Conservative Politics

10 observations on the human condition. How is it that the right is correct and the left is wrong - precisely because the right is bad and the left is good? Problems where good efforts lead to good results have long been solved or are being solved quickly, and directions where bad efforts lead to bad results have long been abandoned, or are quickly abandoned if they are new directions. Only problems remain where good efforts combine for a bad result, and where bad efforts combine for a good result. Therefore, both the left and the right are important, because sometimes altruism is egoism - and vice versa

The political strip as a Möbius strip  (Source)

a. Is it possible that the discourse on sexual harassment and rape constitutes them? In other words, either there is more sexual violence in modern society, which is unlikely, on the contrary (decline of all forms of violence), or in the past the response to rape, incest, and harassment was much less psychologically traumatic, and this is not a biological response. That is, if I were in a society where touching a girl on the shoulder is considered a terrible thing, humiliating, traumatic, taboo, shameful and horrible violence, and no one has ever touched her shoulder, and I touch her shoulder, she will develop post-trauma like a victim of incest. Throughout history, rape and sexual violence were less severe, albeit more common, meaning because they were more common, and the traumatic mechanism may be built on something biological, but receives its intensity from the social convention of the time.

b. It's possible that once homosexual intercourse was more terrible than rape, in a certain society, and more than prostitution, even if the homosexuality was consensual, while prostitution was less traumatic than today. Today, the sexual offense itself worsens exactly like a person who hasn't been exposed to germs and isn't vaccinated against them, so that the harm from sexual harassment in the present becomes more severe than the harm from incest or rape in the historical past. That is, society is undergoing a process where more and more parts of sexuality are perceived as violence, and the anti-patriarchal discourse makes them traumatic, so that soon sexuality that didn't lead to what the woman wanted will feel to her like rape.

c. In such a situation, only the religious will survive, and it will be rationally preferable to be religious. Do secular people have fewer children because smart people have fewer children? Because if for several generations all the smart religious people and the intellectual elite became secular, because that was the intellectual climate, doesn't that mean that secular people are smarter on average than religious people, and that there are intelligence differences, which also stem from fewer children and more investment in children? And in general, if the rule that more intellectual people have fewer children was true throughout history, then it's what restrained the progress of human intelligence, which stopped at the point where they have the most children - IQ 100.

d. The disappointing reality teaches that to be brainwashed, to believe in politics, one doesn't need to be stupid, and even geniuses are vulnerable to it. But intelligence limits the herd effect. The fact is that even communism and fascism didn't have many supporters in the truly high intelligence, and that true intelligence is always much more mentally free than the masses, and more diverse than the intelligence in tier B, which always rules. As people get smarter, politics disappears, and so does herd mentality. Therefore, it's certainly possible to imagine a different world, without nationalism and states and ideologies, if only intelligence would rise, and therefore raising intelligence should be the most important social goal, not wealth or happiness, or fighting inequality. Because high intelligence leads to higher well-being in countless areas, including sex life and marriage, and it's the factor where change is most effective, as opposed to throwing money at fools. Hence, the most important politics is the politics of intelligence and the improvement of the human brain - which will end countless social injustices and national conflicts. There is no factor that reduces violence more than intelligence, contrary to the serial killer myth, which tries to console the masses with their morality for their stupidity - hence its popularity.

e. In general, intelligence, unlike other resources, doesn't come at the expense of someone else. When intelligence and technology become more important than the number of people - the conflict will lose its demographic dimension. Just as when the state loses the importance of its territorial dimension - the territorial conflict in the world will end. Today it's clear that it's better to return Sinai and not want its residents, because today people are important. But when people are less important, the demographic problem will also be less important, and as the importance of technology rises, Israel will strengthen against the backward Muslim world, if it is a technological leader. And since Israel desperately needs a new vision after the realization of Zionism, it should formulate such a vision: Israel's national goal should be to be the world's leading technological center, particularly in the field where it has an initial advantage - artificial intelligence. Today it turns out, after several breakthroughs in the field that behaved similarly, that artificial intelligence is certainly sensitive to financial investments and not just conceptual breakthroughs, because it has an important engineering component after the breakthrough, and not basic science. If Israel sets itself the national goal of becoming the strongest global center in the field - it will affect its status in the world and its security more than any military achievement. In any case, technological leadership is a national goal that will not be controversial in Israeli society, unlike any other goal, and therefore it will be possible to unite around it. But for technological leadership, we also need the leftists, because tier B intelligence is very important for technology, which is mainly engineering. Therefore, we need to consider them and contain them and give them a feeling that this is their country too, and that they are not exploited victims of the right.

f. There is always a part of the population that has a victim personality, because it's a successful evolutionary strategy (like the parasite in biology). Therefore, this part enjoys being a professional Mizrahi [Translator's note: Jews of Middle Eastern or North African descent], a professional woman, a professional homosexual, a professional black, a professional poor. Poverty too is a consciousness constituted by society - and the main component in it is stress, which is created from imaginary reasons. To activate humans, society teaches what to be stressed about, and those who have much less than the norm become stressed, compared to others. That is, there will always be this relative thing, and even if there is no material poverty there will be technological poverty, or poverty of social acceptance on Facebook. There will always be in some sense up and down, and those at the bottom will always feel poor and that they've been screwed, even if they objectively live better than Pharaoh king of Egypt. So no matter how much the standard of living has risen, the victim part of the human personality variety always makes noise and politics of discrimination, although the respectable person is disgusted by it. This is also how in a relationship there are people who always see themselves as victims and thus extort the other side. You can always find the relative victimhood within which you are a victim, even if you are a rich white man, then maybe you can be gay, or another type of victim (there are many) - and at least, there are those whose Jewishness provides them with the instinct of victimhood. Therefore, Judaism is overall useful in reducing the sense of personal victimhood within society and converting it into a sense of collective victimhood.

g. Much of politics is built on certain personality structures that cause people to identify, such as domineering and narcissism and paranoia. There is also the opposite personality structure of the beautiful soul and the compassionate and together they make a symbiosis - each benefits the other. Like sometimes a submissive marries a domineering woman, a masochist with a sadist, a dependent with a leader, etc. When reaching the intellectual society of tier A, one can say everything that cannot be said in tier B. For example, it's true that Jews tend to the anti-Semitic stereotype, that they are statistically more greedy, and lacking morality towards gentiles, and smart, and that artistically they create more degenerate art as Wagner said, and some inauthentic imitation, something manipulative, of an outsider. That is, there is justice in anti-Semitism, which doesn't mean there is justice in the Holocaust.

h. In fact, the Holocaust succeeded, Hitler succeeded in emptying Europe of Jews, and won the war from his perspective on a cultural level. Jews no longer culturally influence Germany, and much less the rest of Europe. That is, World War II is a war where both sides won each according to its goal, both the Allies and Hitler, win-win. And what came out of Europe without the Jews? Culturally it turns out that there is actually a fermenting and fertilizing element in Jews, which is now missing, and this is despite the fact that they are mostly assholes on a personal level. That is, even if anti-Semitism is right to a considerable extent in the diagnosis itself, it is wrong in its assessment. On the other hand, those who deny anti-Semitism, and claim that it is wrong in the diagnosis - this is the thinking of the herd. He will never see complexity. And inability for complex thinking - this is politics.

i. Jews are very connected to modernism in art and literature. So it's possible that they are not always a fertilizing factor (in periods when the artistic project is the opposite: to classicism, to the major), but only when the general artistic direction is towards deconstruction. That is, Hitler was essentially right. Only he didn't understand the importance of the dialectic between Jews and gentiles, which is what advanced the West, unlike China and India and Africa for example. The Arab case is more complex. Today the Jews fertilize it in the direction of terrorism. That is, the high but not absolute ability of Jews against terrorism refines terrorism. And that's how Arab society is really progressing. It's like antibiotics at a dose not one hundred percent, which stems from the limitations of Jewish power application, and which creates resistant bacteria and violent mutations.

j. In conclusion, there is something in the nature of moral and ideological discourse that constitutes the phenomenon it comes to be against, that nurtures it. For example, the discourse against violence creates violence, and not in the sense of giving a name to an existing phenomenon (a known excuse) but in the sense of encouraging and increasing violence (by raising it to consciousness as a possibility). There is something in language that defeats itself, something in the human worldview that works opposite to what is expected, and therefore good intentions lead to hell. Why does this happen? Because everything has a reaction, a counter-reaction, from the other side, and this is exactly what leftists don't understand in economics - the market's response to every "benefit". Therefore, there is no fixed and ideological approach to the world's problems that solves them, but only a learning and adaptive approach, and ideology is the disaster. If you're always nice to a woman, no matter what, as an ideology, and there's a drop of egoistic evil in her - she gradually becomes a monster from it. Everything is balance in the world. Even if you're always bad to her - she leaves. The secret is a combination of good and evil, a complex approach, not political, not abstract or general, but specific, through feedback loops - that is, learning. If you give children everything you're bad to them, they become assholes. There shouldn't be a general approach to children. Any general approach, even good, causes a great rebellion. You must not allow yourself to be stepped on. This is the Christian ideological approach of love only. Because if love is good and hate is bad - then only love. But hate is also good. Otherwise there would be no hate. The hypocrisy of politics stems from its declared desire to do good and never to do bad, and therefore stems from the hypocrisy of Christianity, from a sense of beautification, of lie, of kitsch, of brainwashing, of ideology. Therefore, you must not be too nice to people or women. Niceness is not an ideology. If you humiliate yourself, it's not that they'll want to be with you more, or make peace with you, or be fair to you, on the contrary. You need to set boundaries for the other side. And this too not as an ideology. But as an approach that gives value to yourself. The other (and optimistic) side of good intentions leading to hell - is that bad intentions lead to paradise. Kant was inversely wrong in the morality of intentions. True mercy is to give everyone what they deserve, and true cruelty is to give everyone what they don't deserve. And who determines what they deserve? Not some heavenly account or inherent right, but the learning process that occurs. The idea of discourse and language game needs to be replaced with the idea of a learning system.