Death By Openness

Note: Behind the green door I have a post why you should fill up your diet with seed oils, a post about losers and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.


In the early days of the internet, people started to notice that there was another side to the mass accumulation of information online. The information piling up in databases and data centers was not just public information, but also what had always been assumed to be private information. Pictures of your home and maybe even you outside cutting your grass could now turn up in the public square, without you knowing it. Lots of things about your life were now public information.

Suddenly, a degenerate with free time could figure out things about you that he could not know in the past. Of course, this became a temptation for people to nose around in the lives of coworkers and neighbors. The more information that piled up online, the less privacy everyone could expect. Quickly we were moving into glass houses and subjected to the unwanted gaze. The only place where you can be free of the gaze is in your own mind, and even there the synopticon is hunting for data.

Of course, in typical American fashion, the same people gathering up your private information and making it public now sell services to keep your private information as private as possible in this age. On the other hand, people told by the state to gather your private information for things like banking are reckless with their security, so it is regularly stolen and published by gangsters. Again, in typical American fashion, the reckless people never pay a price for it.

We are quickly reaching the point where nothing is private and anything of private value will be stolen. One result of this is no one cares about the private. The rise of profilicity is a response to the collapse of individual privacy. Since no one has a private life, what distinguishes us is the public profile we create. This profile is just about disconnected from the person playing the profile. In other words, the collapse in privacy has eliminated the value in having private things.

It is tempting to blame this on technology, which is the mistake made by privacy advocates in the last century. In typical American fashion, they assumed there was a mechanical solution to a moral or spiritual problem. In the case of privacy, they assumed new rules to guard your privacy would prevent the people who laugh at the concept of a rules-based society from harvesting your privacy. Unsurprisingly, privacy has collapsed despite the rules.

The reason for the collapse in privacy in America goes back to the civil right revolution in the middle of the last century. When the ruling elites transitioned from a rights-based moral framework to the civil rights moral framework, they had no choice but to abandon the concept of personal privacy, despite claims to the contrary. This is why Europe has been much better at enforcing privacy laws. They never had a civil rights revolution, so they have not fully internalized its moral structures.

The way to understand this is to think about the moral spectrum in the political order of 19th century America. The “good” pole was where the state played no role in the decisions made by the citizens. People were on their own to sort things. The bad pole was where the citizens needed permission to do things. The concept of individual rights was not to carve out a free space for the citizen. It was to carve out space for the state to do the narrow purposes of collective security.

The civil rights revolution in the middle of the 20th century abandoned this old spectrum, which had been discredited, at least in the collective reasoning of the emerging managerial class, in the great struggle against the economic crisis of the 1930’s and the war on fascism in the 1940’s. What the civil rights revolution did was replace this old and largely civic moral paradigm with a new paradigm. The goal of which was not maximum liberty but maximum access.

The open society concept, popularized in America by Karl Popper and now George Soros, is the end point of this new moral paradigm. The new poles are openness, access, and diversity at the “good” end. The bad end is discrimination, which can only come through the mechanism of barriers to entry, so the ultimate bad thing in this new society is the locked door. The goal of the open society is to find every locked door and bust it down in order to maximize openness.

One of the immediate results of this moral revolution at the top was the end of public discrimination through the violent overthrow of the old segregation systems, in both the North and the South. What followed was pogrom after pogrom to breakdown every locked door that could be found in private America. Men’s clubs, for example, were forced to accept women or face endless litigation for discrimination. The Boy Scouts were handed over to pedophiles for the same reason.

Long before degenerates were googling your name looking for private information, the state was hunting around for locked doors on the assumption that there were private people collectively closing themselves off from others. If one wants to look for the logic behind the claim that nonwhites have a right to access white people, it lies in the fundamental logic of the open society. In a world where discrimination is the ultimate evil, everyone has a right to everyone, even their intimate life.

There is, ironically, a private benefit to this. Certain members of the ruling class benefit through the anathematization of preference. In a world where it is immoral for you to prefer not to associate with certain people, it is unacceptable for the masses to prefer that certain people not have access to power. At the same time, the ruling class as a whole benefits from the fact that it is close to impossible to organize opposition when everything must be done in plain sight.

The collapse of privacy is the logical outcome of the civil rights revolution and the synopticon that has involved to enforce it is a practical necessity. Humans are naturally self-organizing and naturally self-segregating. Unconscious bias is not just a weapon to compel submission to the new racial hierarchy but a way to condition the populace to question their own minds. A people who naturally feel in conflict with what they are told is the shared collective morality will remain docile.

Of course, much of the behavior from the ruling elite in the open society is designed to prevent asking basic questions, like who says discrimination is bad? Who or what is the moral authority for this claim? Why is diversity good? Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity? The collapse in individual and collective privacy makes it much easier to hunt down those asking these questions before they get too much of an audience.

The ultimate question is can such a system last? There is a reason why there are so few prison riots and history has not been kind to slave revolts. It is not just force that keeps the prisoner under control or the slaves from revolting. In every prison, inmates outnumber guards. Slaves always outnumber the overseers. What keeps them under control are the moral chains that tell them they deserve their position. A nation in such chains is as unlikely to revolt.

On the other hand, if the prisoners know the guards cannot rely on the state to protect them, the prisoners will begin to question the morality of their position. Similarly, if the social structures that make slavery possible collapse, then the slaves quickly overthrow their masters, even if it means their own death. One of the consequences of the open society is a deeply paranoid and conspiratorial ruling elite. They know more than anyone how near run things are for them.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

sa***@mi*********************.com











.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
37 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ProZNoV
ProZNoV
2 hours ago

Spinoza famously wrote:

“In a free state every man may think what he likes and say what he thinks.”

We are so far removed from this that the focus now is “how can we hide our true thoughts privately?”

Vizzini
Member
1 hour ago

 The goal of the open society is to find every locked door and bust it down in order to maximize openness.

Weirdly, if you try to walk into any Soros home and wander the grounds or plop yourself down in the living room with a beer, you will find a large amount of “closedness.”

Auntie Analogue
Auntie Analogue
Reply to  Vizzini
57 minutes ago

Exactly, Vizzini: “maximize openness,” like the openness on display in Martha’s Vineyard.

Oswald Spengler
Oswald Spengler
Reply to  Vizzini
54 minutes ago

“Openness and access for thee but definitely NOT for me.”

RealityRules
RealityRules
Reply to  Vizzini
23 minutes ago

Pure genius Vizzini.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
1 hour ago

Giving the vote to women inevitably led to this chain of consequences, because most women think that it’s mean to prevent everyone from having or doing everything, including the right to move into your neighborhood and trash the place…and they rationalize the resulting differences as just unfortunate differences in culture….

Arthur Metcalf
Arthur Metcalf
Reply to  pyrrhus
1 hour ago

Women do not separate the household from the polis. There is no separation of private goods from public ones. Letting women out of the household into the public square means that they will treat the res publica as their own, which in nature, means like children or domestic goods. They will tyrannize everything because they believe it is theirs to manage. When the public things do not respond to them like the private ones (a boiling tea pot is far different from projecting the next 25 years of road repairs), they will react as women do, both emotionally and psychologically… Read more »

Last edited 1 hour ago by Arthur Metcalf
compsci
compsci
Reply to  Arthur Metcalf
1 hour ago

“There is a book to be written about the attitudes of the men who permitted the 19th Amendment, and why.” I’ve not read the book, or any book on the 19th, but do know that such privileges as voting were in vogue long before the 19th was adopted. Many States allowed various forms/degrees of women’s suffrage. This was the classic example of the camel’s nose in the tent. My suspicion is that these local “experiments” paved the way for the catastrophic event of the 19th Amendment. There is no way back short of tearing up the Constitution and starting over.… Read more »

Evil Sandmich
Evil Sandmich
Reply to  compsci
8 minutes ago

Z had a good quip that (paraphrasing) Democracy has an insatiable appetite for votes: the more votes the better, after all, the more people who vote, the more legitimacy the system has. The 19th amendment wasn’t done in a vacuum, voting liberalization only ever went one way.

Tired Citizen
Tired Citizen
Reply to  pyrrhus
1 hour ago

You can’t explain this logically to them. They will simply tell you that the people trashing your neighborhood are victims of oppression which is why they behave the way they do. They just haven’t been given the opportunities needed to advance themselves. The only thing stopping the cannibalistic Haitian from being an astronaut is racism by evil White men.

Winter
Winter
Reply to  Tired Citizen
1 hour ago

Yes. Because this is what the media tells them, and they are only repeating what they’ve heard. It takes a lot of mental fortitude to go against the grain of propaganda. Even among men, it’s all too rare. If we hadn’t let our enemies control our media, we wouldn’t be in this position with either sex.

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  Tired Citizen
56 minutes ago

It’s not just women who believe such nonsense. A considerable percentage of white men believe the same thing.

Last edited 23 minutes ago by Ostei Kozelskii
Winter
Winter
Reply to  pyrrhus
1 hour ago

This is a vast oversimplification. A majority of White women voted for Trump in spite of nonstop propaganda pushing them in the other direction. As far as the other White women, those who didn’t vote for Trump, they were reliably informed by the media, by their churches, by their schools, and by nearly every entertainment product that only bad people vote for racism and closed borders. All levers of power and influence are controlled by people who hate us. Yes, women are too gullible and ruled by emotion, but they could just as easily be swayed in the opposite direction… Read more »

Tarl Cabot
Tarl Cabot
Reply to  Winter
21 minutes ago

Yes, there is always a snake in the garden. But there is a reason why the snake went first to Eve.

Hi-ya!
Hi-ya!
Reply to  pyrrhus
1 hour ago

Wh Auden lecture on taming of the shrew c 1946. He hated taming, being the only farce Shakespeare wrote abd says it doesn’t work: In our time the war of the sexes has become much too serious an issue to be treated in a farcical manner. This has been true in England ever since the passage of the Married Woman’s Property Act in 1882. Up to that point there was no question, basically, that man was boss. I cannot tell you what a shock it was to come to this country. In England things are run for the benefit of… Read more »

Quintus
Quintus
Reply to  pyrrhus
45 minutes ago

Women don’t want their neighborhoods trashed by foreigners and the “people of brown” any less than men. For example, women were very well represented in the protests against the forced integration of schools (while it was men forcing it at gunpoint). The degradation of voting as a political mechanism in the US came about first with the elimination of the property requirement to vote, and then allowing non-whites to vote in what was once a white country. White women voting in a white country is absolutely no problem at all. Voting at all in a “diverse” society ruled over by… Read more »

RealityRules
RealityRules
2 hours ago

“The open society concept, popularized in America by Karl Popper and now George Soros, is the end point of this new moral paradigm. The new poles are openness, access, and diversity at the “good” end. The bad end is discrimination, which can only come through the mechanism of barriers to entry, so the ultimate bad thing in this new society is the locked door. The goal of the open society is to find every locked door and bust it down in order to maximize openness.” Yet, this moral regime has as its first premise that discrimination and closed doors are… Read more »

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  RealityRules
1 hour ago

I don’t think anyone here thinks of Ignatiev as white.

Tired Citizen
Tired Citizen
Reply to  RealityRules
1 hour ago

Diversity seems to only be good in White countries. Huh…. Who knew?

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  RealityRules
52 minutes ago

Like all Leftist Finkels, Ignatiev didn’t consider himself to be white. And they’re right.

Last edited 52 minutes ago by Ostei Kozelskii
Montefrio
Member
Reply to  Ostei Kozelskii
1 minute ago

You’re correct, but the boyz & girlz in the hood and the new imports consider Iggy to be as white as Audie (NOT Eddie) Murphy, but nowhere near as dangerous.

Son
Son
1 hour ago

Of course you don’t think the tech is an issue cause, imho, you’re a technocrat. Sorry, a Global Cosmopolitan Conservative. Patent pending? The subtext in this piece is…accept the logic of the synopticon. If we use covid as an example, this is like saying, well, your kids are in school and school is the thing cause you need college or whatever reason. So them wearing masks is a given. What else would you do, right? You don’t have any other choices! I’m sure you could even bring in your distinction between civil rights with this issue. However, the point is…then… Read more »

Dutchboy
Dutchboy
59 minutes ago

The civil rights movement was a Jewish movement with the intent to abolish free association and allow Jews access to positions of power previously denied them. The non-white frontmen (e,g., MLK Jr.) had Jewish handlers who kept in the backround so as not to give away the game. The Jews have used this power to undermine the Christian society they loathe with the results you can see all around you: the normalization of the abnormal, chronic wars in the interests of Israel, and the financialization of the economy.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
1 hour ago

Majestic.
Libertie. Fraternatie. Equalitie.
Diversity. Equity. Inclusion.

Access.

The right to your women, your wealth, your identity, your history, your children…

compsci
compsci
Reply to  Alzaebo
1 hour ago

No great quibble, but would note that access to one’s “children”, at least, is quite often “voluntary” on one’s part. Way too many people–White and non-White–turn their children over to government run agencies rather than spend the time and effort needed to avoid the indoctrination that comes with such. We often speak of “home schooling”, but the problem runs much deeper.

 Aristotle is quoted to have said: “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the foundations of the man”. And so it is.

3g4me
3g4me
Reply to  compsci
47 minutes ago

Compsci: Well said and vital point. Cuckservatards like to sneer at the African “it takes a village” aphorism, but yet they live by it daily. “Kids need to be socialized.” “Let’s stamp out bullying.” Everything is a society-wide moral crusade.

Women are the ones who need to be reined in by shared mores, social standards, and public shaming. Children need to be raised by a loving mother and father – one of each.

TomA
TomA
1 hour ago

They have to keep the plates spinning or face the wrath of the uprising. That is their worst dilemma. And they were counting on raping the resources of Ukraine and Russia in order to buy a few more years of leeway. Putin said no and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Similarly, when the collapse gets rolling, they were counting on a manufactured slaughter between the plebs and invaders. But the invaders can be incentivized to go after the elites and Deep State, who are also victims of the demise of privacy. After all, there lies the best… Read more »

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  TomA
50 minutes ago

Returning chickens roost on spinning plates…

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
1 hour ago

Will privacy even be a concept in twenty years??

3g4me
3g4me
Reply to  Moran ya Simba
43 minutes ago

For most of the world, it’s not now. Ever note how Asians (both east and south) do everything in a group? Studying, cheating, shopping, traveling, etc. All non-White societies are totally communal. Only among a subset of Whites (now down to less than 10% of the world’s population) understand and value privacy and individual physical and mental space. It’s rapidly vanishing and will be gone in a decade, under the non-White onslaught and the female demand to ‘share’ everything with everyone.

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
Reply to  3g4me
22 minutes ago

That’s a good point and very ominous. We really are a breed apart

Captain Willard
Captain Willard
1 hour ago

“One of the consequences of the open society is a deeply paranoid and conspiratorial ruling elite. They know more than anyone how near run things are for them.”
Most of this is directed at potential and emerging intra-Elite competition I think. Revolutions are rarely directed by the average slob. Sure every now and then they make an example out of someone like poor Doug Mackey. But the real venom is reserved for elite competition – like Trump, Vance, Kennedy, Musk, Carlson.

Tarl Cabot
Tarl Cabot
Reply to  Captain Willard
24 minutes ago

The principal stakes in this election is the struggle between the rising tech elite and the intrenched finance elite that has been in power at least since the New Deal, and arguably since the creation of the Federal Reserve. The paradigm is complicated somewhat by ethnic interests, and to what degree you consider media to be tech, but there is no doubt that the ruling class’ real fear is that Trump (and Vance even more so) is a vehicle for their replacement. This is why, despite all her shortcomings, the elites have to go all in for Kamala. Ironically, Trump’s… Read more »

TempoNick
TempoNick
17 minutes ago

I was online last week checking on my voter registration only to find that somebody had changed my voter registration to the other side of town. I’ve lived in the same place for 30 years. Since you need a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social to do that online, I can only imagine where that information was obtained.

Popcorn
Popcorn
53 minutes ago

What will end the present system will probably not be collapse or internal revolt but civilization at the gates.

Bloated Boomer
Bloated Boomer
1 hour ago

“In a world where it is immoral for you to prefer not to associate with certain people”

What world is this? I’m not seeing this standard being applied universally.

Jack
1 hour ago

your article based on a faulty belief; you think law and legal are the same thing; if that belief was true then your article would have value; and we would have no hope in life;

legal enslaves us; law gives us all the power;

legal traps through contract and our own permission to it;

law gives us completely freedom; it gives us the full ability to stop everything in the legal system;