Alpha Romero

With the sad passing of George Romero last week, it was obviously time to reflect on a master's work (without mentioning Land of the Dead). Red Letter Media did a re:View of Martin, one of his more obscure films, but from the first five minutes of that review I knew it was a film I had to watch. As with his zombie repertoire, Martin is a deep ponderance on life from Romero.

Martin is a vampire film unlike any other, in that for the entire movie you have no idea whether or not the protagonist, Martin, is actually a vampire. Indeed, the only thing he has in common with vampires seems to be drinking blood. There are moments of fantasy where

The plot reminds me very much of the ideas of Fourth Way work.

Gender Inequality in Publishing

One thing that always gets me is why exactly do women want to receive the same pay as men? I’m not talking about the same pay for the same work; I’m talking about the very clear fact that women are now demanding that over the length of their ‘careers’ they want to receive the same amount of money.

But why would they need to? The only reason is if they plan on being independent their whole lives, never having children and making sure that if there is ever a divorce (which, statistically, there will be) they will have a job to keep them going. If you are in a relationship, the normal approach should be to have only one partner work full-time. In addition, if all relationships have two people working full-time that means, inevitably, that prices go up (as they have over the last few decades). There seems no logical reason why a woman should get as much money as a man over their lifetime. In particular the cry for ‘equal pay’ seems most noticeable in publishing.

Publishing is predominantly female-driven. Anywhere from 70-80% of employees are female, and yet most of the top-level jobs are given to men. CEOs, head of sales and head of finance are still run by men! There are many legitimate reasons why this would be the case (hint: you have to accept that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses) but the argument never seems to go away. Take this recent article from the Guardian:

‘Why’d he get promoted? Because he has a dick’: sexism in publishing survey reveals widespread frustration

Forgetting the overtly sexist headline, let’s dive into the meat of the argument.

Jenny, who works in corporate publishing, said: “The new hire in my company – who is on exactly the same level and job description as me – was offered £8,000 more than me as his starting salary.” While admitting that she felt her male colleague had more experience, she described the pay differential as “insulting”.

What does this show? That women are, as we know, inherently emotional. The facts say that the male colleague is more experienced, but emotionally she feels hard done by, and that is all that matters.

Penny, who works in editorial at a non-managerial level for a “massive company”, recounted the situation of two junior colleagues, one male and one female in the same role, both of whom had no previous experience. “The man was given a pay rise to ‘recognise’ his work on a specific project,” she said. “He revealed this at the Christmas party to another colleague. Of course word spread, and it became apparent from this that the women, who had all worked equally well (and in some cases better) on other projects, received no pay rise.”

Aside from the fact that this stupid man should have kept his mouth shut, this is nothing more than hearsay and a subjective opinion, completely inadmissible in a court of law.

Adele, who has worked in publishing for more than a decade and now holds a senior editorial role, said: “There’s a perception that women are fine for creative and arty jobs but aren’t as business-minded as men so less suitable for upper management.”

Is there any evidence to support the claim that this perception is wrong? This statement completely begs the question and leaves an assumed answer in the reader’s head.

The belief that pregnancy was a career killer was widely held. Naomi, who holds a managerial role in the editorial department of one of the “Big Five” corporate publishers, said the discrimination was often subtle. For instance, she said that when commissioning editors returned from maternity leave to work part-time, they were expected to commission fewer books, but their sales targets remained the same. Others reported seeing colleagues being demoted while on maternity leave.

The experience might be different in Australia to the UK, but downunder I’ve seen nothing but support for female employees who have children. Conversely, I have heard unappreciative remarks from women, asking why the full 12 month period of leave (you get 6 weeks paid maternity leave, plus however much unpaid) doesn’t count to long service leave. Um, sweetie, it’s because you aren’t working. Having children is an admirable decision, but don’t be surprised if, because you aren’t there, promotions don’t come your way and you don’t get extra leave because you’re ‘loyal’. If anything, there is a constant undercurrent of resentment and entitlement among the women I work with.

Not a single woman I know has had to accept a lesser role, and indeed they get to work either one day from home or just a straight four-day week. Another anecdotal story is the woman who fell pregnant for the second time who decided to quit. One of the assistants said that she would continue to blog about books, as if raising children was not a noble enough undertaking and she had to do something with her time as mundane as blogging (yes, I am perfectly self-aware in this moment). Of course, this is also one of the many assistants who out-rightly say they do not want children. But despite this mentality, there is nothing but making room for women who decide to have a family.

Many women felt frustrated at their lack of promotion because it effectively excludes them from decision-making roles – a point acknowledged by Ian, one of the few men to respond to the survey. “In my experience, I’m usually commissioned by a man, I’m briefed by a man, I report to a man, the tech guy is a man, but the person that sorts out all the HR stuff is a woman,” he said.

I’ve worked and interned at four different publishers. Two had female CEOs, all were majority female, and most of the managerial roles in publicity, publishing, design and marketing at all four publishers were headed by women. You have to ask yourself: is this really a patriarchal dominance, or is this just how the cards lie? Sure, the CEO is in ‘charge’ but that just means he has the responsibility of guiding the company as a whole, and cops shit when it goes wrong. The actual decision makers – what gets published and how – end up being overwhelmingly women.

I really can’t take articles like this as anything other than propaganda. Apparently the sexism is ‘widespread’, but in a survey of only 92 people, 67% felt they were treated differently, and this was not sorted for bias. A final anecdote: I literally got my first job because my female boss was sick of female assistants. The last two she’d had had been useless. Thank the Lord for discrimination.

Reading Reaction: The Silent Corner by Dean Koontz

The thriller genre is a great canvas on which to bring your ideas to life. Recently I’ve been reading some with a conservative angle. Gregg Hurwitz springs to mind, whose latest series features wisdom from the great Jordan B. Peterson himself. Another book I’ve read recently is The Boy Who Saw, which features Nazi conspiracies and right-wing nationalism in France. But there is one thriller that is outright reactionary.

The Silent Corner is not only a rip-roaring thriller, it’s thoroughly dripping with traditionalist sentimentality. On the surface, not so much. The protagonist is a female FBI agent on the run. The technology is super high tech. But dig a little deeper and this is reactionary to the core. Take the front pages:

Can’t get more reactionary than that!

The book touches on a number of ‘Alt Right’ talking points, including:

Modern architecture:

The state of current year students:

Who the real bigots are:

And of course Islamic terrorism had to play a part, and just how  almost mundane it has become:

The role of nature plays prominently throughout the book, particularly with a brooding storm that seems to only break in the final climactic scene. It’s almost as if old Koontz has read up about Gnon itself.


A central plot point of the book is the way in which a powerful group of men are trying to control the world. As powerful men tend to do they also set up their own sex club. It’s a little bit Pizzagate-esque, especially in the sense of the use of NGOs and underground networks:

Reminds you a little of Hillary and Haiti.

I think Koontz would have caught too much flak had he made the sex slaves children, but the gist is similar. In this scene in particular the full extent of the brainwashing is evident.

Stepping outside of time? The horror of the outside world? This feels very much a reactionary take on modernity, and how evil aims to control via coercion and submission.

Indeed, there is an undercurrent of evil in the whole book, and Jane Hawk has a duty to thwart it. It isn’t her job (she goes specifically rogue on the FBI) but it is her responsibility.

Overall though the book feels like a massive black pill. The message is that technology is more often used to control us than it is used to free us. Despite the advancement of humanity, we still find ways to enslave ourselves and others.

The book looks intently at the human nature, at how we can be easily controlled and manipulated, even without the use of brain-altering nanotech. Wealth corrupts, opportunity corrupts, and no one is innocent. The world is so bleak, why not just kill yourself? For Jane Hawk, there are plenty of reasons to go on living:

Jane has to stop this clique of unknown power-players from pushing society is a certain direction. We, as reactionaries, have our own ideas about which direction history should head, and whether the current trajectory is beneficial in the long run. Does that mean we should enforce our ideas? No, but it does mean we should talk to others and work on ourselves first, so that the correct ideals are the ones that push humanity forward. If not, civilisation will end up where it has always gone:

Right now we as a society suffer both in the mind and heart, body and spirit. And Dean Koontz is an author who knows it.

Biblical Significance of Alien: Covenant

The Alien series has always been about life. Rebirth and death are themes knitted right into the very fabric of the universe. So it was no great surprise that both Prometheus and Alien: Covenant tried to take us back to the beginning, both to explore the origins of humanity and the xenomorphs we all know and love. The latter movie has strong Biblical undertones, even more so than Prometheus. Obviously there is the title itself, that being the Biblical covenant from Noah’s Ark, an agreement that God would never again cause such destruction. However, the ‘gods’ in Covenant have no such qualms.

To begin with there is genesis. It is insinuated (but not entirely made clear) that the Engineers of Prometheus made humans and planned to eradicate them. The other theory is that both species are created by ‘Gods’ and the Engineers were wiping out humanity before they could do the same to them. A sort of Cain and Abel story. Either way there was a beginning with intelligently devised life. And then David showed up.

The movie has a metaphorical message that is entirely Nietzschean. God is dead, and we have replaced him. Covenant begins with a scene between Weyland and David, who names himself after the statue. From that moment he begins to question his existence by pointing out his creator’s fallibility – death – with his own longevity. And so a chain is established. Man forgets God and creates artificial life that is superior to himself. Said superior life creates another artificial life form that is superior to it. We discover that the infamous phallic-headed alien is the creation of David.

The planet on which David escaped the disaster of Prometheus to, the homeworld of the Engineers, is used as his laboratory and his canvas. On his return he turns their weapons against them, annihilating them with the ‘black goo’ after pretending to be a returning spaceship. This creates a grotesque work of art as the bodies are permanently frozen in death like the bodies of Pompei. In terms of his other form of creation, one of the key plot points centres around organic spores that create proto-aliens in their hosts. But this is just a mere sideshow to his masterwork, the xenomorph we all know and hate. He has created a little cave of horrors where he mutilates bodies and designs his creation. The full extent of his god-complex is on display, his descent into madness allowed to carry on for infinity.

But where is the meaning? David’s pursuit of creation is pure narcissism, nothing like the Christian God. Nonetheless, the allusion to his godhood is made clearly on multiple occasions beyond the obvious: the silence of the dead planet attests to this (the silence of God compared to the babble of men), and his inclusion of two facehuggers on the spaceship, Covenant, at the end of the film. But while David can play at God he cannot create meaning. David has forgotten his creator, much like we have, and in doing so only creates misery. What he wants is perfection, and he gets it, of a sort. At the end of the film, in an otherwise pointlessly tacked on hunt-the-monster scene, we get a glimpse of David attempting to coax his beast, only for it to lash out at him. Like we did to God and David did to us, the Alien will forget its creator. And this animal cares not for a higher purpose beyond the survival of itself in an orgy of blood.

This is a deeply symbolic movie, perhaps more than any other in the series. It is also seriously nihilistic. If you pay attention there are levels of meaning in everything. David plays Wagner’s Entrance of the Gods into Valhalla as he wanders among the sleeping colonists of the Covenant, ready for the next stage of evolution, but Wagner is also known for his influence on Hitler. And Alien: Covenant is prominently about eugenics and dysgenics and the continuation of the Ubermensch. More than just a gory sci fi film, this is a movie about the horrors that await us if we forget to honour God.

Propaganda in the Service of Mammon

Everybody is quite aware of the propaganda prevalent in the world today. Lies by omission and commission are used in conjunction with imagery to push certain lines and agendas. What perhaps isn’t so fully realised is how propaganda works and feeds. And to get a fully understanding one should read Propaganda by Edward Bernays.

In it Bernays explains where propaganda came from, what its uses are and how to employ it effectively. He gives us some remarkable insights. For example, he provides a prescient  summary of how the modern Cathedral works when he says, ‘Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.’ When he talks about how effective propaganda can be, he ominously uses the women’s suffrage movement as an example, saying, ‘If the suffrage campaign did nothing more, it showed the possibilities of propaganda to achieve certain ends.’ And those ‘certain ends’ continue today. But he reveals his true motivation later in the book with the following statement: ‘Social progress is simply the progressive education and enlightenment of the public mind in regard to its immediate and distant social problems.’ Propaganda is a psychological tool that could have been used for the better; unfortunately it has easily been utilised as a weapon.

One of the more interesting aspects of the book is how propaganda has been fully realised within the business setting, even though it was originally used by governments during war time. To effectively persuade consumers, businesses must understand the common sentiments (or what are felt to be common sentiments) of society in terms of likes and dislikes. So a general swell of support is amplified by businesses in their advertising which then affects consumers. See my post in how it relates to movies and advertising. Bernays was extremely influential and his teachings have only become accelerated as politics and business use propaganda in ever more audacious ways. The fact that people in power switch between business and politics clearly shows how the two intertwine. But more than the world of 1984 where governments rule over us, we have to be more wary of the ways in which business influences are decisions, choices and beliefs.

I work for a media company, and recently we were sent around a info deck from J. Walter Thompson Intelligence, a group that follows consumer trends. So if you ever wondered why it seems like advertising companies all seem to push similar vibes, agendas and politics at roughly the same time, this is one of the reasons. I’ve pulled some screenshots from the deck for some brief discussions.

 

intro

Obviously you can see from the intro that there is will be one of the most pozzed documents your eyes will ever see.

 

04.JPG

This is definitely a trend I noticed. Accelerationism is in full force. Women don’t want feminist stories any more. They want the next thing! It’s not all about women, it’s about breaking down gender barriers completely and exploring every aspect of sexuality and identification. Interesting that there are so, so many slides directly related to feminism, and the only ones related to masculinity are how to dim it down. For example…

 

makeup.JPG

I honestly don’t know about ‘legions’ of men wearing makeup, but that certainly sounds like propaganda to me. Notice how beauty products are ‘transformative’? Everything has to be changed, but only via buying stuff. Apparently makeup has always been to conceal ‘perceived flaws’, but if you are using your face as a canvas, then you are still hiding yourself!

 

dna.JPG

The only time where race is real is when you can make people pay for it, or when it isn’t white people being interested in it. Make no mistake, they will draw every last cent out of your genes and DNA.

artificialnature.JPG

Do I really need to discuss much about the idea behind ‘artificial nature’? Bread and circuses, my friends. In fact, as Bernays notes:

It was the amusement business—first the circus and the medicine show, then the theater—which taught the rudiments of advertising to industry and commerce.

 

mentalhealth.JPG

No one seems to question why there is such a rise in mental health like anxiety and depression. Just saying, it might have something to do with materialism? A complete lack of meaning that can only me temporarily filled by consumerism? The two-faced nature of selling psychological health is sickening.

 

plussize.JPG

lmao.JPG

As if you didn’t already know, plus-size is so hot right now. This is so audacious I can’t even tell if that is a deliberate pun in the last paragraph…. Either way accepting who you are is the talk of the weak, and chasing an ideal has been the driving force behind our culture. Sure, the ‘ideal’ pushed by consumerism is false, but combating consumption with more consumption feels self-defeating. A pity the notion of finding yourself has been perverted for propaganda purposes. To blithely state the the average size has increased and not even blink is worrisome. No, we don’t need to accommodate all shapes and forms, we need to try and reduce our clothing size.

ohvey.JPG

Wow, two awful demographics in one, who would have thought we could sink so low?

 

politicalconsuemrs.JPG

And here we have the full force of propaganda in a nutshell. Let’s take a recent Australian example: gay marriage. A huge array of Australian companies have come out in support of gay marriage, urging the government to ‘make the right choice’. This is of course a branding exercise, and if you are seen to oppose such an obviously progressive stance – like Coopers Brewery apparently were – then consumers will ‘vote with their wallet’. You have to be making a political statement in the Current Year if you want to have any chance of gathering an audience.

The fundamentals of propaganda are deeply rooted in psychology — Bernays was a distant cousin of Freud. He notes that:

These special types of appeal can be popularized by the manipulation of the principles familiar to the propagandist—the principles of gregariousness, obedience to authority, emulation, and the like.

Manipulation is the key word. The propagandist can manipulate via emulation in that we humans have a tendency to copy what others are doing. I mean in this in the most basic sense in that we tend to even copy the gestures and body language of those we talk to. We also have a tendency to appeal to authority. Even if we profess to not believe in religion, there is always a Jeff Bezos or Steve Jobs. And of course, we want to be seen to be happy and agreeable, so it is best to go along with whatever seems to be positive. Using these basics of the human psyche businesses can use imagery, words and a whole range of weapons to shift opinions and sway the masses.

singleladies.JPG

Again, this is nothing we didn’t know already, but it just shows the pathology of having no standards. Atomised consumerism is death by a thousand cuts, or in this case, by a thousand subscription services. By the way, there was no slide on single men.

 

techtrolls.JPG

‘Consumers are looking for comfort and reassurance in divided times…’ So let’s continue enforcing that bubble! We’ve all noticed the crackdown against the ‘AltRight’ (I use that term to cover everything not progressive) whether it is actual Twitter bannings or endless opinion pieces giving normie readers the juicy gossip about what goes on in the Dark Web. Expect brands to continue to make themselves sterile.

 

pornhub.JPG

What can I say, it’s a disgusting mindset. Blasphemies against the Church, insinuated underage vibes… This is degeneracy with full advertiser backing.

 

witches.JPG

witches2.JPG

Aside from the heresy invoked here, I find it quite an interesting and provocative statement. Is Christianity and the West providing enough female autonomy? Or have we just failed to express to women the power that they do have? I wouldn’t say that last paragraph is wrong, but all that means is that we should have done something to fix the situation a long time ago to avoid women falling into covens.

That’s just a snapshot of what brands will be looking doing in the near future (if they aren’t doing it already). Politics feeds business which then feeds the public. It is a feedback system that is near impossible to break apart. Most people can’t see it and to them propaganda is just a thing for war time and politics. You, however, can see it all around you, and there is nothing you can do. The only option is to retreat, to block it out and work on more important things, to banish materialism from you life. You must go beyond what is presented to you. As Bernard says:

Truth is mighty and must prevail, and if any body of men believe that they have discovered a valuable truth, it is not merely their privilege but their duty to disseminate that truth.

If only lies were not propagated as truths.

Fear of an Amazonian Future

For a good number of years now pundits have discussed the ominous rise of tech companies. Google, Facebook, Apple: all of them groping for control in different ways. But personally, particularly because of the industry I work in, I have always been most fearful – and most in awe of – Amazon.

Amazon grew off the back of selling books. At the time during the 1990s this would have seemed ludicrous. How could this internet upstart challenge Barnes & Noble or Borders? But challenge them – and win – it did. If you can systemise and sell a product as varied as books, you can sell anything. Books come in all shapes, sizes, and page lengths. The added bonus is that nothing is as intimate as a book, and as the old adage goes, you can tell a lot about a person from their bookshelf. 

So while Google, Facebook and Apple were all gathering data on you via your direct interaction with platforms, Amazon was analysing your buying habits – a far scarier prospect. For years they went hard on scale, with massive investments in warehouses, and monetarily never made much profit, with hard discounts and reinvestment of revenue back into R&D. This strategy  paid off like little else. From books they have expanded to general goods, groceries, cloud computing and more. Heck, Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post. They’ve got their fingers in so many content pies that they come across as anything other than humble. Sinister is the word I would use.

See, the key to Amazon is content. If they have all (relatively speaking) of the content, then it doesn’t even matter if they have the ‘best’ content. Amazon are now the biggest publisher of translated books. Did you even know they have publishing houses? Not only do they have a monopoly on ebooks, print books, and self-published books, they now have a majority share in foreign language translations. Content is king. The more you have, the more you sell. It’s simple physics. And the more you sell, the more customers you have with which to sell other products to. There is nothing scarier, in my eyes, than a Singular Retailer, one that can almost literally spoon feed you products. Science fiction writers showed us the horrors of a consumer dystopia; I’m just surprised horrorfied by how easily we took it up. Their tactics are truly forward-facing, and truly evil if you are a small business. And it’s all because of books.

The easiest and most frightening future I can imagine is one where civilians watch their Amazon TV, read on their Kindle (or maybe just listen to the books on Audible), receive their groceries via Amazon drones and then skip down the street to their local Amazon coffee house. And then, latte in hand, you go to your work – at the District Amazon Mega Warehouse. The local is dead and the globocorp is real. 

How can one combat this juggernaut? Not very easily, because convenience is key to the heart of the consumer, and Amazon thrives on making everything as not-difficult as possible. The fact is, most people in cities have grown up buying from corporations. We are indoctrinated into getting things cheaply, easily and nastily. Amazon promises to deliver that in spades, and in doing so destroy its competitors. We will barely notice the shift.

The Most Important Question in Philosophy

I have to get some thoughts out. They will probably be incoherent and inconsistent, but I am more resolved to this reality these days as it is, after all, how reality works. Anyway, the Most Important Question is:

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

Hasn’t this been answered? Apparently. But it’s the metaphorical implications of the question that are important.

I do a lot of reading, especially of blog posts. Slatestarcodex, OvercomingBias, Xenosystems, MarginalRevolution. So obviously rationality is a big part of all this, how we think. Epistemology and how important it is. And whether what we think is actually genuine at all. From all this some things floated to the top, specifically what Jordan B Peterson talks about and what David Chapman talks about in Meaningness and how really they are coming at the same thing through slightly different methods and naming conventions. And then I realised YouTube star Elliott Hulse is ALSO doing the same thing when he talks about Breathing Through Your Balls and his holistic weight training service. And then I realised what all these people are doing is creating a big mess by trying to sort through the chaos that is Truth and Justice and Meaning. I mean, for example, I can get inspired by what all three of these hunters are, you know, really get uplifted by reading their thoughts and having Eureka moments. Each of them has something I can wrap my mind around.

But then I get brought back down. I realise they haven’t yet grasped the nature of the whole. They’ve flipped chicken and egg or vice versa. Often they put the cart before the horse. And I don’t specifically know how I personally understand that they haven’t achieved Finality but that there are definitely missing links in the chain.

So, systems. Different strokes for different folks. Is this where we drop metamodernism?

(On that note, are we must be at the last column of Chapman’s grid and that metamodernism is post-postmodernism.)

Each of these gurus discusses how various systems explain different truths, but then pronounce that their path is actually the one true path that explains ALL truths, which of course undermines their own argument. Hmm. Then I found this post and it looks like I’m not the only one who thinks this.

Fascists tend to adopt various myths and symbols, whatever is convenient really, to help justify their own dogma. (Separate from Bolsheviks who invent their own myths because then their dogma is harder to pin down and argue against.) Is this what these Truth Gurus are peddling? A bit of Cyclical Theory, a bit of St George storytelling, some Angry Breathing Therapy and voila, you have a mythical understanding of Reality?

What I think we can learn from this is that things are complex, and resting on your laurels is not beneficial for anyone. There is no single answer. Gender pay gap studies always blame discrimination, even though the actual nature of work is so, so very complex that blaming ‘discrimination’ is a complete joke. Not only do you have a huge range of actual types of work, which all pay differently based on anything from industry to temperament of the employer, you have a huge mish-mash of individual people with individual preferences, some who like to work really hard and some (most?) who don’t. So of course there will be differences in pay. In fact, all things considered I’m surprised the ‘pay gap’ is so small. This is a perfect example of an ideological group trying to sustain a truth via a single filter or lens. Another would be young Australians blaming the Boomer generation for unaffordable housing. Sure, some of the blame can be attributed to greedy Boomers, but there is much more to the story. And blaming others for your ‘loss’, whether a mysterious pay gap or not having a 4 bedroom villa, is ultimately a cop out and weakness.
But now I’m going to drop my own true systemic understanding of Truth.

Let’s say life is based on systems.

At the bottom is Mathematics. It’s pure but only because it isn’t ‘real’. As in, it isn’t physical despite being very real. Mathematics is probably as close to absolute truth as you can get.A step up is Physics. A complicated state of mathematics, physics has real world consequences. A rock is a creation of physics.

The next step up is Biology. This is a complicated arrangement of physics and mathematics, mostly dealing with entropy and the conservation of energy and matter.

So you can see that Mathematics feeds into Physics which feeds into Biology.

(This feels so obvious that it has probably been taken for granted for a long time, so let me know how far I have to go before I am Even On Your Level.)

What’s next?

The next step would have to be some form of consciousness. I haven’t read Schopenhauer, but I have read about some of his ideas, and I think this is where the concept of Will comes in. Will could very well be a real energy, a life force. At the lower end it inhabits plants, which enact their Will on things such as turning with the Sun. Animals exert their own Will but have a more complex Biology that allows them to better direct the energy of Will. And humans have developed a very complex Will machine, called the brain. We can project our Will through time as well as in physical space. That’s some pretty powerful stuff.

But there is another element to Will and that is the notion of Incentive. So let’s go back to house prices and gender ‘pay gaps’ for a moment. These are based on incentives. The people blaming Boomers or the ‘Patriarchy’ have an Incentive to do so. The causes of these ‘problems’ have their own Incentives, such as women preferring not to work as hard as men (which is perfectly sensible, let’s be honest) and young wannabe homebuyers not wanting to save money when they could spend now. So you have a struggle between Will and Incentive in some sense, and the question is: what came first, the Will or the Incentive?

If we go right back to looking at the problems that Peterson or Chapman discuss, it is fundamentally that people lie to themselves. Constantly. Cognitive Bias and a range of other subconscious mind tricks that allow doublethink to dominate our habits of mind. So we can say that we are enacting our Will when making a decision, but actually there might be a hidden Incentive that we are not admitting to. This is what we talk about when we talk about the Cathedral. This is what people mean by the Deep State. This is what Bolsheviks mean when they talk about Patriarchy. Hidden Incentives that appear to be the malignant Will of a certain group. And when these systems are in place, the tendency is for people to continue using their Will to facilitate themselves. Self-perpetuation is an Incentive. Victim culture is an Incentive. Capitalism is founded on Incentives. Everything, really, is Incentives. And we all lie to ourselves that it isn’t.

This is a fair bit longer than I thought it would be. It’s also highly probable I have presented nothing new whatsoever. Do let me know how wrong I am in the comments.

But I will finish with one last thought. If life is based on the sciences then what is fourth in the stack?

Mathematics, then

Physics, then

Biology, then…

(Dare I say it?)

Economics.