Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists:

Today I want to define and differentiate liberals from conservatives from fascists.  I am with the fascist faction, but I think I clearly understand the other guy's sides, which for the most part doesn't seem to be the case among others.  Let's illuminate this whole philosophical divide so that people can debate more honestly and constructively with each other from here on.

Liberals believe in a meritocracy.  They don't mind inequality, so long as it's the result of an individual's own actions, whether positive or negative.  What they do mind is when inequality comes about as the result of belonging to arbitrary classifications that should have nothing to do with the quality of an individual.  Why on Earth would wealth, fame, power, status, natural or sexual selection be concerned with the color of your skin, who you have sex with, which sex organs are equipped to the front of your body, what language you speak, where you were born, which sky god you worship, what tribe you belong to, etc.  It's all completely irrelevant.  Intelligence, drive, virtue, charisma, temperance, kindness, creativity -- yes, they can see a causal connection between having more of that and thus having more success.  But being born in Angola means you get no chance in life, period?  The end?

Liberals want to eliminate all categorical differences as having any significance in a person's life for the sake of fairness, and are appalled by how many people are suffering simply because they belong to politically out of favor groups.  The rank injustice of it all is unbearable.  They will continue to revolutionize the world until all such discrimination ends and a true meritocracy prevails, one which is color-blind, sex-blind, sexuality-blind, nationality-blind, religion-blind, language-blind, etc, etc, etc.

Since science has shown beyond all doubt that none of these categories or classifications have any bearing on a person's individual merit, or any connection to various virtues or vices that could actually influence inequality, when a disproportionate result occurs (like Haiti being worse off than Switzerland), the only possible cause of it must be due to external oppression based on discrimination against an arbitrary category.  Bigots of one type or another, either now or in the past, must be to blame, since everyone between categories is born equal, regardless of whether or not people born within categories may be.  Liberals have been assured this is true by hundreds of years worth of scientific studies going all the way back to Boaz.  They also feel it's just common sense, since virtues are so preferable that it's unthinkable anyone would not evolve equally to have as many virtue-inducing genes as possible, so the idea that entire groups are genetically predestined to have more virtue than others just seems ridiculous and anti-scientific.  Sure, genetics is a game of roulette and you never know what harmful or advantageous mutations you will receive.  In addition, it's not uncommon for assortative mating to pair up the lucky mutants who have more virtue genes within each group who form a fluid, non-formal aristocracy.  All of that seems like it would logically emerge from evolution in action.  But entire groups choosing not to become beautiful, intelligent, cooperative or creative is just madness.  Why, when it's so obviously the right thing to evolve into, would any group fail to do so?  Since there's simply no mechanism where genetic differences between groups could even emerge, there's no need to even entertain the idea.  In addition, every class in school has said there are no differences, so the science is settled and it's disgusting that people would even revisit the idea after all this time.  The only reason to even question the science at this point is if you're a bigot trying to justify future oppressions, since no one without an ulterior motive would even be curious enough to investigate the issue any further.  Therefore there's no need to listen to the fascist's side when they try to convince you the science says otherwise.  That would make you as guilty of crimethink as they are.

Liberals' job will be done when all groups achieve equal results according to the statistical law of averages in all good things.  If something is generally seen as high utility, it should be just as likely for a black Swahili disabled lesbian transgender woman in Congo to have it as a blue eyed blonde straight cisgendered white man from Denmark.  The permanent revolution will continue until these 'gaps' disappear, and we can finally rest easy knowing that all oppression and discrimination has been removed from the earth, whether it be conscious or subconscious, in the present or just a historical legacy.

Conservatives agree with liberals insofar as they want a meritocracy based on individual accomplishment leading to individual rewards.  They believe, however, that less successful groups need to work out for themselves why exactly they're failing to achieve at the same rate as more successful groups.  They deny that any oppression is ongoing, are just as vociferously outspoken against oppression as liberals, but simply fail to see these phantom forces and voodoo hexes that liberals are always claiming are keeping minorities down.  Conservatives will occasionally suggest culture or institutions or family values are to blame, but they honestly don't know and don't care, though they're as quick to condemn anyone who believes in a genetic foundation as their liberal brethren.  Since they know they aren't doing anything wrong, they figure the losers should work it out among each other, as this is a dog eat dog world and they don't have time to lick the wounds of every failure on Earth, since they're busy building up their own fame, fortune, family, and futures they work hard for every day.

Since liberals cannot point to any actual mechanism that is oppressing minorities, conservatives consider it just as flat-earthy as liberals consider genetic differences between groups.  Minorities not only are treated equally, they even receive affirmative action.  They receive more school funding, not less, in public schools.  The self esteem of blacks is higher than whites.  While whites are fair game for putdowns and mockery, blacks are treated as the pinnacle of goodness and greatness in America from history to sports to music to movies.  If blacks still find a way to screw up after all that, well I'm sorry but there's just nothing more we can do for you.

Fascists disagree twofold with everything that has been said previous to this, however.  They do not believe either minority groups or majority groups are responsible for disparities between groups.  Nor do they even believe in an individual meritocracy to begin with.

Genetics is the most important factor that leads to someone's success.  It's hard to determine exactly how much genetics automatically leads a person towards a successful, high utility life, but one thing we can say is that shared environment has a 0% influence on the matter.  In other words, anything that can be controlled by society, from parenting to schooling to law codes to anything you can possibly imagine, has absolutely no effect on how a child will turn out in adulthood.  This is within the parameters of society today, where everyone gets enough to eat, isn't the victim of awful childhood diseases, isn't daily abandoned in closets or abused, etc.  Obviously wolf children are not as well off as even genetically equivalent children raised by human parents, but that's as far as it goes.  Within the range of behavior that people generally behave within, the environment simply doesn't matter.  It's all internal from there.  How much of it is genetic and how much of it is 'unshared environment' is up for debate, but since we can't affect either category, and unshared environment just means sociological dark matter that no one can explain what it is or how it came to be, it's ultimately irrelevant.  Unshared environment could easily just be described as fate, God's will, chance, or any other uncontrollable term, just like genetics is.  Which means that an individual within any reasonable life cycle is 100% ruled by things outside not only their own control, but anyone's control.  If you say that unshared environment leads people to high utility lives due to making good choices over their lifetime, you must then ask what factors led them to make those good choices, and ultimately you get back to factors that weren't decided upon but just spontaneously happened, and fate resumes its control just as before.

This means that individual meritocracy is a meaningless competition of little value in the first place.  Some people are born with good genes and good fates, and others were not.  As a result, some people rise to prominence and others don't.  The churn is endless and arbitrary, and who ends up on top is like the spokes of an ever turning water wheel in the stream of eternity.  Who the heck cares if the system is just or unjust, if the meritorious win out or not, when merit itself is unjust and arbitrary to begin with?

Likewise, some groups were given bad genes and bad fates, while other groups were not.  There are various explanations for how this happened, like Africans had to evolve towards disease resistance instead of intelligence, or how northerners had to expand their time horizons to deal with harsh winters, or perhaps city life led people to become more docile and cooperative over time, and it just so happened that city life wasn't possible in areas with too hostile epidemics or megafauna that would break up crop cultivation.  At this point it doesn't matter, because regardless of how these inequalities emerged they're most definitely there.  Over 100 years of testing have shown that groups really do differ in intelligence, personality and behavior, and 10,000 years of history attest to the same.  It would take thousands of years to undo the group differences that have evolved and emerged between groups of conscious breeding efforts, which means it's more or less an impossibility not worth mentioning for any gaps to be closed or any categories to be transcended.  Gays will act like gays, whites will act like whites, blacks will act like blacks, muslims will act like muslims, women will act like women, and so on.  Overcoming the momentum of thousands of years of fated differentiation between the platonic-like categories of mankind is simply outside the power of mankind.  Perhaps when genetic engineering is fully online we can tinker around with these things, but that too is something hundreds of years away.  Our understanding of biology is far below what it would take to solve the genetic portion of the puzzle, much less the 'unshared environment' part which we have zero understanding of whatsoever.

Since group differences are permanent and unfixable, both liberal and conservative agendas are a waste of time and effort.  And since individual merit getting its just award is not actual justice, because that merit was arrived at unfairly in the first place, dedicating your life to seeing that justice is done to each individual is also an exercise in futility.

A fascist is someone who has risen above the petty concerns of individual human rights and the unfairness of group differences.  They accept that these things are going to happen no matter what we do, and therefore we should focus on what we can do to promote the good instead.  Even though it's impossible for any state intervention to improve an individual's merit in life to be above what it's fated to be, it can use the state to organize what power and talent and quality it does have and channel it towards the Good, instead of having it dissipate in the endless maelstrom of individual, at-cross-purposes 'creative destruction.'

The well-being of the group as a whole is the organizing principle behind the fascist state, whether this happens to hurt a particular individual or not.  Far sighted individuals, philosopher kings, can better see what the well-being of the group is than the disordered mob or even the ambitious strivers playing at their petty competitive rat races.  As such, a central echelon dedicated to the group should rule the group for the benefit of the group even when the group doesn't understand why it's for the best and even when it tramples over all sorts of individuals who don't fit into the plan as a whole.

Under a fascist government, the trillions of dollars of economic production can be spent on worthy projects, while spurious vices and luxuries could be avoided.  Marriage and children would be cultivated on the basis of the needs of the children and society for the process to be reliable and successful, not flung around on the romantic fancies of fallible and fickle lovers.  Mind-share, that ever valuable resource of what your people are listening to and thinking about, would be directed towards objects of truth and beauty, rather than celebrities, gossip, lies and superstitions that currently dominate the world.

An organized society's power is practically limitless.  We could solve things in a couple years that have been unsolvable for millenia.  For instance, poverty would end overnight.  Everyone could receive the citizen's dividend, as the basic fascist principle is 'all for one, one for all.'  Hunger would likewise end overnight.  Most diseases would also be cured from there on, as people would receive adequate and appropriate medical care and not be allowed to engage in unhealthy behaviors.  I wouldn't be surprised if death itself couldn't be solved by government research into a cure for aging.  But at the very least, energy would cease to be a problem tomorrow as we cut through all the red tape and build a real sustainable renewable power energy grid that cures our energy woes once and for all.

We could colonize Mars and the distant earth like planets we identified with the Kepler telescope tomorrow.  With the trillions of dollars under a fascist government's control, we could easily build space colonies of sufficient size and space elevators that get them into space and moving in the direction they need to go right now.  If there are any further technological barriers, trillions of dollars of research and all the best minds of our scientists could easily solve them, once organized and directed to do so.

Human potential needs to be unlocked and we all need to rise to the level of our best imaginable selves.  Freedom does not promote progress.  Only fascism can do that.

Take a gun.  A gun is a powerful, lethal device because it has a long barrel which controls the efforts of the bullet to all go in one, guided, directed direction.  If you have a gunpowder explosion of a bullet without any barrel, it just results in an inglorious weak misfire that ends right where it began.  This is what an unguided human being is like, just an explosion of activity that goes nowhere and does nothing.  Likewise, an unguided group is just a cloud of vectors that all bounce off each other and cancel each other out, a world that is 'nasty, brutish and short,' going nowhere.  The arrow is the perfect symbol of fascism because it denotes direction.  All forces heading in the same direction, leading to supreme power along the axis of the decided front.

There are things we know humans need to do, for instance get over their vices.  Only fascism has the philosophical right to actually do them, though.  A democracy certainly won't vote itself out of its own favored vices, like the 2/3 of Americans who are obese.  The mob has no interest in its sexual license being limited and its ability to cheat on and break up with their most recent romantic partner revoked.  This is what they love about life and take most joy in.  Taking away their candy isn't something a 'rights' based approach can handle.  Most people are worthless scum, morally speaking, but their battle power is still high.  They can make tons of money for the fascist state if we properly yoke them like oxen.  They can produce additional children which we need to extend our fascist state's existence into the future with.  They are quality soldiers when ordered to go fight and organized and equipped and disciplined and indoctrinated to do so.  They are smart people who will come up with the next invention given the right equipment and environment to talk with other scientists.  Their energy can be harvested towards the greater good, even though they themselves wish to be up to nothing but mischief.  With proper direction, their power can be transformed into our future morality, which should be the true end goal of mankind.

What does morality look like?  Humans living under proper conditions (no poverty, crime, corruption, disease, degradation, or hunger), thinking about the proper things (hobbies that orbit around love, truth and beauty), in communities with strong bonds (families that don't break up and have the desired number of children) supporting communal goals that everyone contributes towards and supports, that guarantee our continued survival and flourishing.  It may take multiple generations to get us there, but so long as pressure is delivered like the barrel of a gun ever onwards towards our final trajectory, we will assuredly reach this promised land.  Working with the crooked timber of humanity, we can't expect perfect results overnight, but with the upbringing and breeding of the right sort over and over, we could eventually iron out the imperfections of man and get our community to where it philosophically needs to be.

If a group is so intransigent that it cannot be yoked to the cause then it should be eliminated as a hindrance or at least purged from society to some far off land like any impurity one would find in a microchip.  We have no time or energy to spare on internal disputes, when there are so many external challenges mankind should be addressing instead.  Death and suffering first and foremost.  After which ennui and nihilism needs to be addressed.  Finally such things as heat death and end-state repetitiveness.  The right to screw people in the ass is about as meaningful as the lifestyles of microbes in the face of these existential challenges to mankind.  They don't take priority.  They just don't.  If what you do is helpful to the cause, it's permitted, if it's harmful to the cause, it's forbidden, and if it's irrelevant to the cause then don't bother bringing it up, because the cause needs all the efforts of all hands on deck until these concerns are solved.  The world right now is a hellhole and screwing people in the ass isn't going to change that.  Only fascism's new powers can do that.  Only the guided energy of an arrow heading down a barrel can get mankind from where we are, a bunch of vicious apes, to where we need to be, a bunch of resplendent angels.