Left Singularity
Recent news out of Shanghai proves once again that communism always leads to disaster. Everyone intelligent already knew this, but leftists, turd positionists, and WYDNA Chungus Xiists insist that the horrors of the 20th century would not be repeated in the 21st century and that Chinese-style central planning was the most competent and empathetic type of government in the world. Now Shanghai is going through what is called a Left Singularity. Feminine moral hysteria about coronavirus is leading to mass starvation. "Volunteer" leftist death squads are kidnapping people who complain about this on the Internet. They are killing all of the cats and dogs because "they spread the virus". People are jumping out of high-rise buildings to escape the madness. Communism is bad. Central planning is bad. Moral hysteria is bad. When people turn their backs on capitalism and rationality it leads to swift decay and autogenocide. This is why the right shouldn't buy into the "pedophilia" moral hysteria. "Jim is always right." -Nick Land


Left political singularity

The French Red Terror, the Soviet Great Terror, the Cambodian autogenocide, and many others were all examples of what I call left political singularities.

Left wing repression tends to make things lefter, which tends to worsen left wing repression, which makes things even lefter, which … The process only stops when the latest despot starts to realize he is not left enough, he is being outflanked on the left, is going to be overthrown by those even lefter than himself, and promptly gets rid of everyone important who is even lefter than he is.

Right wing repression does not have this effect, because right wing repression, for example Pinochet, pressures people to forget about politics, whereas left wing repression reaches into every person’s life and forcefully pressures them to piously say the politically correct things. Left wing repression forcibly politicizes everything, even your personal private sexual activities. Right wing repression depoliticizes everything.

In Stalin’s pamphlet “Dizzy with success” it looks to me he was trying to thwart the terror, but terrified that if he tried to thwart it too vigorously, would be its next victim.

Under Tsar Nicholas II, the way to power came to be to be lefter than thou. The safest way to ally was no enemies to the left, no friends to the right. And so everything from there on moved ever lefter. And the lefter things got, the more the way to power was to be lefter than thou, the more dangerous it became to have friends to the right, so the lefter things became, the faster they moved left, consuming each leader in turn for insufficient leftism.

Left wing repression tends to make things lefter, which tends to worsen left wing repression.

We see a similar wind up in the French Revolution. The King moves left, leftists, in particular Rousseau and Voltaire, do very well, so everyone moves left. Voltaire and Rousseau were repressed by the supposedly right wing authorities only enough to generate favorable publicity for their works. The old order was condemned by highly successful intellectuals who somehow wound up with lots of money and young women. Where were the defenders of the old order? Not even the King defended it.

There is an obvious and plausible defense of hereditary monarchy and the hereditary principle: If power is up for the grabbing, there will be a lot of grabbing, and this will at best dissipate lots of wealth, and at worst kill lots of people. The replacement for King Log is apt to be King Stork. Past democracies and republics were apt to degenerate into advance auctions of stolen goods, and often those in power were reluctant to yield power when they were supposed to, so that election became civil war. In the lead up to the French Revolution, we see those attacking the monarchy prospering and succeeding, and we did not hear anyone defending the monarchy, not even the Monarch. Charles the First of England defended hereditary monarchy, first with the pen, then with the sword, and though he lost temporarily, and lost his head, in the end he won, but Louis the Sixteenth of France did as much to undermine monarchy as any man.

Voltaire tells the French that the monarchy needs overthrowing. Well, if the monarchy needs overthrowing, and and an intellectual can do very nicely under the monarchy while calling for its overthrow, likely an intellectual could do even better if it was overthrown, and those intellectuals had to step into the vacuum and replace it. And having stepped into that gap, they declined to imitate the monarchy’s tolerance for its enemies and disdain for its supporters.

King Charles the First told us that the King should protect the subject’s life, liberty, and property, but the subject should not concern himself with politics, that being the King’s business. King Louis the sixteenth however, told us that the King “must always consult public opinion; it is never wrong”. Well if the King himself says that, who is going to deny it? When the King himself will not defend the Royal prerogative, who would? And thus under Louis the sixteenth, an ever leftwards process was set in motion, culminating with the red terror in 1795.

Another way of stating this theory is that when a political belief system intent on gaining power, what I have been calling a theocracy, even if there is no God involved as such, finds it has been pushing on an open door, the push continues, till it blows up in their face and faith.

Leftism is such a belief system, rightism is not, rightism merely being a coalition of random odds and sods being rolled by leftism, and random odds and sods who disagree with leftism on any of a thousand different points of doctrine. Leftists, unlike orthodox Christians, can always be outflanked by purer and more extreme leftists, leftism being a this worldly doctrine, and so the push proceeds. Feminists get outflanked by gays, gays by transgendered.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/R7vCWCq/goldenrule.png]
I take a different approach to left vs right: Left as "systemism" (or "depersonalism") and the right as "personalism." Leftism relies on bureaucracy, institutions, *systems* in general, which are operated by consensus. Due to various quirks in people, like self-interest and trying not to cause deliberate offense, feedback loops arise, and you get people killing each other over stupid shit while leaving the actually important things to rot. And these feedback loops are exponential, and get faster and faster until it goes off the rails completely.

Rightism does the opposite - people are in charge personally, one man is the boss, and so on and so forth. This avoids the feedback loop, but is far less robust - successions are always tricky (a smooth succession automatically means a society isn't totally right wing), as is the case of what if the man in charge is bad. This is where we get leftism.

Here rationalism also makes an entrance - namely, leftism starts as a rational attempt to fix the personal system - "what if, like, instead of a boss, we had, like, a committee to control us" - the institution was born. This backfired atrociously, because at the time of the invention, silly ideas of blank slate-ism and that people are good and moral by default were en vogue, and they assumed that an institution would be immune to the bad people problem because good people would outnumber them, or something, ignoring facts like "ritual/mental pollution" and such.

Then, baddabing baddaboom, the institutions get stuffed with bad people too, except now it's even worse because people aren't really used to this sort of thinking yet, and still freeze when you propose a return to a personal system, and institutions are far more robust and powerful than 1 man can be. Sunk cost fallacy, or, a philosophical/religious/ideological equivalent of it hits, and what do they do? Well, MORE institutions to keep the institutions in check! See where the problem arises?

A leftist singularity occurs when, paradoxically, the institutions become like people. A dark mirror rightism occurs, when one institution, the Party, becomes master of all, like the kings of old. This is... very weird once it happens.

An even weirder state of affairs occurs when the dichotomy is completely crumpled, and the Party is controlled by 1 man, who effectively becomes an/the institution itself.

Back to rationality - rationalism is less of an ideology or philosophy, and more like a slider-scale thinking style that causes you to have a "rationalist" ideology. And how good or bad it is completely depends on the external conditions, albeit 100% rationalism turns you into a "quokka" inevitably. Being highly rational in rational times is good. Being highly rational in Axial ages of insanity, very bad (you will get your head smashed in by the rabid mob). This is mostly due to an inexplicable bug within the automatically-drawn-from-thinking-style ideology that assumes that... most other people are also rational when you are.

As for capitalism - trying to fight it is foolish, because capitalism is not an ideology or philosophy, but a simple phase of social evolution. Fighting it is like fighting air - even communists live in confines of capitalism.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)