For the sake of
(a Letter to The European Parliament)
Collectivists' Red Lines
By Jean-François Maquiné
Red lines are concepts, ideas, and reasoning that an ideology holds true and will put its followers into trouble or cause trouble to the population who don't share it. They are deep mechanisms that define the way we see the world, they rarely come to the surface, if ever, but drive the way we define society and our actions, which make them visible and allow us to spot them. Jordan Peterson points out, that while we have started to understand what red lines define the political right, we know nothing about those on the left political spectrum. He's right (at first sight, but it's more complicated than that as you will read later), and that we know nothing about them is by itself remarkable because we know that they already have crossed a few by the sheer number of the people they have killed. However I do not share the left/right separation, but I advocate for collectivism vs autonomous individual because it's a more fundamental divide. Sometimes I have expressed that divide as primitive vs civilized tribe, to show that it is indeed a very old problem and there is a tribe component to what defines the autonomous individual. The two tribes also symbolize an evolution of our species and at some point, we had to rely on our cognitive functions rather than on our instincts to continue to be able to manage the population, and civilization was a result of that change.
As eager as I am to show you those red lines it may be worth exploring the reasons why we are so late to list them:
(1) The first reason is that we didn't have the knowledge. Since Marx (For the sake of the argument I put the point of origin on Marx. Rousseau will do too, but he is less known internationalize wise), collectivists have provided many solutions and explanations about economics, education, social organization, environment... and when one was proved wrong they came with a variation that needed to be checked all over again and the whole process took us a considerable amount of time. Now that they have run out of 'reasonable' arguments, they are becoming more and more irrational to the point that it is useless to test their new arguments. In the beginning, the checking was needed to dismantle all of their claims because that how we think, and a necessary step for us to understand that the arguments given were only to fool us. Education is a perfect example. All their theories since the romantics of the 19th, which have been proven wrong, weren't implemented to develop Children's competencies but to transform the educational system into an indoctrination camp to produce soldiers and slave workers for the collective. But to reach that conclusion it was necessary to dismantle all of their claims because that's how we, the autonomous individuals, proceed.
(2) The second point is that we have been played and manipulated, even more since WWII. By characterizing the bad guy as the Nazis and charting them on the right political spectrum, people were left with two choices being a communists/socialists or a Nazi. It was a political trap implemented by Stalin when the Nazis attacked the communists, and it worked and still is. The trap is to block any political critics and to define any argument along with that opposition and only that one. Another tool was the systematic use of slogans starting in the 1960s, for all political crises. Slogans hack our brains and block any thinking - Make love not war, it is forbidden to forbid. But slogans show also a deep belief in the power of emotions over reason, and the will to live without rules imposed by society. Both share the idea to let our instincts speak. But, civilization happened because we learn to control them so that our cognitive functions can take control.
(3) The third reason is that since the 18th, the world turns around collectivists' ideas and concepts and since the 1960s everything is exclusively defined by them. We have answered their claims by using their words, according to their perspective, and by taking the opposite direction making their direction a reality. If you are accused of being a bourgeois and you answer by using the word bourgeois, you back up their right to have the anti-bourgeoisie position. You have to use a completely independent view of the world which also explains their view. Your reality will not be defined by theirs. Of course, the 18th century was also the beginning of the dominance of the United States of America, but only from an economical point of view, from a philosophical one, it was the beginning of the era of collectivism. My point is that people use more than they think collectivists' ideas, therefore it's not surprising they struggle to notice their red lines. Even amongst Christians, collectivism has succeeded to replaces the focus of the faith on God and not on the values, which allowed the collectivists to replace their values. Christians today will go on Mount Sinai to see Jesus, not to listen to his message. The fight for non-collectivists values died during the 20th century.
(4) The fourth reason is to be found in the fear and desperation of the people because they have understood that the collectivists have adopted a strategy that can be resume by "take it or leave it". To call them out, meaning to state red lines for collectivists would mean to leave it, but to go where? Without an alternative project for the civilized tribe, the autonomous individual, there is no place to go, hence the "take it" by fear and as a result, desperation followed. So people shut up and didn't stand against the collectivists for what is known to be wrong.
I'm not entirely satisfied with those explanations, but I have more important matters to deal with. All in all, we were slow to understand showing the deficiency of our tools and we were actively deceived. You might be in disagreement with those red lines, but you can't be with the need of a list unless you're a collectivist. It is because we hadn't such a tool that we have been fooled for so long.
The red lines I present are about the divide that exists between the primitive and the civilized tribe, and as a negative, those red lines have a counter-part that defines the values of the civilized tribe. It is precisely because we hadn't those values in the 18th century that the primitive tribe, taking the form of collectivism, made its return. To move forward, the human civilization needed a conceptual jump as important as the one that produced the great religions. I believe the enlightenment finds its origin in that project, with reason as the central question but the task was far beyond our capabilities. The whole project turned out to be messier than history recorded and the proof of this is the rise of the powerful German counter-enlightenment movement, which today defines most of our view. What was missing is a better understanding of human nature with a scientific theory to back up the new knowledge required. Darwin was the main key but it took us more than a century to start understanding its consequences.
Now we have the knowledge to produce the next-generation civilization. We don't need to fight collectivists, only to provide a solution to the civilized tribe project which will render collectivism obsolete. I do not doubt that they will be hard times with the collectivists, but we must focus most of our effort on building our next home for humanity, our next civilization. That and only that will defeat the actual collectivists. They are a destructive force, to oppose them according to their rules is to play the game of war forever.
There is an unsettling aspect in the fight against collectivism. Today, many who oppose it are people who have adhered to it or were part of philosophical schools attached to it, even loosely, yet most are reluctant to acknowledge or blind to the existence of the deep roots of collectivism and its connexion to our primitive self. It is an important issue because it damages the effectiveness of our fight against collectivism by refusing to use a whole set of concepts. Unfortunately, the explanation of such an attitude is not very pleasant for any of us, they try to perverse some concepts of collectivism in which they strongly believe. It is the violent, irrational, and tyrannical part of collectivism they reject. As I have shown, concepts and ideas, which we use to think, work in pattern, and pattern call pattern. It implies that even the most innocuous of them is a potential call to the most extremes. You can't have both. You can't endorse the Nobel savage that everyone is good, because the consequence is that you will have to face, at some point in time, its terrible conclusion, which is to get rid of those who are not good. Even if you can escape its consequence you allow that ideology to take root, and many others who will fall for it won't have any issue applying its conclusion. You won't feel responsible and yet you are and you don't see it, and will never accept it, but you are. Another consequence is that to put collectivism under control (we cannot get rid of it), important changes are needed for our society. They won't allow those changes, they will block them one way or another. It seems to be a complex issue but there is a solution which is to consider civilized those who have passed a trust mechanism. They have to explicitly endorse a set of values, concepts, and reasoning. Collectivists will not pass that trust mechanism and it includes those false allies. There is no other way if the civilized want to move forward again, trust must be reestablished. We need to know if the people working to put civilization back on its rails are truly reliable.
Many of those former "leftist" are atheists and as such they rebel against the cult that collectivism impose. They believe that they have exchanged a Christian cult for a collectivist cult, completely oblivious that it is precisely the killing of the value system of the Christian that allowed the primitive tribe, at least its spirit, to come back under the disguise of collectivism. A value system helps to guide people to become civilized to escape the primitive tribe to build civilization. They help in the maturation process to learn to use our cognitive functions and to keep an eye on our instincts. Regarding the cult, if you aim to have none you will end up with the primitive cult and its true tribalism. When we become civilized we lost that tribalism and with it a particular sense of belonging (to a tribe to be one). We artificially reproduce it with rituals often encapsulated in religions. You can't avoid having some in form of rituals, some form of cult. What is important is to have an external point of view for our cognitive function. The tribe or the group, the society must not, itself, be the point of reference, that's what real tribalism imposes instinctively. You also have to have a group dynamic regulate by the value system. Another point. It is astonishing, that those "Allies" never want to consider the red lines presented here as central to any dialogue, in particular the root red lines (natural laws, animism, randomness, blank slate...). I will make one last comment in which there is a suggestion in the hope they will take it. All of those observations make the actual Atheists not that much different from the 18th century french atheist of the Rousseau type, and by that picture, I mean that they didn't evolve and there is a ton of knowledge they refuse to use, stuck as they are in the past and a broken discourse. For example, it is blatant that collectivism is a cult without God, the God is the tribe and the alphas. If you have read "Thinking in systems" (see letter) then you understand that they lack an external point of reference. It follows that they cannot establish a feedback loop to correct or enhance themselves. Collectivism also, have not value system of the cognitive type, only their instincts. The development of cognitive functions over instincts is paramount and a value system plays an important role. To reject any form of cult is to reject human nature at least partially. Do I repeat myself too often on that topic? Well, learn the lesson so I won't have to.
I wanted the list to be as practical as possible, but from the draft (2019) to the final document (2020), I had to deal with an explosion of the number of entries. Of course, I have suspected that something was wrong in my approach making me see red lines everywhere. Today, I stand by my approach, but I have provided for each entry a lengthy explanation and often an example. While this is quite a departure from my objective to provide a practical list, easy and quick to consult, it has now the merit to allow you to judge the validity of that list.
I have parted the red lines into four categories. Root: which are the fundamental redlines, those are connected to their root beliefs. Taboo: redlines that we are no more authorized to discuss, the questions involved have become taboos. Major: most common redlines are listed in that category. Minor: simply put, redlines that enter none of the three other categories but couldn't be discarded because they nonetheless play a role.
Redline 1 (confuse natural and man-made laws) - All those 16 fundamental redlines are somehow linked to the first redline and turn around the idea that there are natural laws that existed before us, that don't need us, and on which we have no power. They indicate that there are truths out there that are not from our creation and indirectly prove that an external world to us exists that we call reality. Redline 2 (randomness) - Randomness explains how order can be achieved by nature without the guidance of a mind should that be a God or a human. Randomness produces patterns, the association of those pattern self-ordering system. Any self-ordering system creates will become stable meaning it protects against random degradations. The will is randomness and the purpose is the creation of self-ordering systems. Redline 3 (Gaia) - To lend inanimate objects (Earth, we are committing a crime against) or concepts (society, historicism) a will and a purpose. Redline 4 (anthropomorphism) - A way to see the world exclusively from a homo sapiens' perspective. Collectivists always have an anthropomorphic view because they don't recognize natural laws nor the existence of a reality independent from their actions, which they call culture. Redlines 5 (hierarchy of power) - Collectivists believe that the only hierarchy that exists is of power. While they desperately need the power to apply their fantasy, the true reason to implement it is that they choose their instincts over their cognitive functions. Redline 6 (hate of the individual) - We are used to present the rejection of the concept of individualism by the collectivists as an intellectual act. It's not, it's biological, they want its destruction like it were a virus. They react physically as if survival mechanisms were activated, that's why they don't perceive individuals as human beings. You're human only if you're part of a group. Those who defend individualism do not understand how the collectivist think. A terrible mistake. Redline 7 (Lamarckism) - The ability of life to adapt to important changes is not caused by the environment (Lamark) but by randomness first (Darwin) and then the environment. If you reject randomness then the environment (Lamarck) is the only answer. Redline 8 (Essentialism) - Language is a modern form of incantations and rituals to influence or produce natural laws. The idea that they are independent of us is rejected. Redline 9 (Rejection of reason) - Reason is the means by which we communicate with reality, it also involves cognitive thinking. The rejection of reason is first the rejection of a reality outside our own production, and then of our cognitive ability in favor of emotions. Redline 10 (equity) - From a cognitive point of view, equity is the rejection of human nature and that humans are a social construct. There is also a more primitive side, that amongst the hed every member is equal, the same food the same share, the same right to procreate. This is an important aspect because the alphas are not subject to it, in other words, equity does not apply to the elite, and the hard agree on this. Redline 11 (Blank slate, empiricism) - The blank slate is a rejection of our human nature, and preprogrammed mechanisms. It is the belief that we are entirely the product of our environment with two particularities. That we can become whatever we want (we program ourselves) and that you can program people to become perfect citizens of the perfect world. Those who do not fit are not proof that the blank slate is erroneous, but that they are not human. The blank slate has an enormous impact on how we educate children. Beyond the blank slate, we have empiricism, to experience the world through our senses, this opposes the acquisition of knowledge by our cognitive functions. Redline 12 (Nobel savage) - The noble savage is the belief that we are fundamentally good, our bad side is the result of society and civilization, but it is precisely the rejection that we have a bad side that is the result of the rejection of human nature. That belief has great consequences on how we organize society based on what is good and evil. Redline 13 (Ghost in the machine) - It is the belief that the mind and the body are two different entities. This is required for magical thinking to exist, the ability to mold the environment and yourself. Redline 14 (emotional experience as fact) - People who believe in the blank slate also believe that what they experience is factual and that it that cannot be denied or refuted by anything, reason-based evidence included. They live by the motto "what I feel is true", no matter if it goes against everything. Redline 15 (genocide as a natural outcome) - The Noble savage ideology seems a naïve ideal, but there is a hidden conclusion to it that shows how primitive it is. The people who adhere to it end up thinking that if you're not noble then you're not human and need to disappear. Redline 16 (Hegelian thinking) - Hegelian thinking reveals the primitive binary thinking of the collectivists. It's not restricted to the realm of ideas, but to understand the world and life in binary terms. This imposes restrictions that do not allow at all, the solving of complex problems, and the degradation of life's quality follows.
If you search for the top red line, this is it. Most other red lines are a consequence of it or in connection with it. Whatever they do, collectivists only consider man-made laws and this explains their economics and justice model. It also explains the 'nurture' answer they give to the philosophical problem of Nature vs Nurture. They think that there are no natural phenomena that produce differences, which they call inequalities and attribute to society, not nature. The economic implication is to believe in a zero-sum game economy, that there is no creation of wealth, only exchange. The social implication is that if you do not have what others have, then someone took it from you, therefore actions need to be taken to give it to you back. Beyond economics and social justice, the belief in man-made laws only implies the belief that all things turn around human activities and thinking. The chaos that exists in large human groups and that each society tries to control can only be the result of the individual. It follows that they want a strong centralized state to coordinate and synchronize human activities, if not then inequalities and chaos will reign supreme. They completely ignore complex dynamic systems that regulate themselves based on simple natural laws. Collectivists never care about natural laws, only man-made laws exist, only their laws exist.
It is in fact that blindness to the existence of natural laws produces chaos, and collectivists are the agents of chaos and pain. Natural laws not only exist but they are hardwired in us and that what makes us human. To accept natural laws is to accept to be what we are, but we have become more than a hardwired machine, we have also cognitive functions that can reprogram some of that hardware. The fundamental misunderstanding of human nature by the collectivist is not to answer Nurture instead of Nature, but to believe that the answer is necessary Nurture OR Nature, the true answer is both. It is that complex interaction between our instincts and cognitive functions that justifies the need to go through a maturation process to learn how to make the whole machinery work properly, to become civilized.
Their failure to understand human nature has also a dark side. Collectivists believe that all men are good, but the real meaning of humanism is in the belief that all men can do good. One dismisses the possibility of evil, the other not. This explains why the collectivists believe in the Nobel savage ideology, men are good naturally, and if there is evil in this world, it is the doing of bad people, bad by design. The lack of forgiveness in the collectivist mindset flows directly from that belief, also why they organize their society to chase the evil, but nature tells us that all men have a dark side, and everyone, in turn, will be hunt in a collectivist society. On the contrary, in a society, which accepts that men are good and evil, a civilized society, then its organization is focused to allow individuals to do the good, such a society believes in men, in all men. It's a society of goodwill and empathy. On the contrary, a collectivist society is based on fear and cruelty. Here comes what all civilized people can't make sense of, the lesson that we have forgotten of our ancestors, the primitives do not think like us, they do not want the end or escape fear or cruelty, they thrive for it because it's a statement of existence, of being alive. Collectivists will always abuse civilized society, which they consider weak. The civilized will forgive the primitives while the primitives will always hunt the civilized. Our ancestors knew about that wisdom, we forgot about it and we now pay a high price.
Randomness introduces variations in what nature produces or in the result of our decision and actions. To consider those variations or differences as inequalities is collectivism. Any attempt to control randomness leads to collectivism. The will to control randomness is a deep-rooted mechanism. Every human being, collectivists or not, wants order because we are programmed to want it. It's a question of survival. Order means to have control of our environment so that the risk to die is considerably reduced. How we achieve that order makes us a collectivist or a civilized.
We all want to reduce risk, but at some point, the civilized stop and accept that risk will still exist and make it part of their life, while the collectivists continue in their project of total control. There is a truth behind randomness that civilized intuitively grasp and that we can explain in modern terms today, but is completely ignore by the collectivists - randomness produces life, randomness is order. Order means patterns, and life means self-ordering systems in which not only order exist, but are capable to adapt so that life can happen. Again, behind self-ordering systems, patterns and adaptation is the idea that nature can do it without us, we must accept and respect that reality, collectivists don't. They believe that without them, human society cannot work, that life can not happen. They are taken by an obsession to control everything, and they possess absolutely no mechanism to understand they are wrong, even when they are killing people en masse.
In February 2021, the World Economic Forum published a video in which they explained that since the beginning of the pandemic (for the people it means the curfew, the lockdown, the psychological suffering, the police violence, and for some death) Earth has recorded the lowest Seismic noise for decades, a wave of quiet has shrouded earth, the ambient noise has fallen, showing empty cities and airport as people had disappeared. Factories are close too. They then explained that all of this has help scientists to measure with high precision all earthquakes to enhanced predictions (the pulse of the earth), drops of air pollution were also recorded. The video was produced in such a way that it could lead people to think it was good for the planet, furthermore that the people and their civilization were hurting the planet. The video was swiftly taken back after people revolt against it, one might wonder why. The idea that underlies that video is Gaia, Earth's spirit. It a very primitive idea, we call today animism, but one that collectivists hold true. They just have learned to bury it as deep as they can in their unconscious mind, but the more power they gain, the more that idea comes back to the surface.
This is not specific to the planet, they also consider structure like society to have some kind of spirit as Mises explained. "Society is an entity living its own life, independent of and separate from the lives of the various individuals, acting on its own behalf and aiming at its own ends which are different from the ends sought by the individuals ... In order to safeguard the flowering and further development of society it becomes necessary to master the selfishness of the individuals and to compel them to sacrifice their egoistic designs to the benefice of the society. At this point all these holistic doctrines are bound to abandon secular methods of human science and logical reasoning and to shift to theological or metaphysical professions of faith ...This the philosophy which has characterized from time immemorial the creeds of primitive tribes". Ludwig Von Mises, from his book "Human actions: a treatise on economics", chapter Human Society, 1949. Anyone today, who genuinely searches for answers to bring back civilization will be stricken by the modernity of those words. This is THE concept that makes primitives stay primitive and refuse to evolve, to hear the voice of reason and the call of civilization. We know that Hegel has revived historicism from Plato, that society is driven by internal laws. To discover those laws is what transforms the collectivist elites into prophets. However, what drives people to believe in historicism, the root cause is Gaia.
To see a purpose in things is called animism and Jean Piaget explained "The child begins by seeing purpose everywhere" (book: the child conception of the world). F.A Hayek quoting Piaget adds "Only secondary, is the mind concerned with differentiating between purposes of things themselves and purposes of the makers of the things" (book: The fatal conceive, chapter: Our poisoned language). With Gaia and anthropomorphism (another red line) we are dealing with a maturation process issue, and we are responsible for the result because we are doing a very bad job, and the new generation are left without the tools to move forwards human civilization. Hayek adds what I believe to be another serious issue completely overlook, our language and how it plays a negative role to help people to move away from the primitive they are at birth "Animistic (note: to see a purpose in things) connotation cling to many basic words, and particularly to those describing occurrences producing order (note: in modern terms, feedback loop, dynamic equilibrium, point of reference, complex dynamic system) ... to cause, distribute, prefer, organize ... still evoke in many minds the idea of a personal actor". This links us to essentialism. The fact that words are disconnected from their properties is not only because of the method developed by Plato and later Aristotle but because things have their own purpose which is, somehow, encapsulated into a word that points to them. Words are directly connected to the essence of things to their purpose and life force.
I want to show you the connection between collectivism and anthropomorphism but it seems that the definition used nowadays is narrower than what my quarter-century-old french dictionary explains. Anthropomorphism does not only consist of applying human characteristics to other living things but also structures and processes. There is also a connection (not the same thing though) with animism but I treat that aspect in the Gaia red line.
Amongst collectivists, animal rights activists are the most blatant example of anthropomorphism. It is staggering to observe them fighting for animal rights while applying precisely what they accuse the others of doing, which is to look at the world only through the lens of Homo sapiens. Why should the rights of an elephant be of the same kind as ours, the arrogance of such a thought is just beyond belief. Shouldn't their rights be adapted to their needs? And then how to protect the rights of the predators over those of their prey? Unless you're ready to completely rewrite the laws of nature, you can but be stricken by the incoherency of such a demand as animal rights. The incoherency is immediately resolved when you look at it as an act of self-predation, the use of animal rights to prey on their own species. We find ourselves back in charted territories, the quest for power, but make no mistake, while the power quest is always present with collectivists, the choice of the terrain and weapons find its root in their anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism in collectivists can be observed by their constant, delusional, and desperate attempts to see into natural laws, which generate spontaneous processes, a will (a mind), and a motivation (a plan) to bring order so that life happens. Religious people seem to have the same issue, and while it's true to some extends there is a huge difference, God is for them an external point of reference. It implies that they do not confuse natural laws and man-made laws, they're not that primitive. What about all the religious wars? I agree, but they do not oppose knowledge and reality as an external point of reference. (Note: God and reality are two different external points of reference, one for your moral actions the other for your interaction with the world). That being said collectivists constantly try to enforce economic (Marx) and social politics motivated by their anthropomorphism. They believe that without an invisible hand to organize society things do not happen, and they believe to be that hand or more precisely a small group of elites, but the herd agrees.
The hierarchy of power on which the society is redesigned is often considered as a consequence of the obsession for money, the acquisition of resources, or the ability to do whatever you want without consequences. While I do not deny the existence of those, I consider the call for a hierarchy of power as a root cause of collectivism because it is directly linked to the call of our instincts as opposed to our cognitive functions. There are two different aspects to consider to understand why the implementation of a hierarchy of power is a call to collectivism. The first is an active aspect, which is usually the one that everyone discusses, and a passive aspect. Let's start with the latter. Passive means that they build the hierarchy of power not because they reject the hierarchy of competencies, but because they have no concept of it and can't have it. Effectively, there are many circumstances in which one will consider the use of his instinct as the natural and only way to understand and deal with the world. In such a world cognitive functions do not exist, not even the concept. This is what a call the asymmetrical war. A member of the civilized tribe has both concepts of individualism and collectivism, but not those of the primitive tribe. They understand that there is something else that calls itself individualism but they have no concepts to understand what it is, and they don't care. The same account for many other concepts. For example, free speech makes no sense for a collectivist, at best it means to make noises with your mouth, but that you have something to say, has no meaning for them, because you don't exist as an individual only through your group. You can't explain or defend free speech with a collectivist because he only understands the power dynamic between groups. He will attach you to a group, even if he had to make one up.
Here is a problem I want to present to you, and what a problem. How do you defend or negotiate the hierarchy of competences with a person or group that does not have that concept and is incapable to acquire it. That question is precisely why hardcore rationalists are helping the collectivists and exhibit the same characteristic as them. They are incapable to conceive that there are people with whom you cannot engage in a reason-based dialogue, therefore they ignore the problem as if doesn't exist, and they even refuse to accept that reality, to face what they cannot conceive themselves. As F.A. Hayek Put it, to accept that reason is not the means by which you can answer all the questions, is the most rational thinking you will ever have. People ask then, what for example? Tradition, the wisdom of our ancestors, and values to guide our cognitive functions.
The second aspect, the rejection of the hierarchy of competences on purpose is explained by the fact that collectivism is a fantasy, in which natural laws don't exist and the social hierarchy is of the alpha/herd type, with a second-level organization for the herd in order to create classes within society. For that fantasy to exist, collectivists need to have absolute control over the herd and to allow the alpha, a group of elites, to define the truth of this world to control natural laws. Make no mistake, the herd is in complete agreement with such an organization, they have willingly delegated the task to understand the world to the alpha and they feel good about it, they feel secure. That people die in great numbers around them because of insane decisions of the elites, will never be part of the equation to assess the validity of that delegation. There is no logic here, except that of instincts. They are no victims and they accept the total loss of their liberties for they don't need them anymore, contrary to an individual-centered society. In all communist countries, the rulers are god-like figures, but they are no God, they are alphas. Do not diminish the responsibilities of the member of the herd, even if they tell you that they oppose those tyrants, the truth is that they feel secure, in other words, it makes their fear go away. To make a population feel deeply insecure is the best way to call for an Alpha/herd organization by the people themselves. Against fear, reason and knowledge are the lost children of a dying civilization.
More on absolute control. A large number of women are pushing for absolute control and when it comes to men nearly all women are for it. While the absolute control of men is explicitly asked by feminists, it is taboo in our society to observe the instinctive mechanism of women to attempt to control men. Explanations exist for this observation, the most common hypothesis seems to be that it has something to do with the control of resources (divorce laws express that tendency), and a misredirection of the need to be protected from men. Women should not try to control directly men to protect themselves but to invest in men's instinct to protect women. In the process, men will also take care of the bad apples which is a win-win scenario for both sexes. The direct control of men is the rejection of men's natural aptitude which produces a chain reaction that leads to many undesirable consequences impacting dangerously the stability and future of human civilization. Here are some of them:
1) Mem are for erudition, the hierarchy of power is not - lack of universality, impartiality and free-thinking and speech. It indicates a feminine push because they do not care about erudition as a group. The end of the quest for knowledge In American universities, where women represent two-third of its members is proof enough. 2) accountability. Men accept accountability but not to show off but to allow the group or themselves to move on and in the process learn something. Women consider accountability as a denial of their identity at best, or in most case is represent nothing. It is a concept that doesn't make sense because a) it is linked to sacrifice and they are not programmed by nature to sacrifice themselves for the group b) it's linked to our cognitive functions - you understand your responsibilities you don't feel them. 3) Beauty. Beauty in art is toward civilization and the people. That's what the men are working for. The end of beauty is a shift to women's leadership. The only beauty they value is their own. 4) Dysfunctional structures: The hierarchy of power produces a dysfunctional society that can't solve problems because they misunderstand the laws of nature and the very process by which reason work. They don't understand the real causes of a problem nor envision correctly the effects of their solutions. That's not all, they also lack a working feedback loop, which makes it impossible for them to correct their errors without making another one. That's the best-case scenario because most of the time they failed to acknowledge their error - remember, they can't be wrong. All of these produce a world of emotion-driven solutions instead of cognitive functions driven solutions. The African experience is proof of that. Africans need a structure of society that allows them to help themselves while taking their particularities. To paint hearts everywhere and write the word love on each rice bag does not solve the problem, it never did and never will.
5) The worst get on the top: Another reason for a dysfunctional society is that if by some miracle they find the real cause of a problem and the right way to fix it, they won't have the people to do the job since competencies are not valued allowing the worst to get to the top. By corruption, people of the herd are enrolled to make the utopia work. To give more points to a math exam for reasons that have nothing to do with competencies is to build a hierarchy of power and incompetent people would be recruited that way will play the game of power to keep their position. Two woman's mechanisms are related to this. The queen bee, everyone can be part of her hive (women only) if they agree and support her, and the friendzone, a group a male who are used for their technical aptitude (non-sexual) or protection when the woman need them but will never get the sexual favor they expect. Only the alpha guys get the honey. The sexual expectation makes weak men accept bad behaviors from women. 6) Deception everywhere: In primitive times, power meant the strongest, but in our modern era, it means the most deceptive of all associate with a demonization of the personal identity those who stand for their values and reason because it hurts the collective and their instincts. Great people who are great by their competences are gone. Women are highly deceptive to control their environment, but also toward themselves, using "magical" potion to look younger to continue to believe they can attract the alpha. A large part of the industry is now devoted to satisfying that quest for beauty. The trouble is that it is a denial of natural laws. Their beauty fades away very rapidly, they impose to their environment to deny those natural laws so that the deception can go on. 7) Alphas do not share: Civilization's only function is to serve the interests of the alphas and the world belongs to them. The herd is seen as cattle, adjustable in size, nothing more. Women exhibit the same characteristic regarding resources. As an illustration, In modern couples, women consider their salary not sharable while the salary of the man is. It doesn't stop at the salary, women do not share their vision of what their environment should look like (house, husband,...), nor how the society, universities, health care... should be run. They have their idea, independently of any kind of reason-based argument and demonstration, and of any return of information that indicates it doesn't work. Like the elite when it doesn't work it's not their ideas that are the cause, but of dangerous people, even terrorists who want to destabilize the society, and they will take hostage the population or their children to play the victim.
A particularity of the hierarchy of power in our modern era is that everyone knows that the system is corrupt, that's how it works, but everyone acts as if it was not the case. Well, they don't want to look into a mirror, just another deception. However, the lack of transparency accounts for the lack of accountability and a moral standard. The hierarchy of power turns collectivism into a criminal organization, Marx's ideas are long gone as is the hope for any moral ground. The hierarchy of power, more than a wish to return to primitive times is an attempt to redefine what humans have become and it will not end well because it is outside the boundaries of reality. Women are in complete agreement with this because it serves their personal interest, and it is in their nature. The loss of a value system, and the understanding of human nature that comes with it, allows women to believe that men are there for them, for their beauty, not for reproduction purposes. Men choose young women, not for their beauty but reproduction, they are programmed for that and the deception of make-up does not deceive men's instinct.
Important note: I do understand that people who read that kind of text for the first time could be disoriented or even angry, but you have to consider the bigger picture: human nature. It is not about the elite and the women per se, but their denial of human nature and their will to structure the society in such a way that they will not have to face their human nature and in the process to put the burden of what goes wrong on the common people and the men. The more we are, the more we need to accept our human nature and natural laws so that we can fully use our cognitive functions to restricts as much as possible our nature which will always push for a return to primitive times. We can't go back, we have changed and we have been designed by nature to use our cognitive functions, and that's why things are and will always go really bad when we forgot about our human nature and reject our cognitive functions. Those functions need that we accept our human nature to know what to do, and if we reject it then our instincts take over us. But we are no more the humans we were a long time ago. We live in a civilization and when our instincts lead, they make a mess of it. We need our cognitive functions, therefore to accept our human nature. Men need to accept it, women need to accept it, and the elite. (Note. If you have the impression that I wrote three times the same sentence using different words, you're right. But repetition is a basic mechanism to learn a lesson, isn't it?)
I wrote a redline called "The kill of the self" which is about the kill of the identity of each individual because it is a requirement to form the collective. But there is something more fundamental which is to kill the very idea of the individual. The individual is not only selfish but immoral. For the collective immoral means that by its very existence it violates the rules of nature as understood and accepted by the collective. Of course, what the collective means by natural rules is its own rules, man-made rules not true natural laws, that exist without the need of a collective.
There is an existential conflict between the collective and the idea of the individual, F.A. Hayek explained that collectivists can not envision that individuals could decide for the future of humanity because they see the individual driven by whims. Therefore the individual is erratic in his thinking and actions, disrespectful of others, and when it comes to respect life and structures, immoral. My reading of that reaction is the inability of the collectivists to deal with randomness and therefore unable to understand that the sum of all individual actions can bring order and not chaos. Randomness is an issue for them because it hurts the building of their fantasy world in which everything is, and needs to be, ordered. Randomness breaks that order because it doesn't care about man-made laws, it doesn't have to, hence their hate of randomness and the individual which is a vehicle for randomness in human activities.
I will give you an example of how collectivists control individuals because they fear their actions. While I already gave such an example in the letter (the breakfast in a German hotel), I want to use another one that shows how collectivists actively (or constantly) try to control individuals. Let's take a modern car. Modern cars have a plethora of active securities with cameras and radars. One of them is the automatic break when you move your car backward, like when you leave a parking spot. The car will activate the breaks as soon as a moving object is detected behind the car (car, bicycle, pedestrian, etc.), but that's not how it works to get out of a parking spot backward. It starts with the fact that other drivers cannot understand your intention until you have moved enough. In dense European cities, that's how it works, there is no other way. If the traffic is dense you will never go out of your spot. The problem is not the automatic break itself, but that the algorithm of the car cannot take into consideration the attitude of other drivers and that's precisely what an individual does when he moves backward with his car and the others understand this because they are facing the same problem when their car is parked. What I'm getting at is that drivers are, of course, interested in checking obstacles near the car, but even more interested in the dynamic of the traffic. This is release by analyzing the speed and speed variations of all cars around you and the space between those cars. This can be extended to another function modern cars have, speed cruising with distance control to cars in front of yours. In dense areas, it is recommended to deactivate that function, because the car will continuously break/accelerate and not in a subtle manner. The reason why that function has to be deactivated is that active securities do not analyze the dynamic of the traffic, they can't and possibly never will. The reason why fluid traffic analysis exists and works is that human drivers have the same brain, therefore the same algorithms. Active measures are a danger to human drivers because their algorithms conflict with human algorithms. Nevertheless, they are imposed on human drivers because collectivists, who are in charge, for now, want to control individuals, no matter the consequences. The same way what carmakers are doing for security concerns is done by city managers to slow down all the dangerous cars driven by humans (or the cars driven by dangerous humans). In Europe driving a car becomes each year more complex because of all the "obstacles" the city is putting on the street, for our "security". The idea of fluidity, visibility, simple rules, coordination, and how fast you can understand the road ahead are not part of their agenda. Some say it's the car they want to get rid of. It's true as a consequence, but the real objective is to get rid of the individual as a driver of cars.
The hate of the individual is not a cognitive reaction but a biological, a "gut feeling", it's hardwired and that's why it's a root redline. It looks to me that when you function based on your instincts, your feelings, those try to protect themselves from being concealed by our cognitive function and this is expressed by the biological reaction against the individual, who to exist needs imperatively his cognitive functions to take over. Much likely, collectivists are not conscious of the level of hate and destruction they are up to against individuals, precisely because of that self-protection mechanism. But to have an explanation (plausible or not) of why a monster is a monster, doesn't make that monster less of a monster.
These days, you can hear from renowned professors, statements like "The virus has evolved, not by small steps but by a big one, showing again that Darwin's theory is flawed". Who said it does not matter because there is a general atmosphere amongst educated and smart people that Darwin is irrelevant, not wrong, but irrelevant. This makes a huge difference and explains why they never bother to try to demonstrate why Darwin is wrong. To do so will imply the use of scientific thinking and that's precisely what they contest. They are convinced (an understatement) that at some point in the evolution of human civilization we have taken a wrong turn which the scientific revolution embodies. They believe in social engineering, the blank slate and as I demonstrated at the beginning of the letter those beliefs are related to Lamarckian thinking, hence the name of that red line - Lamarckism.
This explains many things. To start with, it explains why despite decades of dialogues, if not centuries, things have gone worse and problems never solved, collectivists were not truthful and have hidden it. Now that they control much of our society, they don't even bother to engage in any dialogue, that how much they think of us, they don't care. They had to hide it because they are up to something which is to reshape the society so that it fits their way of thinking and not the scientific method and what comes with it - integrity, truth, reality, universalism, cognitive function over instincts... Both ways of thinking are incompatible, and collectivists have understood this much sooner than us, that's why they have made the following motto their own "Take it or leave it", but they don't want to leave us alone, their true motto is "One must die so that the other can live".
Let's assume you don't believe that analysis, which explains that it's useless to try to have a dialogue and its consequence and should force the civilized to protect themselves and their heritage, civilization. You're delusional because even if you could have a dialogue in good faith with a collectivist, you are not capable to handle the consequences of theirs way of thinking. Incoherency and non-sequitur, to take two examples, don't matter at all for them, because they have integrated that they can be factually wrong, but morally right. They also do not consider natural laws as relevant, so if they break one, they won't care, but you do. What you do not understand is that they do not understand why you care. Check mat.
Back to Lamarckism, and the rejection of Darwinism and human nature. At the heart of collectivist thinking, there is one piece missing, and they aren't conscious of it, randomness because they can't grasp that concept, it's out of their realm. It is at the heart of Darwinian thinking, which we often refer to as taking an evolutionary approach or point of view. I have developed that point too in the letter, but what I want to share is that acceptance of randomness is perhaps the very definition of enlightenment. Randomness is a fundamental principle of life and self-ordering systems, of risk and the fragility of life, of human nature, and that we must accept all its consequences. In conclusion, if you want to define collectivist thinking it will be a way to see the world in which randomness doesn't exist. However, the same way any ideology cannot survive without a model of human nature, you can survive without a mechanism that brings order. They solve the absence of randomness by using the principle of perfect balance which can be linked to equity and the zero-sum economy.
Collectivists are essentialists, which is a method to read the world that differ from the scientific method. Basically, when they discover a thing for the first time they will ask 'How should we call it?' and they will put a name on it first, then they will characterize that word by the raw information their senses send them, not information processed by their brain. On the other hand, those who follow the scientific method, or alike, will ask 'What are its properties?' and then will put a word to label its properties. The particularity of essentialism is to cut things from their properties. It follows that the only knowledge the essentialists have is the words themselves. In the recent movie 'Alita: battle angel', a young cyber woman is reactivated after 300 years, but she has lost her memory. The discovery of her environment is pure essentialist thinking and make no mistake it is on purpose. When she eats for the first time an orange she asks 'What is it called?', not 'What is it?' To answer the question 'what is it?' you need to use concepts, like fruit. To cut things from their properties is to cut you from a world of concepts and principles, hierarchically organized that bring order to the world in which you live. Essentialists have a hard time handling reality, because they don't, they can't have the tools required for that task.
They live in a world of words, but by doing so they trap themselves inside the language because only the properties are part of reality and therefore outside the language. For them, the language is their reality, and since we, humans, define the language, it means they define reality. It can be sum up by the language is all the knowledge that there is, with the consequence that who controls the language controls the truth. Right now, you think about Georges Orwell's book "1984". Be careful, that sentence applies only to those who believe in essentialism. Those who believe that the properties of things define words, not the words themselves, do not allow the language to define reality. As Thomas Hobbs said words are the money of fools if you take them literally. Words should always be considered as vehicles for meanings or properties of things, not for themselves. It is part of collectivism because collectivists need to control the reality they produce, therefore the language. The use of essentialism is a collectivist red line.
How do you spot someone who uses essentialism? Their writing is cryptic often on purpose, to be clear-minded is unnatural for them, too rational. They don't want to state objective truths. They do not organize their thinking in a hierarchy or network of concepts and principles, therefore they can't explain how their ideas are articulated between each other. They use words with specific meanings defined by their cult, that's also how they recognize each other (cryptic jargon). They also make use of scientific terms on non-scientific matters to imitate the scientific language and way of thinking. They do not define themselves by what they are but what they are not, by who they oppose. They oppose civilization, reason, individualism. The one thing they are sure of is that feelings trump reason and they connect words to feelings, like hate speech. That's also why they use all kinds of fancy names for those who oppose them. Each of these names/words is associate with emotion, usually repulsion, disdain, and/or hatred.
One may ask, why do they trap themselves inside the language. It's their nature, which is the result of their inability to conceive that natural laws exist independently from man-made laws (Popper). They are unable to understand the concept of a reality outside their own. This is perfectly in line with their belief in equity (see equity red line). They also deny the existence of flaws in human nature as they understand it (Sowell). This leads to the belief that they are never wrong and that if there are flaws they must be the result of the structure in which people live and not people themselves (Rousseau, society corrupt men), or that humanity has evolved in producing two kinds of people, and one is violent and want to take advantage of the other (Nobel savage). The latter being a call to genocide, of an entire race is necessary (redline: genocide as natural outcome).
Experiences have been made to prove that their way of thinking is not based on knowledge, they can't tell if something is right or wrong, they just want to target ideas and people, not to build a new world. Their idea of a new world is when the old will be dead. That's a promising project for humanity. Their cryptic writing has been called out by two experiments that consisted of publishing sociology and gender theory academic articles. They succeed while their articles range from inconsistent to absurd, proving the lack of validity of the humanities in general. Humanities have become definitively irrelevant because they can't tell when they are right or wrong without self-referencing themselves or through circular reasoning. One experiment was done by Alan Sokal in 1996 (The 'Sokal Hoax'), and the second, more recently done by Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose in 2018 (The 'Grievance studies affair'). That issue was already spotted by Richard Feynman in his Caltech speech in 1965. He called the attitude of the humanities 'Cargo Cult Science', I will call the humanities the nexus of essentialist thinking. One last criterion is that you can't convince them they are wrong on any topic, it's useless to debate them. They don't think, they feel that's why they're never wrong.
Collectivists live in their own universe, a fabricated reality, and when we look at the very root of it, when we disperse the layers of veneer of civilization they put to hide their true nature, we find emotions as builders of that universe. In all cultures, reason is opposed to emotions (what the heart wants is not what the head wants). In the letter, I have explained many times that reason was the means by which we access reality, and to get there, a maturation process needs to be achieved. But what are emotions then? Essentially the expression of hardwired mechanisms, but that is the technical explanation. What are emotions for them? When they feel, they translate it as "our instinct, our primitive self is in control". They feel alive. When the collectivists describe mechanical devices they describe them as cold, the same goes for equations, science and reason. By cold, they mean not alive, and it means that they can't link those objects to any emotions. Things that have an emotional dimension are alive and natural.
As such, reason is perceived as an attack on those hardwired mechanisms and it makes them sick, they have a visceral reaction. The rejection is not intellectually constructed, even if they try to explain it that way, it has a biological origin and accounts partially for their use of violence to impose collectivism. But above all, it is fear that motivates them. Fear of being deprived of their primitive state, because their maturation has failed or never happened and they can't see what they would have gained from it. The maturation process consists to transfer the helm from your instinct (emotions) to your cognitive functions (reason) and there is a dangerous moment during which you will have no helm and navigate into this world blind. There is a feeling of emptiness, of non-existence. That's why adults who have achieved that process as role models are so important. They not only show that you can do it, but they will give you bits of advice to move from one mode of functioning to another, to move from the primitive to the civilized, until it becomes second nature. That's the first phase, the other phase which they fear is the final state. The great secret of the civilized is that they don't get rid of their emotion, they learn to control them so that you can make reason-based decisions. That's not a secret, it's the great lie that the primitives, who want to stay primitive, tell to the other, that to become civilized you have to erase emotion, you will become a computer. According to their definition of being human, being civilized is not being human.
The motivation for rejecting reason is in the fear of the unknown as an existential threat (on the contrary, life is in the discovery), the fear to have to get rid of emotions (not true), and one that I haven't spoken about, the fear to lose your ability to create a fantasy world. This leads to the belief in the blank slate, to become whatever you want, that you are creative and open-minded. In that fantasy world, there is also the belief in magic, that words can be used as spells, that you can influence the material world. Of course, adults who reject reason and believe in the superiority of instinct do not advocate for a Harry Potter world, but they do act if the laws and rules they force on people are like natural laws, and this is the definition of magical thinking, the thinking of the primitive tribe. As too often, they misunderstand the origin of that fantasy world, they don't really control it, it is a production of the brain in its attempt to give a coherent view of the external world. This is an innate function, you can't stop the brain to do that. To maturation process is precisely here to allow the cognitive function to take over with the primary purpose to correct the production of the brain so that the map of reality that it produces is a much more accurate picture of reality.
Here comes the elites, the race of the guardian, because human beings can't live with such an unreliable map of reality made by emotions. The particularity of collectivism is to transfer the correction of the map of reality from the cognitive function (individualism) to a group of people, the elite that will bring order to the fantasy so that the group will be functioning. This explains for example that the lack of freedom in collectivist societies is not only the mere result of totalitarianism by the elite but an agreement by the population to abandon freedom in exchange to have order. If you cannot know what to do, you will need something to tell you what to do. Please understand, the request of an ordered, and rigid society, powerful leaders, and the loss of liberties is requested by its own citizen, by the herd. This is a terrible mistake that autonomous individuals make constantly, they are not the victim of a totalitarian system they ask for it. When you reject the maturation process and reason with it, that's what you got.
But then, how do you liberate a collectivist country? Once you get rid of their state system (you can do it virtually but that's explanation belong to another work of mine), you integrate the former collectivists by filtering those who by their own request want to become autonomous individuals and there is nothing you can do for the others. The virtualization of society (several societies in one) is needed for a few generations until we have maximized the number of individuals who can go through the maturation process and choose reason instead of instincts by themselves.
Fear as a positive force: For the civilized tribe, fear is perceived as a negative force because it can annihilate your ability to think by yourself. In this sense, fear is the enemy of reason. For the primitive tribe, fear is a positive force that represents order and purpose. The fear of their elite, the alpha implies that they are in charge and they will bring order. What relieves their fear is obedience. The fear of an ever-existing enemy gives them purpose in life, it gives a clear direction. They must protect the collective against their enemies.
Equity is not equality, it implies justice, therefore, taking corrective measures to have equality. This has three consequences. 1) It gives power to the state to take over individual freedom since it will be the agent of those corrective measures. This leads a) to the end of society based on the hierarchy of individuals which is an absolute necessity to manage a large population. b) To redefine freedom as what the state authorizes. This includes not only individuals' activities, but also what they think.
2) Some groups will be favored and others dispossessed of their rights if not segregated. For example, women being considered oppressed for millennia, men not only have to make room for women in the universities and at work but must also be disadvantaged before the law (divorce laws, the severity of condemnation), for social rights (far less organization to help men in need) and healthcare (cancer and suicide are less taken into consideration if not at all). This is linked to the loss of universalism (groups have different rights) and impartiality (groups are not treated the same way, power will decide).
3) The denial of natural laws. There are natural differences amongst human but equity disregard this, and consider all differences as inequalities. Equity will try to correct those natural differences which will lead to severe injustice and dehumanization soon after. Equity is the mark of the primitive tribe which confuses natural and man-made laws. It also follows that equity will be guided by magical thinking, which consists of ignoring any natural laws. Because of this when those who advocate for equity take control of society, insanity follows. This can be observed by the cruelty of those in power and their servants to impose laws that oppose any reasonable understanding of the world. From the people's perspective, there will be a loss of meaning in tradition and knowledge because of the incoherencies of the decisions and actions taken by those in power. The world we can individually experience is not the one we are forced to live in.
Part of the three ideologies of modern denial of human nature. It is the belief, that not only what you learn defines you, but all your experiences. In philosophy, the blank slate is called empiricism, which leads to empirical, to build your knowledge and yourself by making your own experience. We are a blank slate and that belief rejects the idea of any genetic hardwire mechanisms. Collectivists believe in the blank slate because they do not recognize the existence of natural laws, from which we are a result through the evolution process. This forces them to build an artificial reality that justifies their ideas, and by a feedback loop, the blank slate is used to allow them to mold people according to the needs of their reality. It only produces chaos because nature always comes back if you ignore it. More precisely the discrepancy between your wishes and reality creates incoherencies that society and individuals can't resolve and this leads to chaos. (note: The blank slate is well-known in the English world but very little in countries like France or Germany.)
People will rarely tell you that they believe in the blank slate, but they will promote ideas like we can all become whatever we want. The blank slate is a primitive belief, and with identity politics, we have only started to understand how far and brutal it can go. Those who advocate for the blank slate now state that a father can have a baby, which in reality is a woman that identifies as a man. What they forgot to tell, is that a man that identifies as a woman will never have a baby. There is no logic, no consistency in their thinking. We are used to calling it a fantasy, a utopia but it's a nightmare. The civilized, or what is left of them, have forgotten the lessons of our ancestors. They have forgotten how and why humans need to become civilized and have allowed primitives to come back. There is another reason, civilized always analyze the motivations of the primitives from a civilized point of view, which makes them unable to envision that it can go further in the cruelty and monstrosity of their thinking, but it does. That's what I try to do in this letter, to go directly to the root of what they are and from that point, build an understanding of what is happening to human civilization. The blank slate ideology is not here to build a new and better human, for their utopia doesn't exist, but to make of you a monster, by forbidden you to go to the maturation process that is needed to become civilized.
Applied empiricism: the blank slate is composed of two dark places. The one we always speak about is the denial of hardwired mechanism, the genetic part in us, but to speak about the second place you have to start from empiricism, because while the blank slate is a useful expression to depict empiricism it is also incomplete. It is to deny our cognitive functions to get us any knowledge because knowledge according to collectivists can only come from our senses. We know how the blank slate is used in education and I wrote about it in the letter, but how do the collectivism, who are empiricists, manage to deny us to use of our cognitive functions in daily life? I never read about any example, but my recent visit to the Lascaux Cave in Dordogne (France) give me the opportunity to fill that blank.
The visit starts by taking a large lift that can contain 20 persons. The idea is to bring you - to move you back 20000 years ago. They want you to feel it. You are now on the rooftop with a sighting of the valley like the pre-historic men had. They like to live in a high spot, not in caves because they could observe the herd of reindeers. The group moves to a room to see a small movie of the four discoverers of the cave in 1940 and their dog. The film stops but not the sound, particularly of the dog which yap, you follow the guide in a kind of outside hall and you can still hear the dog and the four young boys following it as if the movie was still running (The sound comes from the wall). We move to a dark room to feel to be like those who discovered the cave because it was really dark when they enter the cave the first time. We are now in the cave, well a reconstruction, because the real one has to be nearly sealed to be protected from chemical and biological destruction. There isn't that much explanation, because they want you to feel what it is to discover the cave. What does it do to a population to be treated by empiricism? It infantilizes the population and that's the difference between a child and an adult. When you hear that people have lost common sense, it has a lot to do with a society that ask always less about our cognitive functions. People are no more used to use it to understand and solve problems, they rely on their feelings. The whole fiction literature relies on that as does the modern arts - plays, painting, and sculptures are not here to tell a story to make you think, but to make you feel and generally to be uncomfortable because it's a stronger feeling. The stronger the feelings the better the art, they think. Not only it's not the reality - our cognitive functions exist and are really useful to acquire knowledge, but you don't solve problems of a civilization level with feelings.
Part of the three ideologies of modern denial of human nature. The belief that if civilization corrupts men and if you let them alone they will be good - no war, no aggressiveness, no craziness... Make no mistake, this is a deeply rooted belief that many holds, they believe that our primitive state was better for humans, and somehow they wish to go back to that time, the time of the primitive tribe. The modern denial of human nature expresses the modern primitive tribe we call collectivism. The noble savage hide the tragedy of the human being, to accept oneself with all the nobility and kindness but also its weakness and evilness. Any study of American tribes south and north to take a continent shows that the noble savage is a fantasy, but with a cause, the revolt against civilization. To take a more precise example, a part of the success of the Americans against the Indian tribes was due to the animosity that existed between them, long before Christophe Columbus. While there are obvious links with the anti-civilization by the rejection of civilization, the noble savage is specific to what civilization does to human beings, not what civilization does to nature.
The saga 'The Lord of the rings' is an example of the fantasy world that people project when they believe in the noble savage. The hobbits are the noble savage, living a simple life, while the goblins, orcs, and alike represent the industrial world. It is important to note that in real life collectivists generally associate a simple life (utopian future) with a small population and the industrial world (dystopian future) with a large population and megacities. This leads us to consider the heart of the Nobel savage question as to the question of population size (red line: science is a religion -> Malthus). To control the population is to be in harmony with nature, they said. You have no idea how many people are convinced of this, it's huge. But what is also huge is the incapacity of those people to process the information that the control of the population in a society based on the primitive tribe model will lead to a constant genocide, and ripping off any parcel of humanity we have and the erasing of what defines us as human beings. When I look at the 'Shire', the land of the hobbits I see an act. It is not the environment that makes us good or bad but what is within and the value that we have chosen. It is what is within, which builds the environment and is a mirror of what we are inside. People who believe in the noble savage, live a fantasy because they refuse to face their dark side. They get the problem up-side-down, they believe by building a nice environment they will make their dark side go away. The reality is that by not taking care of their dark side, it will grow, and their fantasy will be a nightmare in comparison to which the world of Sauron will look like a nice place.
Part of the three ideologies of modern denial of human nature. It is the belief that the mind and the body are independent and that the mind contains what defines us. For the religious people it is the soul and for the collectivist the will to live, an élan-vital. The first argument of defense for the existence of the ghost in the machine is that the human mind is not a simple collection of cogs, which express that the human mind and its complexity cannot be described in mechanistic terms and therefore reduce to a simple Newtonian contraption. The second and more sophisticated defense is the question of will. If the mind is an association of biological tissue, no matter how complex they are, the question of the origin of the will is not answered, not only the will to live but free will. A.I. will certainly put to test that question in the 21st century.
The ghost in the machine hides a deep and primitive belief, a taboo that nobody wants to wake up because it would be so bizarre. We are civilized after all, meaning modern people but the reality of the fantasies that our society creates, tells us another story. There is more in Harry Potter than the adventure of a young sorcerer, there is the deep and hidden wish that magic exists. The belief in the ghost in the machine hides the belief in magical thinking which is to act as if natural laws didn't exist. Therefore the mind is a place of great powers and complex machinery that science cannot be the narrator. If you believe in the ghost in the machine then you think that people who follow reason and science cannot be enough open-minded to see the truth of the world, a magical world.
To link the ghost in the machine to magical thinking is to link it also to essentialism, which is their way to read the world. From essentialism, we can connected collectivist ideologies. Post-modernist and critical theorist discourses make much more sense with magical thinking. It doesn't make them true or valid from a logical point of view, but it certainly explains the indissoluble conviction that they are on the right path to their utopia. This also explains the existence of an elite of incredible power because of the confusion between social hierarchical power and magical power. The higher in the social hierarchy, the more magical power you have.
This is no laughing matter and the great difficulties that most of you have to make sense of the rapid changes of this world and the shape it takes, find its explanation in what I just explained. The return of magical thinking didn't start a decade ago, but several centuries ago and it is a clash to define what it means to be human, primitive, or civilized. This has been already heralded by the Peloponnese war, between Athens and Sparta 2400 years ago. Everything starter, a long time ago with the acceptance or not of the existence of natural laws which are independent of us and on which we have no power, this means to abandon the ghost in the machine, a place of magical power that can produce its own natural laws. The ghost in the machine is the expression of the primitive that live in us and who will haunt us forever. We the civilized have no choice but to reject and stand guard against that ghost. The revolt against civilization is the revolt against the takeaway of the ghosts in the machine (we have no magical power and we can't command the elements) in association with the blank slate (we can't become whatever we want, we have limits), and the noble savage (we all have a dark side that we must accept and deal with).
We gain all of our knowledge through our senses and the experience we have in life, we are blank slates. However, what philosophers formulate or think is different from what people do with that thinking on a daily basis, and that the case with empiricism. For most people applied empiricism leads them to state that their emotions and feelings are facts. You cannot engage in a dialogue with an empiricist, because if he feels his emotions are right, the conversation is done. For him, it's a fact. That you can provide physical or mathematical proofs will change nothing. Rationalists often answer to that attitude by hammering "Facts don't care about your feelings", but it doesn't work. In fact, you trigger a reaction that makes them even more persuaded they are right. Again, you can't fight/help collectivists with their own tools, in that case, feelings.
People who believe that their emotional experiences are facts are dangerous for three reasons. 1) for them, if you do not accept that feelings are facts, then you're emotionless. Therefore you're not human, because emotions are all the world that exists for collectivists, and to have emotions defines what is alive. This will help them to justify having the right to dehumanize you. 2) The world of "feelings are facts" is an internal world that needs to cut loose from reality and reason in order to survive. All the incoherencies that it produced have no impact on its reality. They will starve to death, literally, instead of questioning their emotions. The discrepancy between reality and their world of emotions will generate psychological conflicts that will find their relief in violence against those who are "not like them". 3) They are easily manipulable because emotions are easily manipulable. When your point of reference to assess what's true or false is itself an emotion, your mind doesn't belong to you (with reason you rely on an external point of reference). Anybody who knows how to push your emotional buttons will control you. Here comes the ant soldier, the brainwashed social justice warriors. At this point, and as I mentioned in the letter, there is no difference with the African child soldiers who are made to believe that the bullets will bounce off their chests. The Occidental child soldiers are made to believe that by putting down their civilization a new and better one will rise. Something will rise, but they will quickly understand, but too late, that they have no place in that new world they helped to build.
Memory fabrication, replacement, and exchange: we know that emotions impact the memorization process. They can reinforce it, or deem it. With collectivists who reject reason, they accept that emotions of an event influence the reality of that event, they accept that their emotions guided by their ideology influence the memorization process to help to prove that their ideology is grounded. Of course, it's a self-confirmation mechanism but has long it satisfy their need for positive emotions, they don't care. Memories replacement affect memories already recorded, but that will be changed to satisfy any emotional needs that will make it compatible with the need of the collective. It's a tuning mechanism to be more included. Memories transfer is very particular and is the possibility to acquire a memory of someone else that has had a strong emotional experience. It is a mechanism that allows collectivist to share the pain of minorities and make it their own, but at the same time, they believe to feel what persecuted groups feel they memories are also tented by their ideology. So it's a false memory at the same time that there is a reality that some populations are persecuted. It also explains why they believe they can represent those people.
Independently from the violence that can be generated from the discrepancy between the reality that their emotions produce and the real reality, there is an existential dimension to believe that our emotional experiences are facts. If my feelings, even partially, do not define reality, then who am I? To deny that their feelings have any validity is to deny their existence. Emotional experiences as fact is also a strategy to circle the discussion around emotions. The first rule you learn to save people from drowning is not to let them drown you, they are in an existential fight in which only instincts speak and not their cognitive functions. Do not let them direct your own thinking in an emotional narrative.
Stephen Pinker, in his book "The blank slate", makes two observations about Jay Gould and the Nobel savage and then links them to make a devastating statement because it characterizes the collectivist frame of mind. This can be resume by one word, genocidal. There are many other ways to come to that conclusion as I have shown in the letter, but that one is powerful.
Everything we need is located in chapter 7: The holy trinity, and more precisely the part about the Nobel savage. Pinker quote Jay Gould, who was saying that while Michel Angelo was working on the Medici chapel in the year 1535, thousands of German peasants were slaughtered, and Gould to ask us all which humanity should we choose? The first observation is that scientists who support Darwin's theory of evolution can suddenly depart from it while letting people believe they are still working within the border of that theory and the scientific method. The second observation is that their departure is not for some random place but to the trinity (blank slate, Nobel savage, Ghost in the machine), and regarding Gould's quotation, Pinker links it to the Nobel savage. Pinker then links the twos in the following statement, I quote "The implication is that anyone who believes that the causes of genocide might be illuminated by an understanding of the evolved makeup of human beings is, in fact, taking a stand IN FAVOR of genocide." (Uppercases are in the book).
In other words, the statement means that if you believe in the Nobel savage, then to explain the existence of genocides in the history of humankind (ex: German peasants) implies that humans have evolved in different ways producing at least two branches, the noble savage, and the murderous barbarians. If then you ask "Which future will we choose?" as Steven Jay Gould did, then there can be only one answer according to him and as Pinker concluded, genocide is the only outcome for those who believe in that ideology and more broadly to the holy trinity. Furthermore, Pinker shows in his book, that the blank slate opposes the theory of evolution, and that belief is held even by prestigious scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, who hide their belief behind sophisticated reasonings, which Pinker analyses later.
The choice of Jay Gould, as an example of scientists who depart from scientific thinking to push forward their belief in the holy trinity, is not an innocent one. Gould is a central figure in the battle to deny genetic influences on the brain and he wrote a book about it "The Mismeasure of a man". When Murray and Herrnstein published their book "The bell curve", all collectivists looked at Gould to call them out. From the collectivist perspective, he did it by writing an extension to his book. On the version I have, you can read on the cover page "The definitive refutation of the Bell curve". It's a lie, and those who promote that lie are dangerous. The Bell curve is a social science work, aimed at understanding why some population within a society succeed better than other, and one of the variables is I.Q (the now-famous chapter 13). That kind of work is essential to design efficient social programs. Why do the collectivists consider it vital to destroy the work of Murray and Herrnstein? Since the 1960s, the collectivists follow more the Frankfurt school and its critical theory (a revision of Marx theory), especially in the United State of America, which bases the root of its political action on the assumption that all social inequalities found their origin in the structure of the society and the tyranny of the majority. If those inequalities can be explained by other means, amongst them I.Q, then the whole political edifice of the collectivists collapses.
Collectivism which integrates those ideologies will always lead to the same conclusion, those who are not like us are a threat to us because their very existence denies ours and they must be wiped out. However, it won't stop here, for collectivism is doomed to a perpetual genocide. As a group, they're aimed not by the building of a civilization but by the destruction of an enemy. Primitive tribalism is defined by its enemies, civilized tribalism by their civilization project. An important particularity has to be noted. At each step, they are convinced that once their enemy is killed they will live their utopia, but when they reach that step, they feel the irresistible call for a new truth which is that an enemy still exists. They will rationalize the need for a new genocide and it will start all over again.
I have recently developed a hypothesis that tribalism is an innate mechanism implemented by nature as part of an evolutionary stable strategy or ESS. The rule is as follows. If a tribe exists it has an ESS. However from its point of view, all other tribes represent pools of genes that can break their ESS, therefore they must kill them. This is what I call primitive tribalism because as civilized we have passed that point. Collectivism reactivates that tribalism, hence the call for genocide. Civilization is the answer of the civilized men, another ESS that does no imply population to kill each other, instead of that primitive tribalism.
The 19th-century philosopher Hegel is the forest hidden by the three called Karl Marx, not much for his work on the state which he called to worship, but his dialectic, the Hegelian thinking - thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Most collectivists follow Marx's dialectic, even if they have stopped to identify themselves as Marxist, because behind stand Hegel and his dialectic. The importance of Hegel explains why Marxism is so attractive, it gives the illusion that his explanations are organic. Two mechanisms are the cause of this phenomenon which I will explore, binary thinking and anthropomorphism. Both are related to primitive thinking. Primitive means they are implemented by nature to be compatible with the way our instincts work, not our cognitive function. It might surprise you but you have certainly been taught to think based on Hegel's model without knowing it, although your teachers knew. Marxists never tell their tricks, like magicians.
Hegel's model of thinking consist to look at a problem through two opposing views, hence thesis and anti-thesis. There are virtues in such a method because some issues are effectively a two sides problem, or you may want to simplify a complex problem in order to have at least a starting point. To exclude that method would be stupid, but that's not what Hegel and all collectivists have in mind. It is to look at all problems in a binary approach and this extends to the understanding of the world. That's how Marx came to the concept of exploited and exploiter. Here is your first contact with collectivist thinking. By binary, they don't mean two arguments or sets of arguments, but to look at two groups of people who oppose each other in society. this is tribalism, and it is a call to our instincts and feelings to understand a problem, not to our cognitive functions which impose us to look for arguments. Arguments are all about facts, data, rules, processes, systems not people. With the scientific method, people are only vehicles for arguments, with Hegel and even more Marx people become the arguments. That's why proletarians and capitalists are almost considered as races. Now comes the evilness of Hegel with its synthesis. It is by ordering the society in terms of thesis and anti-thesis that a synthesis will emerge. This has nothing to do with an intellectual act, the synthesis is the result of a struggle, a revolution. The struggle produces the energy that requires the synthesis. The evilness of synthesis is not only to force you to expect a struggle, but also to see the world in a binary way and to put people at the center of your understanding.
Why is a binary representation of the world so appealing to us? When you start a discussion about Chaos and order to describe a specific situation you will have no other option than to use words to try to define them, but the language itself has been defined by those concepts because they predate the language itself. What you will try to decipher is how your emotions express themselves, negatively or positively, regarding a particular situation. That's what primitive thinking is all about and in the chapter about essentialism there is a paragraph dedicated to the work of Alfred Korzybski "If words are not things, or maps are not the actual territory, then, obviously, the only possible link between the objective world and the linguistic world is found in the structures, and structures alone." Our biological structure has influenced greatly our language. Thesis and anti-thesis, yin and Yang, Order and chaos are not simply expressions of the symbolic representation of the external world but of our internal world which is shaped by innate mechanisms, our instincts, and senses. It means that a binary representation of the world is part of how our instinct work, our emotions, and even our language and it was implemented by nature itself, certainly as an optimization mechanism because cognitive functions which can handle more complex information were not a thing 3 million years ago. We are attracted by binary thinking because we have been built that way. But aren't our senses connected to the external world? Yes, but without reason that establishes a feedback loop with reality, the map of reality that we build has a discrepancy with the reality far beyond any usefulness in modern time. In old times when things were simpler, our instincts and emotions have provided good enough answers, but that time is over, we have become civilized and we need a better map, far better. The Hegelian technic is not only obsolete but dangerous, because it will provide a solution so misadapted to our needs as civilized (I'm not thinking about material needs but systems, processes, and rules that organize our life), and it will be destructive.
What role plays anthropomorphism? The same way we tend to understand the world in binary terms, we tend to put humans at the center of what those terms describe, as the engine and cause. For example, when city managers observe that statistically, a street has more car accidents than any others they will infer that the cause is the speed of cars which is related to the human drivers. They will never look at infrastructure for possible causes, like the lack of visibility in the street for the drivers to help them to see soon enough other users of that street. There are two causes of anthropomorphism, the first is well known. It is to always consider that anything in the world that allows life must have as a cause a living organism that gives a will and a purpose. This can go as far as to consider Earth as a living organism, and Gaia becomes the spirit of Earth. The second is the result of calling our instincts over our cognitive functions. Instincts communicate through emotions, and human emotions understand only emotion, therefore, problems express through emotions can only have at their center another living being, and for social problems it means humans.
There is a dangerous aspect in Hegel's thinking, which is to alienate the human species against itself. We find here an equivalent observation of Steven Pinker about the Nobel savage ideology. It is because he's Noble that the savage has to kill those who aren't. It is a call for genocide and not against it, the Noble savage is not Noble, he is only a savage. Let's have a look at another example. Marx designed the theory of alienation. That capitalism alienates people against their human nature. We find here the binary thinking and the anthropomorphism of that binary view (capitalist and proletarian). That view is completely blind to the existence of systems which by their sole existence produce negative effects. In fact, any self-ordering system or process is like a chimera, a mythical monster in the realm of Hegelian thinking, and by extension to any collectivist. The Hegelian thinking of Marx is dangerous because he is, in fact, the one who alienates people with his alienation theory. In my Catch-42 fallacy, I explain that collectivists put the burden of something they can't handle or face by accusing other people to do it. Unconsciously Marx has understood that his vision of the world alienates one population of society against another. But because Hegelian thinking imposes itself as natural to the brain, the one who uses it will consider his position as good and benevolent. Since his alienation cannot be bad the cause has to be found (put the burden) on the group that Marx's theory will alienate. I know that that the explanation can be difficult to get, so here is another example. Many animal activists accuse people to look only through the lens of the human species when it comes to other species. This implies also on very trivial aspect of life. When you look for 'Stomach' in a dictionary, you should not only have the explanation for human beings but also other species. When a macaque took a picture of himself by touching the material of a jungle photographer (real story), the activists considered that the macaque was the owner of the picture. Their view is that it is anthropomorphism to believe that only humans can possess things. There is no shortage of examples like this. If you think again, you can only be astonished how animal activists and imbued by anthropomorphism by electing themselves as the representatives of any animals. What makes them think that as humans they will ever have any understanding of the needs of other animals? Animal activists project their own anthropomorphism on those who they accuse to follow anthropomorphism. You have to be a human with a strong anthropomorphic view to hate other humans that much.
In conclusion, Marx's theory is appealing because it is based on Hegel's dialectic, which calls the structure of our primitive self. This is expressed by the binary representation of the world along with an anthropomorphism view which imposes that humans are always the actors of any issue. Often, it is explained that Marxists like Marx because it serves their own interest. It's often true but just a consequence, the cause is the call of our instinct. There is a brain pattern issue, one that favors cognitive functions to take over the reward system. We need to develop it, and that precisely what education does not do. The problem with the language is that words are not only words, they are linked to brain patterns. When they are linked to emotions they activate certain brain patterns (essentialism - magical) and when linked to properties of the thing they point to, they activate other patterns (scientific method - reason). We not only have to put a halt to the self-importance of collectivists in order to help them, but to reroute their brain pattern. That brain pattern issue is now often explained by using the concept of a virus because of its propagation from one human to another. It's a pattern propagation and that explanation allows us to have a real healing solution.
Weak men are one of the rear doors by which collectivism always makes its return. It's not because they compose most of its male troops, which they are, but because they are fantasy enablers. Fantasy enablers mean that they let the instincts of people express themselves instead of their cognitive functions. As men, it should be part of their role to make sure people use their cognitive function to allow them to navigate without problems inside civilization. Fantasy is the discrepancy between the map of reality build by our instinct of the external world compare to the map of reality build by our cognitive function and in particular reason. They are weak because they forbid or destroy the maturation process needed to use our cognitive function to become civilized, for their own advantage and refuse to endorse their responsibility, as men, the be a builder and manager of civilization. They let the personal fantasy in which people live to take root, until they are so many, that fantasy is declared the new reality. This marks the return of the primitives, which in its modern form is collectivism.
The primary target of weak men is women. Their objective is to side with them for two reasons. Sexual strategy and quest for power to counteract men. The sexual strategy is often observed by a behavior called women validation. The quest for power is needed because part of the work of men as civilization builders is to reduce the number of weak men. Men manage men. By siding with women they know that they will be in direct conflict with men. The siding can be observed in public when a woman is opposed to a man, they will systematically look at the situation by casting the women as a victim, but in fact, they are only tools used by the women to oppose men, that will oppose their fantasy.
From a women's perspective. Civilization is not easy and they are more drove by their instincts than men, therefore the use of cognitive functions instead of their instinct put more pressure on them. It doesn't mean men have an easier life they have other concerns, like dealing with the unfairness of life, which is to deal with randomness and competition for resources. When weak men come, women allow the manipulation to take place, they are no victims but they have weaknesses that will greatly impact society.
The first weakness of women is their inability by themselves to go back to cognitive control of their instincts when those have taken over their decision process, and that precisely what weak men exploit. That weakness is important because it explains why they can resolve by themselves the second and main weakness. The second is their belief that they can do what men do. Not only physically but mentally. This leads us a) To the blank slate by believing that physical or mental aptitudes are only a matter of training. b) To the ghost in the machine by denying that mental aptitudes have followed different evolution paths (Ability to deal with stress, making decisions and deal with the consequences, being creative and going in uncharted territories, project-driven, knowledge-driven, to sacrifice your wellbeing for people or large group you never met and never will, reinitiate cooperation to get the job done). c) To the Noble Savage by believing that they are morally superior to men. Love will solve all the problems of the world. In conclusion a complete denial of human nature. The denial does not mean an absence of a model of human nature but a model that allows them to believe that they can do what men do. Here comes weak men's payback. They have to help women to make their wishes come true, to be like men. So they ask for equality which in our modern world of cognitive functions one can be let to believe. But equality never comes, so they ask for even more equality, more power, which leads to more weak men until men lost control of civilization. In the process, women have lost their world of the feminine tribe, destroyed the symbiosis with men and they are in no position to correct and make anything better because of the first weakness.
From a men's perspective. Collectivism and the women who support its coming, and with it the return of the primitive tribe and the reign of instincts, misunderstand the nature of the symbiosis that civilization call for between men and women, the same way they misunderstand the nature of the answer nature vs nurture. It's not a black and white answer, nor a grey one, but a complex and dynamic relationship between both sides. In civilization, both men and women have their specific role, but also the role to help men or women to be able to do more and be better. Here comes the patriarchy. It is to borrow the map of reality of men, which includes mental processes, in order for women to be able to handle the structure and mechanism of civilization the best way possible. This means the use of reason and a feedback loop, which directly help to solve the first weakness of women. To deal with randomness and risk of life as an element of life. To enjoy the process to go for an adventure and the unknown while kipping things under control. To control your instinctive behaviors. To transmit the knowledge, behaviors, and mental patterns, to the next generations so they can move forward the civilization. Civilization is built by men, but not for men. Men enjoy the sharing of what they invent, produce and collect. They provide security for all. It's part of their happiness, but civilization is not a civilization of men. Only people who are driven by their instincts believe that and want to put it down. There is no masculine science and that's why there is no masculine civilization. There is only one way to build the civilization, acquire knowledge and solve problem step by step, and we are still in the process of building that civilization which most people seems to have forgotten. We went from tribe to cities, and then to institutions. Now we have to build autonomous processes that will auto-organize themselves and correct themselves. To move to that next-generation civilization, the tribe of men must be rebuilt and the tribe of women should be fully supportive of that. We will then take care of the weak men, this is our concern. Your job will be to control the primitive women.
The origin of weak men. It always starts with women. It starts with the request to validate their fantasy. The second step is the answer of men. To build a civilization they need to say NO, if they say yes then they start their journey to become weak men. Why do men say yes? It's their nature, and the power that women have over men is that strong that it is often assimilated to witchcraft, of course, it's not. It's human nature and chemical reactions. In particular women between 15 and 25 years old can seduce nearly all men, in fact, they often abuse that power and prey on men usually much older. The use of that power is like a drug from which they never detox. Women do not understand that the weak men they produce to satisfy their personal desire, are in no way useful for the group and civilization, and weak men do not build civilization nor care for the group. They do not want the end of civilization, that's not what they wish, but that what they get. The solution for women is to develop delayed gratification regarding their genetic desire to be attractive, which is far more powerful for them than to have sexual relations. This is achieved by what we call controlled behaviors. Men, on the other hand, need to control their genetic programming to have as many sexual partners as possible. It cost them a lot, but it helps to develop delayed gratification which is required to develop complex project needed for civilization. Civilized women understand all of this, as do civilized men and they share a common project. To control men by laws will have the inverse effect. Men should be able to control weak men. However, to allow this should have their own place as they had before, and men and women should never be in any case in a position of competition or relation of power to each other. This has far-reaching consequences for the organization of our society, but it is the right move to rebuild civilization.
There is another reason for the existence of weak men and it is perhaps the main reason that we are facing today. There are women who want to produce weak men because they hate civilization and weak men are not civilization builders. They hate civilization because they hate reason and they want to think emotionally. When you hear that love is the solution to health the wounds of humanity, there you have it. We find here the main link between feminism and the anti-capitalist movement. They do not oppose capitalism because it does not fight for the end of all inequalities (even if on average it's a winning system), but because it is based on reason. The connection done between capitalism and patriarchy validate that explanation even more.
The eternal source of weak men. Several times we thought civilization had won, but suddenly there come the weak men, and the collectivist fantasy/utopia surface again. There seems to be a source that constantly allows weak men to grow again in number, the source is the power elite. The power elite never accepted the move from the alpha/herd organization to the individuals, which can be found in the project of the ideal city of Plato. Those ideas are still very strong amongst the elite.
The relations between weak men and the elite are, a) they have no accountability because they are so powerful that they can always get away with their errors. Accountability is needed in an individual-centered society. At all levels of the hierarchy, individuals can make decisions on their own, in fact, this is a Sine Qua Non condition to make the system work, hence accountability. b) No accountability allows the fantasy to exist. Power elite men are fantasy enabler, and part of that fantasy is to believe that they can project they utopian dream into the society of people. As Karl Popper explains, communist is primarily a way to solve an elite problem, the sharing of their properties to avoid destructive competition. It is also an attempt to reproduce an alpha by an aggregate of elites, and control the population which represents the herd. c) the elite never made it to the patriarchy, the use of reason to have a map of reality that is a much better match with reality than a map of reality created by emotions. The discrepancy is what we call fantasy.
Something is missing in our society, a mechanism to control the fantasy of the elite, which includes not only the power elite but also the intellectual elite. Those red lines will help.
Nietzsche and the weak man. Nietzsche coined the expression "the last man" to symbolize the victory of the slave mentality and its values, in our modern society. There are unquestionably relations in their weakness between the last man and the weak man, the man who can't say NO and wide open the door to the fantasy of our instincts, but relations do not mean similarities. Where Nietzsche sees the last man as the end result of our modern democracies, I see a return to our primitive roots, a counter-reaction to civilization not a continuity of it. That's quite a difference, where does it come from? What defines the direction of my thinking the most, is a Darwinian approach that leads to an understanding of human nature. From Nietzsche's writing, we could hypothesize that he didn't have that knowledge, but Darwin published his theory in 1858, so we could also hypothesize that had he known about it, he would not have used it.
The last man is not the last male, but human, while the weak man implies clearly to separate male and female nature with a submission to female nature. For the last 300 years, philosophers haven't deal with the difference in nature between men and women and they should have. They should have when we look today how it has impacted our society. They should since the scriptures of the great religion deal with it. They didn't know Darwin's theory but they could observe and use the wisdom of their ancestors and they didn't. Something else is going on, that they already had a model of human nature and it has a name, collectivism. For them, the solution is an elite to guide the last man, to bring him a purpose, will, and order, the alpha/herd organization, the same as Plato. Rousseau or Nietzsche, and all philosophers in between and after them weren't/aren't interested in human nature, because they have one truth, that all troubles come from society and that the return to an alpha/herd structure will save us. They knew/know all that because they are part of the "anointed" as Thomas Sowell explains in his book "The vision of the anointed". Those people know what is best for the herd. The anointed or the self-appointed prophets, as Popper calls them, have several particularities. They are never wrong, they never consider testing their ideas, and have no consideration for observable knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to make valuable conclusions based on observations and it is called observable knowledge. You can deduce without the scientific method that the weight of a mouse and an elephant are not the same. If someone asks you to prove it you would be right to ignore his request.
The last man is an erroneous concept, but one that is useful to push for an ideology, collectivism, as did Rousseau, Marx and so many others. One could believe that there is a pattern... None of the philosophers (almost) for the last 300 years are helpful to get us out of the troubles in which we are, in this 21st century and I have stopped to believe that it is a coincidence. They call for greatness through an elite, I call it through the autonomous individual and processes. They call to let nature do its work because they have a fabricated conception of human nature, I call to controlled behaviors and fully endorse our Darwinian nature because civilization cannot happen with our primitive self. They call for institutions to control the herd, I call for processes to organize the society, and the elite. If we are the last men for Nietzsche, then Nietzsche and all of his kind are the weak men.
The collectivism that is imposed right now on western civilization is feminine in essence, or women-oriented, from justice to the education system, from family to the workplace, from culture to the healthcare system and it is taboo to mention it. Far from being a particularity, what happens to western civilization is a generality because collectivism is feminine in essence, and it follows that it is also primitive in essence. The explanation is a sad story. Civilization happened because we got the mental resources to allow our cognitive function to take over our instincts and while for most men it is natural, women have difficulties controlling their primitive self, which is express by their tendency to favor fantasy over reality and feelings over reason.
Without the leadership of men, women fall automatically back to their instinct to guide them when in charge. How does that leadership did fall onto women? This is the doing of the weak men and the elite who invite them to reject the civilization project. As men, they refuse to take on their shoulders the burden of the change that requires civilization, which is to embrace reality by promoting our cognitive function and controlling our instinct. They are advocating the power of magical thinking which builds fantasies to stop the civilization project. Usually, weak men of the people are controlled by other men, and the control of the elite by the people which by their number represents a force that they can ignore. Starting with the elite and some weak men, intellectuals mostly, they baited women into a trap. Romantics' ideas are part of the bait, erasing the natural role of men and women and that they can become whatever they want. In brief, they sold the idea that fantasy can be real. What they didn't tell women is that, contrary to men, they lack the energy to get out of the fantasy by themselves and when it turns bad, their only option will be to double down while convincing themselves that they are doing the rights thing. Those who are paying the price are the men, of course. Weak men, whether of the elite or from the common folk, don't mind being led by women because they have what they want, that the world should be driven by instinct. It is precisely because they know women are trapped that they accept their leadership. There is another manipulation which is that when the primitive woman is unleashed by taking control of the group their first task is to control men. Men control their environment by controlling their surroundings, but for women, that environment is the other individuals, and this includes men. That's another civilization mechanism that is put down. The protection of women is not done by controlling men, but by activating their natural instinct to protect women by letting them build the environment. Civilized women understand this, but not primitives because it involved mechanisms like delayed gratification that are more linked to our cognitive functions than our instincts.
Now that we have all the ingredients, collectivism can happen with its Alpha/herd organization or elite/people, with the blueprint of feminine thinking. The feminization of society marks the collectivization of society. Unfortunately, it also stops its development, and in the long run, it will collapse because unable to adapt sufficiently.
The palace of Thulsa Domm: Before I describe that primitive feminine thinking (some of it), which is set of red lines, I want to address the tragedy of women in civilization, in particular today's women. They are unhappy and that's an understatement, they have lost their world because we ask them to be like men, they have lost men support and protection, they made a disastrous marriage with the state which is controlled by weak men and the elite and while the world is going down, their only answer is to double down in the sense that they won't change their mind. The reason is that they are not the creative ones in the symbiosis of men/women, they should rely on men for that but they can't make that move, and here lies the tragedy. There is a movie scene that describes what women are facing. In "Conan, the barbarian", when Conan goes to the inn of Thulsa Domm to kidnap a woman of whom that demi-god is very fond. In the palace of Thulsa Domm, we can see a scene where women live in constant promiscuity, reduce to sleep, eat, and sexual activities. There is no past, no future, no project of a better world, and when they will get old, they will be killed and eaten. Those women know what will happen to them because they can see what they eat - the eyes and hands of old women. Many would think that they lack the energy to get out of that tragedy, but what they lack is a future, and then the energy to go to that future. Men build futures. But Why? Men seem to have the ability to see patterns, in particular non-emotionality related as if they had an innate mechanism. This explains not only why they build futures, but also the creative ones, and why they build culture and tradition.
The fatal misconception of civilization by women is to believe that they have to protect themselves from men, but the solution is to put all your trust in men which will by their genetic programming protect women. But men protect women who understand their role to build civilization, not the primitive women who don't understand the mechanisms needed to be controlled to allow a large population. You don't trust first the cognitive part of men, but their instincts and this means that you understand and accept their nature and your nature as a woman. The second step is to control your instinct so that they don't take over you. Women more than men are driven by their instincts and more than men they have to spend energy to participate in the happening of civilization. This is one of the reason why the call of fantasy is so strong and the weak men use it to deceive women. That's what the power of Thulsa Domm symbolizes. The nature of men and women are different, but designed to work together not in competition, nor in a power hierarchy. This should be in fact a civilization rule - Men and women should never be put in a position of hierarchy or competition within the society.
The feminine nature of collectivism. The objective here is to show the correlation between collectivism (method and goals) and the feminine primitive nature, a few examples will suffice to make my point
1) No redemption. In the collective, the concept of redemption doesn't exist and its function is to reinitiate cooperation. Cooperation that is freely chosen by individuals, is a very important component of a highly efficient society. Knowing that there is a mechanism to reinitiate cooperation invites more cooperation. This implies you don't lose your social status and wealth and that once the cooperation is reinitiated, the past will not be used to take advantage. Redemption is a shift from power structures to competencies structures. You have a competence that is needed, so we reinitiate the cooperation. Cancel culture is an example of no redemption. You do or have done in a far past one thing wrong and you're done. It's purely a game of power. Women never forget, like the collective. They keep track of every wrongdoing for years if not decades, it's part of their social memory. They are vindictive, as the collective. They may simulate the re-initialization of cooperation but it is only part of a game of power. True redemption implies that the past should not influence the future of cooperation.
2) Compassion. The collective wants to get rid of all inequality, they are unbearable. The cause of inequalities is randomness. You can reduce inequalities, but to cannot get rid of them or you need to get rid of randomness, therefore of reality. That's why the strategy of the collective is a failed strategy that cannot be amended. But there is a catch in the equality project that they nonetheless try to impose. On average the life quality of people goes down and in particular minorities that the collective wants to help in priority. The black community in America is a strong example of the consequence of their failed strategy. Thomas Sowell has shown that before the welfare state, Black Americans were doing better by any measure. Why does the collective insist when their plan has failed? Compassion always drives you to lesser your exigence to those minorities and treat them like children. But why? When compassion doesn't work, an adult should know that he has to stop but that's not the case with the collective nor with women because there is something deeper going on, and that is narcissism. Compassion or mother's love is fine for an immediate release of pain, but use as a lasting mechanism it is motivated by narcissism to make yourself essential and compulsory. If you want to escape that love then something must be wrong with you. All collectivist social strategies are based on compassion, they damage people and enslave them which in turn proves how much the collective is needed.
3) No accountability. Everything that was before is the fault of the enemy of the collective and everything bad that happens during their reign is the fault of terrorists. No accountability implies a) they are never wrong which allow them to why they double down, b) there are no consequences to their decisions which explain why they are very forgiving if not amnesic to their wrongdoings, c) It is always someone fault, projecting their own dark side on others because they are morally superior. They have always an escape card no matter how the explanation is disconnected from reality. Women exhibit the same behaviors, they never accept to be the primary cause of their decision when things go bad. Women tend to systematically explain that they are pushed to wrongdoing, putting the responsibility on someone else. Also, they do not consider that their decisions have consequences. In fact, the lack of accountability for women has been integrated into our justice system whose leniency toward women is just one piece of injustice by itself toward men. The same leniency is accorded to Social justice activists for most of their property destructions and physical assaults.
4) Delayed gratification. Among all tools that civilized people have to master delayed gratification will always be put at the top of the list. You can live in a tribe without it but not build a civilization. Agriculture requires delayed gratification, while hunting-gathering not so much. The specialization of function for each individual requires delayed gratification. Delayed gratification really shows the control of the reward system to favor cognitive decisions instead of being drive by our instincts. The problem with the collectivists is that they advocate for passions and carpe diem, the immediate satisfaction of our feelings and to embrace the present without taking into consideration the future. Two traits that women exhibit. The carpe diem attitude of women is expressed by their constant need to be entertained, not by their will to be involved in a project to build civilization. Social relations are central to women in which they can express their emotions, and those social relations are driven by emotions. Women are capable of it, but if left alone they would rather not use that mechanism, but their activities require immediate satisfaction, contrary to men.
5) Social engineering. Collectivists believe that they can change people to build a better society while ignoring human nature and therefore natural laws. How do we know they are wrong on that matter? They ignore basic scientific knowledge that tells them it doesn't work and even if it's factual that it doesn't work they will double down. They also lie constantly to justify what and why people should change and everyone knows they are lies. On an individual level, women want to change the men with which they share their life while ignoring completely that men have a human nature. When they fail to do so, they put the responsibility on their man. Women like the collective reject completely the existence of natural laws, no matter the consequence and adhere to the magical thinking which is that they can produce their own natural laws (note: the primary source of their lack of accountability is that belief in the magical thinking which will justify their position).
To resume, some tribal traits that collectivists exhibit, are not those our primitive ancestors had, and they are important. That anomaly is explained by the feminine spirit of collectivism. The reason for it is the domination by women of the tribe's affair, but they are not the ones that cause it. Behind those women are the weak men and the elite, men that reject the civilization project because it implies the renounce to magical thinking.
The collective is at war against men for four reasons. I stopped at four, but I hear that some are working on an encyclopedia. 1) Men always look to be autonomous. In the collective, autonomy is forbidden to control the order of society, and men appear as a destabilizing force. 2) There is a conflict of interest as a provider of resources. Men are hardwired to be resource producers/hunters. In the collective, autonomy is forbidden to control the order of society and the state is the provider of resources to control the people and the fair distribution of wealth as it advertised its action. 3) Men use reason to understand the world and navigate into it. For the collective, Reason is its most dangerous enemy, because it has the power to unmask the fabricate reality it imposes, by establishing a connection with the 'real' reality. 4) Men are caretakers for their family and the group at large, the whole society. The collective work to dissolve the family, which is the natural habitat of men. Men also are ready to sacrifice themselves for their family and the tribe. Dictators and bureaucrats never sacrifice themselves, nor do they take any responsibility.
As an example, all over the western world family laws are antagonists to men's rights, but this hides something more dramatic. The state use women to devaluate the very nature of men. Men are seen as a different species that needs to be eradicated since it's not possible, men should be controlled physically and psychologically. Recently (03/2021), a women deputy of a chamber in a democratic country has proposed a curfew for all men, just because they are men. If that's not qualified as hatred of men, then what? There is a lack of any kind of empathy for men, and this can be observed with the suicidal rate of men. Men contrary to women, do not kill themselves primarily because they are in an end life situation, but because society rejects them. Even the question as to why they kill themselves has been neutralized. Haven't you heart in a movie the sentence "my experience tells me that we will never know why he did it", while in fact, we have a good idea? Then again the collective can rationalize all of those aggressions because it denies the existence of natural laws, therefore the characteristic of men can be seen as a sickness that needs to be eradicated. The APA (American Psychological Association) describes men's behaviors as toxic masculinity since 2019. What they oppose is nature itself, but how could one expect anything else from collectivists who believe in the blank slate. Make no mistake, the reprogramming of men is a deception, collectivists don't believe in its efficiency, but an illusion that allows them to persecute men. Men are now cast as a lower form of life, hence anti-men laws and the disappearance of their image in society.