Social constructs
The idea of social constructionism was first proposed by Berger and Luckmann in their 1967 book The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. The gist of it is that knowledge is socially constructed, therefore things we take for granted may actually be cultural artifacts and not properties of the world as it is in the absence of human intervention. A radical formulation of this thesis states that everything including reality itself is a social construct. This idea has been then abused by leftist theorists a as foundation for an argument to abolish those societal norms, institutions and traditions that are in tune with Natural Law.
This radical view has 2 very obvious problems:
Some things must be taken for granted, because doing otherwise is at best impractical (without taking some propositions for granted, we can’t discusss anything) and at worst insane (if one posits that his inability to fly is “a social construct”, he will very quickly be confronted with the harsh reality of it)
Everything being a social construct is a very convenient excuse when you want to criticize the status quo. Because the current status quo is not to your liking, you can claim it is just a social construct, thus implying that it has no practical value nor basis; allowing you to dispute it on “moral” grounds. And because morality itself is also a social construct, you can claim that the moral system your opposition is following is flawed in some way and propose a “better” one, which just coincidentally rearranges society to your benefit.
The second one is particularly important, as it means that the idea of social constructionism is very useful for power-hungry status maximisers that lack principles. They can moralize from the constructionist position while society is arranged in such a way they lack power, but conveniently forget all about this supposed critical viewpoint when their ideology gains prominence.
This was my primary objection to the idea when I was first introduced to it. Just like nerds would prefer to live in a social hierarchy that has them above jocks, so did leftists wish that their demographic could rise through the ranks of contemporary social hierarchy.
My view started changing however, slowly, as soon as I started redpilling myself. That lead me to discover just how unscientific modern soyence is. And once Coronadoom started, the contradictions, internal inconsistencies as well as just straight up insanities that make up modern soyence were put up on display for everyone to see. This forced me to reevaluate the idea of social constructionism. The COVGH epidemic is a very obvious social construct, and yet half the world is still acting as though it’s real. Masks have no practical use and in fact cause harm, yet everyone still wears them. I (and many others) knew as soon as the V A X X was announced that it was not going to do anything to #stopthespread, with our position vindicated more and more with every single day, and yet people still persist in their belief that the vaxx is the magic pill that will end the “pandemic”.
It became very obvious to me that the constructionist view is indeed quite accurate. There does exist a socially constructed reality, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “base” (physical, independent of human observers and actors) reality. The socially constructed reality is like a veil, draped over the base reality, and most people (normies) don’t see past it, because it matches the base reality almost perfectly in most things that are crucial to our survival (you will find no culture that believes humans to be able to fly).
It has to be noted however, that relativism and constructionism is by default the loser’s position, since the winner dictates social convention - remember the maxim history is written by the victors - it will always suit him by default. The loser draws the short end of the stick, thus he is incentivized to doubt the practicality, legitimacy and morality of current social convention.
With that all in mind, I was forced to confront myself with a tough question. Am I just like those fucking leftist cuckstructionists? Am I an unprincipled loser, falling back on a relativist position because my position is not part of the current consensus? Of course not, I may be introspective but I’m not prone to self flagellation like goodwhites.
HA! as if whites can be considered good in the current year. White people are, like, so late nineties.
The difference between those guys and me is that I adopt a relativist viewpoint precisely because I believe there exist good and bad ways of ordering society, of “constructing social reality” to borrow their lingo, instead of adopting a relativist viewpoint in order to pretend that good and bad don’t exist, therefore we can redefine bad to actually be good because reasons.
Societal models of reality
In my essay Deriving morality from evolutionary biology, I provide a secular argument for objective morality, in order to be able to argue for Good and Bad without having to resort to religious belief. In short, I argue that anything that propagates and affirms life is good, anything that stifles and destroys it is bad. By applying this reasoning to what i call societal models of reality, we can learn to distinguish good ones from bad ones.
A societal model of reality or societal reality model (SRM from here on out) is the socially constructed reality, the “veil” that is draped over base reality, that is specific to a certain society. Modern western soyciety has its own model of reality, China has a different one, as do the muslim countries etc. Every separate society has its own model of reality. Societal models of reality are sets of ideas (memeplexes) that assign meaning to the physical world a society occupies, define conventional and moral behavior, describe relationship beween various aspects of the physical and social world. Culture is part of a SRM, but it’s not the whole thing, as societal models of reality also purport to describe physical reality. Climate change (as well as the COVGH), for example, is an important problem in western culture, but it’s described as part of physical reality - as a property of the planet we live on - not as solely an aspect of our culture. Thus it is really a part of the SRM that is particular to western soyciety. Culture passes judgment on aspects of physical reality, but it doesn’t contain them.
Another important aspect of the SRM is that it assigns signifiers to qualities in order to more easily distinguish between the presence and absence of culturally significant qualities. For example, the policeman’s badge is what signifies he has the authority to make an arrest. An academic’s degree signifies that he has attained a level of expertise in his chosen field of study. Well, not in the current year, but you get my point.
Now that we’ve covered what these SRM are (sidenote, if anyone has a better term for this, I’m open to suggestions since typing out SRM repeatedly is a handful), we can establish how to evaluate them. If we use the Life = Good, noLife = Bad framework, we can evaluate SRM’s according to how fruitful the society that adopts them becomes. The more a society flourishes and propagates itself, the better the SRM, the more it stagnates and decline, the worse it is. In Darwinian terms, fitness positive SRM are good (healthy), fitness negative SRM (degenerate) are bad. Additionally, SRM that bestow high status on native members of the population that adopt them are good, whereas those that bestow low status on natives (and high status on immigrants) are bad - remember, we are judging everything from the perspective of our ingroup.
With this in mind, it’s probably clear to everyone by now that the western SRM is extremely degenerate, because it stifles life (it values the sterile LeGBuTt Queers and shackles healthy male sexuality), denigrates the native population (Wypepo bad) and destroys all institutions that allowed western society to reach its previous excellence (2 + 2 = racism).
I’m sure some of you may be thinking “That’s all well and good, but whachu gon’ do bout it wyte boi?”. I’m glad you asked. My goal is to break this degenerate and false model of reality, by unplugging one normie from it at a time. By the will of Gnon, let it be done.
The Matrix
The Matrix is a cult classic for a reason. Putting aside the unfortunate circumstances that befell its authors, the movies paint a very convincing allegory for modern society. I especially like that scene when Morpheus tells Neo about the early life section.
And about getting vaxxed.
But let’s get back to the topic at hand. Normies really are embedded in a sort of matrix - the SRM, the veil that is draped over base physical reality - that influences how they perceive reality. Aspects of the SRM that differ from base reality are taken as real and correct, instead of wrong, because they are unable to distinguish between the SRM and base reality - to them only one reality exists, the SRM. In essence, they privilege the signifier over the signified. They value symbols of expertise more than actual expertise, symbols of maturity more than physical signs of maturity, symbols of health (or rather, of absence of disease) rather than lack of symptoms, symbols of health-knowledge rather than physical proof of health-knowledge, etc.
These examples correspond to valuing a person’s title over the validity of their arguments, the number on a girl’s ID rather than the sex appeal of her body, negative COVGHID tests rather than absence of symptoms, a fat minister of health over anonymous internet bodybuilders (on nutrition). This is all obviously nuts, because signifiers are only useful when they accurately signal the existence of the signified quality. But in order to be able to ascertain the validity of a signifier, one must first be able to distinguish between the signifier and the signified. Something the normies have proven time and time again to be unable to do. They are after all, content to have (a very inaccurate approximation of) reality fed to them from various authorities, as long as they can spend their time watching Netflix, drinking soy and jerking off to OnlyThots instead.
From Ascetus’ telegram:
The Will to System is life-denying. It brings a feeling of comfort and that is why it is preferable for the weak. If you ever see someone appear to transform themselves, you will often find it to be artificial. They are merely exchanging one system for another. The whore goes to church, the drug addict goes to AA, the nice guy becomes “red-pilled”. It is really just the replacement of one system for another. In opposition is the life-affirming force, the will-to-power at its zenith denies all systems and is a constant self-overcoming.
ONE. HUNDRED. PERCENT. YES. You heard the They/Them, when a SOYentist tells you to wear a mask and get the vaxx, you do as you’re told, like a good little gender-nonbinary-neotenous-humyn.
In short, when you privilege the signifier over its signified quality, you are embedding yourself into and becoming beholden to a socially constructed reality - the SRM. By doing so, you are no longer performing judgments based on objective, observable measures; but instead judging based on socially constructed approximations of these measures. This is fine as long as these approximations match base reality to a sufficient degree, but it backfires hard when they don’t. Lets use the Covgh as an example again. A lack of symptoms is an objective, observable measure of absence of disease. A negative test is a socially constructed symbol that is supposed to represent the absence of disease - which of these are more likely to be accurate? B-but muh asymptomatic spreaders… I’m gonna asymptomatically spread your girl’s cheeks, because you obviously aren’t doing it for her.
The map is not the territory
I was briefly fascinated with the rationality community in my younger years. I have since outgrown it, but I did pick up some useful things from them. One of these is the concept of map and territory.
When kids learn geography in school they use a world map in order to visualize where the Earth’s continents lie and how the varies countries that make them up are positioned next to each other. The map that kids learn from is a representation of the physical world we live in - of planet Earth. However, if something were to happen - let’s say that a couple of countries formed a united federation - but the kids learned from a map that was made before that happened, that map would not be a 100% accurate representation of the world.
In the same vein, people’s beliefs about the world are mental representations of it. And they can be accurate - if they correspond to reality, or inaccurate, if they don’t. The same can be said about “social” beliefs - commonly believed ideas about what the world is like. Unfortunately, most people do not wake up to the reality of their false beliefs until they are hit by it very harshly in the face.
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Truth versus consensus
It seems more and more likely to me, that normies are simply unable to distinguish between truth and consensus, because the consensus/truth dichotomy is just another signifier/signified relationship. Consensus is supposed to be an interpersonally verified approximation of the truth, but that is only so when everyone participating in forming the consensus acts in good faith. The normie, in his inability to distinguish between signifier and signified, is unable to conceive of truth outside of consensus. Consensus can’t possibly be wrong and consensus-defying ideas can’t possibly be true.
This is why it’s so hard to get a point to stick with them. They simply do not parse information the same way. A wise anon on 4chan once said something to the effect of normies having to parse information through a consensus filter before being able to evaluate its truthfulness. If an idea is very strongly supported or rejected by social consensus, it never gets to the determination of truth or falsehood stage of reasoning.
This paints a very grim picture for those of us who autistically try to convince the people in our lives through reasoned debate and appeals to free thinking. It doesn’t matter how much sense your argument makes, if the content of your thesis is too strongly rejected by social consensus. This is why its important for us to seek personal excellence - an aesthetic physique, a high 1RM bench and the devotion of a beautiful girl will sway more hearts than the most eloquent argument.
Beauty over truth
Zero HP Lovecraft (not to be confused with Zero Talent Lovecraft, his leftist imitator) talks about beauty being more useful than truth, because it is harder to fake:
Consensus beats truth, yes, but not if truth is spoken by someone beautiful.
For all the leftists’ moralizing, they reveal their essential debasedness through their relationship to beauty. The leftist recoils at anything beautiful, anything transcendent, anything that a sane person is inspired to emulate. Their inverted morality necessitates an aversion to strength and an idolization of weakness, which in men directly results in uglyness. In women, inherent lesser attractiveness is compounded as everytime men fail to show interest in her, she doubles down on those same traits that caused their lack of interest in the first place.
In other words, lifing weights is toxic masculinity, eating healthy is internalized misogyny.
Lucky for us however, this is the one arena where the normie will always be on our side. While the normie fails to see the leftist inversions of truth and falsehood for what they are, he is not similarly fooled when it comes to beauty. He may superficially pay lip service to leftist uglyness-worshipping, he is at its core still inspired by beauty. Deep down he longs for a return to normalcy, where good is good and bad is bad, where the beautiful can be called beautiful and ugly can be called ugly. Why else did Zyzz inspire a whole generation of men to pick up weights? As for women, we all know how quickly they abandon their so-called principles when Chad evokes the tingles.
Societal models of reality are transitory, aesthetics are eternal.
It’s thus imperative that we so-called “thinking men” hone our body as well as our mind. May our arguments be persuasive and may we inspire a willingness to follow in our communities.