Archive for November, 2011
Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
If you had to get a cancer, which type would you prefer? Here are your choices:
Behind door #1, a fast-growing cancer that quickly presents symptoms when it’s a type 1, so it can be cleanly removed.
Behind door #2, a slow-growing cancer that does not present symptoms until it is a full-blown type 4, leaving you no surgery options except digging a six-foot hole.
Although in real life there’s some middle group between the two, most things fall into these two categories. The fast and obvious versus the slow and clandestine.
One is direct and the other is not. The direct exists on a single level: it acts toward its goal and looks it. The indirect has two levels; first, its appearance and second, its actual goal.
Femicide, or the killing of women, occurs indirectly. Like most real “traps” in life, it has a pleasing outward appearance. If you’re thinking of dogs lapping up antifreeze, which tastes sweet, and then dying horrible deaths here, you’re probably correct.
Our Western civilization has enacted femicide by removing the powerful role that women had, and instead assigning them another role as interchangeable cog. For a relatively small amount of money, they gave up the security of having family as the center of their universe, and are now fodder for The System.
Woman: But you would want your wife to stay at home and do nothing with her life?
Me: How long does it take to cook three healthy meals and keep the home clean? Not more than four hours. If she is awake for 16 hours a day, and spends four hours of quality time with me, that means she has eight hours to do whatever she wants, at least until the kids start rolling in. She can pursue her hobbies and passions, go to the gym, read books, and enjoy her leisure time. As long as it doesn’t come at the expense of maintaining the home, and she does her best to please me, she is free to do what she wants.
Woman: But I want to accomplish something. I don’t want to be just a housewife.
Me: Pushing papers in an office is accomplishing something? Let’s be real, no woman is going to win a Nobel Prize with her work as a human resource associate, middle manager, or government bureaucrat. If you owned your own business or ran a charity that fed starving kids, I’d agree that you were accomplishing something, but spending all your days in meetings, dealing with dumb office politics, and being a standard-issue wage slave sounds a lot less fulfilling than being able to pursue your interests while satisfying a man who takes good care of you.
Woman: But if I don’t have a job and my husband has an affair, I’ll be helpless. I want to have a backup plan in case he neglects me.
Me: So you’re going to marry someone with the expectation of failure? If you already have divorce in the back of your head before you walk down the aisle then I guarantee it won’t work. It’s having the need for options and a way out that ensures the marriage will fail. It’s only when both parties are unconditionally committed to the marriage that it has a chance of success. – Roosh V.
He makes an excellent point. Very few jobs are “accomplishing something.” In fact, most of them are just earning a wage. Even most professions are following in the steps of others. And now that we’ve doubled the workforce by sending women out to work as well as men, the salaries are lower, even if the dollar amounts are higher.
Under a traditional society, men worked and women were in charge of basically everything else. In exchange for this seemingly lopsided bargain, women got greater free time and at least in the South, the ability to engineer just about anything through a backdoor system of influence. Women talked to other women who talked their husbands into doing things. It gave men a forward role, and women a way of building a civilization around that.
As for bulimia, anorexia nervosa, or any other eating disorder associated with women, the Left invariably manages to link these to our inherently sexist society, with women – the poor dears – driven to diet, puke, and starve themselves in a desperate attempt to fit the apparent preferences of misogynist males for women who look like they’ve just emerged from a concentration camp. Strange, then, that these illnesses only came into fashion following women’s lib in the 1960s.
Modern western society’s emphasis on pushing women away from the family into the wider society, where image becomes an issue, and the endless pornographization of our culture (“bitches gotta look good nekkid”), both leftist initiatives, seem to be at the heart of these phenomena. – Alternative Right
Further, women were not cast out into the world like meat for sale. They were able to stay home with their families until it was time to get married, or in uncommon but frequent cases, to launch on a career path instead. When they got married, as most people still seem to want to do, they were taken care of and the same social rules that MRAs bemoan kept the husband honest regarding his wife.
There were bad husbands, but that is a function of the people involved. If you are unable to pick a good husband, exchanging the first bad husband for the second, third, fourth etc. won’t do you any favors. You would have been better off with the first one unless he was a true-blue sociopath, which is a situation not to be handled by divorce, but by criminal law… but I digress.
Women had it better when they had a sacred role. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”). Meat to throw into the wheels of the machine as some desk-bound functionary. Meat to watch hundreds of hours of television that saps its self-esteem, compelling it to buy more products.
This is why a growing number of young professional women who seem to “have it all” are burning out at work before they reach 30.
These early career flameouts are reflected through the corporate ladder. Today, 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, a percentage that drops to 37% for mid-management roles and 26% for vice presidents and senior managers, according to McKinsey research. Men are twice as likely as women to advance at each career transition stage.
…One reason that women are burning out early in their careers is that they have simply reached their breaking point after spending their childhoods developing well-rounded resumes. “These women worked like crazy in school, and in college, and then they get into the workforce and they are exhausted,” says Melanie Shreffler of the youth marketing blog Ypulse. – Forbes
One brutal truth: worker or mother, pick one. You can’t do both. As a Generation Xer, I got to witness firsthand the experiments in being both workers and mothers, and the results were uniform failure across the board. Social class, job type, etc. didn’t matter. Jobs always require you to be there more than you think you will, always wear you down, and always force you to confront the ugliest in humanity. Exhausted mothers return home with 25% of their energy left, and throw TV dinners at the kids, or embark on an ill-advised campaign to show the world they’re the best mothers ever, which sets up unrealistic expectations and results in quiet resentment of the children, and vice-versa.
The tipping point for Christianity in the US likely occurred when supplication became the church’s most profitable enterprise (as opposed to a backwoods hustler’s game), or at least when aspiring young preachers realized what success it could bring them. From there on out, a more female-oriented faith was inevitable.
If preachers had merely stopped there, it would be bad enough, but in their eagerness to please female congregants they’ve taken things a step farther, and many have progressed to the kind of outright man-bashing and shaming one would normally expect from a lesbian apostate such as Mary Daly.
They’ve gone from forgiving women’s sins, faith healing and praying for money to playing the part of a drill sergeant for husbands, who, as we all know, will never be quite good enough for wives, guaranteeing plenty of work for the energetic preacher. – The Spearhead
What’s happening here, in parallel?
Business panders to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up enslaving them.
(Some) Churches pander to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up creating a religion in which no one participates.
Beware the indirect. Very little in life is what it says it is. Many rocks have snakes underneath them. Not all sweet-tasting things are free of poison. Fool’s gold exists. How many other ways must it be said?
The result of feminism is femicide: the destruction of female lives. Not quickly, like murder, but slowly over the course of decades. We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.
What we think of feminism, female empowerment and pro-grrl ideals are in fact a subtle trap that lures women from a place of importance, and instead turns them into chattel. The ideal alternative is a traditional society, but trillions of dollars of movies, government propaganda, books, magazines and TV shows tell you otherwise.
I guess you’ll have to actually use your brain to figure this one out.
Tuesday, November 29th, 2011
Given sufficient time, any intelligent individual will eventually reach the conclusion that reading about science is generally useless.
Scientific research is supposed to be self explanatory. Any attempt to write about it is merely a barrier or middle man. Why take a secondary account, when a primary one is available? The original, raw, experimental data is what is actually important.
Most of what constitutes science in today’s media is merely laypeople parroting the most simplistic and politically convenient views of the latest study that comes across their desk. How many of these people are actually qualified to discuss the information and issues? The answer is approximately none. All of the real experts are generally busy, you know, being actual scientists.
Perhaps one of the best case studies in this regard is that of climate change a.k.a. global warming. Is global warming real? Yes. Is it anything like what it is portrayed to be? No, not even close.
Talk to your typical modern idiot or political shill, and they will tell you rather grandiose tales of how the oceans are going to swallow the Earth and we’ll all be cannibals in the next decade. Go through the inconvenience of actually talking to someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about and a completely different picture appears.
It’s a simple fact that the Earth is steadily getting hotter, global climates are shifting, and that excessive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere are playing some sort of role. Immediately following this will be a series of statements encouraging skepticism and explaining the profound limitations of our understanding.
Missing from science but not media “science” are the gloom and doom, the drama and the taking of sides, the rooting for the good team versus the ignorant evil bad guys. The truth is far more complicated and far less exciting.
Sunday, November 27th, 2011
A man may be minding his own business, when, BLAM!
He is attacked, for no apparent reason, by what appears, to him, to be a madman. Or woman.
“You’re a RACIST!”
When he is not.
“You’re a BIGOT!”
When he is not.
“You’re a FASCIST!”
When he is not.
“You’re a MORON!”
When he is not.
But if he responds with: “You’re a LEFTIST!” All hell breaks loose.
Fair enough. The term leftist is not complimentary, after all. So he tries, in the spirit of live-and-let-live, to be less unkind: “You’re a LIBERAL!” But the result is the same.
I get accused of over-using the terms Liberal and Leftist, but when they are so omnipresent, what is a man to do? They make no attempt to conceal the fact that they are my enemies, and so I learn to identify my enemy. I bear them no ill will, but the same can not be said of them. They demand not to be labeled, yet they do nothing but label others. The list of these labels is long, and acutely damaging, not to mention unfair. But they are not bothered by this. Yet, should one identify them as what they actually are, look out!
These people inhabit a different reality to me. This is what justifies their abusive behavior. Such abuse is undetectable to them. They indulge in it so often that it has become quite normal, and as such, beyond question. They do it merely because that is what they do.
They inhabit a world in which honesty does not exist, and should it unexpectedly manifest itself, then it must be attacked and destroyed, since it is an aberration in their reality. Nothing, in this place they call home, is known as what it is. It is known always by what it is not.
Conversely: an honest man is singled out as being the opposite of what he actually is. And all his other attributes, too.
Perhaps in the world of leftism, madness is the norm. It would appear so. In fact, it is a place so dangerous, that an un-mad man needs tread very carefully, like a soldier in an enemy camp, for should he be noticed, he will surely be made very uncomfortable, indeed.
He will be interrogated. This process is not quite torture – not yet – but close to it.
He will do what he does, and answer honestly. But it will not help him, because whatever he says will not be accepted by his interrogators. Although he answers, his interrogators will continue to demand answers. Anything he does say will be turned against him and used to injure and condemn him. There is no way out of this…
He has no wish to destroy those who wish to destroy him. He tells them this. They refuse to believe him. They demand an intellectual debate with him, because they believe they will win. But he does not use his intellect, because what would be the point? A sane man can never explain sanity to the insane. Because in this reality, this world in which he finds himself, sane is seen as insane, and insane as sane. Which, at some point, makes him wonder…
What is ‘sane’ anyway? Some arbitrary way of seeing things? What has it to recommend it over ‘insane’?
He suffers a moment of self-doubt, as his grip on reality wavers, under the assault. Introspection, consideration, analysis and comparison. But only for a moment. Because he knows himself, and all his ways, completely and easily. His sense of rightness over wrongness is the result of years of cultivation, based upon honesty. Tempered with a world-view that sees goodness as superior to badness. Anchored by a baseline that sees himself as part of everything, as opposed to the isolation of individual ego.
He can be nothing else but sane, because he is immune to the rantings of the insane, and knows them for what they are. The name he uses to identify them is ‘leftists’. Because any group of identical anythings must be called something. Identical individuals. United in chaos. Enemies of sanity. The legions of the lost.
But he knows their condition is no fault of theirs. It is a condition. The affected do not know they are affected. After all, there are so many like them. Identical individuals. And so they must be ‘normal’. And anything not-normal, must be hounded, persecuted, driven out, or destroyed.
Thus he offers no argument. Offers no resistance. They offer a battle he can not win. He could take them all on, valiantly, and go out fighting, and he may do this, someday. But not yet.
For he exists in a different reality to they. One that is benign. One that rewards him for existing in it. With beauty, serenity, peace and balance. This reality he inhabits is not easily won, or easily maintained. Not at first. But with skill, and application, this reality becomes all that exists.
He is not as they. With their endless conflict, endless accusations, endless hate.
He is immune to all of it, because he is not of their world at all.
Even though he inhabits the same physical realm, he is as the spirits of the trees, and birds.
Unconcerned, without fear, at one, and free.
The West seems to be doomed, and it bothers us.
But will you be doomed along with it?
Possibly there is no need for that.
A civilization is the sum of its parts, and it is the parts, that have deteriorated to the point where the civilization itself starts to crumble. There may be no saving it, and perhaps there needs not be any saving it. For every civilization falls. Every one of them. This seems normal. Inevitable.
Your own survival depends upon being able to deal successfully with whatever reality you inhabit. And, whether you know it, or not, you are free to choose this.
You are free to choose the extinction of relying totally upon intellect and reason – look at what this has resulted in – or to make these things subordinate to the greater scheme of things.
Stop your endless thinking, for a change.
Let the peace seep in. Not easy, at first, being as shell-shocked as most of us are, but easier and more natural, with practice.
There is a natural union between acceptance of the world as it is, and conservatism. Explore this more at:
Saturday, November 26th, 2011
The right has withdrawn from climate issues for the most part because the left took them over. The left then used the environment as a justification for the usual leftist agenda, which is suppressing the strong in the name of equality.
If you read this blog at all frequently, you know what we hold leftism responsible for the decline of the West (and anywhere else it touches). Since the birth of modern leftism in France in 1789, our fortunes have declined while our governments have grown more controlling.
Leftism isn’t unique; it’s a natural human impulse that comes from self-pity and the depersonalizing nature of crowds. This is why the first thing leftism does is insist that it is freedom for the individual. But then the fine print: through equality, which depersonalizes and alienates.
Wherever leftism arises, the story is the same. We, the crowd, are afraid of those who are more competent than us. We will insist on equality and wealth redistribution and lots of rules to bring those people down to our level. When we’re all equal in that way, there will be no conflict and we will all live happily.
Uh, live happily in a dreary, uniform, conformist, fear-blighted place where there’s no room to move (equality) and not ability to gain power to rise above the herd and enact any kind of change (equality also) and it’s so dysfunctional we sit around in the dark chanting Party slogans.
Leftism, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Utopianism, anarchism, Marxist, Communism and liberal democracy are the same idea in different degrees. They want the individual to be more important than the order of the whole, which requires equality so the individual is not forced to prove its own competence. The result is depersonalization and isolation, but it’s for a good cause.
When we talk about groupthink, conformity, peer pressure, hivemind, and committee-brain, we’re talking about the exact same impulse that creates liberalism. Get along with others, don’t offend, make everyone happy by compromising everything. Avoid unpleasant or complex realities.
When this dogma took over environmentalism, at that moment environmentalism excused itself from being a serious philosophy or even its own philosophy. It became a degraded pawn of the leftists. It also ceased to be an option for those who have realized the threat of liberalism and who want to avoid it.
This is why for the past forty years or so the right has blown off environmentalism and written off environmentalists as useless hippies. Sadly for the environmental movement, for the most part they’ve played the role perfectly. Most extremists do this; it’s how they prove credibility.
That’s all well and good, but in the meantime, we are the captains of the ship that determines our future. We make what we will face. What we sow, we will reap. The decisions we make today determine what options will be available tomorrow. It sounds obvious but these truths have been forgotten.
During our years of political infighting and other incompetence, the environmental problem has increased. Why? Your television and politicians train you to say “carbon.” That’s a false correlation. Carbon rose, yes, but only because population rose and with it land use rose.
Land use determines how much land is left over for nature. This land performs many functions, most importantly (a) as a natural absorption system that soaks up our pollutants, like plants eat up our CO2 and make oxygen and (b) preservation of natural species by giving them unbroken terrain in which to hunt, eat, play, reproduce, roam, migrate, nest and tussle.
Animals and plants need more land than we think. The little jail cells they sit in at zoos are insufficient. How happy would you be in a jail cell, or even confined to the same 1-acre property for the rest of your life? If your life consistent of only an apartment and a cubicle, how happy would you be?
“Happy,” of course, is one of those vague terms no one with a brain will trust. Good for you if you raged at the screen when you saw it. I mean content, satisfied, and psychologically healthy; without those three things, animals experience a decline in physical health.
This leaves us with a crisis. The more we grow, the more we kill them. At some point, we probably will want to limit our own growth… but something opposes that. Leftism, with its incessant demands for welfare, helping the third world, mass immigration, saving the dumb from themselves, and a vast subsidy network of entitlements and government hiring, inherently supports population growth and thus, land overuse.
In other words, the people who are claiming to be pro-environment are those who are most likely to destroy it. Conservatives, by advocating none of those things, are supporting the idea of a stable population with lots of open space for plants and animals. Liberalism is ecocide.
Right now, conservatives are doing their best to resist the climate change dogma that’s very popular with Hollywood, government, industry and our do-nothing talkative neighbors. Conservatives point out that the “science” is unresolved and the motives of the climate-changers are suspiciously leftist.
To obliterate those few voices of dissent, big media and its paid employees (celebrities) are banging on that loud tin drum and howling the climate change mantra ever louder.
The problem with this is that climate change obscures the true problem, which is overpopulation/land overuse, and that by debating climate change, conservatives are letting liberals define the parameters of debate — which cuts out the real problem.
As rightists, we should stop worrying about climate change except to note that it is another hare-brained liberal plan which is sure to fail because it denies reality. Instead, we should promote our own environmental agenda:
- Stop growth. Stop selling new land. Let’s rebuild the huge amount of space we already have, much of which is ghetto or semi-abandoned. We’re using land poorly in part because we won’t tackle our inner city crime problem.
- Tax deductions. Want to pay less in taxes? Buy acreage of open land and donate it to an environmental trust to be kept in its natural state in perpetuity.
- Close failed cities. Detroit died; time to move on. Bulldoze it and make it into a nature preserve. While it’s tempting to say we should do the same to Washington, D.C. not all of it is a ghetto.
- Stop welfare. Nature thins our ranks by filtering out those who are incompetent, unmotivated or unable to control their impulses. Let nature do her work. Stop the entitlements, the make-work government and private sector “full employment,” the laws designed to protect idiots from themselves, and the welfare state. Jobs should be for competent/motivated people only. Let the rest fade away.
That’s not as easy as voting for carbon caps, secure in the knowledge that the consequences of your vote are distant and will be shared by all the voters together, lessening your share. But unlike that pretend policy, the solutions outlined above will actually prevent ecocide.
Thursday, November 24th, 2011
The 1990s were a shallow, plastic decade and what made it worse was that people then pretended that it was the exact opposite.
If the theme of the 1980s was manic materialism, the theme of the 1990s was denial of the same, with results that somehow imitated that same materialism by not being materialistic.
Just like in the 1960s, everyone dressed up in Hippie Halloween costumes and went out to be profound without money or power, and ended up coming back to money and power, this time with an arrogant belief that there must be no other way.
Shortly after the 1990s ended, a new generation shifted up a hybrid of 1960s and 1990s culture, a hippie-grunge-slacker hybrid. Because such a formulation is inherently unstable, it quickly became a cover story for dishonest, selfish and pointless human beings… in short, average people who wanted to appear exceptional.
For those who think about the issues the MRM raises, there are two good points to make about hipsters:
- Irony is hatred. Irony, in the vernacular used by hipsters, means finding out that things are not as you would expect them to be. In other words, the world’s normal course is defeated because we found an exception. This barely-concealed hatred for all normalcy, nature and health exists only to defend the hipster against charges of being weak and pointless, which of course they are. The first group to become hipsters were the ones with the trust funds. They could afford to be insincere.
- Betas rise through hipness. Since the dawn of rock ‘n’ roll, beta males — those without exceptional abilities — have been rising by being “hip” and in touch with this new social fashion. If you can’t get ahead by being useful, get ahead by being social. Many males who think they are betas are actually alphas who have been cowed by the hamsterlike obedience that hipness inspires.
Hipsters are insincere and hollow because they conceal their primary goal, which is making themselves look good. They contort and adopt anything they can find, ironically of course, to make themselves stand out in a crowd. This suggests they have no concept of being actual, functional human beings.
Men have suffered from the hipster because the hipster hates all real masculine values and wants to replace them with a simpering insincerity and obedience. The hipster is a slave to his woman and likes it, because he has insulated himself with irony. He’s not doing it because he believes in it. He’s half-mocking it and if it falls apart on him, he never cared. He was always free.
Men succeed when they have a unique role which only they can fulfill. They can then compete for improvement in this category. Men fail when the areas that men can be good at are replaced by areas in which only simpering, subservient, weak-chinned men thrive.
These hipsters and other socialites are distinct because they are inverted. They aren’t good at anything, except socializing. They define themselves by female interest and how hip they and their stupid dubstep-psychobilly bands are. These values are the opposite of male values.
Male values of the strong type are not based on what others think. They are based on results, on doing the right thing in complex situations that sometimes require bad things to be done to get good results. They are based on being proud, independent, and taking women when you are ready, not as gluttony.
Since you were born, a vast media establishment and the people you socialize with have been trying to drum a formula into your head: it’s not who you are that matters, but what other people think you are. This emasculating nonsense will make you into a hipster, and as hollow and purposeless as the 1990s.
Thursday, November 24th, 2011
The past 70 years of history in the West have consisted of us re-living WWII propaganda. It’s the freedom fighters versus the bad guys, and wherever we go we bring equality and democracy, and thus everything is going to be OK.
We partner that with a Rosie the Riveter style attitude that we’re going to send everyone off to work in industry, and build up a giant war machine by working all the time, and that’s how we’ll beat back those lazy and possibly stupid and certainly evil fascists.
In other words, this is a moral struggle. But it’s not personal morality, which is the desire to defeat impulse control issues, act morally and become competent. This is group morality: our morality of equality is better than what anyone else has, and they join us or we destroy them.
Slowly, this reasoning is beginning to fall. It is fundamentally liberal in its outlook because it is based on the equality of all people, which is the essential idea of liberalism. However, it incorporates consumerism and a militant patriotism (not nationalism, which it replaces) as means of control.
When asked if they agree with the statement “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others,” just 49% of Americans either completely or mostly agreed. That’s down from 60% agreeing in 2002 and 55% in 2007. Some 46% disagreed in the latest poll, while 5% refused to answer or said they didn’t know.
Younger Americans were less likely than their older peers to agree with the statement. Just 37% of people under 30 were inclined to a belief in American exceptionalism compared to 60% of those older than 50. The views of the younger generation may change over time, so that doesn’t necessarily mean that the overall number is headed as low as 37%. But the poll also noted that the drop in those agreeing with the idea of U.S. superiority was down from previous polls for all age groups.
The declining view of U.S. superiority was largely similar to results in the large European countries. Less than 50% of people in Germany, Spain, Britain and France view their own culture as superior, but unlike the U.S. those numbers are little changed from 2002. – The Wall Street Journal
Exactly. We got sidetracked down a bad path in the 1930s, and now we’re seeing that it took almost a century, but bad ideas eventually produce bad results (a shocker, that) and now we are getting to live through those bad results.
The propaganda of WWII, which encouraged women to break the family unit and become wage-earners, and encouraged men to stop thinking of self-interest and start thinking in that Soviet-style clammy groupthink of “morality” based on the equality of everyone, culminated in 1968.
Massive riots blighted the West as student groups, the homeless, the insane and others agitated for equal rights everywhere. For new groups — Southern and Eastern Europeans, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals and Amerinds — and for the greater mobility within the old groups.
We’re equal now, the reasoning went, so smash down the class structure, redistribute the wealth, and make government force this ideal on those who do not agree. Forced busing! Integration at bayonet-point; new equality laws and new police to enforce them.
That thought process got us to where we are now. The “meritocracy” of equality insured that if people made themselves figure out a few nominal tasks, like certifications/education and memorizing the right trends in the workplace, they could join the power structure.
Rocked by the shattering forces of the Depression and World War II (and flush with the prosperity of the postwar years), the old moneyed elites of the Northeast and Midwest did something really remarkable: they voluntarily abdicated their position. Ivy League colleges threw open their doors to the bourgeois masses, and cut back on the Saint Grottlesex crowd. The old WASP bastions democratized or were swept away by nimbler competitors who didn’t scruple to sacrifice profits because it might look bad to the boys in the club. First Jews, Irish, and Italians, and then later blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, burst through doors that had once been reserved for the sort of people who got married and buried at St. Thomas Church. They were joined by the children of undistinguished WASP families from America’s small towns, suburbs, and tenements.
The architects of the transition envisioned a shift to a new meritocratic society in which the circumstances of one’s birth didn’t matter–only hard work and talent. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, we have a system that has less mobility than the old, forthrightly aristocratic version. – The Atlantic
The problem however isn’t a lack of social mobility — it’s that our leadership has become incompetent and destructive, and that the social policies all these brave leftists administered have wrecked us socially. We are now a wasteland of people without direction, acting selfishly, and expecting the collective to subsidize their bad decisions.
This is how civilizations decline and eventually fall. With technology, that process is accelerated. We go from being a happy 1950s-style place to being a dystopian version of Brazil, to eventually falling before our enemies and/or unleashing ourselves on the world in some destructive way.
What did this to us was our own fascination with shiny moral symbols like equality, freedom, democracy, civil rights, justice and independence. We corrupted these symbols with our idea of equality of all individuals, and turned them from positive things into destructive ones.
What would be the worst mistake we could make right now?
To repeat the same pattern.
Even as you read this, people are gearing up to preach that same tired WWII-propaganda, itself derived from the French revolutionary dogma of 1789, as a “new” idea or “reform” of a bad system. In other words, the same bad ideas that made this mess are now being presented to you as a solution.
You would have to be brick-stupid to accept these ideas.
Yet because they are selfish, neurotic, incompetent and greedy, many of your fellow citizens are speedily demanding these old ideas anew, mainly because it’s convenient for them personally. They will want you to do the same. Resist.
Perhaps the most articulate and sophisticated of OWS “spokespersons” (that being a mild contradiction in a movement that rejects leadership) is David Graeber, an anthropologist from Goldsmiths, University of London who, as far as I can tell, was first identified as such in a piece in Bloomberg Businessweek last month, and who has since confessed to being the creator of the “We are the 99%” slogan.
Graeber is an open advocate of anarchism, and was a key player in the discussions in New York that occurred last summer that gestated what we now know as OWS…He has very interesting things to say about the ties between anarchism today and in its American heyday (heyday being a relative term — it’s always been relatively small) in the Gilded Age of the 1880s and 1890s and up to World War I. He argues that the war ushered in a long period of global conflict and struggle, right up to the Cold War, driving underground a movement that argues against the necessity for authority, hierarchy and government. Anarchism, he notes, re-emerged in the form of the anti-globalization movement as the Cold War ended and the economy boomed. Of course he was speaking in 2006, before the financial crisis and before the world economy began to shake and shudder. Looking back now, you have to wonder why, under these crisis conditions, so many seem attracted to what Graeber calls “experiments in direct democracy” and re-imagining the world in new ways.
…”Anarchism is about acting as if you’re already free. … Anarchism is democracy without the government. Most people love democracy, but most people don’t like the government very much. Keep one, take away the other — that’s anarchism. Anarchism is direct democracy.” He elaborates. “Anarchism is the commitment to the idea that it is possible to have a society based on principles of self-organization, voluntary association and mutual aid. It’s not the belief that we are necessarily going to have it but that we could have it. You can’t know it’s possible. But by the same token you can’t know that it’s not possible.” – The Huffington Post
Anarchism, democracy, freedom — wait, where have we heard these terms before? In 1789, the idea was that if we deposed the kings, we would all be equal and live in peace in harmony. In 1968, it was that if we got rid of the hierarchy and all became equal, all our problems would end.
In other words, these “new” ideas this clown is preaching are in fact very old ideas, straight out of 1789 and 1968, and are in fact the very same ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. The very definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results.
People wonder why those born between 1965 and 1980 tend to be nihilistic and wary of commitment. Why many of us keep an ironic distance between ourselves and just about everything. That’s because so many aspects of the culture we inherited were a form of lie told to us daily. And unlike previous generations, we never really got a hero. No FDR. No Camelot. Just one jerk after another trying to sell us snakeoil with a smile. The only president who even made an attempt to do things honestly, Jimmy Carter, was branded a fool.
Plenty of us rolled the dice as entrepreneurs because we didn’t trust the suit-and-tie corporate scene any more than we trusted politicians with comb-overs. Left alone as latchkey kids, we turned away from all that, creating our own worlds (the Internet) and cocooning ourselves in shallow pop culture, our very own Land of the Lost. As we reached adulthood, many of us sat alone at our computers, accepting all too often Reagan’s invitation to disconnect from our government and get on with the business of accumulating and consuming to fill the great emptiness.
For a moment, it looked like Barack Obama might finally give us something to believe in. But we weren’t terribly surprised when that didn’t work out, either. Among progressives, Gen-Xers may have been the least trusting of the sweet-talking pol from Chicago. Baby Boomers were stirred by the lingering hopes of their youth. Millennials had not yet faced betrayal by a politician they looked up to. But Gen-Xers suffered no such delusions. We never really looked up to anybody. We’ve tended to travel pretty lightly in this world. – Lynn Parramore, “Back to the Future? Generation X and Occupy Wall Street”
With good cause we distrust. Generation X saw the last glimpses of old, 1970s America, before the 1968 reforms really took hold. We were the last people to have the old style teachers, who believed in discipline and learning the material, before the “political types” took over. We saw an idyllic America in its last days and we saw what was coming. It’s no wonder we don’t trust a single thing under the sun.
We are slowly learning. Equality kills hope. The dogma of 1789/1968 prioritized equality over all else, and it crushed out country and all others like us. Equality is not a goal, but the absence of a goal. If you want to reach a goal, you reward those who can do it. Equality is a move against that.
And now, we see the incompetents rise up again since problems have emerged. Because they are incompetents, they have “solutions” for us, which are to repeat the same idiotic ideas of the past in a new form. They get all wide-eyed and excited. But don’t buy it for a minute. They will kill hope just like last time.