that are in nature, it's external. To test if something is true or not you probe your emotions. For example, you may ask yourself "Is this free speech or hate speech?" For an essentialist free and hate speech have no property, but are the expression of a feeling. That's why they can't define it, like many other things.
Essentialists are irrationalists. The word is used by Karl Popper with the meaning to oppose reason on purpose. They are not crazy, they are predictable because there are patterns in their incoherent thinking, and they are mostly explained by essentialism. There is always a direct link between the way essentialism work and the primitive thinking that confuses natural laws with man-made laws. In both cases, there is no connection to the external world. When the philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries stated that there is no truth, they stated that the quest for the truth is/was pointless. They meant in the realm of language without giving that precision. It's a fallacy because the way out is to use the scientific method, but that will imply to recognize that the language, of which they are the masters, is not all the knowledge that there is. In other words, they have to abandon the belief to be the masters of reality, they are only the masters of the fiction they wrote.
There are several definitions of essentialism, and some have not much to do with what I just described, but the definition of essentialism given by Karl Popper is the one you should take care of because it makes sense, it is understandable, usable, and has historic roots back to Plato and Aristotle.
Historicism is the ideology that there are laws to be found in the evolution of human society. Often we talked about cycles in history but the general expression is laws, and everyone can find his own laws (note 1). For example, historicism is already present in Plato's book 'The Republic'. He explained that there are four steps to the cycle of any society: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Tyranny will not last and it all starts again. It's an extremely seductive concept especially for the rulers who think they have a way to predict the future, and obviously one in which they are the rulers. For example, following Plato, if you know that you are in the democracy period then the next step is tyranny and you will find it normal as a ruler to apply it. Historicism produces self-fulfilling laws. It was Hegel that revived historicism when working as a state philosopher for the Prussian, and later Marx which was influenced by Hegel. According to Marx "The history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggles". If you follow Marx's historicism what you're looking for is the class struggles in society. More generally, in all aspects of life, you can always find something that you're desperately looking for. Some can read your destiny in the number of your anniversary date. Historicism is a bogus concept, but one that belongs to the primitive tribe. It means that historicism is a product of a way of thinking. You can't get rid of it by proving that it is a faulty concept, but by dealing directly with primitive thinking. This is achieved by promoting another vision of human society which is civilization.
The power of persuasion of that concept comes from a deep belief shared by many, that natural laws and man-made laws have the same nature. They're not, but people who believe it, do not credit nature as the force which pressures our society to produce changes (population increase, I.Q variation...), they focus exclusively on human actions. All collectivist organizations are based on that belief, which explains in part their attempt to engineer the society, to engineer the people (the blank slate belief), and that they can escape evolution. It's not real! We do not write our own destiny as historicism suggests. This tendency to see prophecy can clearly be observed with the Global warming cult trying to make us believe that we are all going to die. No, we won't.
The problem with the primitive tribe is that when they face a no-win scenario they transform themselves into the volcano people. They know that something is not right in their society and since their society is all the world (the closed society), no external cause. The collective is like a living organism. They start to think that they are the problem, they are corrupt and a purification process starts. Their sacrifice will solve it and they jump one after another into the volcano. The more they jump the more acute the problem becomes and by feedback loop proves to them why they have to jump. The result is mass killings, genocides, and at the very end self-sacrifice. We are facing the question of the very existence of human civilization because they will not stop to western civilization. Do you understand that? It will not stop until there is no one left! What went wrong in their reasoning? They need to change their society but to achieve that goal they need to change themselves and this means to face internal conflicts they have to accept the outside world as having its own reality. They do not sacrifice themselves they kill themselves to avoid solving their conflicts.
Note 1: Some people will cry "But there are cycles in history!". It's easy to debunk. If there are cycles then you know the future. What will be the future according to cycles they know? Of course, the answer cannot be too vague. Most will not answer and that's fine because it proves that there are still sane. Those who answer are dangerous.
The happening of the autonomous individual is not an answer to collectivism, but to external constraints like the increase of population. Those two ways of life are not in competition (the collectivists think they are), for the primitive tribe died a long time ago. The autonomous individual is what it means to be human and the foundation of human civilization. This is the work of nature, not some artificial construct. It means that we can't go back to what we were 200000 years ago and if we try we will hurt our human nature as it is today and lose civilization. At the same time, the nature of what we were for millions of years has not disappeared. We still have hardwired survival mechanisms alongside our new faculties which mostly concern the brain. The problem is that the hardwire mechanisms exist within us from day one. We are primitive and we become civilized, a maturation process is at work here, and depending on its level of achievement you will be more of the primitive tribe than of the civilized tribe, but only one has a future and this has been decided by nature a long time ago. There is no going back.
Communism is not what you think it was designed for, nor for whom. The answer is for the elite and only the elite, as a coalition to avoid a destructive competition between them. Because it's an unusual perspective, I wanted to make that statement first to be clear about what that chapter is all about. That statement calls immediately for THE question, 'what about the people?' You won't like the answer, but let's start with the beginning. A very long time ago in a very faraway country, a philosopher named Plato...
I quote "Since the ruling class alone has political power, including the power of keeping the number of human cattle within such limits as to prevent them from becoming a danger, the whole problem of preserving the state is reduced to that of preserving the internal unity of the master class. How is this unity of the rulers preserved? By training and other psychological influences, but otherwise mainly by the elimination of economic interests which may lead to disunion. This economic abstinence is achieved and controlled by the introduction of communism, i.e. by the abolition of private properties ... this communism is confined to the ruling class... the family must be destroyed, or rather extended to cover the whole warrior class." "The communism of the ruling caste of his best city (best state) can thus be derived from Plato's fundamental sociological law of change; it is a necessary condition of the political stability which is its fundamental characteristic." Astonishing, isn't it! One more quote "Plato distinguishes three classes in his best state, the guardians, their armed auxiliaries or warriors, and the working class. But actually, there are only two classes, the military caste - the armed and educated rulers - and the unarmed and uneducated ruled, the human sheep." (Note: haven't you seen something similar recently on your streets, all dressed in black, and politicians defending their raison d'être?). Karl Popper, Book The open society and its enemies, volume I, the spell of Plato, chapter 4: change and rest.
Elite means a society of classes and therefore authoritarian to protect their class, but there is an unexpected consequence in the structure of that ideal state, a self-destruction mechanism. The elites must be competent, to make the society sustainable. I quote "The very idea of selecting or educating future leaders (note: amongst the leaders) is self-contradictory." "But the secret of intellectual excellence is the spirit of criticism; it is intellectual independence. And this leads to difficulties that must prove insurmountable for any kind of authoritarianism. The authoritarian will in general select those who obey, who believe, who respond to this influence. But in doing so, he is bound to select mediocrities. For he excludes those who revolt, who doubt, who dare to resist his influence. Never can an authority admit that the intellectually courageous may be the most valuable." Karl Popper same book, chapter 7: The principle of leadership.
F. A Hayek came to the same conclusion in his book 'The road to serfdom' in the chapter: Why the worst get on the top. All collectivist organizations sooner or later have to become totalitarian to survive. The choice of the people will not be done by the people therefore based on competence (what are the best people to solve our problems) but by the program that requires collectivism (what are the best people to apply the collectivist ideology). All must follow the directive of a central organization, there can be no exception because exception paved the way to individualism which opposes collectivism. The good and moral people who have brought socialism into their country will have no choice but to relinquish the power to rulers that will apply their plan and totalitarianism will happen. I quote 'That socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove is, of course, a lesson learned by many social reformers in the past", but sadly never remember by new generations as a rule.
For Karl Popper, collectivism becomes incompetent because of the authoritarianism it requires to be run, while for F.A Hayek collectivism will inevitably become totalitarian for internal reasons linked to its philosophy. The difference between the twos is that Karl Popper sees a top layer composed by an elite that F.A Hayek doesn't seem to take into consideration (Since both men knew each other personally, I believe Hayek was aware of that layer). It appears that history is proving Karl Popper to be right, there is a power elite behind the rise of collectivism and totalitarianism that aim to take over the world.
Some may hope (a desperate or naive hope, but nonetheless false) that at some point the elite will find a way to justify the use of people outside their class to avoid a collapse of the state and to avoid their own destruction. If so then you felt to understand the imperative necessity of unity the elites impose on themselves to preserve the 'blood'. It's more than class, for them it's a racial problem, hence the use of the word blood. In Plato's Republic, the elite is called 'the race of the guardians' and it is written that the race must be kept pure (Republic, book V: 459e/460). When the elites of Athens betrayed its citizens in favor of Sparta, it was customary for them to take the oligarchic oath "I promise to be an enemy of the people, and to do my best to give them bad advice!" Karl Popper, same book, chapter 10. The goal of the oath is not to hate the people, even if it is a consequence of it, but to widen the class differences to reinforce the unity of the elite.
All people in the world, no matter their race, their culture, their religion who help the elite with the belief that they are part of their plan should remember for the rest of their life the words of Hannah Arendt, "The Nazis did not think that the Germans was a master race, to whom the world belonged, but that they should be led by a master race, as should all other nations ... Not the Germans were the dawn of the master race, but the SS". Book, The origins of totalitarianism, chapter: totalitarianism in power.
When it comes to understand the actual situation, the book '1984' by George Orwell is often pointed to as the textbook of the elite to manage the people. To me, it looks like we have hidden variables and the elite motivations and objectives are amongst them. Let's change the angle by which we look at the events, tyranny is not the end goal, but a by-product of a new society in which only the elite exists as human beings. That the rest of the population is still alive doesn't matter they are just animals. What does the elite want to achieve? Communism! Communism was always about organizing the elite and this was described by Karl Popper in his critic of Plato. 'The Republic' from Plato is the textbook for the elite to organize themselves.
That's good news because we have the antidote. The book 'The open society and its enemies' is not only a book, but it's also a 'Kriegsbuch' (War book) according to the author himself (German interview 1974), in other words, a manual to fight the tyrants and to enhance our society so that they could never come back. Associate with recent knowledge we can propose a clear picture and produce the basis of a new civilization. The distinction between natural and man-made laws, the acceptance of the theory of evolution, reason over emotions, the scientific thinking over essentialism, Socrates over Plato and Aristotle, external point of reference and feedback loop with reality to control our brain, a hierarchy of competence and not of classes and power, etc.
I see a bright future ahead of us, even if the road will be difficult. Nature is not on their side, they are a vestige of what we were a long time ago. They believe that if we do not adopt their way it's the end of the world literally and in particular they are obsessed with overpopulation. We will have to deal with that problem in the future there is no doubt about it, but not now and certainly not the way they want to do it. First, we need to build structures that will allow every earthling to fit into the civilized tribe. Adaptable and modular structures that focus on local organizations. Democracy is built upon two ideas: the ability to change the institutions and to avoid the concentration of power which is usually referred to by the balance of power. It might look like very general recommendations, but political parties are not democratic in essence, they concentrate too much power, especially over the representatives of the people.
Difficult decisions will also have to be made, in particular, and because of brain pattern some concepts and values must be adopted: reason, truth, honesty, forgiveness... but some rejected: relativism, ghost in the machine, equality of outcome... we will have to take an oath, all of us which mean also the sons and daughters that are not yet here. The oath is personal, not a group or a family business. The oath is a test to determine if there is a brain maturation issue that limits the use of reality as a point of reference, to have developed a reward system that favors reason,... The oath is the oath of civilization and the primitive cannot be part of it. That's why I propose that humanity split amongst those who take the oath and accept the path of civilization and those who want to go back to the path of the primitive tribe. I don't know how that question will be resolve in the end, but our goal is to protect civilization, knowledge, and humans beings. The primitive cannot come back. This is a clash of what it means to be human, we are all in and we cannot escape the fight, none of us.
Without Plato or any late philosophers, the elite would have still produced a theory to justify the creation of a coalition of an elite who would have been a communist-like organization. The error they make repeatedly is to reject the autonomous individual as a solution to population increase and the belief that a dominant elite is a better solution than the hierarchy of competences and/or merits (not a power hierarchy, not a group/class hierarchy). They need to move from the primitive tribe to the civilized tribe. Putting down communism helps little because something else will replace it. We need a new elite that will understand differently what being human means.
I hereby take the oath of civilization as an elite. I understand the unbalanced nature of the function between the elite and the people, that we can't be repaid for what we bring to the society, and reject any attempt to produce a coalition of the elite to control the people to rebalance the society in our favor. I will focus on helping people to have structure and social mechanisms that can help them to help themselves so that they keep their dignity as human beings. I will help to build and protect the hierarchy of competence to any group to which I will belong and I will take the responsibility to ensure that the social pump allowing people to move up is working. I will stand as a role model for all by my respect and observation of our moral values as a group. I will be the educator and save the innocent each time it is possible. I will support cooperation and be an initiator to end retaliation to relaunch cooperation.
The consequence to cut things from their properties is the witch's cauldron from which darkness is coming out and we are facing two of them, Marxism and post-modernism. The question we must answer is by what intellectual mechanisms were they brought to life? It starts with essentialism, but what in essentialism makes that happen and the answer is the lack of properties, or more precisely the lack of taking into account properties to define things. This is achieved by connecting words to an emotional state. Diversity, women's rights, equity, to list a few, have a positive meaning while money, property, and individualism have a negative meaning, at least, for those embracing essentialist thinking. The real definitions of those things (concept, objects, history, ...) don't matter.
A year ago (in 2019) the American philosopher Stephen Hicks was engaged in an adversarial debate with the author Thaddeus Russell. At some point in the debate, the latter asserts that post-modernists do not tell truths but stories, in defense of post-modernism. While post-modernist philosophers try to not make that claim in such an explicit manner, that is exactly what they think. Like for relativism, the claim of the non-existence of truth that the post-modernists make is mocked for its own contradiction. How can you claim that there is no truth by stating is it the truth? However, that argument, which consists to point to the self-contradiction of post-modernist statements, doesn't work on them and they are not the least bit taken aback. The same can be said about the Marxists. It's not the logical contraction on which we must focus but the definition of truth. They reject it, but why? And here is what they don't tell you, and it has to do with essentialism, at least its consequences. As a side note, if one tells only stories, he has no responsibility to take care of, but it is not to escape them that explains why they deny truths, it is the nature of truth that is the problem.
When there is no property to define things, then words are all the knowledge there is. If I have the word truth then everything else is defined by non-truth. If I look at my monitor, everything that is not a monitor is a non-monitor. If you have some notion of the set theory then if you take a set you have the elements that belong to that set and those which do not belong. I'm not trying to explain why they believe that there is no truth, but why the logical contradiction of the claim that there is no truth doesn't defeat their statement. They have a set theory frame of mind, which is linked to tribalism. You belong to the tribe or not, friend or foe. The Marxists are thinking the same way. There are the bourgeois and the proletarian and for the new Marxists the oppressed and the oppressors. This constant duality in all things is, according to Karl Popper, a consequence of an emotional state by which you understand the world. What is true is what makes them feel good. The statement that there is no truth, is true because it makes them feel good. The logical contradiction has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the statement, but the polarity of their emotions. Positive equal true, negative equal bad, not wrong but bad, really bad, and bad people must go away, they cannot exist in their world. That's why they don't accept any other views. For them, the rainbow as the symbol of the ultimate positive emotions must cover all the planet.
The question to ask post-modernists is what the definition of truth is, which allows them to know that the claim of the non-existence of truths, is true? The same way the question to be asked to the social-justice warriors is not what hate-speech is, but what allows them to recognize hate-speech when they hear one. We know what it is, hate-speech is everything that does not follow their truth. We need to send them back to their emotions and to face that here lies all their knowledge. But why do they use emotions to know what is true or wrong? They deeply believe in the superiority of instincts over reason. To keep using emotions as a validator of truth is to affirm their commitment to their belief. For them telling stories is what makes you human, because you use your instincts.
When you start from the properties of things, there is no such thing as the word and what is not represented by that word and therefore is not tied to an emotional binary vision of the world. By rejecting essentialism you take the right direction to become civilized, that's why essentialism must die.
When it comes to human nature the collectivists are in denial, which allows them to state that everything is a social construct. That strategy is dead because we now can prove that sex and race, for example, are not social constructs but a reality. It doesn't mean that the collectivists will change their minds, but simply that they are desperate which explains why the world has turned even more weird and irrational in the occidental world for the last decades.
However, when it comes to the civilized tribes, things are much more interesting at understanding how they build their social structure based on human nature and more particularly the one nature of men and women. The most significant difference is that men are interested in things and women in people. Obviously when you have a civilization to build, being interested in things is very valuable. Whatever the origin of that distinction, women develop social skills while men developed hunting skills and this had consequences on their brain development. The question is why that difference in role and the answer is women have eggs. This accounts for the difference of role inside the tribe and after millions of years impacted their respective genes, including brain patterns. Collectivists reject that distinction despite the evidence collected by social sciences for the last 30 years. Their position is that women and men can become whatever they want and this is particularly damaging to women. Let's go back to that distinction of things vs people, with its origin in role differences (roles are natural differences, functions are given by the society). Many have observed that women are less prone to reason than men when it comes to reasoning and decision-making. If we accept that reason is a feedback loop with reality, the man, hunter at the origin, had to use that function. To face reality and adjust to survive was and still is a necessity. Reason is a man's means to check and control his environment. When expressed that way, then social interaction is a woman's means to control her environment. The control of other people is most effective through emotions. The conclusion is that knowledge is not the only issue when it comes to education. In a civilization, reason is a necessary tool to master, therefore, ought to be acquired while young. Men's and women's education have to differ to optimize the acquisition of that competence, but we must also accept that not all will reach the same level, no matter the sex.
I want to explain briefly two other differences that have considerable consequences on our ability to build a civilization. Care and cooperation. Care is about how we treat others and what we want for them. Cooperation is how we achieve it and how we reinitiate it when it stops for whatever reason.
The ability to reinitiate cooperation when it stops, allows us to pursue more complex and long-term projects and this ability really helps to build a civilization in which the individuals are at the center. Women are vindictive and why it looks benign as a word the consequences are grim for cooperation. They do not forget someone's action particularly if it's wrongdoing, at least according to the woman involved. Women have the memory of social interaction, men have the memory of things. It makes sense that evolution has developed our memory depending on the role we have and the mental tools we use for those respective roles. Women are vindictive not because they are bad people, but because they keep a clear memory of past events and this has consequences on running society. The autonomous individual will make errors, hence the need to have forgiveness has a mechanism. Our society is based on free cooperation between individuals and in modern terms, forgiveness is the act to reinitiate cooperation after a failure. To fail to cooperate is followed by retaliation, and cooperation is reinitiated. However, if you can't forget then you enter into an infinite retaliation process. Women are aware of that issue, and we know this because they often praise the ability of men to settle an argument with the symbolic story of a fight followed by going together to drink a beer, expressing the reactivation of cooperation. To train women to be more cooperative is to train women to accept to forget past events for a start.
It is remarkable that in a society that has become more 'female' in its spirit, the mechanism of 'cancel culture' has become so important. 'Cancel culture' is to forbid someone that does not think as the tribe thinks and therefore any element of culture that is not the authorized culture. One of the ways to achieve that is to look at the past of a person to find any text or speech that might be unwanted today. Cancel culture is indeed very vindictive.
Motherhood is a deal, it is the now-famous - I will take care of you if you stay at home. The proposition of care is a lie and the deal is a cover-up for what is really going on. The mother wants only a shot of positive emotions, she takes care of herself. Also, she doesn't care about the consequence of her action on those she wants to take care of, nor on society. It is a self-centered attitude. That care is forever, she doesn't want you or the society to go better or become independent. Since she has no awareness of her dependency on positive emotions, she will become tyrannical to maintain the deal. She can't understand why one would refuse her love. The other exists, if he/she accepts the deal, only through the love of the mother. It takes a lot of strength and courage for one to get out of such a deal. The parallel with collectivism is that the state will tell you that what they do is for your own good, always, but what they want is to control you. The deal they propose is a lie, and they will kill en mass people if they pose a threat to the state, even remotely. How can one refuse the love of the state if it is not to destroy the state? That's how the independent individual becomes the enemy.
Fatherhood is a deal too, but it will push you out of the nest with the required tools to fly by yourself. Not only will you be independent, but capable to help others by applying the fatherhood model of help. When you start helping others, that's when the father, who helps you, gets his shot of positive emotion. Something has been pass on and the group will continue to exist. It's not a self-centered love, what fatherhood wants is to help as many people as possible to become independent and reproduce that mechanism. Another important difference is that fatherhood doesn't need an emotional link with those who you helped, while motherhood depends on it. Therefore Fatherhood can work on a large scale, even if you don't see those you help, while that's not the case with motherhood and can apply only for small groups. It is empathetic in essence. From a societal point of you, the fatherhood model is associate with the family to help and produce as many as possible autonomous individuals who will in turn propagate that model. The difference between motherhood and fatherhood can be resume by: To help people, the mother says that they need more love. The father says they need more tools, more solutions so that people can help themselves, who in turn will help other people.
The biblical stories could only exist if fatherhood is the rule. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his child Isaac, his hand is stopped at the last moment. What makes us civilized is more important than our sons because we would lose something with little chance to find it again. Fatherhood allows you to see beyond the sacrifice and yourself. In a society driven by motherhood, sacrifices are always excluded but the consequences are dire. In such a society Abraham would have rejected God's command and never understood that his action made him lost the path of civilization. The lockdown is an example of such a society. In a fatherhood society, people would want to take the risk because of their independence, on which the society must be built, and it matters more than their life. In Germany, the slogan is now - Arbeiten order Leben / Work or life. That is the choice that is left to the people, but the real choice is between being human or not, that's what we have to decide. Human life has evolved to be defined with the existence of risks, not to escape them, that's where the reasoning is very wrong. We develop tools to control risk as much as possible, but we can escape them because the existence of risk is a natural law and there are no man-made laws that can make you escape them, it's a fantasy. The German slogan also shows that the power elite has no civilization plan, something that is above them, and no direction except their own needs and pleasures. If you're not ready to sacrifice what you hold dear for something greater than yourself, then Abraham's sacrifice has no meaning to you.
Now that I have defined motherhood and fatherhood, I can add one more difference. Men do care about women and they try to be good to them, however, the reverse is false. Women do not care about the well-being of men, nor for the group as a whole.
1) Rule of propagation: Society helps those who are less in need, but who can help the most people by providing to those people opportunities.
2) Rule of opportunity: You help only those who have decided to help themselves. This is done by providing them education and/or opportunities.
Some observations: Rule 1 leads to a creation of an elite. I won't contest that, but where civilization has failed so far is to establish an explicit social contact with the elite. This means control of the respect of the contract but more importantly that the elite rejects the primitive tribe model (Alpha/herd) and endorse fully the open society, reason, the individual... Rule 2 is always considered horrible by young people until they get experience in life. What does that mean? They learn that there are natural laws, and you can't change them.
I have taken the time to explain those points because I have to make a statement and I need you to be convinced that it is true. Collectivism is feminine in its nature. It never forgets when you betray, it focuses on social interaction and it organizes the society to help people in such a way that they become completely dependent. It uses emotions to control the herd and does not bow to reality. The first consequence is about the elite. If our elite is completely out of touch with the people and reality, and started to betrayed humankind, the same way the elite of Athens betrayed its citizen 2400 years ago, it is because the patriarchy never makes it to the elite. In other words, the elite is the vector by which the primitive tribe is kept alive. The elite needs to accept the autonomous individuals as the basic entity of the society with its family structure, to become patriarchal like the rest of the society. Patriarchal means that women borrow the mental structure of men to draw a map of reality in order to be able to navigate (or participate) to civilization and to endorse the value system that binds all members of the society. There is no domination of men but of a mental pattern, and one can take note that the feminists have adopted most of that pattern to make their case. Q.E.D.
Regarding the elite, I just want to add that we know that the model they follow is described by Plato's ideal society, in which an elite decide what's good for the people and can't be criticized to protect the well-functioning of the society. Plato's ideal lead to totalitarianism led by an omniscient elite, this is a necessity to the well-order of the primitive tribe (The alpha must always be right and cannot be refuted/defied). According to Plato, the elite has even the right to lie, to fabric a reality for the greatest good. Reason, truth, freedom have at best superficial meaning but do not drive society. Fear, coercion, taboo, rigidity, and uniformity run the tribe and the worst get to the top, ensuring that the system perpetuates itself. Also, they have an obsession with the population size and they endorse a Malthus-like thesis. Malthus was worry about resources to feed the population, the new thesis connects the level of pollution to the size of the population. One of the reasons for their obsession is the ratio herd by alpha. The higher that ratio the less the elite (the alpha) can control the population (the herd).
Despite the elite's responsibilities in that existential crisis which our civilization goes through, one falls on the shoulder of the common men, not on the women nor the elite. Yes, I'm pointing a finger at you. They have lost the way of the tribe, or group cohesion and coordination, in particular toward the women. Women not only search for resources but also security which is provided by protective group behavior. When I explained, men should be allowed to say 'no' to women, it also includes the systematic backup by all other men without discussion. A value system is a great way to synchronize and promote group behaviors of all men. Gentlemen, what were you thinking?
This is the kind of problem for which modern knowledge provides us with a much deeper understanding of what is going on. Let me show you. From a game theory perspective, a group of men managing the tribe can be seen as a coalition. In the movie 'A beautiful mind', about the life of mathematician John Nash, there is a scene in which Nash explains how a coalition of men who agree to adopt a specific strategy, will maximize their chance to get a girl, the ones in the bar. The example is interesting because it links game theory and the concept of the coalition, with evolution theory and sexual strategies. In nature, there are two common strategies, either the males compete with each other (ex. deer) and the female goes with the winner, or the males seek for female's approbation (birds of paradise). In our species, we have both, and when the female approbation strategy takes over the male competition strategy, the civilization collapse. However, the responsibility is on the shoulder of men. It happens when the coalition falls apart and the cause of it is the lack of a common objective. I just want to add one precision. In the movie, Nash mentions that the trick is that each male must act based on what is best for the group AND himself. What is best for the group is to agree to let women out of the equation so that they can focus on what is best for themselves in order to compete with each other. This leads to an evolutionary truth, the presence of only one woman in a men's group breaks the dynamic of the group. Here comes the responsibility of the women, they must accept that there are specific men domains, activities, and territories in which men can compete so that the women will get the best men. The attention-seeking by females must not be deployed in the whole society because it is destructive. This also explains why boys must be progressively severed from women during their childhood to learn to compete with other men and not learn to seek attention from women as a sexual strategy. They have a civilization to build and manage. Women who break those unwritten rules must be corrected and the best way is by other women. That's why they need their own space within the society, the same way men do. The teaching of those unwritten rules is often done by imitation of the adults. We need to do a better job by making those implicit rules, explicit and telling the young what is going on. They have a nature and their brain needs to go through a maturation process. It's knowledge. But not all knowledge can be taught, some need to be lived. We must also allow people to explore their nature, to learn by themselves what they are (what it means to be a man or a woman), and then who they are (what are their weaknesses and strengths).
We need to know who we can trust, to allow the civilized tribe to spread again. I'm sure you have noticed how untruthful people, institutions, organizations, and businesses have become and this greatly affects our ability to solve problems as a group and even to do the basic actions needed to live. For example, is your doctor truthful? Right now that very question, which should have an obvious answer, but it is no more easy to answer it and that means that we are in serious trouble (not to mention lawyers, policemen, teachers, social workers, politicians...) By what do we start to get trust back? A value system that binds us. How does that produce trust? When people know that you have a values system, it follows that you have patterns of behaviors and this makes you predictable. Being predictable in human relations is like knowing the future, you get rid of many unknown variables. It facilitates trust which enables cooperation, problems can be solved, projects to be designed and we move forward together. This is an example of a result of modern knowledge, in that case, game theory. Obviously, our ancestors had intuitive knowledge about this. The difference between proven and intuitive knowledge is that when it is contested you can sort out what's true or false far more easily. The collectivists have played that card against the Christians very well, by opposing 'non-scientific' knowledge of their moral values against their so-called scientific knowledge. During the last century, we have learned that collectivists cannot be trusted regarding their scientific knowledge, it's not real science, and it just has the appearance of science. A modern value system would have 'defense mechanisms' against the collectivists and be compatible with the scientific method.
Another result given by modern knowledge, in favor of a value system, is that a small number of rules, easy to understand and to apply enhances cooperation in repetitive interactions. Who is referring to a 1000 pages moral textbook when having to make dozen daily decisions? Nobody. Humans use heuristics, which can be defined as good-enough-rules that are fast to apply. Honesty is a heuristic, it means to force your brain to match reality and not to create an alternative reality. But that's not all, people who lie have to spend a lot more energy to keep their lies coherent. Being honest spares brain energy. Honesty is an example of how a moral concept can be seen as a heuristic, but it's not a good example to define what it is. Here is one. You play Frisbee with a friend. To catch it you can resolve a differential equation. This is the perfect solution, but nobody does that. How do we catch the freebie? By moving forward, backward, left, and right to keep a constant angle between your hand and the Frisbee. It's a natural hardwire mechanism. That's how dogs too can catch a Frisbee. They have the same hardwired mechanism. This is an important result and implies that any value system must be based as much as possible on natural laws which include human nature. To acknowledge human nature and to put it in a value system ensure to get the best outcome when applying the value system you have. However, not every element of a value system follows natural human tendencies. Some elements represent the need to control those tendencies. They are 'controlled behaviors'. Sexuality is one of them. We need to limit, not suppress, our sexual activity to allow other activities to take place, in particular, to make room in our reward system for other activities.
To follow a value system is another difference with collectivism. They believe that man-made laws are equivalent to natural laws. That's one of the reasons why they don't recognize human nature. When you can create rules as you see fit, then you have no value system, everything goes. You can't function without any value system, therefore you will advocate for the least common denominator, which basically is your emotions. Emotions are hardwired mechanisms share amongst all humans. As we have already seen, you can't build a civilization based on your emotions but more importantly, you're not social by yourself with only your emotions. You will need alphas that you fear to bring order and cohesion within the group by telling you what to do and how to behave.
I will propose as soon as possible a value system, with all the needed explanations. However, it will integrate a set of concepts, which need to be rejected, because they impact negatively our brain maturation and are a call to the return of the primitive tribe. To start the whole thing you will need a leap of faith. Nobody can decide for you if to follow that value system is the right thing to do, nor does any equation exist to answer all of your questions. That leap of faith introduces the next chapter.
Complement: Those who have read the letter know that a common values system or consensus that is at the origin of the creation of a group doesn't elite trust directly it is empathy. Empathy is generated by a primitive hardwire mechanism as if it is an extension of family ties. The theory of evolution is linked to game theory.
Collectivism is everywhere and all great religions around the world with no exception have been defeated by it. Something went wrong and the belief in God will not solve the problem. They do not believe in God and yet they are incredibly successful in their enterprise to drag billion of people in the destruction of humanity. Therefore God is not what will defeat collectivism. God has a function in human society, even it will have to be clarified, but it is not the central question that will allow controlling collectivism and the return of the primitive tribe. The value system is the answer. What it means is to put our values in the foreground and God of the background and I will explain why. That switch is one of the changes that will move us to a next-generation civilization. I will develop many modern arguments that are needed to create a new context, but we can also go simply go back in time, the day of the sermon of the mountain. Imagine that you're there and you have to decide why you would go on that mountain. Would you do it to listen to Jesus, for Jesus himself, or to listen to its message? And yet we have decided to honor Jesus, but the representation of the sermon on the mountain is nowhere to be seen in all churches. When Abraham came back with the Ten Commandments, what was important? The stones on which God has written the commandments or the commandment themselves? Those should be written in the stones of all the churches and yet they are nowhere to be seen. Something is not right, we have decided to worship God more than its message, and as I will explain later, its message died centuries ago, after that, killing God was not that hard anymore. When done, we surrendered to the primitive tribe and in the process, we lost our ability to act humanly, we lost our external point of reference to judge our actions. Collectivists have only an internal point of reference that they can change according to their needs, that's how they're never the bad guy of the story. An external point of reference is not one to can manipulate to make your fantasy world come true. But an external point of reference alone is not enough, you need something to compare and that's the value system.
A value system is a set of concepts, ideas, reasoning, behaviors... On which we agree based on our cognitive function and not our instincts like the collectivists and keep us on the path of civilization. To accept to follow a value system is preceded by the acknowledgment that we have a human nature, which involves accepting two facts. 1) There are natural laws and no man-made laws can change or escape them. You live in the world of those natural laws, you can be whatever you want and your fantasy is only valid as long as you do not violate those laws. 2) We have strengths and qualities, but also weaknesses and flaws. We can be good but also behave badly, and there is nothing you can do to eradicate neither side, you have to live with it. When you accepted the duality of your human nature and that you have no power to rewrite it. However you can influence one side or another, and this will lead you to the only conclusion possible to manage your life, to be as good as possible, work on your strengths and qualities and offer them to the world. This has been experienced by each human being since the dawn of civilization, at least and it's a kind of revelation. This is a truth that changes you when you grasp it. That revelation doesn't come in one day, it's the result of a maturation process. Collectivists are humans who have failed or rejected that maturation process. One might object that collectivists believe that people are good too? They believe that people are good because they believe in the Noble savage ideology and they think in term of groups, not that a duality (good/evil) exist in each individual. The result of that thinking can be observed by their rewriting of the laws about domestic violence. When collectivists are in power the violence can only come from men as a group. Now the police must investigate domestic crimes based on the premise that men are always responsible.
I have connected human nature, a system of value, an external point of reference which in the case of value is God, what is missing are the vows. The vows are not only a commitment to follow and respect a value system, to embrace your human nature and have an external point of reference to judge you, but you have to consider those as more important than anything else, more than your family, more than your life. Those vows are not simple vows, they are the vows of civilization. The commitment to become civilized is the commitment to make civilization happen. The fall of civilization is always in question. It is because we started to consider our vows, at least in Europe, with lightness that we lost our value system and then God. But more than the loss we allow the primitive tribe to come back and that will be always the case because we all start in life as primitive, and then a maturation process happens to make us civilized. When you have all those elements then comes trust. A society can function only if you have trust or fear, but fear is the collectivist solution. Trust not only allow cooperation which enables the realization of projects between individual, but also the establishment and a common understanding about what is the truth of civilization. Collectivists get their truth from an elite and the herd as for function amongst others, to protect that truth against bad elements, members that do not fit well in the collective.
I have presented quickly the basis of civilization, by linking some concepts together. This open a considerable amount of question, the use of an expression as an external point of reference to design God might be quite confusing, but consider this we have failed to stop the collectivists, a modern form of the primitive tribe, we need not to better use the tools we have, but better tools and to think differently. This is quite a big jump but it has to be done. I have to rewrite that section, but the old version is still interesting, even if the non-theist will be a little lost, they just have to replace God with an 'external point of reference'.
God has to be seen as a judge and his son Jesus as a role model, and an ideal version of us that follows the value system (in other words, God cannot be a teapot). You will not be judged by the strength of your faith, but by what you have done. He cannot be the one who intervenes in our affair with some supernatural power. The anthropomorphization of God does not matter, but he will not do your job and will not take on his shoulder the responsibilities that are yours. God does not want you to be an irresponsible and immature being. God is not dead per se but the discussion is over. No God, no value system, no civilization. The atheists who don't have any value system (commonly shared and no vows to it) are only promoting the collectivist ideology even if they are not aware of it. Another point that needs to be made is that God is a paternal figure that promotes the fatherhood kind of love. Half of the Christian advocate for collectivism because they have adopted the motherhood kind of love. When you discuss with people, they know a few things here and there but for the most part, they have lost a coherent and clear system to understand the world and build together a robust society. That confusion is a weakness used by the collectivists and they recruit in mass. Let's go back to God. We believe in him because we believe in the values that allow us to become civilized. That ideal has an important particularity, we share that representation and therefore we have a common ground to share our inner experiences. Reality and the scientific method are fine for the material world, but when it comes to each of us and how to make sense of the world that our senses and brain produce, then God is our common ground to share our difficulties, to enhance our self and help people in return in a useful way. God is the light we follow to become civilized and the value system the path that guides our steps. Moreover, if we failed our vows, the others can help us to find our way back to civilization. We constitute, therefore, a community and we are not alone, we belong.
Is God a social construct? No. It's the rejection of the autonomous individual and the value system that is a social construct. The claim of the existence of God is the acknowledgment that we are not one our self, an absolute necessity to develop the autonomous individual and to oppose the primitive tribe's mental pattern which leads in modern time to collectivism and its monstrosity. I haven't given a definition of God. The premise is that while we don't know exactly what God is, it is at least a mental pattern that appears when we have mental dialogues and exist not only in us but between us. To the question: Do you believe in God? I answer: I have a value system that I share with others. God help me to understand and apply that value system to become the best version of myself and for those who share the same belief. I talk to him and because we share God with others we can talk about our experiences, difficulties and successes, to follow our values system. That sharing is part of the bond that is needed for the group to exist.
Another way to put it is that God and the value system, together, produce order to the tribe, or a population. There is an equivalent for the primitive tribe. They have no God but an elite that forms a coalition to simulate the alpha. The words of the elite, or alpha, are truths that become taboos which has to be followed as if they were the words of God, and this will regulate and bring order to the tribe. People of the primitive tribe have poor self-reflection, which explains why they have difficulties grasping the concept of God and its function, but they have also poor morality. They don't know what morality is, and they have no way to learn it. Well, they could mature and become civilized, but that's precisely what they failed to do, but the hope is never far away. They have no value system, they have taboo and that's why they can strip away an individual's humanity or a population without giving it any more consideration or feeling bad about it. The reason is that a value system is linked to our human nature, and that's precisely what they reject and explain their failure to become civilized. No value system, no understanding of human nature with its natural law and universalism, no morality. I explained the basics of the mechanism at the beginning of that chapter.
They have no dialogue with God as an external element, they're never wrong and they have no love for humanity nor other humans. Fear, the most powerful emotion of all, is their true master. To have fear is the normal order of their world and their elite elicit fear to control the herd. A member of the herd needs to feel fear to feel to be alive. It then looks for an almighty elite, (the alpha) to protect him. There is a symbiosis between the elite and the herd, any attempt to attack that symbiosis, the link between the herd and the elite of the primitive tribe will reinforce it.
To build a new civilization starts by solving the problems that the actual civilization wasn't able to resolve and this failure has elicited a chain reaction of crises until its downfall. But the actual civilization is also the sum of all wisdom and solutions to many problems and they are still true. Any new civilization has to be build based on the wisdom of the previous one. We are in great debt to our ancestors and we have to be grateful. They were keen observers of the world and human nature, and smart enough to make good use of it for all the generations to come. More specifically and regarding our modern era, between 2500 and 2000 years ago, our ancestors solved a set of problems. Their solutions were based on real observations and understanding. Our work is to make sense of them with modern knowledge
A few years ago, a saw a conference with Richard Dawkins interviewing a historian about biblical times. Dawkins was only interested in elements that oppose the biblical stories because he does not, he cannot believe that they have something important to teach us and this is a big mistake. The existence of archetypes is not a bedtime story, and even simple stories contain analogies to real knowledge, not all are worthy but to dismiss them just because they have religious elements is just too anti-knowledge for my taste (read the fallen heroes in the letter). Some might, it's a matter of point of view that the great religion has something important to teach us, therefore the position of Dawkins, Harris, and their followers is reasonable. Not anymore because there is something wrong in their model to understand the evolution of the human civilization and its "raison d'être". All around the world people are suffering, from tyrannical elites and they have no model to explain what is going on and even less to help them. There is more. From a scientific and rational point of view, to consider religions mostly has a way to explain what we can't, it's not just short-sighted, it's wrong. To not see how religions have also produced positive outcomes in particular social cohesion, is disturbing, so much so that in the wake of the 2020 events, we can postulate that there were elements of collectivism in the thinking of the atheist leaders. It doesn't mean at all that it was conscious, but that collectivism, the mark of the primitive tribe had drill the mind of the people long before they were born, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they were immune to its infection. Nonetheless, their work has help collectivism and at the same time, it is sad because some of their work is useful to build a new future.
When it comes to a modern interpretation of faith, there is one person: Jordan Peterson. I recommend his set of videos called 'Biblical series' and his book 'The map of the meanings'. Many would rather recommend another book he wrote '12 rules for life', but the real deal is 'The map of the meaning' because of the explanation of the symbolic. He bridges ancients and modern knowledge, and this gives a rich understanding of who we are and our present situation, but it makes also the book difficult for those who haven't thought deeply about all the questions he is juggling with. For example when he writes 'despite the archaic presumption of the separation of spirit and matter'. This is a reference to the Ghost in the machine, which states that the mind and the body are two separate things allowing those who believe in it to give to the mind supernatural power. This links to the book 'The blank slate' by Steven Pinker and the denial of human nature in modern times, which link to the question of nature vs nurture and the social construction of the concept of race and sex, which is answered in the book Human Diversity by Charles Murray. They're not social constructs. All those questions and particularly their answers are linked to the work of Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution. And finally, to catch my tail, Peterson has explained in one of his videos that atheists like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins are in reality Newtonian in their thinking and not Darwinian. They have an analytical approach that will fail and I agree, there is no equation of human nature in the Newtonian sense but the scientific approach still is the good one, hence the Darwinian. When I explain that we are made by heuristics it means that sometimes we will fail to find the right answer. If you take an analytical approach to define human beings you reject heuristics. This makes a huge difference when you have to define a value system. A value system based on analytical thinking will fail. However, one that is based on heuristics will not because it comes from human nature. This links us to Nietzsche's solution to the death of God, the 'übermensch' which is based on an analytical approach and consequently will fail to work. That explains why Jordan Peterson does not agree with Nietzsche's solution. Humans can't create out of the blue their own value system, it must come from our nature.
The second part of the title of the book is 'Architecture of the belief' and explains his project. He wants to understand the function of belief and he used modern understanding of the brain and the evolutionary theory. When asked if he believes in the resurrection of Jesus he answered yes. It means that he believes that some neurological structure needs that answer to function properly, not that dead can be brought back to life or the dead can rise from the grave, therefore, there are no supernatural elements in his answer (Ok, that is a hypothesis of mine, I never asked him directly the question. If you can please do and let me know). This is precisely the kind of answer the atheist/Newtonian type is unable to understand. I totally understand his answer, but I disagree with him when it comes to Jesus' resurrection. My project is to build a civilization that will make sure collectivism has nowhere to hide and supernatural beliefs are part of it. I do not chase collectivism because I don't like it, but because I think it is part of our primitive self that stops the civilized self to be fully functional. The same way we control some of our behavior to reroute our reward system to make room for reason, instead of emotions, we need to control our belief in supernatural elements like the belief in the power of words to change reality (casting spells), to keep under control some brain network that would push us to believe that we are the builder of reality. Regarding Jesus, it is fundamental to understand the concept of sacrifice as is Abraham (their sacrifice are not of the same kind though), they existed both and they need to be part of our life, but I do not keep the supernatural element of their stories. To continue that discussion, you will find in the letter a few paragraphs about 'The map is not the reality' which supports the Darwinian and biological approach to understand the world, and not a purely analytical approach.
Yet again, the main focus for a next-generation civilization is the value system, by no means God. If the theists can't concur to that, then they are no better than the atheist. The message of God includes a value system but the supernatural element on which it is based has made it indefensible with the advent of modern times (it did make sense back at the times of Jesus-Christ, though). It is said that Nietzsche, by acknowledging the death of God, foreseen the terrible events of the 20th. The reason why he focused on God helped him to amplify his solution for the 'übermensch' (note 1), but this also shows that he, like all Christians, had already internalized the loss of God's message. The atrocities of the 20th century, world wars, and genocides, are the result of the collectivist grip on our society. But that grip and its practical consequence started already during the 18th century. A philosopher like J.J Rousseau would never be able to produce his devastating thinking if the value system of the Christian had still been in place. Nietzsche, the Atheists, and all others had only God to blame in the 20th because his message was long gone. The question we have to answer is: does God defines the message or does the message (value system) defines God? To adopt the former is to follow the traditional path of faith, the second follows a modern approach. From that perspective, Nietzsche missed the target. Moreover, by reviving the message by a value system God is 'resurrected'. I'm playing with words, but what has to be understood is that God comes along with the value system but it is not part of it. He is the reference point that tells you if you follow the right path. An external point of reference contrary to the collectivists who have an internal point of reference i.e themselves and the society of men. The reality, human nature, and God have no place in their world because they are outside of their realm.
Nietzsche belongs to the counter-enlightenment movement (note 2) which essentially is composed of German philosophers. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, all ask in the end for an omniscient elite that brings order and that elite is animate by a 'will of life'. They have inspired the post-modernists, French philosophers for the most part, and all French intellectuals like Sartre, Lacan... Rousseau is the father of the romanticism movement associate with a collectivist political view, which links the environmentalists and the Marxists. All of them have taught the elite of this planet the love of the void of values and the hate of God for the last 300 years and the old way of the primitive tribe.
What are you going to do against that? What's your plan? History has answered those questions. All strategies used to fight it, within the actual civilization model with its values and tools, have been defeated. Again, faith itself is of no help here. Those people are miserable beings, and their world is a dire place not because they have no faith, but because they have no values. They are not interested to act in a way that will help people to get a better life. A better life is not one of luxury, but one in which the suffering is tolerable and those elites make the world intolerable. A better life is a life that has a meaning and that meaning is shared will all others. Meaning is something that is shared among all individuals, all families, and all generations. To have meanings is not measured by the meanings you give to your personal life, career, family, or the money you have, but the meanings you give to the group you belong to and to the future that that group builds. In the same way, being good is not being good to yourself, but to others.
Note 1: I hypothesis that he wanted the "übermensch" to happen and that's why he killed God, which explains why the collectivists (Marxists, Leninist, Nazis, and Maoists) and later the post-modernists are respectful of Nietzsche's ideas. They see that his foreground motivation was the "übermensch" animate by the will to return to the primitive tribe, and not based on the observation of the death of God. The "überMensch" is not the result of logical reasoning but a battlefield cry for the return of the primitive tribe.
Note 2: The counter-enlightenment movement is the one that promotes irrationalism, the opposition to reason. From a practical point of view, it is to promote the use of emotions as a reasoning mechanism and to not consider reality as an external point of reference to control the production of our brain. The language becomes the only reality, loaded with emotional reasoning. The enlightenment, on the other hand, is characterized by the promotion of reason. However, be careful, some use the enlightenment as camouflage to promote irrationalism. They are the totalitarian rationalists, the scientific rationalist, whatever the name. They can be unmasked because they don't follow Socrates thinking, and true scientific thinking. They never envision the possibility to be wrong, which is why they are totalitarian when they speak their truths. They don't believe that there are truths to which you can stand for, nor truths in the world that are to get.
Since the 18th century, we have moved from 'exposed' to collectivist ideologies and concepts to 'bombarded'. No wonder that we have lost sight of civilization's basics concepts. Let's start with the question. Is civilization run by men? Yes, and there is no other way. Central planning and management is just a short-term illusion. The patriarchy can be explained in five words: Reason, fatherhood, tools, hierarchy, and tribe. (and civilization?)
Reason is a feedback loop with the reality that serves as an external point of reference to help us to assess our brain production and if needed, we adapt. Fatherhood is to educate to give the others the ability to solve their problem on their own, and to take care of all, not only of a specific group. The third is simply the fact that men build tools to accomplish more tasks and civilization needs tools. Consequently, this is the cause of the creation of universities, which have to collect the knowledge needed to build those tools. The fourth, the hierarchy, is explained in the letter, but I have neglected the last one. All five have one common denominator and cause. Men don't have eggs. This explains why men are expendable therefore they do the hunting and defend the tribe against predators. After millions of years of evolution, men become stronger and developed brain patterns that help them to do their role within the tribe. Reason because you need to have a true understanding of reality if you don't want to die quickly, you develop an interest in tools as second nature, you build a hierarchy within the hunting group because that is the best way to stay alive and get the job done. Men care for the whole tribe. When they go hunting they don't just hunt for themselves or their family. Regarding tribe, there is something particular, that we the westerners have forgotten and belongs to obvious concepts that our ancestors knew and that we have lost. Women do not build groups, tribes, or societies, men do. Interestingly what is important here is not the explanation but its consequences. If women do not build groups, then they need to look for one. The strategy of men is to build one while the strategy of women is to find a man which will by its nature be part of a group. The civilized and occidental men have lost the path of the tribe and as a consequence, they have lost the trust of the women to build a future. The collectivists may have something to do with it, but to put on their shoulders our inability to rebuild the tribe spirit will not allow us to get it back. Don't start with the warrior way, which belongs to the primitive tribe (the Spartans). The civilized tribe is the builder tribe, the erudite (the Athenians), but because tribalism is part of evolutionary heritage cohesion and sacrifice for the sake of the group with a territorial component are also part of what defines us. We are rewarded by what we build, the primitive tribe is rewarded by their destruction. Cohesion and sacrifice are for the building of our civilization and then we defend what we have created, the territory component. When we become savage to defend ourselves, we still are different from those of the primitive tribe, we still have a value system. When we are adrift on an ocean of blood and despair, there is still an island somewhere, to save us from drowning. The primitives have none of this, they have sold their soul, what defines them as individuals, to the collective. Men must clean their rooms so that they will be able to take responsibilities and think more clearly. Women have a role too. They must support the reconstruction of the tribe spirit by letting men alone and refuse to interfere in any way. If a female tries to take advantage, which we will call her - destroyer of civilization, all true women must catch her and keep her under control. Why would women do that? Civilized women accept and understand delayed gratification. The reconstruction of the tribe's dynamic will allow the rebuilding of civilization from which civilized women always gain.
If you need an example of what behavior you must reject, then look no further than the academics. They have let the collectivists taken control of knowledge and the education of the elite. They knew what was happening as soon as the 1980s, without any doubt and in detail. Moreover, when you read Julien Benda (The treason of the intellectuals - 1927), you understand that some were already convinced that something detrimental to intellectual life was going on, with considerable consequences on the fabric of knowledge and the elite. As a regular person, that kind of book may not come to your attention, but that's not the case for academics who have an intellectual life because of their education and their line of work. Only a few have risen their voice, but most of them have done nothing. Their silence is what makes them accomplices for the destruction of knowledge, reasoning, and free-thinking which are needed to educate men as autonomous individuals. Their silence has led people to think that universities were still doing their job, while in reality they were transformed into indoctrination camps. Many explain their silence by their cowardice and that's true for most because when it comes to sacrifice their well-being, they use their family as an excuse. But what is that for a parent that lets their children grow up in a society that wants the end of civilization and all the dead corpses that comes with it? They have not only betrayed the people but sacrifice their own children.
Another way to see the problem is that academics have grown as an independent group inside the society while having no explicit value system subordinated to the one that makes civilization happen. It follows that when the collectivists, the anti-civilization, and the anti-knowledge came, they had nothing for which that they could value more than their life and fight for, nor any group cohesion that would organize them to repel the collectivists. They never have seen the university as a territory that they have to be defended to protect civilization.
I know what I have in my bag, a next-generation civilization. I developed it for me, to solve my equation of life and then a few years ago I realize that they weren't many of that kind of project out there, but they should have been, dozen of them. Academics should have in their bag such projects and that they haven't one proves that they are not the guardian of knowledge that the civilization needs. Their task is to protect impartiality toward knowledge, to collect and organize it for the purpose to transmit it to the next generations so that civilization can continue. They have not only betrayed their children and the people but civilization itself. Now that we know all of this, the talkings, the complaints, and the whinings are over, time to go to work as our ancestors did, stone by stone we will build a new civilization, and the temple of knowledge but this time with real guardians, with warriors of knowledge. No matter the times, the sacrifices... We are a civilization.
"A man who has put his faith in what he owns, rather than what he stands for will be unable to sacrifice what he owns, for what he is." Jordan Peterson, Maps of the meaning, chapter the hostile brothers.
There are many ways to characterize the differences between the primitive tribe and the civilized tribe. Destroyer vs builder is one of them but that's more of a consequence. When it comes to their nature they obviously think of the world differently. I have already presented Essentialism with the words vs properties debate, which links to the opposition of internal vs external point of reference, and there is of course the opposition of emotions and reason. But there are other fundamental differences. One of them is randomness. To demonstrate this, I will start from risk and use social dilemma from game theory to differentiate the primitive from the civilized tribe. Game theory studies the interactions between two or more people, called agents, and how they can maximize the best outcome for them. Social dilemmas are particular interactions in which the agents are facing the dilemma to play safe or risky but of course, the outcome is not the same. To add even more complexity there are, at least, two types of strategies to consider for each player. The 'best' strategy is to go for the best outcome independently of what the other players do and the Nash equilibrium which is the best strategy depending on what the other players may play. You have to understand that like in real life, what the other player does is important because it can ruin your strategy. Overall, the Nash equilibrium is a better strategy, but it happens that it's not always that simple to find one, which explains the existence of a second strategy, just in case.
Let's start by the observation that each individual of the two tribes shows remarkable differences in their behavior regarding risk. We have the primitives which are generally risk-averse, and the civilized risk-takers or have a higher risk-acceptance.
In the social dilemma called stag-hunt which was presented first by J.J Rousseau, the best solution and the Nash equilibrium give the same result thus the same outcome, with the following consequences. 1) There is no incentive to play anything else and it is truly the best solution. It's a risk-free solution. 2) Because of the specific parameter of the Stag-hunt social dilemma it implies that both players will cooperate even if they are not aware of it. Those who look at life as a deer-hunt dilemma do not focus on the outcome, but on the risk and want to reduce it. What you have to understand is that Rousseau's society is organized to have only the stag-hunt dilemma to deal with and in that situation, it is clear that choosing any other strategy than cooperation is absurd. When Rousseau wrote that we will force them to be free, those who do not choose cooperation willingly will have to be forced to choose correctly. The hidden parameter is that the society is organized to choose cooperation but it is a wish society, a fantasy because it does not take into consideration natural laws upon which we have no power. You can't control risk because you can control the randomness that exists in nature as a natural law.
In the social dilemma called the prisoner dilemma, the results for the best strategy and Nash equilibrium are not the same and so are their outcome. You have to make a choice. If you choose the Nash equilibrium strategy you choose to lessen the risk (it doesn't mean risk-free) because you envision what the other player may do. If you choose the best strategy, you maximize your outcome but you higher the risk. That the risk is maximum or not is not of your concern, only the outcome. The prisoner dilemma is far more complex to deal with than the Stag-hunt. A society that is organized to define the interactions as a prisoner dilemma is more complex, but people have a choice. A definition of human civilization will always imply that its organization preserves natural laws, in that case, randomness, and promote interactions between individuals that allow them to have a choice, in that case between risk and outcome. The deepest meaning of choice for individuals is to acknowledge the diversity of human nature. The diversity of collectivists is only a group diversity because they do not recognize human nature which implies ultimately to recognize differences between individuals. I have already explained that, but one of the reasons why the collectivists do not recognize the individual and human nature is that individual actions create patterns that generate coordination by a feedback loop of their interactions. Those patterns exist because randomness in nature produces patterns.
I don't believe that it was a coincidence if J.J Rousseau was also one of the very first to promote collectivism and to look at civilization as a corruption of human nature and not as a natural outcome of human interactions. When the environmentalists want the deindustrialization of our civilization, they fear the "wrath of the Gods". They believe that it is unnatural and therefore industrialization produced unpredictable events in our nature. They have lost their mind, they are terrorized. You can't avoid risks and what generates them, randomness.
Behind the fear of industrialization hides the fear of randomness. The ultimate natural mechanism that you can't control. The existence of the primitive tribe feeds on having an enemy for its internal cohesion. They have no solution, to any problem, just death, destruction, the end of civilization, and they don't care.
One of the main reasons for Jordan Peterson's success is that he tells people that there are risks. You can't avoid bad things to happen, therefore be prepared to suffer. Be prepared and take the burden of life on your shoulders and move forward. I believe that explains why most of his audience is composed of men, they are more risk-takers than women. To take responsibility is to accept the inherent risk they imply. For the collectivists, the state is nothing close to a nanny, but the worshiping of one of those old Gods in primitive times. The quasi-religious behavior of the collectivists, which we can observe even more among the young, is a deification of the state. The protector of all and the all-seeing eye. To oppose that vision is blasphemy. With such a protector, you don't need to take any responsibility, in fact, if you do you defy the God-protector by doubting its ability to care. You to maintain by yourself the link of dependency to the state to prove that you're part of the collective.
Natan Sharansky, a U.S.S.R dissident in the 1970s explains that one thing about which all dissidents were agreed, is that a society is free if people can express their views without the fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm. With the concept of randomness and risk, we can have a deeper understanding of what a society of fear or freedom is. The society of fear is one in which people project their fear - fear of virus and illness, fear of nuclear explosion, fear of war, fear of mad climate, fear of missing basic goods (the paper roll craziness of the coronavirus pandemic), etc. People who do not accept the randomness of life, and the suffering that comes with it, want to control every aspect of it, in the hope to make their fears disappear. This leads to an authoritarian society with an almighty state. That state will silence every dissident voice and those voices will live in fear of that almighty state. Following the same line the society of freedom, is one in which people exercise their freedom, and that the outcome of that freedom is random and can have negative consequences. We meet here an old friend, the opposition between the equality of outcome (collectivism) vs the equality of opportunity (autonomous individual). The equality of outcome leads to the control of the people. You never know what the outcome of their actions will be, and something terrible might happen therefore they must be controlled by being all the same. On the other hand, the equality of opportunity cries out its right to experiment, to live. The outcome is unexpected and it's beautiful. Life is an adventure and you never know if you will come late for diner, that's a risk.
Who is right? From a psychological point of view, you cannot control randomness without dying inside. You will do the same thing again and again in fear that if you change anything, the worst might happen. From a physical world point of view, randomness is part of reality and to control randomness is like denying the second law of thermodynamic (The universe tends toward disorder, one of the most basic laws of nature). We can also find a link with Karl Popper's definition of a close and open society. He defines the primitive society as a close society, organized around taboos and rigid laws in which everyone has a clear and precise function, doing always the same things again and again. They rewrite the definition of natural laws as if they were equivalent to man-made laws. By doing so they reject the idea to be subject to natural laws, they reject the randomness of life. All the patterns that natural laws produce, which allow us to discover them, are the result of randomness. Depending on what mechanism randomness applies to, the resulting pattern will differ. Choosing a risk-free world is to forbid randomness and it is the end of life.
When Rousseau wrote that society corrupts men, it is not the technology per se but the uncontrolled mind that produces and uses such technologies. They are corrupt because what they produce is not natural meaning that it does not come from nature directly.
To highlight the role of risk in understanding collectivism, also explains why they are so eager to use any technology to control people. Usually, people see this as a contradiction, let see what is going on here. The anti-technological movement is anti-civilization because they reject the randomness of the outcome of men's experiences. We are used to make fun of those people when they use a laptop to shout to the world the insanity of science but if we focus on their rejection of risk instead of technologies then it makes perfect sense. What they are afraid of is the outcome of the action of billions of autonomous individuals and even more if they use technologies. But in the right hands, their hands, technology can be used for the greatest good, and in particular to control the individual and their random actions of the society, and that answers the apparent contradiction of collectivists as anti-civilization but not necessarily anti-technology. But of course, they keep having that temptation to return to nature and abandon technology and science, but their fear of the individual overthrown their hate of technology to control those individuals. Already, in 1940, F.A Hayek the Nobel prize economics has foreseen the fear of the collectivists, they are afraid of the whim (read random actions) of billions of individuals which will as a consequence produce chaos. The centralization and planning by an elite controlling the state come directly from that fear. The hate of capitalism is the hate of a system embracing risk, and that the random action of a large number of individuals (following the prisoner dilemma) produces patterns that bring order and not chaos.
I have ended the letter by quoting Star Trek, I will end the text civilization by quoting Star Trek again. This is a dialogue between Chakotay, the first officer of the spaceship Voyager, and Seven of Nine a rescued drone Borg trying to learn what it means to be human, and of course, it's all about emotions and not reason, but the civilized know that the latter is the correct answer to her question.
Yes, it does have to be perfect, at least try and the letter will show you how that knowledge, intellectual rigor, transcendence, and beauty are linked. But beyond that discussion, the dialogue shows a strategy of manipulation based on the restriction of information to which many generations of western citizens have been exposed. They don't tell you that you're wrong, just that you're missing the point and they provide you with the 'correct' information. In the process, they forgot all information that will prove wrong their ideas. Why is thinking more important than feelings? René Descartes has written "Cogito ergo sum" - I think therefore I am. It means the ability for the individual to understand knowledge by himself and therefore to make his own choice, to become autonomous. In my city there is on a bridge a painted slogan - I exist - this is equivalent to - I feel - but this opposes the - I think. When feelings define who we are, we become all the same because our emotions are hardwired mechanisms that we all share but they are simple mechanisms and most of the time at odds with modern knowledge. The slogan - I exist, is a call for the return to the primitive tribe. However, what's in your mind makes you unique and without it, you are just part of the herd. It is the thinking that builds your identity (this leads to the necessity of free speech without any filter because to know what you think you need to think. It's a process and you need to practice it). Your feelings will make you dependent to the point that you will not even know what to do because you can do much in a modern world with feelings. They then will build a world around you, a fantasy, to give you a function, and then the words that end the letter will apply to you - "For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky", and you will die on the inside because the claim of existence - I feel - is the death of the self - I think.