How Work Will Change In The Future

by Brett Stevens on March 29, 2018

People are going to look back on this time and wonder if the people then knew how much life was changing forever. We are at the cusp of a sea change not just of vast importance, but even broader implication. Ideas are dying, and since they are chained together as justifications for one another, they will fall together, like a big net dropping away.

If we pull the net aside for a moment, we can see a glimpse of the future, which will be both tragedy and opportunity. The tragedy occurs through the collapse of institutions that still have some good in them, but these can then be replaced with things that are wholly functional. The change begins with globalism.

Globalism served as a death knell for trust in our ability to make things. Choked by unions, lawsuits, regulations, and social problems, our labor pool was not up to the task, so companies began outsourcing and offshoring, which prompted government to make this easier through treaties like NAFTA.

In turn globalism died because it essentially transferred our wealth to the third world while leaving us with the “service economy,” an illusion that is rapidly dying as people realize that not only are FAANG companies worse social engineering manipulators than previous corporations, but their accounting conceals a lack of real value.

For companies like Amazon and Google, the only business model consists of growth. They generate a lot of hype, so people buy their stock, and so they are able to leverage that popularity and buy other companies or expand into other industries. Amazon never posts profit, only reinvests, buying itself a business empire by using illusory credit.

As the FAANG companies collapse inward through a combination of a lack of an enduring business model and increasing scrutiny of their “social justice” oriented practices, globalism also will die, and with the death of globalism, the notion of trusting in your employer will finally go away.

People used to hope for a “good job” — there really are very few — but found themselves instead locked into a cycle where companies form, get huge, and then decompose in their own bloat, leaving the workers stranded in a shattered jobs market. The future belongs not to having a good job, but to having a business of your own.

The first step toward that end has come with the rise of work-from-home gigs:

Nearly half (45%) of hiring managers said their company’s work-from-home policy has changed in the past five years, with 60 percent saying it has become more lenient and inclusive.

Over half (52%) of hiring managers that work at companies with work-from-home policies believe hiring has become easier in the past year.

Over half (55%) of hiring managers agree that remote work has become more commonplace as compared to three years ago. Five times as many hiring managers expect more of their team to work remotely in the next ten years than expect less.

The slow death of the office has come to us. Commuting wastes time; office politics are miserable; most people are performing repetitive roles in front of computers anyway, and rather than spend 80% of their time on their phones browsing Facebook, they would rather chip in that one-fifth of their day with focused private time at home.

As this becomes more commonplace, companies are going to look at the infrastructure they have in place to address the office environment and wonder if they need it. When your needs reduce to having people fulfill isolated functions, then it makes more sense to hire them the old fashioned way, as contractors.

This type of employment means that you, the employee, receive a request from the client. You estimate the time it takes to do this, and thus the cost, and when they approve the bill, you do the work and then bill them. You take care of your own health insurance, equipment, and office space.

Contractors generally increase the competitiveness of a field because they compete directly with one another. The business selects whoever can do the best work in the shortest amount of time, with some variability for how much quality influences the value of what is done, and so the most efficient/effective people rise.

In turn, this makes the employee take on a less passive role: business owner. They are no longer someone paid to show up, but someone who takes money for completing a task. They can also work for multiple clients at once. This means that they will keep a number of options open and have multiple income streams.

With this development, we will see a shift away from the cities. If you do not have to commute, you will choose cheaper housing farther from the center of town, and spend more of your time at the house. If you are looking for multiple income streams, you will then expand what you can do like any business does to ensure steady clients.

Our future is not as workers, but as homesteaders. People will sell some of their labor to companies, but having more focus on the home, will also perform more of a role in their local community. They will probably, as was common a century ago, supplement this with income or income-in-kind from the homestead itself.

Soon you will see homes which function also as offices where someone both fills out medical forms for remote clients and sells fresh eggs, repairs small engines, or offers veterinary services. There is too much uncertainty in an interconnected economy, automation is going to obliterate the easy jobs, and most people are fleeing the disaster that is modernity and its overpopulation.

In other words, we are going from the megacity model back to Main Street, or people living in smaller communities in which they have a role. People no longer trust a remote economy to provide for their needs and are aware how businesses expand just like governments, becoming bloated and then looking abroad for labor.

With this model, even if everything goes wrong, you still have your homestead, which costs about a quarter of what your city house will. You have a large garden, maybe some livestock, and a workshop where you can at least trade skilled labor for other goods or services. You have a safety net of yourself.

Look at how widely and deeply our world is changing. Modernity, democracy, consumerism, and individual rights no longer inspire belief from others, but skepticism. Our relentless abuse of the environment is manifesting in disrupted jet streams and extreme weather. Automation threatens to remove many jobs. There is a new Cold War on, with China and/or Russia, that is forcing us to discard our inefficiencies and become not just self-reliant but massively productive. Overpopulation guarantees that instability, war, and disease are in the future.

On the other side, good things are afoot. Factional warfare worldwide means the end of crusading for peace. Space colonization seems inevitable. The same skepticism that people have toward modernity and its methods also opens them up to seeing possibilities that were considered taboo just a few months ago. The end of modernity means that we are looking for not just another social order, but entirely different lifestyles.

Conservatives emphasize local solutions, hierarchy, a lack of subsidies, and shrinking government so that it is no longer a manager-babysitter but merely there for leadership. The market and society have caught up to that vision. People no longer seek one giant force to control everything but instead want to be independent from all these large forces and working within the organic confines of culture, tribe, and caste.

All of these changes point toward a different relationship with work. In the past, we were paid for doing the job, which meant 90% irrelevance and 10% productivity. Now that we see that jobs are not reliable, instead we want as much of our effort as possible to pay off in the most local, direct, and resilient way possible.

NRA Chief NAMES THE JEW (As the “European-Style Socialist” – Best Euphemism Since “Rootless Cosmopolitan”)!

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
February 24, 2017

LaPierre has had it up to here with these kikes.

The NRA is basically the only lobby group which is funded by normal Americans and fights to represent their interest. As such, it’s also pretty much the only lobby that is routinely demonized by the media.

Unsurprisingly, the NRA has an overwhelmingly positive reputation among normal people.

As such, it’s an influential and trusted institution.

Which is why having it’s leadership deliver this kind of speech is a verygood sign.

Haaretz :

Longtime National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre Thursday addressed criticism of his organization following the Florida school massacre, and his combative defense included expressions of dog-whistle anti-Semitism reminiscent of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” with descriptions of a powerful plot to destroy America’s freedom by “European-style Socialists” who he said had taken over the Democratic Party.

Sorry, Schlomo. You ain’t shutting down the NRA.

LaPierre vowed that the NRA intends to go far beyond its role as a gun lobby, to warn Americans that all of their individual freedoms are being destroyed by a condescending intellectual elite. “I promise you this – the NRA will not only speak out, the NRA will speak out louder and we will speak out stronger than ever before,” with its own television station and expanded media operations to resist “the Socialist corruption of our government.”

Please, God, make it so.

A NRA tv channel calling out “socialist corruption” 24/7 would be the best thing ever, especially considering that all of these “European-style socialists” are actually Jews.

Just look at the names LaPierre is mentioning.

Again and again in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, LaPierre identified the enemies of the NRA, and of America, as Jews – from Karl Marx to Bernie Sanders, from Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor George Soros to former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. LaPierre singled out Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York as one of the Democrats who are “liars to the core.”

If you start calling out all the people pushing for gun control, the results will always be anti-Semitic.

“History proves it. Every time, in every nation in which this political disease rises to power, its citizens are repressed, their freedoms are destroyed, and their firearms are banned and confiscated. It is all backed in this country by the social engineering, and the billions, of people like [philanthropists of Jewish lineage] George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and more.”

Every single individual he’s named is a kike. This is no coincidence. There is basically zero chance that LaPierre and others in the top ranks of the NRA aren’t aware of the Jewish issue, especially as it relates to the second amendment.

They’ve remained silent on this topic until now, scared of the media power that the Jews possess. But things are changing. The power of the mainstream media is plummeting fast, and the range of acceptable discourse has widened significantly thanks to Trump and the Alt-Right.

And that’s opening the way for the NRA to become a major political actor – especially if they’re going to be coming out with rhetoric like this:

LaPierre, who has led the NRA for three decades, outlined a vision of a vast conspiracy led by “European-style Socialists”who, he said, have turned the Democrats into a “party which is now infested with saboteurs” and which has infiltrated and taken over such bodies as the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community, the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service.

Their goal? “Absolute control, in every corner of our government, is their ultimate dream. These intellectual elites, they think they’re smarter than we are. They think they’re smarter than the rest of us. And they think they’re better than we are. They truly believe it, and you know it, the privileged and the powerful. They think they deserve to be in charge of every lever of power.

“But you know what? The United States Constitution makes it absolutely clear that they are not in charge. We, the People are in charge of this country!

The European-style socialist is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a European-style socialist and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

The NRA has now officially joined the eternal battle pitting Whites against European-style socialists.

The FBI plot to overthrow the presidency and commit organized TREASON in America

 by: 

Most people never thought they would see the day that the FBI would become so politicized that many of its members actively lie and commit treason in an attempt to bring down the President of the United States, but alas, here we are.

While our criminal justice system was originally established to give all Americans, regardless of their background and political ideology, fair and equal treatment under the law, that all changed when Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States. With the Department of Justice under his control, Obama was able to appoint radical leftists like Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to do his bidding, which mostly consisted of race-baiting and using the law to specifically target conservative Americans. In this way, the justice system became not only entangled in rampant corruption, but also a weapon used by the left to destroy their political enemies.

Today, even though Donald Trump has taken over Barack Obama’s seat inside the Oval Office, rogue Obama appointees that still reside in the Department of Justice are doing what they’ve always done; the only difference is that now they have the advantage of working to dismantle the conservative movement from within.

Perhaps one of the most outrageous and desperate allegations made by the left in recent history is the idea that President Trump and various members of his team colluded with the Russians throughout the 2016 presidential election, which ultimately helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton last November. Despite no concrete evidence whatsoever, the liberals, including and especially leftists within the mainstream media, have been hellbent on convincing the American people that something illegal occurred. Eventually, they were rewarded for their efforts with the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has gone on to conduct one of the most biased and politicized FBI investigations in American history.

To give just one example, it was recently revealed that a top FBI agent at the center of the investigation into the so-called “Russia collusion scandal,” Peter Strzok, exchanged several anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who was also appointed to Mueller’s investigative team. Although Strzok was suspended from the investigation for his overwhelming bias, it goes to show that Robert Mueller really didn’t take enough time to ensure that his team was fair and honest in the first place. (Related: The bogus “Trump-Russia collusion” story is nothing but a political hatchet job cooked up by Obama loyalist John Brennan.)

It’s also worth noting that Peter Strzok was the FBI’s lead investigator on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails during her time as Secretary of State. Strzok even interviewed Clinton on July 2, 2016, just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not be recommending any charges. If Peter Strzok is this biased and this willing to defend liberal Democrats, why would Robert Mueller recruit him for his team?

Of course, Peter Strzok is only one of many individuals on Robert Mueller’s team that has an obvious left-wing slant. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, for example, was involved in both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server and the investigation into the uranium one sale, neither of which conveniently resulted in legal consequences for Clinton. McCabe’s wife also received roughly $675,000 from Clinton supporters and left-wing organizations during her campaign for Virginia state senate. Other people on Mueller’s team with liberal biases include Andrew Weissmann, Justin Cooper, Jeannie Rhee, Bruce Ohr, and others.

If all of this isn’t enough to convince you that this entire investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election is just a politicized witch hunt designed to destroy President Trump and his administration, then what is?

Trump Says No to Immigration From “Shithole Countries” – Wants People from Norway Instead!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 12, 2018

It is certainly fair to ask why it is that you would want immigration from shithole countries. Presumably, this is a question a lot of people have.

Washington Post:

President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they help the United States economically.

In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

Lawmakers were taken aback by the comments, according to people familiar with their reactions. Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) had proposed cutting the visa lottery program by 50 percent and then prioritizing countries already in the system, a White House official said.

A White House spokesman defended Trump’s position on immigration without directly addressing his remarks. White House officials did not dispute the account.

“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement issued after The Washington Post first reported Trump’s remarks. “. . . Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”

The fact that they issued a response without denying the comments themselves indicates these were the actual words that Trump used.

This is encouraging and refreshing, as it indicates Trump is more or less on the same page as us with regards to race and immigration. Yes, he said the thing about Asian countries, which shows that he is not actually a racist and is instead concerned about merit, but that is a huge leap from where the rest of the entirety of the political system in this country is at.

The problem with Asian immigration, aside from the fact that they are not us and thus create social problems (not on the scale of other nonwhites, because they don’t commit the crimes and are not leeches, but it is certainly alienating to be surrounded by Asians), is that they actually take jobs and of course places in universities away from our people.

Of course, he may have just made the comment about Asians so as to not seem racist. I think it is clear that Trump’s ideal America the one he grew up with in the 1950s. And the closer we get to that, the closer we are to our own goals of a white race-state.

The other thing about Asians is that if people who think like us take power, they aren’t going to throw a fit about being forced to leave. We can give them a year to make arrangements, and they will just go, for the most part without even complaining. A certain small percentage of them may be allowed to stay, though of course not with citizenship or citizen’s rights. Anyway, it’s a non-issue right now.

The real issue is all of these shitty brown people who come to the country exclusively to parasite off of us.

DEATHWATCH: John McCain Checks into the Hospital – Let’s Hope He Doesn’t Check Out!

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
December 16, 2017

At last, the moment we’ve all been waiting for is quickly approaching: the death of John McCain.

We celebrated when he was diagnosed with the inoperable tumor, but we had hoped he would die quickly. Instead, he has lived on to harm America further.

Fox News:

President Trump on Friday called the wife of Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was hospitalized this week as he battles brain cancer, the White House said.

An official said Trump spoke by phone with Cindy McCain on Friday afternoon to “check in on Sen. McCain’s condition.”

“Is the evil America-hating sonovabitch dead yet?”

McCain, 81, was diagnosed with brain cancer in July. On Wednesday, his office said he had been admitted to the hospital.

“Senator McCain is currently receiving treatment at Walter Reed Medical Center for normal side effects of his ongoing cancer therapy,” his office said. “As ever, he remains grateful to his physicians for their excellent care, and his friends and supporters for their encouragement and good wishes. Senator McCain looks forward to returning to work as soon as possible.”

Despite his hospitalization, McCain’s Republican colleagues expressed optimism he will be able to make the expected votes on the tax overhaul next week. Senators must be physically present on the Senate floor to cast votes.

“Of course we all wish for Sen. McCain to have a great health for as long as possible,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said Friday on Fox News. “My sense is that everybody’s made a commitment to be there next week. And we will certainly be able to have the vote. Our prayers go to him and his family.”

John McCain is an inoperable tumor on this country.

We’ll be having a celebratory podcast marathon when he finally dies once and for all.

Do We Live In A Totalitarian State?

Democracy instructs us that we have “freedom,” “liberty,” and “equality,” but all of these seem to be modified definitions. Freedom is subject to forced association, liberty to serving in the jobs of the workers’ state, and equality means that the higher subsidize the lower so that the illusion of cooperation is achieved.

This leads us to wonder what other terms have mutated definitions. In particular, we start to suspect that we are living in a neo-Communist or totalitarian society. A handy resource can be found in one definition of totalitarianism which reveals the structure of the state based on control:

1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence, to which everyone living in that society is supposed to adhere at least passively; this ideology is characteristically focused in terms of chiliastic claims as to the “perfect” final society of mankind.

2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent) of men and women passionately and unquestioningly dedicated to the ideology and prepared to assist in every way in promoting its general acceptance, such party being organized in strictly hierarchical, oligarchical manner, usually under a single leader….

3. A technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the hands of the party and its subservient cadres, such as the bureaucracy and the armed forces) of all means of effective armed combat.

4. A similarly technologically conditioned near-complete monopoly of control (in the same hands) of all means of effective mass communication, such as the press, radio, motion pictures, and so on.

5. A system of terroristic police control. depending for its effectiveness upon points 3 and 4 and characteristically directed not only against demonstrable “enemies” of the regime, but also against arbitrarily selected classes of the population, such arbitrary selection turning upon exigencies of the regime’s survival, as well as ideological “implications” and systematically exploiting scientific psychology.
Carl J Friedrich (1954) ‘The unique character of totalitarian society’ in: Totalitarianism. New York: Grossett & Dunlap.

To understand how this applies to our present society, we must understand the nature of decentralized, indirect, and informal control. In these systems, there is no single leader, only a singular idea. There is not even a party. Instead, people collaborate informally to enforce an idea on others, and that idea — more than a manifestation of it — constitutes the core of the totalitarian society.

In this type of system, the “terroristic police control” consists of fear of social consequences which can cause an individual to lose jobs, friends, family, housing, and even services as banks, doctors, attorneys, accountants, and even grocery stores pull away from the controversy.

The control that this system exerts can be seen in enforcement of an idea from people who perceive they are receiving personal benefit from doing so, therefore are fanatical in their search for an excuse to enforce this on others. Each person they destroy gains them greater social status.

At that level, the system has a monopoly through indirect means. Since it is driven by individualistic behavior, people form herds which are dedicated to running away from threats, which means that all it must do is indicate that certain ideas, individuals, or behaviors are threats, and the crowd will destroy them.

This is a form of individualistic herd behavior, sometimes called the “selfish herd theory”:

He suggested that groups of animals as diverse as insects, fish and cattle all react to danger by moving towards the middle of their swarm, school or herd, known as the selfish herd theory. Individuals in a herd benefit from being able to control where they are relative to their group-mates and any potential predator. It also reduces the chances of being the one the predator goes for when it attacks.

Such behavior may be a sub-form of the tragedy of the commons: if safety, or areas where one is safe, are a resource, each individual exploits those to the maximum and social order is sacrificed by the collective selfishness of individuals, as happens in most human organizational failures.

Decentralized totalitarianism exploits the fear-driven nature of human behavior. When humans organize into groups, they rely on external cues — the behavior of others — to identify threats to the herd. If the herd can be induced into constant panic, that panic can be used to target any threat by making that threat into the scapegoat, or by assigning agency for actual threats to the imaginary enemy. Satan is deceptive: we blame him for evils, when really he is merely the symbol of those evils.

Control systems of this nature depend on a dysfunctional codependency between individuals and their manipulators, who have as much in common with salesmen as dictators. The herd depends on the leaders to signal threats and potential rewards, and out of fear and fear of missing out, then depends on those leaders, who also require the power of the masses which are used as a political weapon, or a means to the end of destroying political enemies and thus asserting the power of the controller.

Aldous Huxley predicted that the mob rule brought on by the French Revolution would ultimately end in the rise of cynical controllers who hid their methods through indirect and decentralized means, letting people lead themselves into servitude with their fears and desires. Humans would be defeated by individualism, not outright control.

A system of this nature rules through duality. Individuals are induced into acts which neutralize them, while the same authority that they trust for those inspirations also teaches them to fear anything but the condition under which they find themselves. As Huxley wrote, perfect tyranny appears to be freedom:

The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work — with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

This inverts the unduly famous statement from 1984, “Freedom is Slavery.” In the Brave New World of Huxley, he shows how what people think of as freedom becomes a form of slavery. This damages not so much the individual as a civilization because control methods lead to oblivious and inept societies because they create an internal backlash and encourage people to ignore important details that could indicate systemic problems. We saw that in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Control causes a loss of civilization. The inner-directed populace that works together toward the goal of having an excellent existence is replaced by a bickering crowd of monkeys who take civilization for granted, lower their standards, and are interested, carnie-style, in what immediate benefits they can receive right now. They would not pass the marshmallow test:

In the 1960s, Stanford University Professor ((((((Walter Mischel)))))) gave young children a simple proposition. They sat with a marshmallow in front of them for fifteen minutes – and if they could hold off from eating it, they would be given two treats at the end of the time period. Some of them ate the treat straight away – but others succeeded in overcoming temptation.

Subsequent research found that the children from the original experiment who could delay gratification had scored better academic results, earned higher salaries, and been less prone to obesity.

In this way, totalitarianism — like democracy — makes people less capable because they become accustomed to being outer-directed, and lose the ability to conceive and formulate their own direction. This appears similar to the case of children who watch too much television and then, are unable to figure out what to do with themselves when the television is off.

Decentralized control triumphs by creating this codependent relationship. It enforces its will upon the citizens, who then come to lean on it for guidance because it regulates what is rewarded, and end up becoming entirely defined by it. People lose the ability to understand their world and respond to it in a way that maximizes their position, and see the world entirely through the filter of government and social pressure. This way, reality is forgotten and abilities are lost.

Its decentralized nature allows control — which, as you recall, arises from individualistic fear — to remain invisible. It camouflages itself in social chaos and by maintaining internal debate and competition, both of which take the place of normal healthy functions and distract from the decay. As Mario Vargas Llosa opined:

It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.

In theory, the group we cannot criticize is the group that rules us, but what about a group that we cannot identify? If the group is fully decentralized, it has no membership list, official rules, hierarchy, or even headquarters. Its members may not even be aware that they are members, and will be spread among every industry, institution, and social role. They are united only by one thing: that they are infected by the same idea, and so are pathologically driven toward it, despite its eventual destructiveness.

Huxley again, this time from the 1947 introduction to Brave New World:

The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” — in other words, the problem of making people love their servitude.

An empire based on distraction proves more powerful than one based on commands. When truth is obscured by a simpler but less realistic symbolic view of the world, then people will ignore the important issues and pursue the scapegoats and their positive counterpart, trends which lead to rewards through socializing, because those who ride the trends are the ones who become popular and get rich, which enables them to escape the disaster created by lack of social order.

With this in mind, let us revisit those five traits of totalitarianism:

  1. An official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence. This doctrine must cover all aspects of human existence and have Utopian overtones. In our distributed totalitarian society, egalitarianism — the idea that all people are equal, or should be, in varying economic, social, legal, and political ways — serves this role. It explains our purpose, lack of social order, morality, and method of control all in one.
  2. A single mass party consisting of a relatively small percentage of the total population (up to 10 per cent). Since it is decentralized, this group does not form a party, but a mob. They join together in ad hoc, informal, and tacit demonstrations of their belief and destruction of those who do not agree, like a lynch mob or witch hunt.
  3. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective armed combat. This one proves more complex: self-defense is justified only when defending an individual and its right to pursue its desires, but it is viewed as illegitimate in defense of anything at a level broader than the individual, such as civilization, culture, heritage, values, or faith. This gives the power for violence exclusively to egalitarians.
  4. A…near-complete monopoly of control…of all means of effective mass communication. When everyone who becomes popular agrees on the same ideas, and only those who exhibit these ideas become popular, then a de facto monopoly exists not just among media, but entertainment and academia as well.
  5. A system of…control…against arbitrarily selected classes of the population…systematically exploiting scientific psychology. I have removed the term “police” because any form of control will do, and this describes the “struggle sessions” that happen whenever someone accidentally says something that is not politically correct, and must have their career and interpersonal relationships destroyed by the threat of ostracism.

Viewed from this angle, totalitarianism ably adapts to a decentralized format. What is more, it represents the crossover between totalitarianism and a cult, combining the socializing-based nature of a cult with the control-based agenda of tyranny:

Some aspects of the mind control methods of cults are inherent to Leftism when it occurs in a social setting (excerpted partially):

  • Isolation of the person and manipulation of his or her environment.
  • Control of information going in and out of the group environment.
  • Separation and/or alienation from family and friends.
  • Induced dissociation and other altered states by putting person in mild form of trance (through speaking in tongues, chanting, repeating affirmations, extended periods of meditation or prayer, lengthy denunciation sessions, long hours of lectures or study, public trials or group humiliation, about seat criticisms focusing on one individual, sexual abuse, torture, etc.)
  • Degradation of the person’s sense of self, through confession, self-reporting, rebuking, criticism and self-criticism, humiliation, and so on, in individual or group sessions.
  • Peer and leadership pressure, especially using powerful guilt mechanisms.
  • Induced anxiety, fear, and confusion, with joy and certainty being offered through surrender to the group; instilling the belief that the person’s survival physical, emotional, spiritual depends on remaining with the group; also induced crises, so that the person must submit to symbolic (or real) acts of submission to the group via betrayal and renunciation of self, family, and previously held values.
  • Extensive indoctrination sessions (through Bible lessons, political training, sales training, self-awareness lessons, lectures by leaders).
  • Alternation of harshness and leniency in a context of necessary discipline.

These describe complete methods of control, but distill to a few central methods of cults:

Psychiatrist ((((((Robert Jay Lifton)))))), who once taught at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper titled Cult Formation in the early 1980s. He delineated three primary characteristics, which are the most common features shared by destructive cults.

  1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
  2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called “brainwashing”].
  3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Other descriptions of cults outline similar pathologies.

In the decentralized totalitarian state, the charismatic leader is replaced by a series of behaviors which signal charisma and social success, such as wearing black sweaters and jeans to flaunt the rules or inserting obscenity into mundane conversation, which enables members of the crowd to become leaders in turn for their fifteen minutes of fame.

The crowd then enforces its process of indoctrination through trends and norms, encouraging conformity to the same values by using the same terms, whose meanings have been edited to make them suggest an obvious conclusion. Those who step out of line are excluded, and since connections and friend nepotism are how most people get ahead, to fail to conform is to fail.

Finally, the herd exploits itself. In the view of someone infected with ideology, all people and things are means to an end, which is achieving that ideological Utopia. This conflicts with the natural human impulse toward ends-over-means thinking, such as that which insists that there be good results in reality by any means necessary.

A feedback loop between the individualists and the tyrant thus arises. They depend on strong leadership to reduce life to a narrow set of options so that the individual need focus only on the social, therefore using ideology as a means of gaining acceptance and then achieving wealth and power within the system.

In this way, we see that individualism and tyranny are one and the same, much like individualism and collectivism/egalitarianism are one and the same, because they are designed by individuals to enable them to succeed. This occurs at the expense of social order, and creates a death spiral where society must become more totalitarian as it becomes more chaotic.