“You exist within a grand mathematically generated illusion and you yourself are a mathematical being. Mathematics doesn’t just describe reality — you and your world are literally made of living mathematics. It is the code, the essence of this experience that you are having right now. Once you understand this, you’ll find the secrets of reality and begin to liberate yourself from the material realm. You will be as one who walks out from a dark cave to behold the light for the first time.”
Liberals push the narrative that Islamic culture is compatible with modern Western democracies. Extroverts essentially try to evaluate life for themselves and then by how other people currently happen to think. Rational introverts instead go for the substance. Rational introverts already know we’re talking about making people content to live with one another — but there are other problems and eventualities to resolve as you try to get there — things like engineering, economics, sociology, and other problems of life.
Are Liberals really saying they expect people in burqas (full-body curtains) are going to be fully accpted in pubs, nightclubs and the rest of mainstream society? Are UK/US men going to become comfortable dating women in burqas? The answer is of course that nobody expects these problems to ever occur. Either everyone constantly accepts the insanity of a theocratic anti-freedom culture, or it will magically just adapt to be more like Westerners’. Liberals want to perceive the good parts of the culture without thinking accurately about how Muslims actually interact with one another and with Jihadists (extroverts want to know about peoples’ feelings). Liberals are in complete denial that conservative Muslims all agree the Jihadists are going to paradise when they blow themselves up like in the Manchester bombing. The mainstream is fully dedicated to ignoring all the “introverted” details of life (the reality of homelessness, the reality of underground drug networks, the reality of debt and wealth inequality and widespread dissatisfaction with working life, and the reality of religious cult control).
An intuitive introvert thinking type would tell you that these people can’t think forward properly about future consequences (liberals are obsessed with surface presentation, and conservatives are too autistic to have abstract empathy and compassion). That’s also why no politician will ever answer that burqa dating question: because they can’t tell ahead of time what most people would go with. Do you get how this works now? Do you see it? The framework of thought of the modern world is based on popularity and emotionalism and the damaged human condition’s sentimentality, and so now, society is crumbling and falling apart exactly because it’s not based on rigorous, certain thinking. The accidental support pillars (good enough education and salaries) are eroding, thus liberalism and conservatism are finally being tested fully. They’re getting the limelight. Today’s nation model is about stories, drama and poorly designed frameworks of support (no job security, very little free time, very poor balancing of social responsibility between those with time and those without). These are rational introvert problems. The world is not something you analyze by how other people feel. Democracy is extroverted, while Meritocracy is introverted.
Liberals, Conservatives and anarchists invariably fail to identify the key points of problems in the world. What’s needed is the increase in confidence in all the brightest most rational individuals in society, all over the world. We need the rational people to speak up, have a platform, and denounce the moronic way the world is run. How dare people on Earth ever elect the most stupid to power?!?! The most stupid systems, and the most nefarious, corrupt individuals who can’t think properly? Where are the scientists, engineers, doctors, mathematicians, thinkers, philosophers, teachers, lawyers? Where in government are the economists and sociologists and psychologists? Why do we keep running this freak show where everyone is getting a raw deal? We are here because most people can’t figure it out, and they need an extreme amount of help to figure it out on their own (far too much). The answer is not more emotionalism and connectivity of feelings. The answer is to be bold and communicate with the people who stand up and count for something much bigger than feelings. The answer is pure reason, and only pure reason elevates and frees you.
As the reach of Liberalism and Conservatism gets wider and wider, it seems crazier and crazier. However, it’s never been too late. It’s never been less crazy. We simply need to replace the type of thinking and governing, and then things will change towards a rational direction. The world isn’t getting worse (it was always really this bad in terms of mainstream thinking, the real primary thing over resource management, which is not the real cause of anything, it’s industrial processes and policies).
Endless amounts of human resources are now geared towards fighting false wars. Liberalism versus Conservatism is yet another false war (they are both losers in terms of rationally analyzing reality and how a nation should be ran; they both oppose the smartest solutions and fear the smartest people in the world). Is it Too Real for you? But thinking about the right things will always show us the way to grasp something higher. Thinking is the only answer. As much as it seems like society will somehow fix itself, the answer is that no amount of magical thinking ever did anything. Comfort, belief, sentimentality — this has zero worth, while the promotion of the highest thinking has infinite worth. Society needs to adopt the rule of the most intelligent and the most talented and the most rationally compassionate (the nicest people) — this is a fact, not an opinion, because of how all the world’s crises now mount and get worse every year (climate issues, the industrial machine, extreme absurd wealth inequality which makes even buying houses impossible).
People don’t want to talk numbers all day (how much the NASA budget is compared to the military; how to change the tax system and who will be affected, where, all over society not just for yourself). That’s why you need panels of experts to decide how the nation is run. We will never get there by appealing to the emotions and the lowest in people. The Bernie/Corbyn/Ocasio-Cortez model is a valiant effort, but it’s not radical far-left enough. It’s not inventive or imaginative or bold enough. It’s not a thorough denounciation of the insane, predatory-capitalist, psychopathic world we live in where all the homeless and all the poor are living very real, miserable existences all because of the decisions and policies of governments. Practically overnight we could have a wildly different world. All our problems in the political and economic sense stem from electing the wrong people into power: the self-obsessed right-wingers (no tax for the rich as long as they bring business into the country) and the emotion-obsessed left (everyone’s feelings trumps the reality of systems, economics, reason, science and psychology and sociology).
99% of Brexit voters knew and still know absolutely nothing about the World Trade Organization, or what it does, or how it works — the same with the EEA, FTAs, the ECJ and so on. A nation’s future was decided by feelings and irrational uninformed opinion. It’s not specific to Britain — but what Brexit revealed is the type of governing function (neoliberal democracy) which moronically placed a monumentally complex process in the hands of ignorant uninformed voters — which is where decisionmaking becomes gambling. Brexit has revealed for the first time in recent history perhaps, the utter stupidity of the people in charge of the world. Who are these people? Who are the EU unelected politicians, and why don’t they ever call out the millionaires who run the UK government cabinet? Why doesn’t the BBC mention we have a country ran by millionaires? Why won’t the government hire all the best people of the nation; all the smartest experts? Because we haven’t got the best people in power, or the best type of government at all. We’ve got psychopathic, predatory capitalism as an economic model, and a useless type of government to contain it. Most of the world’s problems come from electing the wrong people and the wrong type of government into power. Democracy is not an intellectual system, it’s a popularity contest system.
It still wouldn’t matter even if Brexit was a positive economic impact, or the best decision for Britain to ever make — the key aspect is the type of government and the type of intelligent behaviour in carrying it out. It’s not about the choice if the government is incapable of highly rational, intelligent, super-informed decisionmaking, with wide-sweeping legal powers to radically, thoroughly and decisively transform society. For that we need the future governing model to be about the best experts, thinkers, designers architects and engineers, doctors and nurses, teachers, mathematicians, scientists, lawyers, psychologists, sociologists, and all the rest of life. Politicians must go, they are often liars and they enable the revolving door between big business and politics (just read something like Clinton Cash).
The ignorant and the uninformed are the most dangerous types of people in society because they put the worst people into power. Any truly rational, logical person doesn’t agree with putting anyone but the smartest in charge. If you can conceptualize what the world is accurately, you support the rule of the intelligent because you recognize the need for intelligent oversight to all the functions of government and society.
“The level of financial inequality around the world is staggering. According to a new Credit Suisse report, 45.9 percent of global household wealth is in the hands of just 0.7 percent of the world’s population. Those 36 million individuals control a mind-boggling $128.7 trillion, as can be seen from the following the pyramid.
“Below that, 391m people own $111.4 trillion, 39.7 percent of global wealth, despite accounting for just 7.9 percent of the adult population. The base of the pyramid is the most poignant and it shows how 3.47 billion people (70 percent of the population) share a combined wealth of $7.6 trillion which is just 2.6 percent of total wealth.”
What all of this means is that in reality, when it comes to practicing rights at work rather than ideological theory and liberal sentiment, you don’t have any stopping power or negotiating power whatsoever to resist the flow of money and wealth in the world, and how these dictate your life. They, the rich, and their processes, determine all of the overarching actual degrees of freedom in society. Conservatives like to say you can shop somewhere else — where? Who has all the land, resources and natural resources? These must belong to the people together as part of the national commonwealth. There is no other way.
“More than a third of Britain’s land is still in the hands of a tiny group of aristocrats, according to the most extensive ownership survey in nearly 140 years.
“In a shock to those who believed the landed gentry were a dying breed, blue-blooded owners still control vast swathes of the country within their inherited estates.
“A group of 36,000 individuals — only 0.6 per cent of the population — own 50 per cent of rural land.”
Some people focus negatively on trans issues, or foreigners “overcrowding” the health service — when what’s much more fundamental is the management of resources, national mechanisms (economics, law) and geniuses. Rather than focusing on the small world of the individual, as conservatives do, it’s much healthier to focus on real issues. We will get rid of the small things in the next century or two! Most of all, it’s crucially important that we get the right kind of governing right. We can have compassion, as well, but it must be a rational compassion, and we can’t allow the wrong type of government and political leadership.
Look at the UK election of 30 years ago, and compare it today. The broad-phase general issues are the same: immigration, taxation, the economy, peoples’ personal security. The conversation has not moved on, because who we allow to lead the national conversation has not evolved. This is the same old liberal vs. conservative clash that we see in political debates; in religious infighting; in disagreements about how people should live or how much freedom they should have. None of this modality of debate, this level of debate, will ever be transcended without smarter people doing it. That is the ugly truth about democracy: hardly anyone is qualified to have a meaningful vote on what their uninformed opinion tells them. That is the ugly truth about the modern political mainstream. Back in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, different speakers or orators had public influence. Different political factions battled it out. Today we have appeals to ignorance, because the wrong people are getting the spotlight. It should be experts and those with qualifications who are invited to talk on TV news shows — not random people. Liberals and progressives have failed to see that it’s impossible for them to square or balance liberalism with the intelligent organization of society. You can’t square stupidity and sophisticated social organization. You can’t let just anyone have their views heard and also be an intelligently-ran nation. Humanity has to get past this hurdle, and it’s inevitable.
Hitler’s Nazi Germany was racist, and it was also economically poorly managed by endless borrowing. But why, as a historical study in mistakes, was it such a success psychologically? Nazi Germany’s welfare spending, and the cult of personality surrounding Hitler, was about a bright decisive vision of hope. Hitler was clear, decisive, impassioned and forthright, and it became impossible to have the kind of liberal vs. conservative infighting over every small news item of the week, which we have today. Hitler’s psychology appealed to the conservative psyche (which still exists today) and it is a chilling prospect that fascism could resurge again.
While modern governments continually fail to appoint the smartest best brightest people from society (and the most compassionate), we are locked in a conceptual problem: the idea of government is not broad-reaching or ambitious enough. What’s needed is a rational, logical yet brazenly ambitious type of meritocratic government.
While liberals continue to be in complete denial about conservative Islam’s third world values, we can’t have a bright future because the Abrahamic conservatives (including Christians and Jews) want to drag us down to their level with their literal caveman-era conceptualization of reality. Conservative Muslims can’t conceptualize the world around them properly, and so they conceptualize reality as according to their god Allah, and everything scoped within what he wants. When a conservative Muslim calls LBC radio to talk about segregating men and women (or young boys and girls in school), that conservative Muslim can’t be reasoned with. They can’t answer with reason and logic why it could ever be a good idea. Yet they are dead set on it. Conservative muslims, according to data you can look up quickly online, mostly agree that homosexuality is a sin. The only possible explanation for their beliefs, when you have all the facts, is that they come from reading their religious text. The religious text is the form for how these people behave.
What’s now needed is an ambitious form of government, built on pure reason and logic. One of the first steps in the liberation of humanity is rewriting religious texts. What we should do is be inspired by that French petition to change the Quran in France. What all major Western nations should do is this: pass a law, and in this law the government requires itself to appoint psychologists and sociologists to look through the Quran and identify all the hateful verses which call for murder; which may incite violence, female genital mutilation, and similar things — and replace these or remove them. Verses will be needed to be added, such as how modern science’s achievements are valid and worthy of praise, and how useful logic, reasoning, thinking, science and mathematics are. (Because the Quran doesn’t praise any of these). We also need to make it accept LGBT people. With that, the last thing in the law to be passed is to rename the new religion “Liberal Islam” — and to make it illegal for any Imams or mosques to hold the old religious texts of conservative Islam. The liberal Christians, Muslims and Jews are far more rational than their conservative counterparts. The danger with conservative Muslims in particular is that by agreeing with Jihadist extremists that Islamic Jihadist martrys will go to paradise, they are helping to enable what we now call “radicalization” of home-grown terrorists in the West (like the jihadi Manchester bombing).
Conceptualization, actually, is the process of conception (how you imagine the world to be). Animal souls fail to accurately conceptualize the world around them, which is why, as much as animal souls can experience life, they don’t get much control over what they do. Animals can’t recognize themselves in the mirror, because they aren’t conscious enough. Consciousness is how good you are at clear, incredibly sophisticated thinking. The mirror test is the basic analog “I” consciousness test. For animals to become conscious, i.e. if the smartest animal souls (like crows) were to become conscious of an “I”, then they would need to develop not only the brain intelligence and biology in their chosen bodies, but also a system of language. The only way for animal souls to become conscious (since consciousness is social) is to pick better and better bodies to reincarnate into when they die (i.e. eventually human bodies, after bodies like cats and dogs).
When liberals falsely imply that a conceptual standard such as religious conceptualization of the world, is as harmless as whether you like chocolate, the world is being led by the wrong people — the people who can’t think properly; the people who have failed to check and critically analyze what they are saying. When conservative Abrahamists like conservative Christians, Jews and Muslims stick rigidly to their religious texts, or when Karmists and mystical intuitives talk about Buddhism and meditation or Tarot doing something “special”, they aren’t using a rational enough thinking process. Feelings are alright, but we need the right people leading the world. Today’s world, in an overview, consists of these values and ideas: entertainment, escapism, stories, and a world conceptualization delivered as stories of events. At no point do we routinely discuss the world in intellectual exploration of ideas, ideologies and ideations. The news media pumps out story content, for feeling type individuals. This is not how you lead in an intelligent manner. This is the Old World Order (wealthy dynastic elites) model which has been running for centuries. This model hates intelligence, and has never produced a government system where the most intelligent individuals run society, coming up with huge innovations by putting teams of each nations’ best individuals together and paying them to come up with broad, radical ideas which are then put into law.
Conservative Abrahamists aren’t choosing their religious practices (like praying or calling for an Islamic Caliphate in modern Britain) out of some individual consciousness and rational preference. These aren’t choices, they are the religious texts being repeated. Conservative Abrahamists all over the world aren’t choosing their religious “preferences” — they regurgitate the logical fallacies and stories from their religious texts precisely because they can’t escape the primitive conceptualization of a reality created by a torture god who watches over you all the time and who created the planet and all the people on it and decided to put us here, alone in the universe, without any explanation for all the logical contradictions which come up here for rational, logical people (which includes some liberal Abrahamists). Liberals aren’t as smart as philosophers, social critics (George Carlin types and comedians) and mathematicians, inventors and many scientists. Liberals are on average much smarter or more rational than conservatives. The more rational someone is, the more they can free themselves from a poor conceptualization of reality (such as mainstream religious texts and such as the sociological cult brainwashing and abuse of isolated conservative religious communities). Ex-Christians, Ex-Judaism-following-Jews and Ex-Muslims are the most important authorities humanity should be paying attention to regarding Abrahamic religion, along with the psychological, sociological and rational experts on what life and the world is.
Conservatives are the most dangerous people in society, which is why they allowed Nazi Germany to happen. Conservatives have an anti-outsider mindset and mentality, and they look for political leaders who can provide security and comfort, which is why they now clash with liberals so much in the political mainstream. There is an endless amount of hysteria now related to tribes of these groups. Even antifascists versus fascists can be explained in terms of Freudian Superego (protector) mentality i.e. evolved liberalism (dove mentality) versus Freudian Id (hawk) mentality i.e. evolved conservatism (the will to comfort, scoped to the small world of the individual). In terms of the Jungian psyche, antifascism vs. fascism is what you get when strongly intuitive minds from both ends of the psychopathy spectrum engage in recognizing the other group for what it is. Antifascists and fascists are the least ignorant and unaware of the general population, which is why they end up signalling about huge social shifts.
Conservative Christians love guns, and liberals can’t work out how to eradicate this problem without falling over themselves and “sabotaging” or “muddying” real political vision. Only appealing to everyone at once puts you in this pickle, liberals! You’re trying to be mini-angels and deal with everything at once. The conversation on guns is another prime example where we aren’t talking about just the idea itself, but why these beliefs are formed and how to stop these beliefs being considered seriously at all. Intelligent liberals like Sacha Baren Cohen have creatively ridiculed the childlike Conservative ideations and conceptualizations of the world (like literally having elected officials of US government say, on a TV show, that preschoolers and children should be trained to use guns in schools). Conservative Christians are thus, as you might connect it up, one of the most dangerously ignorant and unaware groups of society out there. These people cannot be trusted with a vote, quite frankly, as they are now. By all means we should have a system where anyone can pass exams to earn a vote on different areas of the economy and the social parts of local and national government — but we cannot let democracy allow the stupid to make the world’s future decisions. That is the supreme mistake of democracy, and Brexit marks the spot of supreme governmental idiocy — supreme failure to use the right type of governing (experts and intellectuals and the most compassionate people) for shaping our future.
Atheists must be generally smarter than conservative Abrahamists at least, because consider this: they have realized that — rather than a torturous creator god creating all the planets and ours for absolutely no real reason other than that life is better than no life, and then to give a list of commands we obviously couldn’t follow, and to allow all the evil in the world — it is much more rationally solid to say that this type of god and reality doesn’t exist. It makes so much more sense, on the basis of what these atheists know about modern science, modern cosmology and modern biology, modern sociology or whatever it is. They are making reasoned judgements. Conservative Muslims actually see Atheists as some kind of ally which could be converted to Islam. Anyone spending all their energy on converting you to their religion, obviously doesn’t conceptually understand that you won’t be interested in it. Why do some liberals end up converting to Islam, the fastest-growing poor conception of the world and reality? It’s because these liberals aren’t smart enough to continue to escape such a poor conceptualization of reality. Conservatives are dangerous because they want to bring liberals backwards, right back into the conception of life that reigned in the Arab world 1400 years ago.
Atheists, as well as liberals and conservatives, are dangerous in wherever the capacity exists that they reject reason and logic in favour of appeasing the views and the feelings of the crowd. Gustave le Bon wrote a book about The Crowd. You have to understand the overview of the world if you’re going to do well in it, and this increases in accuracy the more ambitious your plans and goals for the world. The crowd mentality and the General Will of the people (Rousseau’s concept) is essential for achieving a social revolution to overturn the megawealthy rich “owners” of the world. How strange is this idea that the megawealthy own all of us; perhaps our bodies and souls too? The richest of humanity own 40+% of the planet’s wealth between them. Oxfam has been releasing studies about it. This is the only true conspiracy. But isn’t it odd? What would the average person think if this definition was changed to “they own us”? It’s absurd to think the average working person considers themselves a corporate commodity for the rich to completely lord over and trade with. We imagine, rightly, that our own private experiences are uniquely authentically ours.
What do anarcho-capitalists and communists and socialists think? How are their psychological and rational conceptualizations any different, at the core, to determine these kinds of “belief systems” and attempts to push these narratives? Unlike the religious zealots, communists and anarchists have grasped intuitively that there’s a lot of problems in the world. But their advancement onto highly rational thinking hasn’t yet happened in the main. Anarchists are obsessed with the appeal of no government controlling them (a Settler value in the Campaign Success personality system). They are irrational because they want of course all the civilized inventions like garbage collection, police protection, fire services and healthcare and welfare for their sick family members — but they don’t want to pay taxes for it (because they think somehow governments spending is highly inefficient). Anarchists have simply failed to properly conceptualize the mass sophistication of modern civilization and all the high volume of costs involved with all the people who actually live in these modern nations. The proof of this is the simple fact that anarchists and anarcho-capitalists think they could get on with people as long as they treat them well on the surface, for example what the anarcho-capitalists call “bartering”. They fail to conceptually model the abstract, overarching generalized principles such as food shortages and disordered chaos — in which it won’t matter what types of people are out on the streets; they will all be desperate and clutching for food and other essentials. Anarchists tend to like small pockets of their “freedom” where they can live unobstructed from the unconsciousness of government generated by everyone else (i.e. all the pointless hoops to jump through at work). Anarchists are right in this; they are right to identify a flawed system. However the anarchist needs to look further than that, and see that what we really need is not the removal of government or the minimzation of its power, but a stronger more intellectually rigorous government which can actually transform the way it acts so that everyone can have the organized life they deserve (such as homes fit for human habitation, which as a law was blocked around 2017 by the UK government; and such as jobs and qualifications systems which are reasonable, i.e. a clear path to work, and free education for all if this is possible). Anarchists need to understand that it’s government which allows you to exist in a civilized society in the first place — therefore, rather than focusing on the current implementation of government we happen to have, we need to leverage it in the right direction instead and then we will all be better off. You don’t abandon the rule of law altogether. A classic example of this discrepancy between anarchists and rationality is anarchist protesters using nonviolent protests to illegally stop planes flying or fracking companies drilling. Settler personality types rightly discourage this sort of anti-authority behaviour, and the police rightly rip people from these activities to instill order in the society even if it means jailing these individuals — why? Why is it “wrong” to protest fracking? Because we need to first of all appreciate the priority of law and order and the good functioning of the society (as a social principle); it’s just that we need the right pursuit of it in the first place, in general. Conservatives have a conceptualization of power being good and justification unimportant (torture god!), thus they predictably choose the side of conservative or fascist governments. Liberals are forever on the fence, unable to decide where their empathy should go. Anarchists favour their own personal ideological differences with the system (rational “immaturity” and “angst”), but the most rational logical individuals recognize that it’s only in the power of the principle of government, or the institution of government, to begin with, that we can begin to leverage all that we have ascended to in human intelligence about how to run the society, the corporate market, the nation’s economy, the social security and the welfare state, the education system, the healthcare system, the utilities like the trains and electricity and water companies, nuclear power, and everything else that goes towards the modern nation in practice, in actuality.
“Although Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneeers can all understand each other, or the same propositions, what really feels right to them often differs markedly. At work or in another ‘functional’ situation they may ‘adapt’ and behave in ways that really don’t feel right but enable them to ‘fit in’ or ‘get the job done’. But given free choice, their different values will lead them to do different things, or do the same things but for different emotional rewards.”
We need Pioneer Society. Have you ever made Pioneer friends? They can change your life, because they can be so inspiring and insightful. Modern Pioneers can be painters, programmers, lucid dreamers, scientists, mathematicians, sex industry outreach workers, charity campaigners, PR experts, and so much more. When any individual learns to find a Pioneer Sacred Cause and fully dedicate themselves to furthering the reaches of exploring human life and its exploits — bringing these insights back with them like treasure — we all benefit as a society. Education is perhaps one of the most overlooked aspects of modern civilization. As Jeremy Corbyn said: when someone becomes a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, an engineer.. whatever it may be, we all benefit as a society. Sadly for the Corbyn project, it’s too liberal and timid and tame a vision for the future of society — so it won’t move all the best people in the world firmly in support of it. As much as Jeremy Corbyn becomes associated with antisemitism, he will never be a Hitler-type figure of extreme vitality, vision, passion, forthrightness and decisiveness and clarity.
Communists are concerned about the economic system as a whole and not just semantic or symbolic notions of freedom. Communists have rightly identified the failures of predatory capitalism — and it’s a true free market which has been totally destructive to our modern world and its economies, with boom/bust cycles and with cheap garbage products under Planned Obsolescence. Peter Joseph talks about that in the movie Zeitgeist 3. But the problem with getting rid of capitalism altogether is that you get rid of the informational utility of capitalism (businesses getting off the ground or failing depending on how good they are at managing money/products/services, and how they adapt to peoples’ needs). In a communist system which decides where people work, not only do you then have no ability to differentiate a good business from a bad one; not only would you have stagnation of mandatory businesses (such as 5 production warehouses for clothing never to be shut down or judged by consumer tastes) but the state also has to do all of the thinking which applies all through the economic form of the nation. And it applies to everyone. What this means is that you have a severe lack of diversity of thinking — you’d have to get it right, the first time, and it wouldn’t be adaptable.
Even The Venus Project, an ambitious idea of having a communist world future with technology, is a moronic, stupid idea because it cannot use the most leverageful, inflexional thing — human intelligence between coordinating experts — to adapt and to change the society. Communists autistically have no vision for how you would treat different groups of people. Some people, like Settlers and Prospectors, are incredibly resistant to change, and to participating in the most rational activities (like researching for voting on Brexit). These problems have to be addressed. It’s just as the conservatives have failed over the decades to confront their tribe’s selfishness and psychopathy; it’s just as the liberals have failed to address their group’s emotionalism and the appeal to moderation that Liberal Democrats always find themselves in. Nobody is neutral.
We have a world based on competing ideas and conceptualizations — only the most rational and logical are fit to actually fix all the world’s problems. Our problem isn’t a waiting game, and it’s not about trying to trust people the absolute maximum, seeing the best in them giving them infinite benefit of the doubt, or tolerating them infinitely either. Our world’s problems are simply about, first and foremost, the type of government and what it will actually be doing. When humanity elects the best people of each nation into power, we can have a bright future, and only then. What stops us from having this is not war, poverty, greed, apathy, or the various effects of the human condition. What stops us here is what could only be the rational explanation for why we don’t have a rational paradise on Earth right now. The reason is that we don’t use the best thinking or the proper thinking to order everything. The truly bright, rational, logical people understand that. It’s these people who are the ones we need to reach out to.
Reason will save the world. Everything else is a lost cause. If you can’t escape your thinking paradigm, you need to work towards it. Only revolution and radical re-invention has ever paved the way to true historic world change. Thinking is not just sitting around spending time (as the liberal and conservative mainstream seems to have thought). Thinking is literally the answer to everything we need to discover and know in life. Thinking is the big secret of life. Thinking and self-development changes our lives. It’s thinking which allows us to examine and transcend the way we think. Humanity’s future isn’t about compassion or caring (as liberals want), and it’s not about the mercenary selfishness of China-style free markets either (as the economic right wants), and it’s not about appealing to the lowest in people (as per democracy). It’s about the maximum utility of reasoning and vitalistic rational thought. It’s about intellectualism and mental clarity. If you don’t have values, you have nothing — what then about the quality of your values? What’s the point of pushing the tired old values if it fails to motivate people?
Progressives like The Young Turks are the brightest group in mainstream society. They are not “doves” like the liberal democrats, they are more akin to “retaliators” like the antifascists. But still, even though Bernie came out of nowhere to win around 50% of the vote versus Hillary, the Progressive worldview and conception of reality isn’t good enough. It’s far too openminded in the wrong way, where everyone’s opinion and mental understanding of the world is essentially equal. Progressives are choosing, in their best made conception of how to be the perfect human, to reject the differences of those around us in favour of the broad-sweeping major-inflexional issues of life and society. Progressives are thus the most rational group in mainstream society. But this isn’t ultimately right. It’s not right to skip over, and to fail to critically hold to account, the belief systems and the thinking of everyone in society. Or is it? Can we reach a stage of human conduct where only the good, nice people are in power — and where the fascists and the far right are always rejected? But are these people “serious” enough, i.e. do they have a solid enough conscious conceptual basis to decisively keep the psychopathic right wing nuts from power, and do they have a strong base of reasoning to be able to do this and keep holding it up? How many youtube videos do Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian need to make before everyone will keep getting it continuously, and get it enough? If progressives are only leading a democratic society, then there are probably too many less-conceptually-able people to identify why exactly the political right needs to be kept from power and from being held in high standard in public life. In the UK and across the world, this similar rational principle plays out: the “good” people try to stop the “bad”, but it never quite translates or conveys well enough. It’s non-binding. What we need — the only thing that was ever good enough — is the leadership of the finest and best individuals from every individual nation. Only these people can decisively lead, and transform themselves to become the new intellectual and rational and compassionate elite for humanity’s divine, rational future. Every other project is doomed to failure not because of circumstance or events, but because of the very core failings of these ideas. The liberal project hasn’t ever failed based on circumstance and events (that’s why it continues in a zombified state). The same goes for conservatism because again, these are not ideological trends but these are infact simply the ways in which people conceptualize the world and treat it. Just as a conservative Muslim doesn’t choose to wear a headscarf but thinks reality itself is predestined towards this purpose, conservatives don’t “choose” freely to want to have guns: their conceptual model of the world, of reality, is itself the source of what informs their distrust of the government.
Until the brightest of humanity accept that how we think & conceptualize is fundamental to how we live, we can’t have a bright rational Star Trek future. That is literally the answer. There is no other possible explanation. It’s not terrorists which are holding us back (because as Sadiq Khan noticed, people carry on with life and society doesn’t stop). It’s not a lack of compassion which creates the terrorists and allows them to radicalize, like the liberals seem to think. It’s how everyone thinks. And so we need a society driven and inspired by experts and their insights. We need Good Government; responsible, radically intelligent government. What we don’t need is endless capitalistic inventions of short-term, right-wing science designed and engineered around a class of megawealthy elites. We need thinkers, achievers, true seekers — and we need these individuals to become much more confident, developed, and dominant. We need a new cultural narrative and we need a space to say that we’re right, and to give all the compassion and knowledge and insights to the world. We will win if we work together.