Out of the gathering fog, they assemble without knowing why. Brainless, they move impulsively like insects, repeating actions autonomically. They consume the living and replace them with the living dead. The few survivors resist but are hopelessly outnumbered and are excluded to the point of living in constant fear, hiding in remote areas and maintaining a constant paranoia, because at any moment the attack can come.
This is the Zombie Ritual. It describes how every society on earth has destroyed itself: by replacing the logic of consequences with a social code that enforces illusion. In a dying society, the only way to advance is to repeat the zombie ideology. This causes other people to approve of you, hire you and befriend you. Once you have joined the group of socially acceptable people, you can then make a life for yourself. It is thus logical to repeat lies and eventually, it becomes logical to believe them, because otherwise you must face the truth that your society is dying and you and your descendants will be destroyed by its collapse.
If you obey the dominant power, all will be OK, at least for now; almost everyone does, because the alternative is to be excluded. The dominant power maintains control by forcing people to accept an idea which is also a goal. This idea “represents” reality but does so like a symbol, inaccurately and favoring certain ideas over others. If everyone else agrees that the Emperor’s new clothes are beautiful, when in fact he is naked and revealed thus as foolish, those who speak up against the new clothes will be pariahs. At the same time, an Emperor that foolish will lead the civilization into decline if not outright dystopia. The official narrative states that the new clothes are beautiful, and anyone who wants to succeed must repeat this dogma.
When contradictions to the official narrative or doubt of its validity emerge, the people become terrified. They take the path of least resistance: instead of opening up critique of the narrative, they gather together with others to reinforce the narrative. First they filter out disturbing thoughts and facts, and then they go on a witch-hunt for any who disagree with this new interpretation of what is real. Individuals can advance themselves by currying favor from this lynch mob by smashing down others who do not embrace the narrative enough, claiming them as deniers. In the grips of such a passion, the society quickly removes all but those who champion the official narrative.
Drink from the goblet, the goblet of gore
Taste the zombie’s drug, now you want more
Drifting from the living, joining with the dead
Zombie dwelling maggots, now infest your head
For the everyday person, it becomes important to avoid noticing glitches in the narrative. When reality contradicts dogma, the correct response is more dogma. It can be made more extreme and must be, because the farther it drifts from reality the more its errors show, and so these societies inevitable tend toward stronger lynch mobs and/or official voices who will censure or outright imprison those who disagree. It may even, like the first democracy in Athens, execute people for asking questions about the official narrative, as it did to Socrates. The defeat of those who disagree will be viewed as victory for the narrative and thus affirmation that it is correct, good, true and “the right side of history.”
Among the people neurosis and near-schizophrenic conditions will become the norm as they force themselves to believe what is patently untrue. Like the loyalty test question in 1984, where 2+2=5 to those who love Big Brother, the test of dogma exists everywhere, especially in everyday conversation. Those who enforce the narrative are safe. Those who do not must be shunned lest those who associate with them be thought to be critical of the narrative. All must obey not just in their actions, but in their words, which then program their minds. The result is that the average person lives in a world of political assumptions, programmed to see issues within only those narrow filtered questions and cherry-picked data sets.
This creates a fetishism of denial among the people. They compete to see who is most in denial, and by being more rabid and strident than the rest individuals can rise to prominence. They are cheerleaders for the narrative and make everyone else feel good because instead of pointing to doubts and fears, they issue a calming statement that all is well and nothing must change. Just keep on keeping on. And thus people can turn back to their jobs, their personal lives and their fortunes and avoid any thoughts that they are complicit in the creation of a tragedy. They are given the freedom to be oblivious, which is what they wanted in the first place: permission to stop concerning themselves with anything but themselves.
As denial intensifies, the recriminations accelerate and the opposition becomes weaker. It also finds it harder to defend any point of view but the prevailing dogma since all of the language that it uses is already framed in terms that are convenient to the narrative. Any thought except the narrative gets squeezed to the periphery and then excluded. The narrative becomes the new starting point for all thought and the assumption behind every statement. Conflicts with reality become explained as enemies, not errors in the narrative. For this reason, the society goes off on a path of its own chasing chimerae of political illusions and, when it finally collides with reality again, it is in a fatal and permanent correction.
Why is it that the greatest industrial power on earth cannot produce a decent cigarette?
Most of us are aware that the big brands are 90% advertising and 10% highly efficient operations converting cheap tobacco into a uniform taste, much like fast food joints turn horse anus into a burger that has that same great trademarked look, feel and flavor every time no matter in what city the restaurant is located.
But then when you venture off that beaten commercial, mainstream and socially-acceptable path and go to the Democrats of cigarettes, the American Spirit company who advertise “100% additive-free natural tobacco blends,” the cigarettes are just as bad? Another way to view this: if this is all natural, how are they doing worse than the big commercial brands when their flavor is only mildly improved?
I grant you that American Spirits are better than Marlboro, Camel, Winstons and the generics. Surpassing that low standard should be something one does before breakfast along with tidying up the kitchen counter. Camels are too sweet; Marlboros smell great from a distance but taste like fermented ash; Winstons seem to just aim for the middle of the road but still have that icky sweetness. Generics fill themselves with whatever they scrape off the floor later, minus the additives and conditioning that ensure that a namebrand cigarette always tastes like its trademark, burns uniformly and smells about the same in the pack and on the wind.
And yet, these American Spirits provide endless disappointment. They burn less evenly, which is not a problem. The problem arises when you attempt to taste them. They most closely resemble Marlboros without the sweet smell, but similarly taste mostly like ash. The flavor is gone. Did they boil out it? Tobacco that is additive-free does not promise that it is not over-processed. The smell is adequate from a distance but average, more like a Winston. As the cigarette progresses to the end, the taste gets greasier but never picks up a flavor of tobacco like you might find in a pipe, cigar or real cigarette like they have in other countries.
I submit to you this, dear reader: capitalism, while better than average-conformity-enforcing socialism, has its fatal flaw. That flaw is that what makes the best product is not what makes the best cigarette, for example. A good cigarette will have flavor and deliver a dose of nicotine without requiring over-processing, but most people will not notice and write down on those little checkmark-box forms that it has superior qualities. They will simply experience it.
If they are thinking, they will note what a good experience it is. If not, they will come up with a laundry list of complaints. The way to squash complaints is the utilitarian approach of capitalism, which is to make a fast-food style product out of the cigarette. That removes the peaks and valleys alike and gives you a nice fat average right down the middle that is a mediocre experience but, within that mediocrity, creates no downsides. There will be no variation in flavor. The experience will be exactly the same every time wherever you buy the cigarette. No one can complain because although it is insipid and mediocre, it delivers exactly what is promised. On that basis, most consumers will buy them and smoke them and keep doing so, even though for anyone who can tell the difference the cigarette will clearly be inferior.
There are no magic bullets. Adam Smith was off his rocker and the libertarians are insane. If you put any decision to the mass of people, they will fail to notice the good but will always complain just to hear the sound of their own voices, and you will end up with a compromise that while it has no flaws also has no excellence. This is the future of democracy, capitalism and crowd-sourced choices: endless perfect mediocrity, exactly identical, slowly squeezing out anyone who can tell the difference.
Every society possesses taboos. Healthy societies ban destructive things; dying societies ban dissent. In the distributed totalitarian system of modernity, citizens enforce rules on one another through ostracism and name-calling. In response to this, a community of “trolls” sprung up to bait people with forbidden knowledge and draw them into contradiction when they cannot confront the implications of this knowledge.
To explore this fascinating phenomenon which uses un-popular right wing and realist thought to torment the oblivious among other methods, we interview an internet troll. Identified only as “Iconoclast,” he has trolled the internet for over a decade with a palette of provocations including rightist views of race, sex and society. The language might be a bit rough but you can see why trolls attack — and the reason to their madness — with this interview with an internet troll:
What is the purpose of trolling?
Trolling doesn’t have a singular purpose; rather, it is a set of methods to create spectacle. Take in point the various types of trolling: concern trolling, fake personas, bullshit press releases, devil’s advocacy, social engineering, and etc. Not all of these will be done for the same purposes.
As for spectacle, a (good) troll finds a target to attack, absorbs its mentality, and determines the best way to undermine the opposition’s position. One of my former trolls — and one of my more entertaining ones — was pretending to be the culmination of stereotypes that white supremacists hold for Jews. With that one I was able to troll the entire planet, having both neo-nazis and far-left commies enraged. The goal, of course, was to provide humor while making both those groups look like the asses they are.
Another set of trolls I did was to create fake press releases under the guise of a conservative christian group exposing pedophilia on wikipedia. This troll was pretty interesting because a lot of the content in it was excellent investigative journalism, combined with some smear attempts against ideologically driven abusive wikipedia admins. The motive for this one was to attack wikipedia for its anti-elitist stances, bureaucratic bullshit, and autistic, ideology-driven editing.
I suppose, to summarize, trolling is basically cloak-and-dagger black propaganda in a world where people are incapable of intellectual argument, and if they are, they’re too ideologically stubborn to even accept any arguments whatsoever, blindly attacking thru nitpicking and bullshit. Intelligence is low: we live in a world where the formerly named “The Learning Channel” now broadcasts the Kardashians and Hoarders. I think that concept says something profound, in a very ‘tarded way. This world is not reason-driven, I am not going to reason with the average idiot.
What sort of topics do you introduce with trolls?
Race, sexual perversions, and leftism are my favorite targets. Everybody is so absolutely sensitive about race — I’d say many people are actually self-hating nowadays, regardless of race — it’s a pleasant topic to shove in peoples’ faces like a dog that pissed on the carpet. We live in a world where kids are introduced to pictures of people from, say, India, and are asked if he is black or white while not given the actual, real choice, and when kids of course get it wrong they use it as a “gotcha, race doesn’t exist!!” plate of bullshit. That said, I find the whole race topic to be overblown by both sides… it’s important, but it’s not worthy of being the zenith of political discussion. No, racial-separatist nationalism is not the answer, nor is cultural marxism. If you took the top 10% of people (nebulous defintion of what is “top,” but let’s just keep it that way) and put them on another planet, I really doubt racial issues would arise much if people were sufficiently intelligent and moral.
Sexual perversions are quite funny, and if you look closely a lot of leftists are very big into it as well. Of course, this stuff all ties together in a Gordian knot. Leftists like to use people’s sexual problems as some sort of political statement, of course to excuse weird, deviant behavior as some weird way of attacking majoritarian people, and for having their own failings be swept under the rug. A bit rany, I know, I once had a hilarious troll on collarme.com where I pretended to be a neo-nazi chick who wanted to enslave blacks and Jews. Oh man, the messages I got on that were beyond wild; I had one Rastafari guy google-stalk me a year later, paranoid as fuck, even though I had no interest in revealing personal info because I’m not a loser like failed troll Jason Fortuny.
That ties into another point: the troll also learns more about the bizarre side of human nature. When you can stretch absurdity as far as possible, and be able to intereact with others in that mode, you learn a lot about what people really are like. It’s quite disturbing and takes away one’s hope in humanity or belief in the viability of human dignity.
When did you become a troll, and why?
Hm. This reaches waaaaaay back to the limits of my memory. I think it involved getting falsely blamed for someone else crapflooding or trolling a “Find Luigi in Mario 64″ forum when I wasn’t even yet a teenager. I think that let to jihad on my part against them, and me and my brother were just better than them at it. Really hard to remember details. Not terribly important, training wheels for a troll, though.
More than that, though, was posting on gamefaqs.com and finding out I just didn’t really respect the average poster there (I’ve come around to not really respecting the average person in general. I’ve matured quite a bit since then). I became a somewhat legendary troll, social engineer, and pest on that site to the point where the site admin, CJayC, called up my ISP once and I was briefly taken offline.
I’ve always found the witty trolls of forums to be more interesting people, being less involved in social posturing and more on merit. When people “win” internet arguments by using big words and trying to seem intelligent, you realize that debating is pointless and verbal insurgency is far more effective. The trolls, I’ve noticed, never needed that posturing.
Who are the most famous trolls and what is their claim to fame?
Good question. Does this mean internet trolling, or in more general, a gadfly of sorts? I’ll take the latter as it’s a better question to answer.
Diogenes of Sinope was quite a good one. Telling Alexander the Great he couldn’t distuinguish the bones of his ancestors with those of slaves was extremely ballsy, if the story was true, though I really doubt it is.
Marquis de Sade I’ve always felt was more of a troll than a pervert (though he was still that).
Of course, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is probably one of the more brilliant pre-internet trolls, as well. All the marks of good trolling: false persona, absurdity, horrific satirizing of society’s attitudes.
As for internet trolls:
Sigvatr is one of the best trolls I’ve seen. Totally wild, great sense of humor, pissed enough people where he can’t legally enter Germany. Apparently he spawned a child and left the internet, but electricretard.com was great as was the competitive spree shooter site. His dedication to trolling was so intense he took pictures of him eating his own cum to shock the somethingawful.com boards. That’s only a summary off the top of my head. A+ troll.
During the republican primaries of ’08, a bunch of Ron Paul people made fake forums purporting to be the grassroots supporters of rival republican candidates, and the stuff they did was some of the best political trolling I’ve ever seen.
The GNAA did some good stuff, I’d say the best was the JewsDidWTC website that got featured on CNN. GNAA was always a little bit of an underperformer though due to a chaotic IRC channel.
Most recently, I’d say anons from /pol/ have done a lot of good work attacking social justice warriors, a group that I feel doesn’t get enough trollage. SJWs and feminists are dangerous neo-Marxists absorbing weirdos from the internet with a lot of support from academia, and I think they’re going to get more influential in the next decade or so as more broken people band together to angrily attack normal “majoritarian” people.
What led you to become discontented with this society?
The disparity in my intelligence and other people’s. Catholic school was especially harsh because you have a mentally broken baby boomer adult base coupled with kids in an environment that is hostile to childrens’ nature. Not to mention most of the other children were leagues below me morally and intellectually, I even had one teacher bribe other students with candy to hate me.
I remember once in elementary school I managed to get one of those red rubber balls before anyone else did because I never got a chance to play with one. All the “popular” kids began whining like babies and the teacher forced me to give them the ball, because –get this — “that’s democracy.” I shit you not, that’s exactly how it went.
As a child, it always was strange how other children had less of a moral base. So impulsive, willing to lie to adults to get what they want.
As I got older, I realized what mattered was not truth, but perception. The masses of worthless people only really care about social status, novelty, and maybe a little bit of cognitive dissonance here and there so in brief moments of lucidity they can make a half-assed attempt to atone without really putting in much effort.
Saying so, to me, is a bit amusing, because my morals have become less prominent in day-to-day life, nowadays. They’re still there, but I’m much more scummy now than I used to be. I don’t mind it, it is simply an adaption.
What are your aims in life?
Really? Drinking alcohol and passing the time. Hoping for an anarchic peroid of reboot for civilization. Too much noise, not enough signal, few things mainstream really ever catch my eye. There’s not much here, I think it’s way too degenerative and decayed for revitalization. We just have to wait for disaster to occur so things can be corrected. This is outside of our control. We hit the point of no return on leftism and idiocy.
We bred a mass of domesticated, selfish, boring people and gave them the ability to make their own bread and circuses. We just have to wait out for their self-imposed downfall.
As for my personal life:
I could get a career, but I don’t ass-kiss very well, I’m quite abrasive and don’t want to work for a higher-paying job while worrying what my mouth says to get me in trouble in an environment of beta-males and people more deserving of becoming the plaything of a coprophiliac serial killer with a love of the Human Centipede films.
Most immediate aim is getting swole. Would be fascinating to understand the underlying animalistic power differential to other people when one is swole.
If you could create your ideal society, what would it be like?
I don’t know how to answer this. I’m not a fan of top-down solutions when it comes to society and economics. I think we need less people, better people, better art, and whatever else. The fundamental problem of our day and age really is just human nature. I don’t think any design in particular really matters, you just need people who are morally better, intellectually superior, and more focused-yet-relaxed than what we have now.
I’m always entertained by idiots who complain about capitalism. Capitalism, at heart, is the ultimate bottom-up economic model (when corporations aren’t given handouts or favoritism by government). Any flaw with it really, in all actuality, is a flaw in mass-human nature. When your entire population is composed of bitches, don’t be suprised at the stupid shit they elect with their dollar. No controlled economy is going to do any better when the average person is only one standard deviation of being entertained by separating the corn and peanuts within their excrement.
Somewhat disconnected, but I’ll cut the details obtained by experience, and to any younger readers planning on assembling a group to head out onto the wilderness and leave modern society: not gonna happen. Focus elsewhere.
What do you think will happen in the future to the USA?
Not entirely sure. An eventual collapse of some sort, there is no real plan or focus going on and it seems to just be special interests fighting for their own little ego puppet show all nilly-willy, without any real concern for the future. For the immediate, I see the left continuing to score “victories” in both government and culture, resulting in an alienation of the majority (by that I mean, those who generally are conservative and middle class, mostly white but I don’t think race matters much on this), but they’re definitely going to have much more control over academia, politics, and culture. The modern american right isn’t effective nor brave enough to do anything but smile and nod and bargain.
I don’t think it is important to focus too much on how things will unfold in 20-50 years. Maybe something will happen with technology that is a complete game-changer.
What is your outlook on dating, marriage and sex?
For the most part, modern women are only good for sex. Most are attention vampires, completely ego-driven with impulses of sadomasochism, concerned only with men in matters of novelty or social status. It is completely impossible to have adult conversations with the majority of them, they have no knowledge of history, no street smarts, hell, no book smarts even, either. They offer nothing other than their worn-out vaginas, mouths, and buttholes. I’d rather hang out with men, though sadly most men are complete weenies who take shit too personally.
Marriage is a godawful institution for modern men. I’d advise men to avoid it because the left-wing government is hostile to men and it gives men almost no legal advantages, instead it gives women the world to screw a man over. That said, I think good men should find some way of passing their genes on without becoming indentured servants to the government. I’ve not yet figured that one out, so I’m not the one to ask on that.
I think men need sex, and sex doesn’t seem damage a man’s ability to form attachments, so I think it’s fine for a man to have one night stands, and pump and dump. Whores have existed since the dawn of time, let us on the right stop pretending to be “volkisch pure-hearted chaste mega-mormons” because men who don’t get their wick dipped tend to go crazy. As for attachments, I think men have a built-in capacity of brotherhood (that can translate to loyalty in general) that women don’t have, thus, even a manwhore can settle down.
As for women, I don’t even know. Having a lot of sex partners as a woman definitely does seem to make her incapable of being loyal. I don’t know if women are even capable of loving men — they love what a man can do to and for them, but not the man itself. It’s transactional. I’d say that women are only capable of loving their parents, their children, and the small yappy dogs or cats they buy after they’ve hit the wall or the children left the nest.
Feminism is basically built up by failed, ugly, fat women, who have successfully poisoned the well, but not entirely have been able to turn sexuality into a witchhunt against men. If they get political power, that will change, but for the forseeable future women will continue to blow bad boys while taking nice guy’s money.
I think, in the future, as ridiculous as it sounds, once the articial womb is available, and sentient AI alongside realistic robotics, men will opt for their gynoid Stepford wives rather than deal with real women, who provide no intellectual stimulation and come with too much baggage. It does sound ridiculous, but thinking of me settling down with a subpar woman until I get divorced in 5-10 years and lose half my wealth alongside all of my kids sounds even more absurd.
I think the disparity in sexual values between men and women is among the more important problems in our little “equal” society, but men will win in the end, I think, insofar the leftist brainwashing reaches its limits. It’s hard to tell. I’ve known men better looking and in more shape than I who, despite my warnings, ignored my advice on women and yet had not the balls to even tell me what happened when their ignoring me fucked them over, so I cannot say where things are going to lead.
Is there any hope for humanity?
Very little as of now. This place is wacky. So much posturing. Such fake. So wow.
There is some cultural revitalization. Craft beer is booming, so good beer isn’t hard to find. Dubstep is the popular thing right now, and though I don’t listen to it, from what little I have, seems to be leagues better than what kids were listening to in high school when I was that age. Not ideal, but I would’ve expected kids nowadays to listen to Justin Bieber clones singing about how it’s okay to get fucked in the ass by a woman with a strapon.
I know both are unimpressive, but, could be far worse with the way things have headed.
At any rate, the increasing proliferation of the absurd can be a bit amusing at times. I think a human zoo full of autistics on display would be neato. Wait…. I think there is one…. think it’s called “tumblr.”
As bad as things are, the future is opaque. I’d advise people to do constructive things instead of bicker on the ‘net about the what or the why for now. Focusing on the specifics of politics and theorizing about “traditional societies” and all that jazz isn’t going to do much to make you a better man. Ethno-nationalism isn’t gonna fucking save you. Leftism sure as hell won’t, LOL. Collective humanity is far too degraded. Let it collapse.
Where do people read more of your writings?
I don’t write much. So much noise on the internet, I’d just be one man in a room with a megaphone next to a very long human centipede, and if someone had dysentery in that ‘pede, the sounds of bowel movements would drown me out. Something like that. If people have interests in me writing more, I might give actual articles and such a chance,
Whoever wins on Nov. 4, few Americans will harbor any illusions about their national unity. No matter which pairing one chooses — red and blue, Right and Left, coastal elites and flyover salt-of-the-earthers — there is no getting around our status as a country divided, a people set apart from one another as much by regional culture as by religion or political ideology.
A perfect time, in other words, to talk about secession — which is what will happen when the Middlebury Institute’s Third North American Secessionist Conference convenes in Manchester, New Hampshire a week and a half after the election.
Good introduction to the issue: America is hopelessly divided between left and right, and subdivisions within those categories.
Looking at history, national secessionist movements are relatively successful. Numerically, most of them failed – but the ones that succeeded now run most of this planet. Considering the magnitude of their demands, the vehemence of opposition, and the bloodshed they usually engender, they seem a successful type of political movement. Yet in the same historical perspective, non-national (non-ethnic) secessionist movements are a total flop.
Now, if anyone can secede at any time, that means the end of the state, the government, on the usual definitions. And not just of tyrannies and gulags, but also of ‘nice’ democratic governments. The explanation might be simply the fear of bloodshed and chaos – anarchy in the most negative sense. This does not explain why national secession has been relatively successful: it is possible to take an ethical position that “all secession is wrong”, but evidently very few people do. Distinctions are made, and conditions are set, but some secessions are accepted.
Democracy relies on a prohibition of secession. A democratic regime assumes a ‘demos’ – a unit of political decision-making which is constant between decisions. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime. (There would be no political regime at all – at least not for standard political theory).
So democrats have concluded, like President Lincoln in the 1860’s, that secession must be suppressed. Since modern democracies are nation states, secession is now treated as an issue of national unity, and national identity: Lincoln was one of the last politicians who had to address secession as a classic political issue.
This is what they’re up against: democracies, which in theory thrive on internal opposition, instantly disintegrate if they let anyone secede — unless that group is ethnic, in which the nation neatly fragments with the host nation filtering out a single ethnic group.
Some philosophers have distinguished between the question whether and, if so, under what conditions a group has a moral claim-right to secede and the question of whether and, if so, under what conditions a constitution ought to or may include a right to secede. For example, while acknowledging that secession may sometimes be morally justified (where this presumably means the group in question has the claim-right to secede), Cass Sunstein has argued that constitutional recognition of a right to secede is incompatible with the principles of constitutionalism (or at least democratic constitutionalism) (Sunstein, 1991). Sunstein argues that a basic principle of constitutionalism is that political institutions, including the constitution itself, must be designed so as to encourage citizens to engage in the hard work of democratic politics, where this means competing in the public forum on grounds of principle, with a minimum of strategic bargaining. Following Albert O. Hirschman, (Hirschman, 1970) he then contends that if the constitution acknowledges a right to secede then discontent minorities will be tempted to shirk the hard work of principled, democratic politics either by actually seceding when the majoritarian decisions go against their preferences or by using the threat of secession as a strategic bargaining tool as a de facto veto over majority rule. In either case, democracy will be undermined.
Neat thinking, but if a group is a minority with needs contrary to the majority, it’s never going to get what it wants in a democracy, anyway. Hence the reason that groups of a non-mainstream political alignment, or those who believe politics has become misinterpreted, want to secede — they are numerically inconsequential.
“The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it’s too big, it’s too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens,” said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.
“Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what’s left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire.”
What’s interesting is that these groups are from all over the political spectrum.
The League of the South wants the old Confederacy; Vermont wants to be a liberal free state; Christian Exodus wants a small Christian theocracy.
These different groups agree on one thing however: they can’t get along, so the best way to get along is to separate into smaller groups, so that they don’t have to come up with 1 rule to fit 2 or more different inclinations.
I will explain this quickly because I lead a busy life, generally involving work that creates for my family stability outside of what is promised to us by the government, the good will of my fellow citizens and even the comforts of religion and friendship.
Our society is hell. It is a subtle hell, because it is not fire and brimstone. It is instead a conspiracy of many details that don’t add up into a whole. It is what happens when big complex things like civilizations fall apart.
There is no way to point to any specific facts, only a fact pattern. We no longer have anything in common. We rely on more rules and regulations to fix that. The more rules we make, the more they are evaded. This in turn leads to social chaos, more police and more cheating.
If any of you think democracy is going to save you, perhaps consider mental health care: democracy is demagoguery, or using pleasant and/or scary images to browbeat the population into reacting in knee-jerk ways. Your best leaders are the ones who have lied to you, and then done what needed to be done in order to protect their own families, friends and neighbors.
Some of you believe the media, and I’d pity you if I didn’t think pity was a disease. The media sells products. The best product is dramatic. This is why every week in the news there is a new Hitler, a new miracle cure, a new soft-hearted story and a new “deep” question for you to feel important talking about. Take this hint: there are millions of such stories possible, but the media chooses the ones they need when they need them to sell product.
Industry is not going to save you either. Industry has no fixed actors. It isn’t people; it’s people pulling a drive-by in which they invest, make money, and get out, because they’re not fools and they don’t trust society either. The only escape is wealth. If you own a private island and private security, no one can harm you.
They feel this way (as do I) because this society is unstable because it is built upon illusions. We are living off of the wealth of the past, that which our great-grandfathers invented and made. We don’t do anything for ourselves. We are decadent and permissive, have no standards, and nothing in common.
As a result, it’s a cross between a lottery, lynch mob and witch trial out there. If you do something the Crowd likes, then you’re a golden boy. If you do something it doesn’t like, and it doesn’t make up its mind until that instant, you’ll get run out on the rails.
Laws? Trials? It doesn’t matter, because everything comes down to popularity. Judges need to be elected, so do politicians. Products need to be bought. Everyone wants what is popular, as it will make them rich, and no one wants what is unpopular to get in the way of the money.
Almost everything you “know” is wrong. They don’t tell you the real reasons for the wars; the real reasons are usually legitimate, but too complex to ever be approved of by the voters. Thus they lie and they must keep lying, because the voters demand they lie, because the voters will turn down any sensible proposal and cling to any emotional one.
In democracy, a simple lie like bread and circuses always wins out over a complex truth. The first election, or the meta-election, was to decriminalize lying and in fact to make it the currency of the realm. Social problems persist because we cannot face them honestly, either to fix them or to admit they’ll always be with us, like poverty and alcoholism.
Any civilization that separates actual truth from “official” truth is heading downward. Corruption, distrust and manipulation rot it from within. A society without good leadership falls apart. If you want to see an example of a fallen-apart place, look at the third world. Most of those nations are what’s left of once-great empires.
How did our society get this way? It adopted liberalism. Liberalism is a mental disease spread by self-pity. The primary idea of liberalism is that the individual perception of reality comes before results. It does this in order to make everyone feel good, which is how you make a social event succeed.
If you want to be popular, go around and tell everyone about how they’re wonderful. Everyone is great, everything is great, it’s all going to be OK. There is no need to worry about the possibility of things going wrong, because we are all here and in agreement and we will all make sure that doesn’t happen.
The reason for saying this is to make each individual feel that he or she is not accountable for the results of his or her actions. Whatever method is chosen, and whatever results occur, the individual is not to blame because they are equal.
Liberalism constitutes a denial of actual reality in favor of thoughts which are pleasant in appearance. It works backward: you figure out what result you want, and then you claim that result is your method, leaving the question of the consequences of that method unknown.
Conservatism works the other way: we look at all known results of all known actions, and pick our method by its results. Liberalism is the first half of the decision cycle: you look at what you want, then figure out how to get it. Liberals omit the second half. Conservatives have both halves.
This difference is important because how your leaders and fellow citizens choose to act is determined by the shared values system they choose. They can choose liberalism (humans-first) or conservativism (reality-first). Naturally, liberalism is more popular.
How much of moral thinking is innate? Haidt sees morality as a “social construction” that varies by time and place. We all live in a “web of shared meanings and values” that become our moral matrix, he writes, and these matrices form what Haidt, quoting the science-fiction writer William Gibson, likens to “a consensual hallucination.” But all humans graft their moralities on psychological systems that evolved to serve various needs, like caring for families and punishing cheaters. – “Jonathan Haidt Decodes the Tribal Psychology of Politics,”The Chronicle of Higher Education
The liberal consensual reality is that “Everyone should be equal, and we should all be free!”
This sounds good, but we must consider more than one level of game play here. What are the consequences of doing this? Conservatism works the other way: we look at all known results of all known actions, and pick our method by its results. That is less popular.
Liberalism is the equivalent of schizophrenia. We create a fake reality, a consensual values system based on what we want to be true and not what is true, and then our society falls apart under us.
If we saw a patient behaving this way in a hospital or courtroom, we would categorize this person as having a mental disease because of their denial of obvious reality in favor of a fantasy world. Liberalism takes this insanity and dresses it up as “morality” by ignoring the second half of the cycle, which is the effects of its actions.
It is spread by self-pity because in order to deny reality you have to feel that something is wrong with reality. You invent a fantasy world because this world is horrible to you. Liberalism, by creating an unrealistic and dysfunctional society, makes more people self-pitying. It spreads like a cancer.
What you must do is decide whether you care about the future of humanity and all the species on planet earth. The choice is yours: either a third-world wasteland, or a first-world place that thinks about the results of our actions. It is a moral, scientific, political and ethical choice to be conservative.
Until we change direction, our fortunes will continue to slowly worsen. We will continue to be the species that consumes everything and leaves a ruin behind. We will continue to be neurotic and self-pitying.
The tide is turning, very slowly. The promises of liberal democracy have failed one by one. More war, not less; no economic stability; more work, less free time; more rules, less stability. Liberalism doesn’t work.
You’re going to see a lot more of situations like this. A law or rule is on the books, and it seems unfair to minority groups, so they protest.
In response, government gives them money. Mitt Romney notices they’re part of the 47%. The rest of the country wonders, “Uh oh. Can I actually say this? That the 47% is mostly non-white and the 53% is mostly white?”
Perhaps the Republican Party is slow to figure it out, but the people voting for the Republican Party are not slow. They realize that the Democrats have been using immigration and domestic minorities to pad the voter rolls, in addition to their homegrown cadre of the disaffected, neurotic, self-pitying and futilitarian.
(I should define: a “futilitarian” is any person who believes that humanity is screwed for any effort higher than self-interest, so society should just stop harshing on my buzz, man, and give everyone a chance to live an easy life of non-work jobs, free porn and lots of entertainment from Panem et Circenses, Inc. who is just coincidentally a government contractor. I digress.)
This election isn’t just about getting America back from the Barack Hussein Obama Socialist Agenda(tm). It’s about getting America back, period. Either the majority wins out, or they get replaced by big government, more immigration, a Soviet-style wealth redistribution plan and internationalist rule in the UN style.
When people figure out an inkling of this, and I just mean a little slice of it, doesn’t take much, they begin to freak out. First is that they are conditioned to “not notice” (which means force their brains to ignore) race and class issues. They’re already squirming because they are seeing something they are programmed to not accept as true.
Second they’re losing their marbles because they don’t understand it. “Why do they hate us?” asked 4.1 million well-intentioned ladies hired in middle management simultaneously. Burly outdoors types are wondering if this is the great race war.
The answer is a lot simpler. Think back to when you were a kid. How did you make it through school? If you were popular, you joined the future leaders of America types. If not, you made excuses for not being popular, and joined kids who were united by not being popular.
As any high school movie shows us this unpopular group includes at least half of the kids in the school and comprises many subcultures. Goths, punkers, white rappers, nerds, stoners, geeks and surfers.
When these different groups join together, they have the most power in the school by their sheer numbers. Unlike in the movies the popular kids aren’t scheming against the nerds, they’re busy being popular, getting into Harvard and planning how to spend all the money they’ll make at their future careers.
But what it takes to join all these different groups is a kind of social contract that says “because not being popular is part of who we are, we agree to accept each other totally and form a different type of popularity.”
This is what the Democrats, Communists, Socialists and any other non-majority party do. They unite different groups under the banner of anti-majoritarianism or first, not being part of the majority, and second, wanting to unite and take over from that majority.
I had this one job that rewarded people for sales made on the phones. This quickly separated everyone out like oil and water, between the go-getters (annoying tools) who had lots of sales, and the “slackers” who didn’t even bother to harass ordinary people with these stupid sales pitches.
When someone got enough sales to be part of the cool group, they kind of disappeared. This new identity was something they were proud of and they had a new social group. The rest of us just fell off their radar.
During one pre-Christmas rush, all the slackers got together and started just ignoring the go-getters. We wouldn’t transfer calls to them, or give them any information, or even talk to them. The result was total breakdown of the system and who did the burden fall on? The go-getters. For once the slackers were home at Christmas and the “winners” got to spend the night on the phone, explaining Windows 95 networking to the drunk, lonely and bitter.
The American majority is mostly white, middle class, socially conservative and economically classical liberal, religiousish, family centric and essentially nerdly. They’re not cool like the slackers, the minority groups famed for their music and colorful art and cooking, or the Democrats.
Most of them don’t understand yet. They hate you, the anti-majoritarians. They don’t hate you because you’re white, middle class, possibly Christian or chaste. They hate you because you’re the majority, the well-adjusted people who are happy here. You represent what they can’t have and they project their dissatisfaction with themselves onto you.
Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt on the part of those who hate the majority. If they had the ability, they would either join the majority or find another way to have what that group has. Obviously they have not, so obviously they can not, and this secret in plain sight makes them enraged.
They won’t stop until you the majority are destroyed and replaced with people more like them. Again this is not race, but the mere fact of your majority status, that they will use against you. They don’t care what the truth is. If the facts don’t agree, they’ll fake them. If the newspapers don’t agree, they’ll start their own. They will do whatever is necessary to gain control.
The American majority slept through all the liberal social experiments because the majority believed that these were legitimate ideas to advance society, in the interests of the majority. Instead it turns out to be a replacement and destruction program. The majority now is figuring out that even if they attain minority status, they will still be destroyed through violence, wealth redistribution and lots of hateful laws.
I have observed that almost nobody understands just about anything during this election. People are telling you stupid stuff, like to write-in George Washington or stay home. The real fact is that you can’t afford to. This election will determine whether this country destroys its majority and thus becomes a third-world war zone, or reverses course and regains its former greatness. There are no other options.
Having been a man of the world for over a decade now, I have spent some time observing the sleeping habits of American and European females.
Over time, a few notes have been etched in the back of my brain. For example, modern women must maintain the illusion of control at all times, so let them tell you what to do and then do what you must. They will test you in public to see if you’ve caught on. Pretend you haven’t for five minutes.
Then there are the common sense methods of staying in control. Never show up on time. Never apologize unless you were mistaken. Don’t argue; work around them. Always ask them what they want to do, so they don’t put the onus on you. If they make a suggestion, make both of you do it no matter how stupid, so they can’t criticize you later for not having acted on the “obvious.”
Toward the most recent end of my career as an observer of the modern woman, another truism has emerged. Beware of sudden touch. Modern women like to retreat into their happy places, which usually have degradingly immature symbols like stuffed animals and kitty pictures, because the grim reality of the meat market is too much for their minds. This means that much of the time they’re not here in reality with you. Be careful when you touch them, or you may jolt them back.
When they are asleep this is most obvious. Modern women don’t sleep well. Not only are they drugged on caffeine and brain-warping food additives, but they are extremely unsettled. They live with more doubt than certainty and tell themselves comforting lies. When they sleep, they are restless, but if you touch them before they are prepared, be ready for a freaked-out and possibly violent female.
A modern woman asleep is both resting and escaping. She is in her happy place, she thinks. In her dreams, teddy bears and fluffy kittens cavort under inexhaustible sunny blue skies. But to have a happy place, you first need to have something to run away from. She is running away from so much that a sudden touch may launch her into panic.
I don’t think this is the result of sexual abuse. For one thing, the touches don’t need to be sexual. If a girlfriend touches her, a woman may freak out just as much as if a man does. What seems more obvious is that women are expecting interruption by a reality that they fundamentally do not like and want to keep away from as long as possible.
Many of us know why modern society is hell, an equal combination of permissiveness empowering only the lowest common denominator, and a nanny-state enforcing a paint-by-numbers version of work and culture that dumbs everything down to the meaningless and boring. We know that its roots in egalitarian altruism make it a social control mechanism, replacing governmental control. We know not to trust its motivations since it is in the hands of the merchant classes of international origins. And finally, we’re cynical because democracy is a farce since the largest section of any population isn’t bright enough to be anything but narcissistic, self-deluding and thus easily manipulated by dollars or temporary popularity points.
Most people are aware of this on some level, but can’t face it head-on. Instead, they create hiding spaces for themselves. Their default behavior is to go to their happy space when they’re not required to do something, like go to class, or work, or figure out their income tax or go shopping. They just withdraw.
Most American and European women had parents like this, and the parents treated them like expensive dogs as a result. Parents did not want to be interrupted from their happy space, so they started to see their kids as interruptions who needed to be managed. Put in front of televisions, distracted with toys, forced into activities. This made another generation of people who are reality-averse.
The result is that people are basically constantly watching a television tuned to their own channel. When you touch them and interrupt this, it upsets them because you have violated their “right” to be in their happy place whenever they can. In their view, it’s just not fair.
The guiding principle of modern society, equality, quickly becomes “my needs come first and no one can tell me no.” This leads to us each becoming islands of our own selves, isolated exchange when we need to engage in some transaction. Sex, which is a surrogate for love, is one of those transactions.
Women raised in this time are used to other people having a my-needs-first outlook and so have adopted it for themselves. The result is that when they’re in a relationship with you, they’re using you and expect you to be using them. When you touch them outside that script, it’s like a shocking confrontation with reality.
That shock makes them feel ashamed, ignorant, foolish and delusional because suddenly their happy place just isn’t as real as the rest of reality anymore. It has been revealed as a facade. When they get angry at you, the source of the anger is in having lost their facade, not any actual sin you have committed.
There’s nothing in common between our citizens anymore, and the internet shows it. Almost all references to the internet begin with “So I was arguing with this idiot…” The points of view are literally incompatible.
No case in point is more illustrative than a recent exchange on noted internet dropout huddle zone Reddit. One poster told a story about an elementary-school student who was not very popular, and this kid had a birthday party, and no one came.
The poster was hurt and outraged that kids were so “cruel” and used epithets to describe their behavior. But is it really so? As I pointed out, it’s not necessarily that they were cruel. They may have simply not wanted to socialize with the kid. Saying that they then must socialize with him, or be thought cruel, is a type of mental control through guilt. In fact, it’s a bit psycho to judge their behavior in any way. There should be no obligation to go to birthday parties, or the exercise becomes full Soviet and there’s no fun left in it.
In the same way, our citizens should not be forced to socialize with one another. But in the hands of nanny state government however, the same choice will be made as this poster wants to do to birthday parties. It’s not fair if someone has a birthday party that is unattended, he thinks, so we should use guilt and fear of being ostracized to force people to attend. Never mind that then the kid is not merely unpopular, but hated, because he’s an obligation as odious as paying taxes or waiting in line at the DMV.
Our society tosses around words like “cruel” and “oppressive” without even bothering to care what the meaning is. You succeed in this society by being inoffensive and having a spiel that most people find pleasant and complimentary. They like having their heads filled with images of themselves as kind and wise, not cruel and prone to exercise judgment. In their distracted egomaniac stroll through life, they want to be told that no one is more important than anyone else, and that no one can tell anyone else what to do. This lets their distracted suburban-housewife mentality think that everything is peaceful, maan. We’re all cool because we’re all the same. We are one, now have a dreamcatcher and an Ansel Adams print to make you feel profound.
The grim reality of the situation is that it is better for everyone if we are all totally honest instead. Take the unpopular kid for example. If no one in his class wants to go to his birthday party, he should face that truth and then consider his options. The first is one that most people find upsetting, because it requires you to really escape the brainwashing of this era. Who cares if you’re popular? Don’t bother trying to be popular unless it’s important to you. The second option is for people to whom it is important to be popular. If no one wants to come to your birthday party, you have to figure out why and change yourself so that they like you. If they’re all jerks or idiots, you have to be a jerk or idiot like them, but your party will be well attended.
In either case, the unpopular kid has made a choice and adapted. Either he rejects popularity itself or finds a way to win at the game. He would not have these realizations if he were not told by others by their non attendance that he was not popular. When we shield this kid from reality by forcing other kids to go to his party, he never goes through the learning experience and for the rest of his life, goes through life depending on a false notion of how it works.
Our society as a whole is run like a committee. It likes to make everyone play well together. Its leaders like to see peace, order, conformity and most of all a constant need for external validation. People who go through life begging for attention are easy to control. The nanny state comes from this mentality, and thrives by controlling us through its approval, like a manipulative parent. It wants us all to be forced to go to the unpopular kids’ birthday because that keeps the peace, and also breaks our independent will and makes us dependent on how others perceive us.
The scary thing about this state of mind is that it arises from good intentions. No one wants to think about being the kids whose party was a bust. But in the name of that fear, we create a far worse devil. By forcing us to interact with each other, we make our society insincere and manipulative. That effectively destroys all honest emotions, all friendships, all love. But at least the committee is happy.
When a civilization dies, the culture goes first and what is left is hypocrisy.
People become really disgusting, and false and hollow, and they spread that like a disease among themselves. They are manipulative and insincere. And why not? It’s not like they live in a society that works for their benefit. Instead, they’re trying to hold on to the parts of a disintegrating mess that tells them they’re “equal” and then treats them like chattel. They have nothing to their name except some job, a car, and a place to live. Almost none of them believes that will mean anything because there’s always someone richer, so people start “posing” and using lifestyle choices to make themselves seem more important than everyone else.
It’s not personal, but it ends up being personal, because they see everyone else as potential competition. If you want to know why men belittle each other “in fun” and women are catty, this is it. There is no social order or morality in common to give their lives meaning, so they’re trying to one-up each other by being more important in different ways: moral posturing (I give to Greenpeace), social status (I know the owner of that trendy club), elite possessions (I have an iBrain), and even rank (I’m executive vice president of doing nothing). As said elsewhere on this site, it’s “keeping up with the Joneses” but it’s not limited to material possessions or socioeconomic status. It’s just pure status.
Because of this nasty “crab bucket” tendency to try to climb above everyone else, each person ends up searching out an identity. If you’re thinking of the first week of high school, a prize for you. Remember when kids split off into groups like theater kids, goths, jocks, preppies, druggies, partiers, gangstas and nerds? That exact same process is going on in society at large, all the time. People are trying to find an identity, and they build that identity out of things they own but more importantly, public attitudes or stances.
Unfortunately these people destroy anything they touch. Their goal in joining your non-profit is not to achieve the goal of the non-profit, but to show others how benevolent, altruistic, compassionate, gentle and insightful they are. This is why most volunteer organizations fall apart. People are too busy posing and being self-important to get anything done, which they don’t care about anyway. They are there to look good to their friends and to remind everyone else that we are not as cool as they are.
This attitude has a schizophrenic character because they know, barely under the surface of their personalities even, that their pose is not true. They are faking it and they fear you’ll find out because it’s easy to see. They become really afraid of you finding out. As a result they are constantly passive-aggressive, which is a tough term to define but roughly means unreasonably putting themselves in your way, and then claiming you attacked them first, and using that as a justification to attack you. It’s like the kid in elementary school who kept poking you all class long and when you finally had enough and punched his lights out, he claimed you were bullying him and got you sent to federal prison. That’s how modern people think, and this is why T.S. Eliot and others have indicated our present historical age as a “Kali-Yuga” or end-time in which no one is to be trusted. It sounds misanthropic but if you pay attention when you go through life you’ll find that maybe 10% of the people out there are well-intentioned and the rest are purely selfish and not all that much fun to be around, which is why they band together with other idiots to force you into jobs and other social circumstances where you have to tolerate them.
There are many modern poses or justifications. The most obvious is the Steve Jobs style Californian messianic type, but equally devious are the hipsters, hippies, anarchists, soccer moms, Christian evangelicals and tree huggers who try to give their empty lives meaning through an ideology that allows them to drama-queen around in public and feel as if they matter. It gets even worse when you get on the internet. To make a long story short, I’m going to talk about one of these personae today, and that’s Tweebo.
“Tweebo” is a portmanteau of “twee” and “Rambo” because that describes the mentality of tweebos. On the surface, they are classic beta males: sensitive men, compassionate pushovers, feminists, freethinkers, liberal, etc. (it doesn’t matter what they claim, as they believe none of it and lack the biological intelligence to analyze and understand it). They will fall to their knees for any underdog or lost cause as long as it is a socially popular one, meaning that it panders to the individuals out there who are miserable and are sure they are victims of an unfair and horrible world and something should be done about it. Tweebos do not like for honest people who fall on hard times. They really don’t care if a tornado killed your family, destroyed your home and broke off your legs. They care if you’re a drunk homeless guy who was “just never given a chance, dude” or some other pity target. You have to be a pity-target because otherwise you don’t serve their pose, which is as wise benevolent rich altruistic and compassionate geniuses who are riding in to save the day. This is the paradox of tweebo: it is both twee, or immersed in the kind of self-pity that projects outward and has them seeking out victims and hopeless cases to coddle, and a sense of “white knighting” like Rambo to save those same cases from anyone who is not also twee. The twee is the passive, the Rambo is the aggressive. Tweebos are passive-aggressive moral posers.
They have several traits:
Low self-esteem leading to victimhood mentality.
Both social and practical incompetence which causes them to hate people who are succeeding in any form.
Vast self-pity leading to identification with other victims.
Cognitive dissonance “white knighting.”
Bored, slovenly modern existence causing interest in the plight of pity objects.
Absorption of massive doses of anarchist, Marxist and hippie faux ideology but underneath that strong tendencies toward consumerism.
General depression and dysfunction leading to a desire for uplifting images, memes and propaganda.
Hatred of their own origins and thus posturing, pretense and moral superiority and righteousness posing.
A tendency to be smarter than average, but not smart enough to realize that minor achievement does not make them Omnipotent Geniuses (this is the Dunning-Kruger effect of illusory superiority).
A fascination with all things twee, failing, pitiable, sad, miserable, lonely, weak, dying and dysfunctional.
A constantly repeated lie that if society would just get off their back they’d turn out great, somehow launching from their entry-level jobs in IT and food service to the top of the ladder.
Tweebo kills all discussions with groupthink, and because he sees his view as the one universal and absolute moral path, is intolerant of any deviation from that view.
As a result, tweebo is excessively “conservative” in the sense of eliminating all but a very narrow “way we’ve always done it around here” but tends to adopt morality based in the individual, or humanism, as his shield. Tweebo standardizes discussion and brings conformity.
For this reason, tweebo is especially active in media. They like to get jobs in media so they can push their dysfunctional opinions (that they don’t even believe) upon you. They are also very active on the internet, especially chatty communities like Fark, Reddit, and MetaFilter. You will know you have hit a tweebo hive when there is an unstated opinion that everybody obeys and defends, and when they’re hostile to outsiders about the same. It’s a way of being addicted to the same vapid hivemind while pretending to be iconoclastic individualists, man.
Tweebo is also irritatingly self-righteous and deplorably ignorant, but cannot understand why that is so, thus represents a giant mob of people who repeat identical opinions at top volume and strangle any deviation from the norm, crushing any thinking “outside the box.”
Tweebo, in the name of non-conformity, is the ultimate conformist.
Remember that tweebo is an unstable combination of self-pity and white knighting (“moral vigilanteism” through a keyboard). They do this to hide the fact that they are overwhelmingly single, lonely, dysfunctional, socially alienated, week-willed people in their 20s whose “ideology” consists of equal parts self-pity and revenge on the more successful.
What makes tweebo dangerous is that he is a distraction and a false ideology. Millions of spoiled fat first-world children gather together and go tweebo, and this means they act outrageously in public for lost causes but won’t lift a finger to help an actual problem. It is not uncommon to see tweebo drive his prius past a girl getting gang-raped, or for tweebo to come home from a green party protest and throw a whole bag of recycleable items straight into the trash. Tweebo uses ideology and politics for his own convenience, and doesn’t care about anyone else or whether his ideas come to pass. It’s just a pose, like everything else tweebo does.
If you look out your window and see someone making a big deal about the rights of the homeless to defecate on your lawn, or whether we are doing enough for starving orphans in some tiny place you’ve never heard of, you are probably seeing tweebo in action. My lawyers say I can’t tell you to open fire, but if you did accidentally shoot all the tweebos in your neighborhood, you’d do more to improve humanity than all the tweebos since the dawn of time would ever do. They don’t see it that way however. You’re either tweebo, or you’re part of the problem, in their view. While this has no relation to reality, it does make tweebo feel better for a few moments, and that’s all he cares about anyway.
Nothing described in this post is Barack Obama’s fault. If a nation of spoiled nincompoops decides to have a tantrum against a necessary war, and then decides you’re a perfect pity object because half of your ancestors came from a place that did not evolve to a state of having written language, physics, mathematics or technology, then you might as well take advantage of it and be president.
However, Halloween this year was dead in the water, and it’s Barack Obama’s fault.
Back in 2009, the first year he was elected, we noticed a shift in our quiet Dallas suburb. Where the year before it had been all local kids in our mostly-white and partly-Asian middle class suburb, now people were driving their kids in from other places. The apartments nearby, or neighborhoods even farther away.
Where we once had kids who mirrored the demographics of the neighborhood, we now had an inverse group: our neighbor is probably 5% non-white, but the kids coming on Halloween were 95% non-white. And older. Sometimes accompanied by parents, many of whom carried beers.
To put it mildly, “values clashed.”
Our ideal in this neighborhood is that you go somewhere, contribute, get rewarded and then as you can, give back. You give back by making things like parks, colleges, knowledge and social stability. We don’t drive our kids to the richer suburbs to the north because then we’re taking from somewhere else, giving nothing back, and basically becoming parasites — and parasites slow down the process of growth.
Other people have different values, and judging by the crowds that year, they outnumber us ten to one.
This year, only a few people turned on their porch lights and gave out candy. They were quickly mobbed and shut down by 7:30 PM, leaving bands of kids and their clueless parents to roam the streets, then go back to the cars they’d parked at the entrance of the neighborhood, making it look like a party was going on at a house near there.
One neighbor expressed his view this way: “I’ll take care of the kids from here, and from people we know or should know. I don’t want someone that I have no reason to know coming by. That’s not the point of the holiday. And I don’t want random people seeing my house, and what I have.”
But we can’t say that in public, or we get accused of being in-egalitarians (subsets of this: classist, racist, genderist). Anyone who does not insist that we are all equal and deserve whatever free stuff is being handed out anywhere is bad.
Barack Obama’s election was a signal of the final dogma shift in this country from “help those who help themselves” to “go everywhere and demand a subsidy,” and that’s why the Tea Party and even some Democrats think he has brought the spirit of socialism, and parasitism, to a once-prosperous land.
In the meantime, the lights stay off and the doors stay closed on Halloween until adults can man up and be honest about this problem.