Evolutionary psychology studies the human mind through the process of evolution — the mind is a collection of adaptations meant to solve recurrent problems of reproduction or survival encountered over evolutionary history.

This means that classically undesirable emotions like hate, aggression, and jealousy are not necessarily bad — they are solutions to problems. Those humans who could express hate, aggression, and jealousy under the right conditions out reproduced those humans who could not.

We discuss some of the criticisms and misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology. The first are just-say-so stories. Evolutionary Psychology is full of plausible explanations that are ultimately unfalsifiable. We address this criticism by demonstrating how to falsify a evolutionary hypothesis through incest avoidance.

Humans have inbuilt disgust responses against having sex with their siblings because reproducing with close relatives results in inbreeding depression. The incest avoidance hypothesis could be falsified by showing that there is a systematic absence of incest avoidance throughout human populations.

We then disgust the common misunderstanding of invoking a single counterexample as evidence that an evolutionary hypothesis is incorrect. If humans have innate incest avoidance how do we explain European royalty intermarrying in the 16th century?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what assertions an evolutionary hypothesis makes. Variants exist in populations of biological organisms — mechanisms can misfire, or be suppressed. Evolutionary hypothesis are population level claims not universal claims. A single counterexample is not sufficient to falsify a claim based on statistical averages.

We then address the everything is learned argument. The everything is learned arguments posits that behavior is not innate — but rather is learned. People are taught to avoid having sex with their sibling — they are taught how to behave — they are taught how to speak their language.

However, this explanation does not pass scientific scrutiny. Saying that everything is learned is no better than providing magic as an explanation. We must understand the specific physiological structures that allow humans to learn. Learning is an adaptation. We discuss the example of language to illustrate this point.

Finally we address two common misunderstandings: evolutionary psychology implies genetic determinism, and if its evolution we can’t change it.

Genetic determinism is the belief that genes determine our behavior regardless of environment. Evolutionary psychology does not support genetic determinism, it is an interactionist framework, all behavior requires environmental input. It is not a question of genes or environment, but genes and environment. Evolutionary psychology dissolves the nature vs nurture distinction as a false dichotomy.

By understanding what environmental input results in the activation of a behavior, we can avoid or promote conditions which promote the expression of a behavior. As an analogy we talk about the callous, an adaptation which hardens our skin in response to friction in the environment. Knowing what environmental input results in the formation of a callous allows us to avoid conditions which cause its growth.

First we begin with understanding what makes something complex. Complexity is a measurement of how many distinct interacting parts a thing is composed of and to what degree these parts are specialized.

Next we answer why the maximum power principle selects for complexity — because general solutions are less efficient than specialized ones. The more problems a part is required to solve, the greater the number of trade-offs it must accommodate to provide a solution to each one. However, a specialized part responsible for only one thing can build its entire form at perfecting a solution to that problem.

We then segway into trying to understand why photosynthetic cells drove its chemosynthetic competitors away from the surface of the water deep into the ocean. Why didn’t chemosynthetic cells develop counter-adaptations like those in red queen dynamics?

It is because of competitive exclusion — when two species compete over a fixed inert resource, one of them is either driven to extinction or forced to adopt a new niche in the environment.

They do not enter into a co-evolutionary arms race because relationship’s of competitive exclusion are markedly different from those seen in red-queen dynamics.

Red-queen relationships are reciprocal, one side is dependent on the other for survival — in competitive exclusion there is no dependence. Once one side has an advantage, they win. It is a race to the finish, not a race to stay where you are.

Both sides are under the same pressure of directional natural selection to fulfill the maximum power principle, extract as much energy as you can. If species A is 1% more efficient than species B, by the time B catches up to species A, A has already improved by another percent. B can no longer compete in the environment.

Instead, species B must find a new niche or go extinct. This is why we see the abundance and diversity of life all around us. Variants of a species who can’t compete for highly contest resources are favored to find a new untapped resources.

Life spreads to fill unexplored opportunities — from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the stratosphere. Organisms carve out a niche where they can be maximally efficient at extracting energy.

The Red Queen Hypothesis states that species are under constant pressure to develop increasingly complex adaptations because they are stuck in co-evolutionary arms races. A faster cheetah creates a selection pressure for a faster gazelle. A virulent parasite creates a selection pressure for a robust immune system in its host. Iron sharpens iron.

The Maximum Power Principle says that natural selection favors organisms who can extract that maximum amount of energy from their environment, because they can put this energy towards doing useful work. Such as reproduction and survival.

We then go on a brief philosophical detour to discuss The Will To Power. Friedrich Nietzsche believed that life was will to power. It was dictated by expansion, domination, and self-overcoming.

Finally, we tie in the Red Queen with the Maximum Power Principles to explain why life grows in complexity: because it has to. Organisms who do not develop viable counter-adaptations, who do not extract maximum power from their environment, will inevitably be destroyed by organisms who do.

We then introduce the descriptive framework of evolutionary thinking: how to think about the world in an evolutionary way. It rests on four pillars.

Pillar 1: Evolution is historical and contingent

An evolutionary mindset understands that actuality determines potentiality. What something is, determines what it can become. Adaptations are more of a pirate ship than a space shuttle. Evolution works in intermediate steps, and each step must be favored by natural selection.

Our bodies are the result of billions of small incremental steps which have optimized genetic transmission to the next generation, but these optimization are constrained from what they have been scaffolded on top off. We discuss the example of the blind spot in the vertebrate eye (“the scotoma”) to showcase that evolution is historically contingent. The vertebrate eye is limited by the orientation of light sensitive patches of its distant ancestor. The scotoma does not exist because it is adaptive, but rather because of a dependence on history.

Pillar 2: Evolution is functional

An evolutionary mindset cleaves nature based on function. We conceptually organize the body into component parts (heart, lung, liver) based on what their purpose is. For example, we divide the heart from the lung because the heart pumps blood throughout the body, while lung is responsible for gas exchange. We separate them because they each perform distinct functions.

Evolutionary thinking understands the body is adaptive, it is a collection of these adaptations, each responsible for solving recurrent problems of survival or reproduction. This functional mindset allows for discerning the proximate vs ultimate causes. The proximate deals with “how” whereas the ultimate deals with “why.”

Distinguishing the proximate vs ultimate cause is the only way to allow for informed decisions. Without understanding the purpose of a mechanism we can not know the effects of its removal or modification. To illustrate this, we go over the example of morning sickness.

Pillar 3: Evolution is a blind process

An evolutionary mindset recognizes that evolution has no “conscious goal”, rather, it is a blind directionless process. It is a process which describes how heritable traits change in a population over time. Those things which survive and spread are those things which maximize their genetic transmission to the next generation.

Evolution therefore, does not necessarily reward “happiness”, or “well-being.” These emotions exist only insofar as they maximize an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. Happiness is not an end unto itself, only a means to an end.

Pillar 4: Evolution has trade-offs and constraints

An evolutionary mindset recognizes that adaptations come with trade-offs and constraints. They “work-on-average” rather than “perfectly” under all circumstances. We discuss the example of the peacock’s tail. The tail is not fully optimized for intersexual selection because it is constrained by the selection pressure of predation.

“Perfect” solutions rarely, if ever exist. There are a host of problems an organism must contend with over its life, and solving one inevitably comes at the cost of solving another. The result is that all adaptations are mediated by the respective weights of problems present in the environment. The heavier the problem, the more that selection will favor organism’s with adaptations that solve it at the expense of other problems.

• Genes (genetic selection — selection between genes on the same genome)

• Cells (cellular selection — selection between cells)

• Organisms (individual selection — selection between individual organisms)

• Groups (group selection — selection between groups of organisms)

When one invokes the ultimate purpose for why an adaptation exists, multilevel selection requires that one specify at what level of biological organization the trait was selected for.

For example, aggression is a adaptation for competition between individuals, but the ability to cooperate violently with members of one’s own tribe against an opposing group (warfare) is an adaptation furnished by group selection.

• RNA molecules → Protocell

• Prokaryotes → Eukaryotes

• Single cells → Multi-cellular organisms

• Organisms → Groups of organisms

Each transition caused an increase in complexity of life, and took place in four steps.

1.) Natural selection favored cooperation, the benefits of working together outweigh the cost.

2.) The burgeoning cooperative unit found a way to suppress selfish behavior, otherwise known as the free rider problem.

3.) The replicators begin to specialize for specific functions, leader to greater efficiency.

4.) The replicators became mutually interdependent on one another for reproduction, they both shared the same fate, they reproduced or died together. This formed a new unit of biological organization which natural selection acts upon.

Sexual selection is composed of two processes

• Intersexual selection: When one sex preferentially mates with another based on certain characteristics

• Intrasexual competition: When members of the same sex compete with each other for access to their counterpart.

Next we dive into why Intersexual selection is often synonymous with “female choice” — why do females preferentially select the males based on traits they find attractive, while the males compete with each other to showcase the preferred trait?

This is explained by Triver’s Theory of Parental Investment, the sex which invests greater towards reproduction will be more choosy about who they mate with. This is for two reasons

• They must solve the adaptive problem of maximizing their limited reproductive window.

• Reproduction is a resource-sink, they must ensure that the investment will pay off.

Finally we end with Richard Prum’s hypothesis on the evolution of beauty. While the peacock’s tail might be an “honest signal”, the specific version of beauty that the female selects for is purely aesthetic. The coloring of blue and green throughout the tail serves no adaptive purpose. Instead, the color pattern is a by-product of her neural wiring and exists merely because she finds its pleasing. This is a massive paradigm shift in evolutionary thinking, because it means that traits not only evolve because they must, but also because an organism wants them. Aesthetics are a genuine evolutionary force.

• Directional: An extreme version of a trait is favored in the population.

• Stabilizing: The intermediate or average form of a trait is favored.

• Disruptive: The two extremes are favored, while the intermediate is selected against.

• Fluctuating: A trait fluctuates based on periodic changes in the environment

• Balancing: When multiple versions of a trait are supported in a population.

The first is Marie West-Eberhard’s Theory of Genetic Accommodation

• Organisms display phenotypic plasticity — the ability to display different phenotypes depending upon environment.

• The theory of genetic accommodation says that novel traits induce novel traits, gene networks are expressed in new ways which result in the creation of new traits.

• Selection favors alleles which make this response more reliable.

• Genes are “followers” not “leaders”, the creation of novel traits is driven by the environment, not random mutation.

The second is Motoo’s Neutral Theory of Evolution

• Most mutations are harmless and therefore do not affect an organism’s fitness, this means the fate of the allele is not left up to selection.

• An allele becomes “fixed” (either in 0 or 100% of the population) based on the probability of a random walk 1/2N.

• Because the rate of mutation tends to be constant, we can look at the number of neutral allele’s between two populations to determine how long ago they drifted apart, otherwise known as the molecular clock.

What is the scientific method?

What is a theory? What differentiates a good theory from a bad one?

Why “all white people are racist” is pseudoscience.

What is a law?

Every splatter and long brush of paint along the mural of history had a beginning – someone somewhere had an idea, and they acted on it. Occasionally this idea spread to everyone else, so that we see its artistic style repeated as a motif along the wall.

What are the consequences of these ideas?

Better Artists

Ideas and Consequences aims to understand groups and nations primarily, though not exclusively, through ideas. It is a loose heuristic, exploring the vast ecosystem of ideas living in a society as the fundamental way to draw conclusions about their past, present, and future actions and reactions to material changes in the world. Ideas and Consequences is not a dogma, it has no principles and offers no guarantees. It provides an honest uncertainty over a false certainty. It is an art not a science.

We will join the room full of artists painting the subjects. But whereas they select a single color, we will instead draw from every known hue available. We will first presuppose that the reason a group made the decisions they did is specific to their time, place, demands, and culture. We will then ask an exhaustive list of investigative questions to gain an understanding of the subject so as to reveal their portrait.

Our Premise

The premise is the thing you assume to be true. It represents both the starting point from which you construct your thoughts, and the direction they move to find an explanation. It is therefore of the utmost importance that a premise be correct. Why? Because when you start with an incorrect premise you end up building errors on top of errors. You reason ten steps forward only to end up more lost than where you started.

The premises which routinely guide their practitioners to destinations of delusion are based on opinions. An opinion is by definition a subjective creature, who unfortunately often mistakes itself to be objective. This mistake is so thoroughly observed in the present, that one might think it is not a mistake at all! It is most routinely found in an interpretation which has exaggerated itself into the truth, as in “man is good” or “man is rational.” It is able to pass in this veracious form because it relies on itself never being wholly true or false, but rather waxing and waning under the circumstances. It wily emphasizes these waxing circumstances as constant, and launders its waning moments into obscurity, or twists them to fit its agenda.

This is why our premise will not be an opinion, but a fact. A terrible and beautiful truth – the starting point from which we paint the subject of man is that his body and mind has been shaped by natural and sexual selection. Every color and hue he has displayed throughout his history is at bottom a product of evolution and all that it entails.

Investigation

Religion

Religion is a system of beliefs accepted without proof, often supported by a spiritual element

The body of any society is filled with the blood of religion, even if they profess not to practice one. In the agnostic west the Christian god may be dead but his morality lives. Therefore, to understand how a society arrived at its moral system, it is always well and wise to understand their religion and interpretation of it.

How does one get into the afterlife?

First and foremost the question of the hereafter must be understood. The most perplexing and abstruse behaviors of a religion’s adherents are easily explained by the mechanisms through which they gain entry into the afterlife.

For instance, the arrival of a Viking into Valhalla depended upon him fighting bravely and dying in combat – after which his body would be carried by Valkyries into the halls of Odin where he would drink away his days until Ragnarok at the end of time. It should come as no surprise that the Viking warriors were remarked by their fearlessness and ferocity in battle, and how they welcomed death when it arrived.

How does the religion handle violence?

Under what conditions does the religion become violent? How is violence justified? Who can be targeted? What are the punishments? This question is of fundamental importance, as violence is the final tool for any ideology to assert itself.

Under what conditions might the religion break with its most fundamental virtues?

Ideologies that possess commandments which render them unable to deal with moments of extreme duress either die or evolve to meet the demands required to survive. For instance, Jainism possesses the principle Ahiṃsā, an all encompassing commitment to non-violence in action, speech, and thought. Jains are forbidden to hurt humans and animals even in acts of self defense. This principle goes so far as to prohibit thinking violent thoughts.

The arrival of Islam on the Indian subcontinent in the 12th century changed everything. The Muslims slaughtered the pacifist Jains who refused to fight back. Out of necessity to prevent complete extermination, Jain scholars revised Ahimsā to allow exceptions for self-defense.

The takeaway here is that it is possible for societies to suspend their most cherished principles when their survival is perceived to depend upon it.

Who does the religion hold as their ideal man?

Young men will seek to model this man in both action and spirit – the Christians emulate Jesus Christ, the Muslims Muhammad, and the Buddhists Buddha.

How are these central figures viewed in their respective religions? Are they viewed as mortal men with the attendant frailties and fallibilities that come with it? Or are they seen as men of perfection beyond the judgements of criticism?

Most religions place their prophets in this realm of perfection. That is, their prophets have done and can do no wrong. All of the best and worst actions of their life are sanctified and repeated by their followers under the justification of their respective religion. The most important question to be examined and developed is this:

What is the character of this central figure, and if a follower emulated his life and teachings what kind of man would he be?

Who does the religion hold as their ideal women?

Young women will seek to model her in both action and spirit. The same analysis should be repeated as described above.

How does the religion view women in general?

Are they sacrosanct or marginalized? Is violence prohibited against them or acceptable under certain conditions? What rights are they afforded, and what is their position relative to men? Moreover, assuming they are marginalized in some respect – is there a path forward for them to advance their current position?

What is the ideal world the religion is aspiring to create?

What is the perfect world the religion is aspiring to create? Is there an ideal world at all, or some singular event the entirety of history is building too? The true believers of any religion will always attempt to bring this world about. What is its natural conclusion? Is it somewhere you would want to live?

What is their morality?

This should center around what constitutes a moral transgression and what actions are deemed virtuous. For moral transgressions it is worth investigating how non-believers are treated, what the penalty is for criticizing the veracity of the religion, and what the punishment is for abandoning the faith.

Nationalism

Nationalism is at bottom the identification, and then support of one’s own group

Nationalism is one of the few forces that can countervail the power of religion, and is therefore the paramount “ism” to examine when unearthing the loyalties of a man’s heart and the order of rank they hold on it. Consider that in 1914 a German would call himself a German above all else, and his Christian religion would scarcely register as an afterthought in comparison. But walk back three centuries to the Thirty Years War and the same German would proclaim his Christian identity (Protestant or Catholic) and wage war on its account – even against his fellow countrymen.

Nationalism, defined as “an ideology that prioritizes a nation’s interests over the interests of other groups or individuals” is, in my opinion, a mere expression of the instinct to protect the interests of one’s own group. Therefore, one must gain a grasp on how the group identity forms to understand the manifestations of nationalism and the emotions behind it.

From where does the seed of nationalism sprout?

Group identity takes shape from only three qualities: shared values, shared blood, or a shared enemy. Without any of these a “people” can not exist and no coherent identity can form.

Shared values. The Greeks observed foreigners speaking barbaroi languages which fostered amongst themselves a recognition of their own distinct identity. It is in contrast to these foreign elements that the label “Greek” was applied to a man no matter if he resided in Sparta or Athens. The “barbarian” came to represent those who lived beyond the borders of their archipelago who spoke a different tongue and paid homage to different gods. This identity is fundamentally rooted in values – language, art, religion and various other cultural attributes.

Shared blood. Do not underestimate this force of mere appearances – it is a facet of human nature. Instinct sets in motion this valuation – that those who have physical form similar to ourselves are “our own.” Likely an evolved psychological mechanism which has proved indispensable to human life as a way of tracking genetic relatedness. It is no coincidence that all political movements rely on language which attempt to hijack this instinct, “brotherhood” or “the blood of the nation”. It awakens within us the intuition to protect our kin.

A shared enemy. An implicit chain of brotherhood is formed amongst those who mix their enmity together against a particular group. This black and red potion when sufficiently drunk creates a state of extreme trust, invisible links tie them together born from a valuation (unconscious or conscious) that they will join each other in struggle.

What is the founding myth?

Every nation has a founding myth, what is it and what does this tell you about them? For instance, the genesis of Rome is told through the story of Romulus and Remus. It concludes with an act of fratricide when Remus jumps over a wall being built by Romulus, enraged by this transgression Romulus strikes down his brother for the offense and proclaims “Death to all those who assail my walls!” This myth extols one virtue of the Roman mind: unyielding loyalty to the state above all else.

Realism

Preamble

Realism presumes that people make decisions derived from reason and logic, that they are rational creatures who work to ensure their self-preservation.

Let us first define the terms reason, logic, rational, and self-preservation.

What is Reason? – it means to work out means towards and end – “How do I climb up this tree?” – “Which belief has better evidence to support it is true?” Reason is therefore a psychological exercise.

What is logic? – Logic is not psychological, it determines if a conclusion is true starting from a premise. Logic is not concerned with whether the premise is correct – “All amphibians speak English” – “A frog is an amphibian” – “A frog speaks English.”

What is Rational? A rational individual makes a decision based around cost-benefit analysis and material incentives.

What is self-preservation? To protect oneself from harm or danger.

What are the concerns of the ruling institutions?

Ruling institutions is purposefully left vague. It is typically those who have access, influence, and control of the state. What are their concerns? They have a habit of becoming the ambitions of the state.

For instance, contrary to popular perception the inflation in Weimar Germany was driven not by incompetence. Rather, it was purposeful state policy that enriched its own interests as well as the army and industrial tycoons who stood to benefit from the debasement of the mark. This inflation allowed the state to repay war reparations without raising taxes, while German heavy industry was allowed to escape its public debts by refunding their obligations in worthless notes. The army took notice that the defunct marks erased Germany’s war debt and enabled her financially to undertake a new war.

It was the common people whose life savings were wiped out who suffered. They had no understanding of how much the interests of the German state, army, and business elites stood to benefit from the destruction of the currency. The institutions and ruling elites of Weimar Germany pursued aims in accordance with their immediate self interest. As an aside, I have found it very rare for leaders to pursue the enlightened self-interest of their people.

Economy

The production and consumption of services

What kind of economy underlies the society?

In the present only capitalism is worth discussing because nearly every single country practices some form of it. I make no claims for the future.

Every economic system places valuations in the world – what kind of valuations does capitalism create? I believe the heart of the capitalist system is concerned with growth, which is why the paramount concern among the nations of the world is the enlargement of their economies.

This explains the bizarre behavior of cultural institutions having to justify their existence with promises that they will bring in returns, arguments such as – “libraries and education must be funded to increase the productivity of the nation.”

What policies have countries created to sustain this growth? Is it sustainable? Do they sacrifice a great thing in the pursuit of the small?

It is obvious that the west has enacted many irresponsible policies to see growth continue. As in all times, this kind of nearsightedness has resulted in situations that are at best precarious but often just unsustainable, and everything unsustainable eventually collapses.

Political System

The institutions and methods which govern a country or organization

How does a political system “taste?”

Democracy, monarchy, communist, fascist, oligarchy…every form of government has a flavor associated with it. Go ahead, take a bite, what do you taste? Gather every expression of communism on this earth and apply each one as you would seasoning on a dish – in what ways do they all taste the same? In what ways do they differ?

Why is it they all devolve into totalitarianism? Why do they have periodic occurrences of famine? A useful case study could be how similar and different the Soviet and Chinese expressions of communism are to one another.

How does the transition of power occur?

What is the process by which a leader passes power to his successor? Is it peaceful? Consider that all the innumerable problems that plagued the Roman Imperium stemmed from the violation of this one practice.

Psychology

The study of the human mind and how this translates into behavior

Evolutionary Psychology

The only way to understand human psychology is through the process that created it – that is, any and all innate human behavior is a consequence of evolution. Why is it that men desire women? Why is it that he speaks? Why does he parent his young? How is it that he has become religious? It is the same reason why a newborn duckling imprints on the first thing it sees or why a new male lion in a pride kills the cubs who are not his own – Variations in heritable traits lead to differential reproductive success.

It is perhaps the greatest consequence of the modern age that humanity has acquired the ability to direct its own evolution. If he decides to use this ability our premise should be reconsidered.

Is there a single man in charge? What does he want?

Psychologize him all the way back to the womb to determine who he is and what he wants. This is a life or death question. Why?

There runs a dangerous strain of disbelief in our leaders that when a man tells them who he is, they do not believe him. They take his genuine words and aspirations as mere posturing, often because the man has so much to lose by pursuing such actions. This is the double sin of pride and folly.

Every man, in his own respect, is wed to a particular kind of “madness.” Hitler was a political genius, a ruthless negotiator, and the greatest speaker of the 20th century. All of that ability was channeled towards one violent ideal which he publicly stated many times. The contemporary world leaders who ignored him helped dig the graves of 60 million souls.

A modern example to consider is whether Xi Jinping will invade Taiwan. Any confident calls you hear of “he would never do it”, or “he has too much to lose” are made by mouths that have committed the double sin. If he feels there is a chance of success he will try his hand at an invasion. He has publicly insinuated this many times.

Ideals

What the world should be – the perfect world

What is the overarching ideal of the group?

This question is so important it must not only be answered in the religious sense but in every sense. What does this group believe the world should be and what do they believe their place is in it? Moreover, can you anticipate its natural conclusion?

And when you speak to its adherents how strongly do they actually believe in it? Are they enchanted by this ideal or are they no longer impressed by its promises? Many ideals are just fashion.

Education

To be given instruction in something

What ideas are present in the education system?

This will be the future of the nation. Pay attention to the most radical of ideas, particularly if they are rampant at a university level. Whatever speech you hear there will in a generation become action. As a useful case study, look at the treason of the intellectuals in the German and Japanese universities before the second world war. Then observe in the present a different side of the same coin.

Into the Future

This is by no means an exhaustive approach, but rather a shallow exploration. It is meant only to demonstrate a brief foray into the method. Feel free to adapt and change as you see fit. The more questions you add the more complete the painting becomes of the subject!

This essay argues that the dogmas laid down by political theorists to describe human nature are half truths masquerading as universal laws. They are instead one man’s narrow, very narrow interpretation that captures only a slice of the human heart, and is often just a reflection of his own. Political science is not a science, but rather an art.

1.0 A Portrait of A Single Color

A room full of artists, though they would be offended if addressed with the title, each sits beside a blank canvas secured to an easel. They look to the front of the room where a line of subjects patiently waits for their portrait to be captured. One by one the subjects walk to the center of the room, strike a pose, and the artists begin their work. Eager to learn their techniques, you carefully watch their methods and are amazed that the artists all follow the same inexplicable behavior.

Without exception the artists paint with only a single color, so that from the long line of subjects the portraits they produce are nothing more than monochrome derivations of one another. Even more peculiar, the monochrome images capture the subject’s features only to the extent the features appear on the artist themselves. That is to say, if the subject has features that do not appear on the artist, the artist simply omits them from the portrait. So that his finished works are just partial reflections of himself.

After the session is finished the artists stand and bicker amongst themselves – each one loudly proclaims to have perfectly captured the essence of the subjects. However, flicking your eyes from the subjects to their supposed portraits, you are amazed at how horribly each painting has modeled the subjects’ likeness. You reason the artists must all be self-deceivers or great liars to seriously believe their work even modestly painted their subjects in a manner which mirrors their appearance.

You take a step back and think to yourself “The entire room is filled with childlike novices – and perhaps this is being too generous. For it is a poor artist who uses only one color to paint a portrait, as a single color is insufficient to capture all the innumerable shades and hues of a man.”

2.0 When Will Dogmatism Die?

All the modern political theories which explain human nature are like these novice artists, they draw a portrait of humanity in a single color. Despite what they insist, it is always a color of contingent truth -- whose accuracy is like a swinging pendulum: "sometimes right, sometimes wrong". But far from having the good conscience to admit their shortcomings, these theories instead remake the entirety of the world past and present to fit their conclusions. They squeeze, oversimplify, and obfuscate complex phenomena into simple causes, and pretend to have “solved history.” The rotten paint these ideologies all insist on dipping their brushes in are dogmas. That is to say, they put forward one narrow set of principles and lay them down to be eternal truths for mankind.

The issue with principles is that they require an unimpeachable record. A fundamental truth serving as the basis for an ideology must actually always be true – as in the Laws of Conservation in physics or the Law of Multiple Proportions in chemistry. But for any law put forward that places a declaration on the human heart with unending demands, there always exists exceptions which defy the rule.

Despite the intense efforts of tabulators and philosophers to cast man into a fixed role, either as an economic animal, a creature that obeys the laws of rational self-interest, or even a being of innate “goodness”, he refuses to be seen under a singular light. Mankind is an irreducible multiplicity. He is many things all at once, not being governed by one drive or accurately described in a singular principle.

These dogmatic theories, which make it a point of habit to authoritatively dress themselves up as an “ism”, represent nothing more than overly ambitious ideas. Overfit to one time and place, carried perhaps by some marginal success, they become emboldened to lay down their truths as the sole proprietor for the human heart – stained by all the moral prejudices and demands of the unique culture and time in which they were born.

3.0 A Sample Critique and Commentary on Isms

The section below is a list of critiques of various political philosophies.

3.1 Realism

A matte-gray etching to summarize the world! Do you really think such a boring and banal drawing as this would ever suffice to describe man? The bedrock and soil from which the entire edifice grows is “self-interest” – peoples and nations act based on the rules of reason and logic to ensure their survival. Your soil is weak, and the bedrock on which it rests a false bottom. You should have kept digging.

Consider what a state is composed of! Consider the very animal of man, what evidence do you give that he has ever acted in his rational self interest alone? How should we reconcile this with the enormous weight of history that regularly demonstrates that he consciously, that is fully aware of what his self-interest is, leaves it by the wayside to charge headlong into his doom?

Perhaps to preempt the above, you would dare to venture that the sum of the whole is greater than its parts? Offering a half-hearted point of concession, that perhaps man the individual is irrational but together he forms a reasoned mob. Such a statement betrays a great personal ignorance. The history of the world is a history of madness, it just matters upon which direction its madness is pointed.

It is at the very threshold where you crossed into your conclusions of rational self interest that you should have instead paused in doubt, your most favorite of parables, the Melian dialogue. The men of Melos are crushed and promptly executed, while their wives and children made slaves. The lesson concisely summarized by Thucydides “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” The realist triumphantly declares that the Athenians have blithely abandoned their own moral codes for the strategic needs of the Peloponnesian war. He rejoices that his conclusions have been vindicated and self-interest reigns king over the human heart.

But you only capture the subject insofar as it resembles yourself, you poor artists. What of the Melians? Why fight a battle that they themselves admitted they would lose? Surely if rational was what guided their decisions they would have surrendered. Look behind the Melians eyes, I guarantee you see a burning white flame.

3.2 Liberalism

What is your rule? – To include everyone! The baby formula is as follows: Gather input from the greatest extent of your population to reach a fair consensus – ensure the state does not infringe upon the rights of the individual – cross your gentle heart with the oath that the political is a “neutral” space, free from the taint of a religious or ideological odor.

But does removing this “foul smell” require you to cut off your nose and thus rob you of the ability to sniff out an enemy? Do not all political decisions have a “smell” – a value judgement whose odor is permanently stamped upon them?

I digress too much! Let us look at your art oh you noble naive liberals! How you flatter mankind by painting him with a gentle baby blue called “innate goodness.” A most unfortunate turn of events if the rumors are true, I heard a caveman beat a member of his tribe to death for no other reason but enjoyment. What if man was not born good or evil? What if he was just born as any animal was, with a wide range of behaviors that evolution imbued into his character?

Sanctifying the rights of the individual – where does this lead? Differences be celebrated! Nations and national borders be gone! The most alien and uncomfortable instinct to the liberal is exclusion. Ponder this: is it wrong to exclude a man from your house if he wants to kill you?

The natural conclusion of the liberals’ inclusive instinct is humanism taking root. A root from which either a vigorous or insipid ideal sprouts – the entirety of the human race should one day constitute a singular political unit.

The insipid: a society so open so as to make room for the entire world. And to stitch the entirety of the world with all of its innumerable differences into the fabric of one society would require what? The native identity must be so enormously diluted that it becomes a thin and shallow puddle. A sure sign that you have stepped in one and soiled your shoes is when a society relies on “sports” or other trivial forms of entertainment as a sign of “unity”. The deeper loyalties that must be called upon by this group in times of strife are no longer present, and thus they inevitably dissolve amongst the ranks of the defeated in history.

The vigorous: Those cherished “human rights” of liberalism. How decent and humane! The liberal takes them in his arms and throws them into the air like confetti at a party “May every man on this earth be blessed with them!” he shouts. Ask of him then the following: “what is your opinion if these ‘human rights’ have their sanctity violated not just in your immediacy – but in the remotest regions of this earth?”

His general theme of reply would be a condemnation: “I would damn them as criminals wherever they may be, and pray they be brought to a swift justice!”

It is inside this deadly valuation that a liberal possessed with a sufficiently militant personality marshalls himself into first a judge, who furiously strikes his gavel against the block and rules “the transgressors are criminals.” He then dismounts his bench and appoints himself as policeman, whose jurisdiction stretches to the ends of the world in order to make his arrest – on behalf of enforcing the law of “human rights.” He thus becomes conqueror to ensure the freedoms of the conquered.

This is one of many systems of morality which creates a call to action that beckons its followers to deliver justice for its broken tenets anywhere on this earth.

3.3 Communism

“...the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”

What an audacious generalization! The struggles of all history placed in between the voluptuous bosoms of class conflict, and I daresay, squeezed so tightly so as not to breathe. Splatter your red paint all the way down the mural of history to the tracks of the Pleistocene hunter. How elegant it must have been to live in such times! Without the invention of property ruining Eden by placing conflict in the human heart!

How should we further reinvent history? How should we rewrite the past to fit this agenda? So that every period can be reduced to questions of material interest. How much oversimplification must be done to seriously purport that religion through all its innumerable forms is nothing more than an opium to control the masses? That the modern state’s primary purpose is to advance the capitalist class interest? To what degree should we discard nuance to arrive at the cleanly divided world of the exploiter and exploited? Why do you suppose that material interest has sole sovereign rule over the human heart? What is the better explanation of the great wars of the 20th century? Bourgeois manipulations or the actual reasons leaders and soldiers gave to fight them? Why seek to make something complicated and intricate into something simple?

3.4 Nazism

Conquerors of the world are what your ideology demands. A strong black line cut through the entirety of history, redrawn into a simple racial caricature. The rise and fall of civilizations all explained by the waxing and waning of Aryan bloodlines. Why did Rome ascend? By the strength of Aryan blood. Why did it fall? Its loss.

The Nazi declares responsibility for the invention and success of all civilization – recasting the successes of the foreigner as his own. The flowering of ancient Persia and India for example, brought about by the hands of the Aryan race. And where this insertion becomes impossible as in the far east, he minimizes their accomplishments so that the span of civilization owes its progress to no hands but his own.

What is the character of a man who deludes himself with the achievements of another? Arrogance would be too kind a word. Would we not call him an impostor? How grand an impostor’s delusions can grow, until in his false confidence he takes on a venture that forces reality upon him. What was the eastern front if not this? An inability to recognize strength in others sowed the seeds for his own destruction.

Conclusion

The portraits that will accurately capture the likeness of man will be created only by artists, who craft their color palettes from as wide and diverse a range of sources as possible. Such an undertaking will incorporate economics, psychology, physiology, history, religion, and any other useful field of study under one domain to create methods hitherto unknown for their accuracy of prediction. Ideas and Consequences is one such method – it is an art par excellence precisely because it has no dogma, no system, and no guarantees. It will rely on the skill of the artist and his insights to divine his subject, and like all art only those predestined for the craft can utilize it for effective means.

An idea does not change in an arbitrary fashion. What an idea is – its premises and axioms. Determines what it can become – its possible interpretations and moral valuations.

By the same certainty that an elephant is predestined to be born with a trunk, or a bird to sprout feathers, ideas possess an inescapable nature. That is to say, by the same conviction that an animal will mature into a specific form – the development of an idea will inevitably result in certain moral valuations and interpretations of the world which represent its natural conclusion.

The Natural Conclusion of Mysticism

Consider the premise that there are people privy to special knowledge from “another world” that only they can understand – in other words, mysticism. Now, inject this idea into a political system and its natural conclusion will be a dictatorship.

The superlative example, perhaps the original example rests with Plato. His premise is this: the “true world” exists in the Forms and our world is a half reality born from its warped reflection, akin to shadows on a cave wall. Only those who are able to escape the cave and grasp the “true world” can return enlightened and save the ignorant masses. But not everyone can become enlightened, only special men – philosophers who through careful study are able to perceive the forms.

What follows if only select men are able to discern this uncommunicable other world? Plato made the obvious deduction that only those capable of perceiving the Form of the Good should rule, and outlined his perfect government in The Republic to be a Philosopher King – an absolute dictator with totalitarian control over every facet of life.

The truly power hungry – dictators who wish to cement their rule with complete obedience and crush any criticism against their authority, invariably descend into mysticism. Scrape away at the illustrious gold of the Roman Imperial Cult, discard the sacred pearls of the Divine Right of Kings, and look deep into the heart of modern authoritarianism to see that all have grown from or adopted the same specific strain of mysticism – that they are larger than life and possess knowledge ordinary people can not understand.

The Natural Conclusion of An Ideal

What is the natural conclusion of an idea in relation to history? Consider that every society gives its citizens ideals – beliefs of what the world or a person should be.

These ideals are lived by their true believers. That Caesar emulated Alexander the Great or that the Quakers sought to create a world that reflected equality for all people had profound consequences. Generation after generation, the effects of these ideals became slowly realized through the actions of their followers to result in a society that reflects their natural conclusions. That is, the moral and political valuations required to bring these ideals about.

A nation’s gravity in history may just be determined by the weight of idealism imposed on their citizens. To what degree they feel the need to see this ideal enacted and its measure of progress pushed forward. A beautiful tension of the soul, in which the present reality is inadequate in its current state and must be moved towards certain directions.

If a society fails to move on its own accord, it is because its citizens do not have the power to implement the ideal – or more often, they simply do not believe in it. It has become just another myth.

I would venture to suggest – even pronounce, that the grand movements of history can be seen as idealistic hands reaching for a destination – ships crewed by men with a white flame behind their eyes in pursuit of distant shores.

This essay argues that people adapt their convictions to the crowd and are not only unaware of the origins of their beliefs, but unconscious to the subtle ways it guides their intuition.

2.0 Mix Into The Madness

It is a rite of passage for a child to imagine a monster from the darkness of a room, and to believe the terrifying fantasy to be real. This inability to distinguish imagination from reality is a plague upon the juvenile mind, cured through the passage of time. Whereby, a child matures into an adult and learns to discard their intrusive fantasies as nothing more than the works of an overactive imagination. 

Let us suppose this child ages to become a parent. A parent that spends his nights relieving his child’s fear that a monster haunts their room, with an empathetic smile he responds “Do not worry, it is only in your imagination.” It would be unimaginable for him to entertain that the fantasy was real, and share his child’s fear. But a belief no matter how mad can be pushed into truth with the weight of the crowd behind it. 

What if all the world believed in this monster, and the parent alone disregarded it as fantasy? How long could they stand apart from the crowd before surrendering to its ranks? And in further support for Solomon-Asch, add their voice to its chants? If the ledgers of history account for anything, it would settle that the parent bends his mind and murders his reason to accept a belief he otherwise knows to be mad. A phenomenon in which his mind is fractured into a thousand pieces under the weight of the crowd and mixed into its madness. Wherein this madness becomes the truth simply because many people believe in it. 

3.0 The Weight of The Crowd

The weight of the crowd arrives upon your back when the convictions you hold are seen as “dangerous”, “loathed”, “heretical”, even “evil”. At its most abject you are left as their sole defender, showered by an endless torrent of pejoratives that drown you into a state of disgrace. From which whatever implored rebuttal you offer no matter how veracious will not avail you, guilt was established by the accusations alone. Your reputation is dead, buried beneath a mountain of smears and libel to become synonymous with disciple of the devil and enemy of the peace. But let your woe be redoubled, for lacking any company to share the burden, you endure this ridicule and revulsion alone. Forever cast to isolation as one for whom the future holds no promise.

Fear of this fate breeds many a man into nothing. Men who make acceptance their master, comfort their passion, and struggle their whip. Whatever creed they purportedly wear is nothing more than fashion. And being fashion, their eyes dart to the sides for shifts in the popular dress, and they change accordingly.

However, there are few willing and even thrilled to incur the wrath of the mob. For him an idea is master, struggle his service, and comfort his indifference. Select men of this rank go beyond Atlas incarnate to not only hold the weight of the crowd, but to cast it off entirely. In the margins of such an act lies a threat, that this man is capable of gathering a crowd himself.

4.0 The Atmosphere of Conception

The ideas that constitute the air we breathe from conception are the most difficult to expel from our lungs. And this is already supposing we are conscious of what we breathe! For whom amongst us is aware of the atmosphere of their conception?

Ideas of this nature have taken root at the lowest soils of our psyche. Removed from our conscious awareness they sprout as branch, bough, or bole into every thought to become a part of our intuition. But far from being an instinct bestowed by nature, these ideas are most often moral valuations buried into the bedrock of society; as in The Golden Rule or The Ten Commandments. Beliefs upon which so much has been built that we conflate our cultural valuations as universals of human nature.

It is why when a man mocks the past and praises the present, when he sees only foolishness in history and contempt in his forebears, he belies his ignorance. He should be greeted with a chuckle and retort “No man has ever breathed the free air.” 

The air of modernity he prides himself in, and which he fancies the freshest in history, is a mere continuation of all the ideas and moral imperatives of yesterday. And if he was conscious of the contents of his air, he would see its layers built upon the breaths of his forefathers.

That if he trained himself to become an eagle, with not just a sense of the air, but a perception of wind. He could fold his wings into a vertical dive and look in to see history swept along patterns of gales and gusts. That it becomes possible for this choice man not only to declare himself aware of the atmosphere of his conception, but forecast its future. 

This essay is an interpretation of “Supposing truth is a woman? What then?”. This essay will portray the search for the truth as no different than one’s search for food. Namely, as a search undertaken on behalf of an instinct. And this search being instinctual, cannot be reduced to a rational process. Instead, the truth mankind creates (excluding the scientific), is formed to the shape of a desire.

2.0 Man The Animal

Contrary to conventional wisdom, man is no exception to the laws of nature. He acts as any animal does and obeys the commands of his instincts to live towards certain definite ends. To the distress of many, the laws of nature have exacted upon him further legislative burdens. He has been shaped into an existential creature, instinctively in search for "truth" and "meaning."

Let us put to trial this existential instinct on charges of fraud and indict all the truths that have been ordained on its behalf as evidence of the crime. The labor to find the “truth” has been anything but honest. Rather, it has made us all charlatans, who under the guise of disinterested seekers of knowledge create truth in the shape of a desire.

This “truth” purported to be in accordance with fact or reality, is nothing more than an expression of our nature, personality, and cultural value judgements hidden behind a thousand layers of misdirection.  

I believe nowhere is this misdirection so carelessly cast and poorly laid than by the archetype of the prophet. Who, over the course of his journey to create religion, furnishes with intoxicating confidence the explanation for all existence.

But this answer is not furnished honestly.

3.0 The Archetype of the Prophet

Every man sings a song unto himself, captivated by a melody only he can hear. It is a song composed by all the desires of his heart, and each covets the baton of maestro to secretly conduct his conscious thoughts to play their theme. 

Strike a tuning fork to the head of any prophet and the song that radiates the air would be of the same recognizable chord progression – the prophet is in contact with heavenly deities – they speak to him of his special purpose – a purpose to spread their message upon earth – this message conveniently ennobles himself, rewards his followers, and punishes his skeptics.

Listen carefully to the melodies derived from this progression and in the background you will hear the same singular desire spin its hand to grasp the baton and announce itself as conductor. Behind the intoxicating hymns and sweet serenades of Jesus, naked on the center stage from the strange cacophony of Joseph Smith, and beneath the violent war marches and zealous chants of Muhammad, lies a megalomaniac desire that has crowned itself master. Under its rule, each prophet fantasizes in the spirit that he is chosen and powerful, resulting in a grandiose narrative which places him at the center of importance. It is why every religion’s prophet begins his story as a variation on the same theme of him being special. Jesus was the son of God,  Joseph Smith the emissary of the angel Moroni, and Muhammad the final messenger of Allah. 

It is inside this grandiose narrative that all the desires of his heart contribute their penmanship to write the story of his religion. Jesus reifies love and forgiveness paramount because that is according to his disposition. Joseph Smith marks the family divine because that was in the spirit of his nature. Muhammad poured his vindictiveness towards those who refused to follow him through the perjorative Kafir. At bottom their word of god is the confessions of their character made divine.

4.0 Man the Rational

Anyone who considers their own life will find they are little prophets. Who, insofar as they abandon defenses for their beliefs deriving from divine origins, instead, turn to become practitioners of debate to defend the impulses of their heart behind arguments of rationale. Upon which they laud their "truths" as proved and a matter of fact.

Such behavior has spawned a long litany of “objective moralities” adorned as uncontaminated monuments to reason, free from the old mythologies and superstitions of the past. But under this pretense they are no different from the priest on his pulpit. They forget no morality has ever been proved correct, and that their truth bears absolutely no consequence whatsoever on being in accordance with fact or reality. Rather, it is, as it always has been, an interpretation that stands in accordance with the shape of a desire.

This is the first essay of a series on Ideas and Consequences. This essay examines how feelings transform themselves into beliefs, and how these beliefs can become something people will die for. This essay uses concepts from Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche and The Devoted Actor by Scott Atran.

1.1 Prometheus’s Greatest Gift

Zeus punished our greatest benefactor for the wrong crime. He failed to grasp the preeminent power stolen from the gods. It is why as the eagle eternally sets its talons upon Prometheus, he forever wears his face as victor and champion. He rests assured that his undetected treachery will produce a vengeance to topple the sovereign of Olympus and supplant his rule. In the furnace of our creation, the clever Titan wrought upon the mortal flesh of man a secret flame, a flame that would one day imbue him with the power of the gods.

We are mistaken to believe that the greatest gift Prometheus gave to mankind was fire, and not that as he molded our form from clay he endowed our mind with the ability to create an idea. For an idea is the fire of the mind from whose flames the entire project of civilization has been forged.

1.2 The Desire of Fire

An ember is never content in its present state, nor for that matter is any form of fire. The ember seeks to beget the flame, and the flame above all else hungers to spread. Left unchecked and unbounded, this ravenous hunger would reduce the entirety of the world to ash.

The fire in the mind possesses the same expansionist drive. It longs to escape the confines of the skull and burn itself into the world. A failure to do is the source of all our frustrations, supplied by the unrealized ideas in our minds.

1.3 The Red Flame

The intensity of fire, the method by which it spreads, its very character and disposition, is determined by the fuel from which it burns.

The flames of the mind all originate from the same singular source. A red flame whose existence is sparked from a tinderbox of raw emotions: lust, fear, envy, love, hate, sorrow, joy, rage, and the principal component of desire. The red flame wrestles complete hold of the mind, but its mastery is ephemeral. It is the nature of lust that it does not last. The fear which crawls up your spine in the dark subsides in the light, and that elation lasts only as long as the pleasurable experience that stimulates it.

But every red flame seeks to reach beyond its flickering existence and transform itself into an idea that expresses the emotion that created it.

1.4 The Orange Flame

Let us suppose a young girl is trapped alone in a dark room. Huddled silently in the corner, an absolute blackness fills the space so that her own hand is rendered invisible before her eyes. Succumbing to a child’s instinctual fear of the dark, she crumbles to the floor and slips into debilitating panic. Paralysis invoked by terror grips her body as the red flame born of fear overwhelms her mind.

But in this pivotal moment she gives her fear a new and dangerous quality. She suddenly imagines a monster at her side, bearing glistening fangs and dagger pointed claws extended to devour her whole. From this simple act of imagination, the little girl transforms her fear into a form that can endure beyond the dark room in which it was born.

This imagined monster now haunts her daylight hours. The little girl envisions the monster behind every closed door pressed against the jamb with a hungry grin. On the brink of sleep, the intrusive thought that the monster stands ready to crawl out from under the bed jolts her awake.

This is the birth of the orange flame. Our feelings act themselves out as fantasies. Imagination provides a wide net to catch the river of emotional liquid that pours from the limbic system, the contents of which dry into concrete form. It is from this structure that the orange flame burns. An emotion becomes a “thing”, and through the invention of language is now transmissible into the minds of others.

But a passing fantasy is not always content in its position. Sometimes it is a rare kind of make-believe. A fantasy of desire. It wants to be believed. It wants to be real. As all our truths of yesterday and today were first nothing more than liquid emotion caught by imagination and settled into definite shape. Once burning in our mind, we recreate ourselves and the world to its image.

1.5 The Blue Flame

The truth is what we believe the world to be. But where did our beliefs come from?

There is an apparent everlasting theme, perhaps even a physiological necessity in the human condition. We are never content to let our desires rest beyond our reach. No matter how far removed and distant they lie, we always imagine a way to extend our grasp to hold them.

Nowhere are humanity's hands so clearly and fictitiously lengthened than by an agrarian society's desire for rainfall. Each society, without fail, created a series of abstruse rituals and practices that allowed them to outstretch their hands to the clouds and squeeze them for precipitation.

Frog weddings were held in southern India for the God Indra to send the monsoon. Rain makers throughout sub-saharan Africa practiced to be in tune with “spirits” who granted them influence over rainfall. In China, communities held processions to appease Longwang the dragon king. The Pueblo Indians performed rain dances. The Greeks commenced ritual slaughter of animals to indulge Zeus. The Aztecs sacrificed young children in honor of Tlaloc, the greater the children wept, the greater the rainfall Tlaloc would dispense. It is no exaggeration to say I could not find a single group that did not personify the rain in some fashion, and create a ritual to bring about its arrival.

To unclothe these beliefs for rain, and expose their naked form to be a seduction for agrarian desires requires little undressing. But this is no exception, behind all belief and its clever decor lies the same circumstances of conception. A red flame whose existence is fueled by the demands of an emotion. A transformation from feeling to fantasy, guided by imagination carving a route to the end for this demand to get what it wants. Wherein our fantasies become belief to reach this end, and behind our eyes the orange flame raises its intensity to burn blue.

1.6 The White Flame

There has always been, and will always be, war. Sum the histories and fix your eyes on the count. An unending stream of conflict floods the world that has never receded into a passing moment of peace.

Of the wars that are fought, the ones that fill and refill an ocean’s measure of blood, that destroy a civilization, that erupt again and again over the same issues, are wars of identity.

But before the first bullet is fired, before the opening war cry commences the battle, before millions march from their homes, war first begins as an idea. This scarlet seed planted in the minds of men that grows to cover the canopy of his identity to bear its bloody fruits.

Take hold of this fruit and feast your eyes on its red flesh. Why does the monk self-immolate? Because he is a Buddhist. Why does the priest welcome death on the cross? Because he is a Christian. Why does the jihadi suicide attack? Because he is a muslim. Why does the young man romanticize his death for dulce et decorum est? Because he is a nationalist.

Beliefs that implant themselves in the “I am” and affirmed by the “we are” hold such an iron grip on your heart that they cannot be loosened by the clamoring hands of logic or reason. They will not be removed by material persuasion, nor will they be lessened by bribes of self-interest. These beliefs fuse into an individual's identity so as to become inseparable from it, and they will see their ends fulfilled no matter the costs.

Behold the white flame, whose burning results in the mobilization of an unlimited number for any task possible. It is on behalf of the white flame that an individual will risk anything.

1.7 Fires Of The White Flame

Fires of the white flame set alight in a man’s mind can burn with such an intensity that the resultant smoke advances through the optic nerve and settles permanently in his eyes. The light that passes from the world through its lens is scattered and remade through this smoky haze. What is shown to them of the earth is then reforged by the fire burning behind their gaze. So that finally this fire, and this fire alone extends to hold complete dominion over their mind. And from this burning they cannot help but attempt to rebrand the world in the fire's image. That it becomes possible for them to forego all self interest in a bid to fan the fire’s flames.

Ideologies that possess the white flame. That is to say, beliefs that insert themselves into an individual's sense of self or community have been the driver of the deadliest conflicts throughout history. Conflict is assured to erupt if these beliefs are characterized by violence, as any ideology will attempt to recreate the world in its own image. And wars are nothing more than ideologies burning in the minds of their followers finally brought to life.

We have arrived at a moment in history in which the white flame reasserts itself. This storm of fire will burn brightly and widely. At the time of this writing, it is only the storm before the storm. The embers just begin to smoke, but as the first flames catch the roaring fire is but moments away from bursting into existence.