Radicals Are Losers

Radicals, at least the core base of them, have to, by definition, be losers. People usually only take stances for changing society, especially fundamentally changing society, if they see a problem with the society. More often than not, people given the short-end of the stick are the ones who are going to see the problems in society. Well-off, average people, however, have a lot to lose when supporting something revolutionary or radical in society, given that they’re profiteering from the status quo.

This, conceptually, is obvious. There are exceptions to this rule of course. Radicals in higher ranges of power may have struggled and obtained that power by hard work, or have been convinced by a more academic radical of a certain position. They may simply know the downtrodden personally and empathize. These exceptions, however, are not the same systematic disadvantage that propagates among the radical class of people. Those on the bottom rung simply have less to lose and more to gain by being radical, and thus are incentivized to so.

Lower-rung people simply suck. They have less resources, less generational knowledge, less networking potential, and may even have a cap on their success because of their bad starting position. Because of this, virtue is hard to find among radical groups. Instead, radicals tend to be neurotic, eccentric, viceful, and not necessarily charming or potent people. They have a tendency towards the worst traits, not because of their radicalism, but because of the cause of their radicalism: bad positioning and societal failure to accommodate.

Normal people usually have disdain towards the losers and radicals of the world, and why wouldn’t you? They’re dangerous, unhealthy people who need to be kept far away from functional families and especially children. Who would let the depressed communist girl with BPD be around their children, after all? The scorn normal people have towards the fallen (incels, mentally ill, terminally online, etc.) is totally justified self-protection behavior that, if treated with hostility by the radically unwell, will only further alienate the radical parties from normalcy, to the point that they may be percieved as a violent threat to be systematically eliminated. Broken people simply aren’t equal to the well-adjusted moderates of this world, and so they’ll be treated like the inferior people they are.

However, the radical is aware of how dangerous the status quo is, they’re victims of it after all. If the radicals aren’t listened to, then the system’s flaws will be permitted, and may even expand. This overall puts people in worse positions, which in turn increases the share of people that are radical. Ironically, not listening to radicals will simply make more of them. Normal people don’t want more nasty radicals running around, so something must be done.

Normal people aren’t going to reach their hand out, because they know better. Trying to “de-radicalize” a radical and treating them as an illness is outright offensive to them. They are ill, but they believe the cure is radicalism, normal people trying to strip them of radicalism is stripping them of a cure. That’ll only anger these people more, as they get more cornered, they’ll lash out more, and that lash out can be used as justification to put more pressure on the radicals, until either the radicals revolt, or, more than likely, normal people simply crush them with the cruelty of their “correctional help”.

The normal people "helping" a radical

The alternative then is for the radical to try to reach out to the normal people, and beg for them to hear them out. This may be marginally effective with some normal people. A well-reasoned radical could plea with the average person to make them understand. If you have a clever, well-researched person, they could very well convince normal people that, yes, there is a problem and that they should care. Now, that process is labor-intensive, slow, and only really works best on interpersonal levels, however it’s possible.

Let’s just say we get a real character of a radical. A radical with charm and swagger. Someone who can really bridge the gap between normalcy and radicalism. This person, while impressive and certainly doing good work, is only going to captivate the normal, average person short term, but not long term. They’re not going to convince people to operate outside their own interest with any type of mercy in mind. The radicals are still unwell, pitiful misfits, who, if the normal people could, would “correct” using whatever methodologies they can to get them to act like a functional member of society, ignoring the root of the issue that caused the radical to radicalize in the first place.

The goal of the normal person is to keep normalcy. The goal of the radical is to deviate from normalcy. No amount of creative rhetoric and good-will can change the fact that the two sides are diametrically opposed to one-another. A radical sees flaws in society, and wants to change society or escape it. A normal person can’t be bothered to care or to fix the situation, and will maintain normalcy at their own benefit.

So, is the solution just total normie death? Will the neurotics of the world have to rise up and forcefully impose mental illness on normal people to get their way. Will they have to revolutionize society to fit them, and everyone else be damned? Well, let’s give that a thought:

“Day of the Rope”

So lets say it happens. Elliot Rodgers himself rises from the grave, and leads the incel revolution, hand-in-hand with the BLM activists, deep ecologists, wignats, the communist BPD girls on twitter.com, and the Wicca Witches of the world. There’s violence in the streets as total normie death takes place. Billions will die, and the new Retard-Reich is established. Different radical societies pop out of thin air to replace the ones that came before, and all the amazing policies that came from the radicals are now put into place…

Yes, the policies… well… That’s a big thing with a lot of the less academic, and especially more populist, radicals. Their concrete and intricate policy structure really doesn’t exist. They have goals and mantras they’ll repeat loud and clear, but they’re not anything more than that: goals. Many grand plans that come from radicals have no respect for the chaotic, natural law of the land. I don’t think the anarcho-communist revolutionary K-Pop stans on twitter.com have any clue what the agricultural hardiness zone of their territory will be. Or how to do anything in agricutlure that is. Or even defend a pathetic excuse of agriculture they’re creating. They just do things that seem right from afar, but really don’t make sense when applied to the material world.

Elliot Rodger’s rape-state is total kookiness that makes Iranian treatment of women look liberal. BLMers demand reparations from normal people who have zero reason to actually hand over money for free except out of a very strange moralizing guilt that can only be born out of excess resources and societal ease. Even my beloved anarcho-capitalists can get a bit silly sometimes with their lack of disctinction between primary and secondary property.

Generally, radicals have ideas that simply are not in line with reality. Normal people have ideas that aren’t either, but, the very fact their society exists implies that, on some level, they do respect the natural, Darwinistic law that governs what lives and what dies. Normal people may not recognize this, and often what causes societal pains (and thus radicalism) is a disrespect for the natural order, but still they act generally in a way that aligns with the natural order, maybe without realizing it.

Most civilizations that were dominated by normal people, during their peak, were against pro-natalism, pro-family, and pro-superiority. The men of the middle 1800s, by today’s standards, would be “backwards fascists”. They operated in a way that was in line with nature. They ate food that was grown locally, clothed themselves in clothes they could obtain and was suited for their climate, had a heavy dislike towards divorce for its family-breaking consequences, and punished adultery for similar reasons as well. These were normal people of the times who generally operated in a fashion that would keep their bloodlines alive through time, while still enjoying the excesses of the agricultural and budding industrial revolution. These people lived moderately liberal lives, with little paperwork, overwatch, and red-tape.

Now, life wasn’t perfect. They didn’t wash their hands when birthing babies, they co-habitated with animals and enjoyed the disease that fostered (but, that was more out of ignorance than the modern, moralizing animal obsession), and they really did have to get their hands dirty in work. Life had struggle, and it had losers, I wouldn’t want to be a Black American during the 1800s after all, but many of those mistakes were fixable with knowledge, mercy, and principled movements.

That’s the big reason why the world back then worked, was principled action that aligned with natural law. Radicals these days are all principles, but no respect for natural law. Normal people are the inverse, they’re all about natural order, but aren’t aware of that fact and will drift away from it without a principled system. Neither society will be healthy, as the radical one will simply die due to Darwinistic pressures, and the normal one will rot away given time.

However, we must return to our day of the rope. Our radical societies, after their revolution is complete, will have to actually face the natural order. Not only externally, but internally. Power is very real, and if you don’t think that the losers that were radicals, when now in power, will remain losers, then you’re woefully optimistic, or more likely, ignorant. The creed of people who become radicals are the disenfranchised primarily. The outcasts of society who can’t integrate for whatever reason. They’re unwell internally, and, unwell people, when granted power, will be unwell leaders. Rather that’ll be over-committing to certain implementations of ideas without any regard for reality as it exists, simply grifting their new-found society into a kleptocratic hell-world, or just letting the place fall into chaos or totalitarianism. Bad people don’t make good leaders, and bad people make up radical movements.

This “day of the rope” meme has really gone on long enough. It’s simply just too gross to witness at this point and, unfortunately, associating with all this has made me feel a little bad. I think… maybe this whole radicalism idea was just a bad thing, and I was in a dark place. Maybe it’s time to turn back to normalcy…

The “Enlightened” Position

So, the radicals are cringe losers, and being a cringe radical was really a dark place, and I don’t want to be like that anymore. So, we’re no longer politically extreme. We’ve capitulated to the social pressures, and will now abandon our way of thinking for something more acceptable. Not because we were convinced out of it, but instead because the old ways were just alienating and uncomfortable.

To any radical with conviction, a soul, or whatever you would like to call it, this move would be utterly revolting. It’s not just moving away from a group, but moving away from a group out of insincere conviction. This, to some people, is fine, as those radicals are evil and bad. After all, the normal people are right that the radicals are gross, mentally ill people worthy of scorn and sometimes pity.

Sarcasm and irony aside, this move is something that I see as common among those who are stepping away from traditional radicalism. They see the whole thing for the sad and ugly beast it is, but they take that ugliness and internalize it a very hateful way. The look upon their old brothers, and sometimes their old enemies, and hate them for their situation, and their conviction. Seeing their brokenness as some sort of reason to reject the critique and problems they have had.

This “Englightenment” has turned them not only normal, but radically normal. They despise their old self, maybe for good reason in some regard. They may have genuinely become a happier person and no longer identify with the movement’s pains. They could have just integrated into society after finding a path inward, finally accepting Big Brother’s loving embrace. They could have been personally burned by someone and went the other direction as a strange form of spite. I have no clue why it happens, as it thankfully has not happened to me, but it happens.

The most important part of this false enlightenment is that it is ignorant to the old self. It mistakingly rejects the concept that society could have burnt people and that there was a reason to be miserable in the past just because someone figured out a way in now. The incel’s complaints about the dating sphere are just wrong because you, personally, found a woman. The question of class warfare and poverty is a commodity now that you’re making 20k a month from patrons. The immigration question is simply not a problem anymore because your business can profiteer off the cheap labor that poor brown people provide.

Ultimately, this false enlightenment is a permutation of a common “forgetting your roots” troupe. Instead of using your new-found success to reach an arm down to elevate your suffering radical, and to push for their success, you scorn and hate them for their observations and discontents. It’s a delegitimization of struggle based off anecdotal success or experience rather than a sincere change in belief. Often, people like this don’t explain why those struggling are misguided in some way, and that the actual enemy is something else, but rather that they hate them for their inferiority.

Personally, I have only become more sick after toying with the idea of the enlightened centrist. Maybe just throw me back into the radical’s society, in all of its decay and insane glory. Still, that’s not good either. Becoming one with normalcy seems to be bad, and accepting radicalism seems to be bad as well. Is there a fourth position, a true way out of this mess?

Cynical Centrism

Nihilism. That’s what we have left. Pure nihilism. It’s all bullshit, both sides suck. I’m not a racist, I’m simply a misanthrope and hate everyone!. I hate all of humanity, and I am based for it! We take no stands anymore, as taking a stand for any of the options is just bad.

This is a mentality that I, more often than not, see as the alternative to the “Enlightenment” position. If you don’t join normalcy, you simply reject it, but also reject the radicals. From there, a philosophical freeze happens. The trichotomy presented sucks: We’re too far deep in to be a normal, unenlightened person anymore, we’ve seen how gross the Radicals are and rightfully want nothing to do with that, and being an “Enlightened” status-quo supporter is just tacky. So, given that these are all the positions presented, we simply intellectually shut down and reject the conversation as a whole.

This conclusion ultimately is identical to the “Enlightenment” stance in consequence, but at least it doesn’t have as hostile of a smug flare (although some smuggery is involved) of the “Enlightened” Centrist. We’ve seen our radical past, and we’ve given up on it. We’ve abandoned who we used to call brothers, and simply ignore their pleas and cries for help, this time more out of apathy than moralization (if that fact is worth anything, that is). The only silver lining for radicals that makes this position tolerable is that you didn’t join up with the normal, status-quo guys; You’re neutral, not antagonistic. It’s not great, but it could be worse.

However, the mentality itself is just shutting down and freezing intellectually. There’s no more exploration, there’s no more movement, it’s just shutting the problem out and pretending it doesn’t matter. Maybe it mattered to you at one point, maybe you can see it matters to others, and maybe deep down, you still think it matters, but you just don’t want to be involved, and so choose not to. If pressed, maybe you’re going to be some kind of mild anti-progressive or trade unionist, but never enough to actually shake things up.

The issue with this belief system is that entropy exists. Stillness is not very tolerated in the world as inaction permits decay. If no action is taken to prevent decay, or rebuild what has been decayed, then, given time, nothing will be left. This is the stance of tolerating decay through apathy.

Apathy like this, thankfully, is not built out of moralization, but rather attrition. Cynical Centrists, while frozen intellectually, are still capable of having a fire sparked from within to thaw them out. Rather this means removing stressors from an environment or supplying strong intellectual backing is situation dependent. However, this revival cannot be the same weak radicalism that burnt out the cynical centrist, it must be resolution of the same problems executed in a more functional and healthy fashion.

This brings us to the best route for the radical after realizing how bad radicalism is…

Superiority, Construction, Mercy, and Defense

I have no concise phrase to describe this type of rare radical, perhaps that’s for the best as an easy label would allow more degenerate groups to co-opt the label and tarnish the good works of these types of radicals. These are people who are radical still, they are upset in society, but in have mutated their views towards accuracy and complexity. Not only have they gone more in-depth with their views, they also attempt to build systems and organizations that help those of their own kind. For example, a radical youth having issues with employment making a business that hires his own creed, and funds his own creed. Alternatively, a communist working out a plan to create a self-sufficient anarchist community that can survive for generations.

These types of people realize the problems, and successfully build alternative solutions that help their own kind. They have mercy towards those akin to them, attempting to guide less fortunate radicals towards institutions that can offer them the solutions they desire. These types of people not only wish to help their own, but then defend what they make from outside attack as much as possible, rather by staying in hiding, operating in the shadows, or bearing the expensive brunt of legal and violent force.

The biggest factor for success for this type of radical is the execution of the principles held in a fashion that aligns with how reality operates. A radical concerned about the power of state education who forms their own community education program is going to have to grapple with the reality of how education works. His goal will need a plan, and that plan will be tested against reality itself, and that should decide if it sinks or floats. If it floats, then the educationally-concerned radical would have succeeded in doing what the normal men of the 1800s could do: construct something principled and real.

One big example of this type of healthy radicalism would be the various figureheads and organizations in the Free Software sphere, who work diligently and hard for their vision of a world where computing will exist unrestricted by outside parties. They spend thousands of hours collectively building tools to aid in this goal, and because of it, have been able to carve out and claim a little slice of the freedom they want in a world filled with restriction.

The same mentality can be brought to almost every aspect of life that is broken. Constructing and defending alternatives that both work and offer mercy to the downtrodden is the key goal of any radical wishing to make meaningful change in the world.

Not only will building and operating these alternative institutions save the radicals from the decaying normalcy, it’ll also save the radicals from themselves. Radicals are losers by definition, but running and operating something real that can contest and submit itself to the whims of reality requires skill. Those systems that survive will be lead by skillful, virtuous people who are capable of creating and maintaining something without imploding, thus curing much of the issue the radical has with his loser-dom.

Through this activity, the radical can become normal, but in a healthy and constructive way rather than a dogmatic way. The normalcy will be the same normalcly that dominated during good times of society. It’ll be a wise, and well maintained normalcy that’s principled and generally beneficial. Hopefully, through achieving this, the radicals of the world can become the normal ones using the virtues gained by building a better world.