Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, II

"Standards of beauty are oppressive."

It goes without saying that the sort of people who constantly harp on this sort of thing are seldom themselves paragons of beauty. lolz feminists are fat and ugly is not a novel observation. It is curious, however, that Leftism, the philosophical parent of anti-beauty resentment, tends to make otherwise beautiful people ugly when it sinks its claws into them. Case in point, this young woman:

It never ceases to horrify me.

It is impossible to apply a concrete standard to an abstraction. Beauty, being a transcendental value, is by it's very nature abstract. We created works of beauty not as a final goal to judge ourselves by, but as an attestation to something greater than ourselves. Beauty is not a standard in the way neurotic females gripe about the models in advertisements or on the cover of lurid grocery store magazines. Beauty is a goal and a purpose simultaneously. The goal itself is unreachable because of entropy. In time all things fail. The great works of art will someday crumble to dust and ashes, and long before then your body will betray you, bowing you to the ground under the weight of your age and weakness, before you return to the earth from whence you came. The tapestry of the stars will one day fade away as their lonely lights go out one by one. But it is the ephemeral nature of the beauty that we behold and manifest that gives it value and wonder and splendor. Without entropy, beauty would be omnipresent, and therefore impossible for us to notice. Ubiquity is the scourge of value.

But because the goal is unreachable we are mistaken in believing that the journey is not worth the undertaking. It is not the goal that makes us better, it is through each step along this great undertaking that we gain, becoming more than we were the day before. To dwell in and strive towards beauty is valorous in the same way that a last stand is valorous, only stretched out over the collective lifetimes of everyone who came before you, and all who will come after you, who worked to keep that candle lit against the eternal power of entropy. To shake your fist in defiance against an unassailable enemy, knowing that you will lose none-the-less: that is glory. That is beautiful, for the same reason Oswald Spengler thought so highly of that Roman soldier who died at his post when Mt. Vesuvius buried Pompeii. I will be better, even though I will someday die. It is not in merely being attractive that we truly are beautiful, it is in dwelling in beauty and creating the beautiful that we stand on the shoulders of giants to perpetuate the manifestation of beauty in our universe, and therefore ourselves becoming Beautiful, the transcendental by proxy.

But we do not dwell in beauty any longer.

Instead we purposefully make of ourselves an ugly spectacle. Is it any wonder that the rise of solipsism in modern Westerners coincides with the disfigurement of our physical bodies? The tortured fashions and whims of modernity are a thin veneer covering the hollowed out shell of our collective soul. An emptiness that pervades, conquers and occupies everything, turning it into nothing. We flatter ourselves with our simplistic and ugly art, the thoughtless and haphazard creations of the lazy, envious, sullen and weak. In reality, we are nothing compared to what we once were. We have become entropy, and in time enough, we will become nothing in the worst sort of way.

And that is a tragedy.

Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, I

"Wealth inequality should not exist."

In order to reduce wealth inequality to a marginal scale, the range of characteristics a population exhibits would have to be reduced to a similar scale. Assuming that equality is even a worthwhile goal - I believe it is not - serious wealth inequality will persist so long as we have a population with an IQ range of 60-160. The difference in quality among individuals cannot be immediately rectified through legislation, and can only be gradually reduced via a bottom-up engineering approach - eugenic or dysgenic incentives. Or, if you are particularly amoral - liquidation of the population outside of your acceptable range.

Dysgenic incentives are easy: We have a practical model in late stage liberal democracies, where the lowest quality people are given vast incentives through subsidies to reproduce, which has created a bottom heavy society that struggles to accurately identify - much less solve - its own problems. The problem, of course, with engineering a low IQ but otherwise equal society is that without the brainpower to maintain the accouterments and technologies of modernity, we would live in a world similar to the one inhabited by the people of Somalia and Zimbabwe: Poor, dysfunctional, corrupt, fragile, violent and uncomfortable. You cannot send a man to the moon with Zimbabwean statecraft. You can't even farm.

Eugenic incentives are simple, but probably cannot be implemented. You can engineer the gradual reduction of the low through simple trades - cash or other goods for sterilization - but the middle to middle-high IQ population has a strange sense of empathy for the pathetic, and actively seek to stymie attempts to manage or otherwise gain control of the exploding population of low class people (with a notable exception being the fervent devotion to abortion rights, which is used by blacks and hispanics far more often per capita than the white, asian or jewish sub-nations of the late American republic).

The amoral path - liquidation - is only politically tenable under excruciatingly stressful political situations, which we have not [yet] reached. It is not worth considering beyond that, because by the point that we seriously debate such a thing, it is likely that the lights have already gone off and will not turn on again for many years. God help us if it reaches that point.

If there is a strategy to be had it lies in the curious sense of empathy the middle and middle-high exhibit towards the low. In truth, it is not a sense of real empathy but the presentation of empathy, which is an important point to note. Middle and middle-high tier individuals use fervent and public displays of empathy towards the low - which cost them nothing - to virtue signal to one another, which may simply be a mating strategy rather than a true political orientation. Others have noted, at length, that protest culture seems to be as much about shouting and waving flags as it is about meeting people of the opposite sex, and all the fun activities that follow. Most obviously, even the most dull dissident rightists have noticed that male feminism is a rather obviously disguised white-knight strategy, which usually results in awkward or horrifying sexual encounters (see: Louis C.K.).

All in all the idea that flagrant and public displays of empathy are really empathetic are, of course, laughable, but we run into a problem when we realize that public and flagrant displays of empathy for status are cost-free. Since the cost of the hyper-empathic worldview is subsidized by people who are not white liberals, they are forever insulated from the cost of what they are doing. A tautology, sure, but a point that is worth parsing out when we realize how we must approach this from a social aspect:

We must make this cost them something. But what? Obviously, directly inflicting cost vis-a-vis violence a-la Right Wing Death Squads is only funny on paper, but is exactly the sort of situation we are trying to avoid. We have already established that liquidation is unacceptable up until the point where there are no more choices - and at that point, God have mercy etc. Indirectly inflicting cost vis-a-vis exposing Leftists to the consequences of importing 3rd world people is better, but still practically untenable. A few Leftists may experience the reactionary version of "come-to-Jesus", but many times more will simply pack their things and move to safer neighborhoods where they will continue to signal and continue to export the consequences of their signalling on the natives, until they move again. A few conversions gained for territory lost is sub-optimum, especially considering that conventional white-millennial Leftism selects for lower quality white-millennials. We don't really need these people, we just need them out of the way. In fact, at the end of all things, we really don't want these people period. It seems we need not consider that aspect beyond said statement because given their hesitation to reproduce, over time they may simply vanish on their own.

The path that remains then, is to remove the gain they harvest from signalling. To do that, you have to attack their ego. Part of that, naturally, is ridicule, but it must be done from a position of strength. What a position of strength is should be obvious when you take a cursory look at your average college-educated white leftist, and understand how they want to be seen relative to how they actually are:

Become great, build strength, dwell in beauty.