There are some very smart, truly ruthless people who get that Amerika is on fire. Aaron Clarey explained the process above. The nicer ones will tell you quietly and privately that our economy is dying of leprosy. They are making their discreet plans and subtly edging their way towards the exit.
They aren’t quite ready to yell “Fire!” yet. They’d rather have you believe it’s just unseasonably warm because of El Nino and Global Climate Change. But what happens when the slower ones catch on? At that point the resulting confusion should be more amusing than Father’s Day in Mobile.
You’ve heard of Bitcoin, but probably haven’t read up on SETLCoin. SETLCoin is how Goldman Sachs firewalls itself off from the economy upon which it feeds like a vampire. I’ll fill you in on the details.
On November 19, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) published Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s patent application 20150332395 or “Cryptographic Currency For Securities Settlement.” Described are “ […] methods for settling securities in financial markets using distributed, peer-to-peer, and cryptographic techniques ” using a cryptocurrency named SETLcoin. The application lists Paul Walker and Phil J. Venables as the inventors of the technology.
Paul Walker is the co-head of technology at Goldman and a member of the Board of Directors of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC). According to Nathaniel Popper’s book “Digital Gold” and his adaptation for American Banker, “When Goldman Sachs Began Flirting with Bitcoin,” Walker led a panel to educate the banks clients about virtual currencies. Popper writes that Walker, “indicated that the bank was taking a hard look at how the blockchain might be used to change basic things about how banks do business.”
Maybe a few of the Sheeple have elected to awaken and are fearing the wolf that is gorging on their economic future. The DOW is off 400 points to start off our brave new trading year, and the Chinese stock exchange had to shut down automated trading after 7 minutes.* The same guys patenting their backdoor currencies tell us to pay these omens no mind.
It’s more drama than data. Mid-east geopolitical conflict driving a lot of today’s moves. Stocks & bond yields down. Gold & dollar up. — Jeffrey Kleintop (@JeffreyKleintop) January 4, 2016
Jeffrey Kleintop may be accurate. It could go right back up the rest of the month. It may be that every other currency on the globe sucks compared to the dollar and it may be that we remain the finest battle charger in line for the glue factory. As long as the US of A can export the impacts inflationary bubbles in the form of our currency, we get to have our cake and eat it too. However, the reasons we saw the sell-off may be more durable and more profound. It could be that an awful lot of rubes have figured out how worthless their assets have become and are now in a race to cash them out while somebody else still thinks they have some intrinsic worth.
Would it be “Mad Max?” Would it be “1984?” To quote one idiot on YouTube, it could even turn into “Marshal Law!”** Well no. At first, it will turn into Argentina instead. Things will just gradually stop working. It will fall apart at the rate at which entropy functions. You just lose functionality 1 system, 1 machine, and 1 location at a time. But this isn’t fun. My opening paragraph promised a good, amusing wreck. What I’ve described above is worse than watching a 500 mile NASCAR race and not seeing a single Redneck hauled off on a stretcher.
The fun starts when people no longer believe that things will all work out OK. Amerika is a faith-based economy. They laugh at me for believing in Jeebus Da Sky Fairy, but then tell me that The US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency and therefore does not have to be intelligently managed or adequately collateralized to be an effective store of value. When Thomas logically disbelieved in The Holy Ghost, Jesus could put up rather than shut up. He was totally prepared to let Thomas see the nail holes in his hands. Am I an apostate for holding Paul Krugman or Janet Yellin to a similar skeptical standard?
The real collapse and secular version of gory scenes from The Revelation will occur when about 300 million people decide the US Dollar is only is as good as the full faith and credit of the United States Government. At that point they ask themselves if they would logically trust either George W. Bush or Barack Obama. How you answer both of these questions should allow you to make a logical estimate of how long it is before Amerika dies in the ditch like the banana republic it is increasingly becoming.
None of us know the hour or even the day upon which the male bovine scatology gets completely disbelieved. But we do have a pretty good idea of the timescale. The timescale is not much longer. The milestone event that future historians believe constitutes the official fall of The United States of America will undoubtedly occur during most of our adult lifetimes.
* – That doesn’t ever happen because people are doing too well.
** -My hands and face are not big enough to adequately facepalm this. The term is Martial Law.
You are living in an illusion. It was crafted by your fellow citizens for their benefit at the expense of yours. You can safely ignore it, except that then all you do will be wasted, and you will continue living in Hell.
Yes: I said Hell. You are living in a thinly-disguised, well-compensated hell. It is crafted so that only the sane can detect it, and since the sane have always been a minority, that means that it is never noticed. The point is simple: to eradicate the sane using the mechanism of Darwinism. Reward the insane, and this occurs, regular like clockwork.
This is why our society is based around democracy, equality and tolerance. Most of our people want to hide the fact of our decline, and profit from the wealth of the past, while driving away anyone who might notice what a farce it all is. To hide our decline, they have created false versions of everything, and a Potemkin economy to conceal its lack of value.
A Potemkin economy — named after the quaint and cute “Potemkin villages” used to convince people that Russian proles lived well instead of the third-world scatty poverty that was normal — is one in which every price tag is fake but everyone supports these fake prices to avoid the personal economic consequences of letting the cat out of the bag and pointing out that everything is near-worthless.
Take a look at these twelve ways your economy is fake and how that indicates that your society is cratering.
1. It’s all the same.
I was in a bookstore the other day, surrounded by grazing sheep looking for Christmas gifts. I started opening up biographies, novels, and science books, and found one comment denominator: they’re all the same. The writing could have been produced by a machine; the approach is similar too. Each one has a “secret” which it promises to reveal, but spends most of its time hiding the obvious so the secret seems important. All of the writing uses lots of vivid language to reveal simple things, and simplifies complex things to the point of offering no information. All of the characters are the same gray personality-less equal person who spends all of his/her time in introspection as a means of glorifying the self at the expense of the world. Every book ran at least a hundred pages longer than content provided, which means that after the first five chapters, it’s the same song and dance to distract from its emptiness before turning up the volume for a conclusion. Just like blogs, which standardized writing into an NPR-inspired format of heavily emotional, breathy and adjective-heavy quirkiness which ends up being the opposite of distinctive, writing now is as regimented as end of year reports from corporations or threat assessments in the military. This creates writing that is both random and repetitive. At first, it seems interesting, until you realize that it’s just technique and the content is very, very thin. What’s the value in this? People take a few generations to catch up with reality, so they’re still buying novels that “look interesting” (and reading four chapters before leaving them on the bus), giving gift books of “fascinating” science that turns out to be the obvious plus broad conclusions which will be disproven thoroughly in five years, and surrounding themselves with genre-books (from genres invented in the 1980s) to display an identity and life-purpose to others that is just as fake as the Potemkin economy itself.
2. It’s controlled just like Pravda.
Back in the Soviet Union, the official newspaper Pravda could be counted on to spin partial truths into statements that seemed to support the narrative that Communism was taking over the world. You read Pravda to find out what wasn’t true and what the government wanted you to believe so you knew the right answers to tell other people so they wouldn’t inform on you and send you to the gulag. The Soviet Union operated by a negative standard, while the modern West operates on a positive standard. You listen to controlled media so you have the right opinions and get promoted by people who like those opinions, otherwise you remain at “merely equal,” which because it is not subsidized by a Communist/Socialist state, means boring entry level jobs until you’re 65 and then a heart attack from frustration a decade later. Our media here are staffed by people who made it through liberal arts courses in university, in which success came from finding new ways to parrot the same old ideas based in egalitarianism and its associated “theory,” and they keep doing that in media. They then become popular because there is a large enough audience that wants to feel smart for having absorbed liberal theory at public schools and private universities alike, and they recognize only that which parrots this chatter back to them. For this reason, our “diverse” media represents a single opinion in many forms, and successfully spams your brain as it would take decades to entangle all of the deceptions. Its favorite trick, like that of Pravda, is to take a partial truth and spin it into a broad conclusion. A famous comedian said, “Reality has a liberal bias,” but what he means is that a controlled media and science publishing establishment can find facts to support the liberal narrative and present those as the whole truth when they are far from it.
3. Its value has fallen 40% during the 0bama years.
Barack 0bama is not a Muslim, the antichrist or a Communist. What he is, if analyzed correctly, is a standard 1968 liberal: the name of the game is wealth transfer from the useful people to the proles so that liberals remain in power forever. As the old joke goes, the difference between a Socialist, Communist and moderate liberal is the spelling. These ideologies differ only by degree, which is a function of time because once liberalism takes control it inevitably and necessarily continues a drift leftward until total anarchy or true Communism is achieved, either of which reduces a population to a third-world vassal state under the thumb of cynical tyrants. The consequence of wealth transfer are striking: it places economic decisions in the hands of those least competent to make those decisions well. As a result, your economy is suddenly geared around end-stage consumer products, not stuff like what the successful people buy, which tends to generate more income: land, homes, businesses, stocks, etc. Each dollar we take from the upper half of the middle class and above goes into lottery tickets, cell phones, cheap liquor and entertainment, and that money goes nowhere else. The result is that your money purchases less, and the quality has declined. American construction is at an all-time mediocre low, our food has never been more adulterated, and even our entertainment products are going full dunce. None of this crap is actually worth much but that’s the point; in order to keep you from seeing that your currency is now worthless, you must see a steady stream of stuff in formats you recognize so you think everything is normal. The media will not report on this. Just as we look back to 1980s dollars fondly, now 2006 money seems like it would be a really nice thing to have now. Forget it; your dollars are based on your drunken debt in order to fund liberal social programs like welfare, subsidies, benefits, food stamps and diversity programs. All of these are merely disguised wealth transfer.
4. Your technology is not advancing.
Tell us again about the great advances in technology. Your computing is based on a 1990s networking format using 1970s operating systems. Our self-driving cars are built around the same ideas that enabled cruise missiles in the early 1980s. Those handy digital assistants are basically Eliza programs maintained by hordes of workers pre-programming them with answers. None of this represents an actual leap in technology; if anything, it is a declaration that none are coming, so we have to reshuffle the deck to give ourselves new products. What actually does an iPad do? How does it add income? Similarly, what about Facebook and Amazon — how are they different from internet forums and Wal-mart? These non-innovations are designed to hide the lack of invention. Even Google is hovering near the abyss, since after a nice ten-year run of good advertising revenues, it is now finding that the internet is covered in ads that people ignore. Apple had a few big sellers, but those are now gone. What next? The phones get bigger screens and the iPads get better wi-fi. Fantastic.
5. The value of your society is based on its reputation, which is fading.
Once upon a time, people bought American products because they were the best. Then they bought American media, because it was seen as the best. Finally, they followed what Americans were doing, because Americans seemed cutting edge. Guess what — those trivial advances have now been equaled. The rest of the world has its own Hollywoods, search engines, social media and trends. The value of the USA and Europe is based on an old standard which is now obsolete. Add to that the obvious failings of American social policy, which has gone full Socialist and thus sabotaged its value to match the European subsidy states, and the plummeting value of the American brand as a wimpy president and crazy voters pursue illusory foreign policy, and you see why America and Europe are no longer the world’s leaders. Sure, the West — America, the antipodeans and Europe — can support each other and keep the farce going, but that only has so long on it. The Baby Boomers just want to enjoy another decade of retirement before the cancers from industrial pollution kill them off, and after that, who cares.
6. Your leaders are bad because your people are bad.
Most people are cool with the idea that they choose their leaders. They are less accepting of the complementary proposition, which is that they are responsible for who they choose. The last two generations have increasingly picked candidates with illogical platforms, no experience and little competence merely because those leaders have promised free things. Free college and free medical care are two of the more compelling policies for voters in this group. The problem, in addition to the fact that these are wealth transfer (see above), is that the money to pay for these things comes from a dwindling group. Most people now work relatively entry-level jobs and to them, a few thousand gone in taxes in exchange for tens of thousands of freebies sounds like a good idea. But then who pays? And what is sacrificed to pay for it? Our rotting infrastructure tells the story: we stopped building quality roads, bridges, subways, electrical lines and public buildings, and instead, have shifted that money into payments to people at the bottom of the social hierarchy. When we kept the money at the top, it went to things we can all enjoy and benefit from; now that we distribute the money at the bottom, it vanishes into a black hole of seedy businesses and entertainment products, and the things we share are neglected.
7. Your people are bad because your economy sustains idiots.
Every society dies by thriving. This enables it to support people who could not exist without it, generally because they are foolish — or in other words, have unrealistic judgment ability — and require jobs, stores and education to guide them because otherwise their witless minds would ramble on like a gossip column. Strong people want to exile the useless idiots; weak people want to “make peace” with the idiots by giving them benefits, subsidies and jobs. The result is that voting, which was always a bad situation because every human group approximates a mean not a peak, becomes worse as you have many millions of helpless people dependent on government and the liberalism that sustains it. These parasites bleed the society dry. They also lower social standards wherever they go because any standard higher than mediocre is personally offensive to them. This means that soon you have an angry mob of fools who become “useful idiots” for any totalitarian, left-leaning or otherwise control-oriented power.
8. Tolerance is our sacred value in order to prevent “noticing.”
“Noticing” is what happens when someone looks at society with clear, realistic eyes. They see a population that is miserable, with the worst being the most intelligent and productive. They see cities which are covered in advertising, awkward to use and designed around avoiding the rioting lower classes. They see a total lack of unity in anything, including national identity. They observe the incompetence of our leaders, products and public institutions. They intuit that this society is a form of hell, and that unless it deviates course radically, it is heading toward becoming Brazil — a vast third-world horde enslaved by a few cynical wealthy people and their private armies. They also realize that “tolerance” means accepting the mediocre as fact and as a result, our voters have comfortably opted for oblivion and policy after policy that is delusional and self-destructive. They notice the man behind the curtain and that the Potemkin village hides a far uglier reality. They also see how those who feel they have succeeded in this society fight kicking and screaming against noticing because those people are addicted on a brain chemical level to the artificial sense of self-esteem provided by “success.” This is why of all of our taboos, “tolerance” is the strongest. Tolerance means the lower is raised to be equal to the higher, so no one can say anything definitively because someone somewhere disagrees. This keeps decisions mired in obscurity — doubtless at the same time organizations publish lengthy lists of “facts” in the name of “transparency” — so that nothing will ever change our course, even if the smartest among us recognize that it is time-wasting, soul-wasting, depression-inducing suicide.
9. The world operates on Darwinian principles plus pretense.
Almost no one will face this: your tribal identity is formed by any set of traits you share with others. This includes (in overlapping conditions frequently) race, religion, ethnic group, class or caste, sexual preference and intelligence. Every other group looks at your group; if you are above them in any way, their goal is to tear you down and subjugate you, taking your women and impregnating them. This is one half of Darwinism. The first part is that the best rise above the rest, and the second part is that if the best degenerate, or lose their ability or will to rise above, the rest assimilates them. This is why over time eagles become sparrows and grey squirrels drive out red squirrels. We do not like to think about being subject to Darwinism, as humans, because that thought belongs to a category alongside death, defecation and our insignificance in the universe of thoughts that not only disturb us personally but create threatening instability in social groups when mentioned. So we file them away, along with the instructions for our 1040 forms and grandma’s recipe for hemorrhoid cream, hoping that they just Go Away like the bad thoughts which plague us late at night when we cannot sleep.
10. The agenda never changes: other groups hate you.
As a corollary to point #9, the grim truth is that no matter how much pleasant talk about altruism and equality goes on, other groups still hate you and want to conquer you, much like other people want to advance themselves above you whether rightfully so (by competence) or not. Life is war, even in the air-conditioned tea-sipping suburbs. Other groups want to conquer you because until they have control, they are unstable, and if someone is above them, they run the risk of being subjugated by that group. These are not conscious thoughts. They are pure instinct, and they cannot be changed. Any human group that thinks it has ended this in others by giving them equality, welfare or affirmative action has missed the point: parity is a fiction of those on top, and everyone else knows it is a lie, and is using it against you.
11. The crowd is always wrong, just like most people mildly insane.
You do not know it, but you are a slave. You are not enslaved by a central authority, but by the Crowd. Their opinions determine what you can say; their product-buying choices determine what’s on the market; their government preferences create a “window” of acceptable ideas and anything else is excluded. This is tyranny by the Crowd, and it is how our society keeps order, because the Crowd can be counted on to cheer for free things and boo at anything which requires individual responsibility, obligation to reality or admitting that the self is not the end-all-be-all of judgment, wisdom and direction. A quick look around you will tell you that most people do not have their act together. They can make it through school and to a job, but that’s about it. Their homes are often disasters, their families neurotic nightmares, and their personal choices — from sexual partner to products they buy to their opinions — utter wastelands. It has always been this way, but in the past we used social standards to encourage people to perform above mentally lazy and morally sloppy behavior. No longer; they are liberated now! But their liberation is enslavement of anyone above them in ability. The group does not understand any decisions above its own level and rejects them as nonsense, which means that thought which requires an IQ of above about 110 is entirely incomprehensible to them — and they hate it for making them feel that. In our society, only those who can be victims or show victimhood are fortunate, because in an egalitarian society, only those who need more equality gifted to them will thrive, and only victims can demand that. “Education” cannot help them; they will merely misinterpret what finer minds would understand. Rules do not shape them, because to them every rule is a mystery unless it tells them what they want to hear. Why are products bad? Because it’s easier to sell morons junk than make something actually good. Why is government bad? Because the votes have it, which means the small proportion of smart people — the 13% on the far right of the Bell Curve — are vastly outnumbered. When it comes to the decisions that regulate our future, one in a hundred people can make a sensible choice, and the rest will not understand or fall prey to personal failings. That is the source of your slavery.
12. Your media is fifty years behind.
While the media reports on current events, it does so through a filter based on what has succeeded in the past. Because large groups of people take several generations to get accustomed to any new idea, the media bangs on tropes from fifty years ago. The constant reporting on diversity, class and “gender issues” is part of this, but even political articles fit this narrative from older times. Movies recount events from twenty years ago as if they occurred twice that long in the past, and present this as shocking and revolutionary, but the point is that the audience shapes the message. People do not know what is new; they only know what they recognize as having been cutting-edge when they were children. As a result, the tropes linger far behind the reality, which enables media to keep pushing a simplistic agenda for their own profit.
…and so, what does this tell us for the brand new year?
The crazies run the funhouse. Our economy reflects our society: fake, oversold and based in (crazy) illusion. The opposition is divided not because it notices what is wrong, but because it cannot agree on a plan because its members are too busy with self expression to look at realistic solutions. We have 6,000 years of human history and the solutions are obvious but the illusion is more popular. This suggests a first course of action: find unity of purpose, and seize power. The methods do not matter because failure to do this ensures self-destruction. We either evolve and adapt, and take over from the human insanity, or we fail and pass into the graveyard of history.
Jobs are misery. Conservatives do not know how to respond to this because so much of the right is awash in “work hard and go to church” style thinking, but if we get to the core of conservatism, we can see an answer. Conservatism conserves the best that humanity has discovered. This includes liberating people from horrible jobs.
That task contains two parts. First, we can stop sending people to unnecessary jobs; second, we can make existing jobs better. This requires confronting a reality that offends the egalitarianism of conservatives, and using solutions that offend the special snowflake pretenses of liberals.
Eliminating unnecessary jobs requires rethinking work. An obstacle that arises here is that in our media-government lingo, “creating jobs” is always good, so our political authorities will oppose this idea. On the other hand, the way they create jobs — subdividing existing tasks and creating more by law — reduces the value of the end product, so there may be more opposition to them than they know.
The most important part of the idea of “unnecessary jobs” is the “unnecessary” part. Any role which does not directly produce can be eliminated by reducing the vast amount of regulation that requires paper-shuffling roles, and providing indemnity for corporations against certain kinds of lawsuits. Without civil rights, union-related and other government-imposed categories of liability, many paper-pushers could be sent home. In the same way, we could cut out a lot of middle management if companies were more free to hire and fire.
“But that’s against the worker!” says the well-educated (i.e. witless) modern person. Actually, it’s a question of what benefits the worker. Being able to quickly transition jobs, and having lower costs, benefits the worker by giving them more flexibility with fewer obligations that keep them entrenched in the nine to five. If we stripped aside all of the regulatory and liability crap we’ve added since 1945 or so, the average worker would have a lot more money and it would become easier to find new jobs because hiring would be less expensive. This would liberate many people from ugly job situations and force management to treat its employees better as a result.
In addition, we could halve the workforce by sending women home to have families. Those that are unmarried can live with their parents so that, instead of spending two decades in casual sex while wasting time at paper-pushing jobs, they can instead get started with families and have more time after the kids are grown to do fun stuff. Our bars, cafes and shops are filled with lonely single women who are wasting time trying to “date” when they should be looking for a marriageable candidate and creating a family instead.
That act alone would obliterate the perceived need for importing workers. Suddenly, we would have plenty, and competition would return in a positive form that emphasizes finding the best possible match for any job that is possible. Right now, hiring people is expensive and full of legal risk, so employers are highly conservative in how they hire. If that changed, they would take more chances on unproven workers and move many people up in the hierarchy.
In addition, we could shift our culture from a fatalistic celebration of the do-nothing cube slave job into one where proficiency was valued and thus, people took pride not in having a certain job, but in doing that job well. This in turn would reduce the manic number of hours people worked by redirecting our measurement of competence from time spent participating to results obtained.
Improving existing jobs requires making jobs relevant, useful and empowering. Jobs bore just about everyone because they are often “pro forma” or make-work done for the sake of appearances, repetitive and show no result other than a tiny detail in a large mostly redundant process. The solution here is to reverse all of those traits.
People feel power when they can have an effect. This means that they have an identifiable portion of the whole. Think of the credits at the end of a movie; even if a person has only a small role, they are listed and their work is shown as part of its necessary relationship to the whole production. Empowering people in the only sane meaning translates into giving them control over something where they will rise or fall based on performance, which encourages them to perform instead of languish.
In turn, giving people power reduces the extraneous and repetitious jobs because instead of the assembly-line mentality, where many people do small steps, someone walks a process through from beginning to end. At this point in our technological history, assembly lines are for robots; craftsmanship is for humans, and this applies to everything from filing loan applications to cooking a four-course meal. With the power to see a task from inception to completion, people feel they are masters of their own fate and boredom is reduced, as is job redundancy.
Employers counter this with the viable argument that it is hard to replace workers, so it is better to have a dozen cogs than two superstars. One solution to this is to hire people as contractors, and another is to avoid super-specializing jobs and instead, finding intelligent people and expecting them to “sink or swim” with learning the job. While this sounds cruel, it also gives them a sense of accomplishment and builds skills in a way that school never can.
This approach has to take into account congenital intelligence and temperament. Someone from farther right on the Bell Curve will by nature be less tolerant of repetition and lulls in the development process. Such workers need fewer hours of more intensity, where slower workers need the comfort of repetition and confirmation. This leads to conflict with the democratic ideology of empowerment through granularity.
The egalitarian ideal desires robotic, redundant jobs. In the minds of those who think equality is a solution to the challenges of life, the best job is one that anyone can do if given the right instruction. This approach eliminates the internal traits like judgment, aesthetics and depth of understanding and replaces them with external abilities like memorization, obedience and surface-level perception. Cogs utilize external traits; craftspeople use internal ones.
In an effort to validate our ideology of egalitarianism, we have made jobs into the type of dual hierarchy seen on Star Trek: a few main characters at the top do all the interesting stuff, and everyone else is a “red shirt” who can die and be replaced with zero interruption in the storyline. Egalitarian societies tend toward such “flat hierarchies with rock stars” because their ideology cannot admit the variation in natural ability, so it reduces everyone to a single level and elevates some on the basis of their supreme obedience. This does not promote the best, and as a side effect, it makes the people at the top remote and authoritarian. It is one of the supreme failings of egalitarian social orders.
Back in present-day reality, most people spend eight or more hours at the job and at least two preparing and commuting to work. This reduces their free time to fourteen hours a day, eight of which goes to sleep, which means they have six hours in which to exercise, eat and relax. That is enough time to waste on television, the internet or video games, but not enough to embark on any projects of significance, which keeps people forever in a loop where they go through repetitive days but never get a chance to work toward a real goal. They have time to make model planes, but not to build a plane, at least if they also want to get enough sleep to be healthy. Naturally, since the small amount of free time they have is where people have the most power and are most effective, they cheat on their time, which creates a society of sleep-deprived, bored, lifeless and zoned-out zombies staggering around going through the motions of unnecessary, irrelevant and demeaning jobs.
Conservatives have eschewed talking about the horrors of work because so much of our mythos in America rests in the “put your head down, work hard and get ahead” mentality, which itself is a compensatory behavior that arises in lieu of taking society as a whole in a positive direction. It is what people do when they believe they have lost and cannot change anything but themselves, so they desire to be successful as a means of offsetting the fact that their society is careening headfirst into the toilet.
However, the time has come to speak of all the ways in which the egalitarian liberal ideology has failed us since taking control starting in 1789. It has made life more boring, more crassly commercial, and more slave-like. It has given us “freedom” but then, because we must support the mass of others, strapped us into suicidally stupid, boring and ugly lifestyles in order to keep the system going. Like the Soviet Union, it removes the natural nature of free markets, free association and collaboration and replaces them with obedience and utilitarian, one-size-fits-all solutions. Since work is part of this, it should be noted that egalitarianism has failed there as well, and we should not be afraid to speak up for achieving a less miserable existence through an anti-work mentality.
Charles Dickens was early in developing the character traits necessary to be a dominating fekelord. He understood how to communicate to the alien species that is the conditioned Western mind. In his famous holiday novel A Christmas Carol, he tells us exactly what forms of communication fail and which forms succeed when attempting to tell Moderns they need to change or die. One can demur or accept his actual call for greater generosity towards others. It’s a message that can argued pro or con. What the reader should take away from the story is what messaging finally got through to Ebenezer Scrooge and unplugged him from The Matrix.
Dickens tells the story of how Jacob Marley is attempting to earn parole from some awful purgatory by convincing Ebenezer Scrooge to arrange a DNA swap with somebody with a sense of common decency. It’s by no means an easy task. Changing people older than 35 is generally a time-waster for the medical, psychiatric or religious professional. People who receive at least some measure of food, wealth, respect and sexual gratification generally continue doing the things that get them what they have. However, it’s not impossible to change people’s mind and Dickens shows us how.
Marley tries initially to appeal to friendship. He appears to Scrooge as a ghost, weighed down by chains and tells Scrooge that he will end up the same way if he doesn’t change course. This approach fails for several reasons. Scrooge is more powerful than Marley in the hierarchy. He’s running the show. He’ll never wear the chains. That happens to the Beta Male who isn’t a big, old swinging dick. Marley rattles his chains, pisses off Scrooge by disturbing his nap, but does nothing to scare Ebenezer straight.
Marley then attempts to appeal to the joyful innocence of childhood by sending the Ghost of Christmas Past. He shows Scrooge memories of what it was like when Christmas was fun and Scrooge had buddies and a great boss. This fails because Scrooge has no time for silliness and as a good Modern he is entitled to good Christmas parties and all the best albums and movies. These are his just due because Scrooge is a special snowflake just wafting on down from heaven. Scrooge just grumbles about how all those ingrates don’t throw him good enough Christmas parties. Marley has once more failed. Bah humbug!
Next comes the Ghost of Christmas Present. Marley endeavors to convince Scrooge that he isn’t really happy or doing well in comparison to The Ghost of Christmas Past. This utterly fails. Scrooge is a good Modern and only cares about material exteriors. Scrooge drives the Jaguar; Marley drove the used Lexus. Marley wasn’t even still part of Scrooge’s golf foursome. The Ghost of Christmas Present can’t say “Boo!” to a great success like Ebenezer Scrooge.
Marley has finally reached a point of desperation and exasperation. He wants to just write off Scrooge as incorrigible old hater. But he can’t or else the hell fires could be perpetual. The time has come for Marley to eschew niceness and mainline the harsh drug of reality. It’s time for consequentialism. It’s time for The Ghost of Christmas Future.
By using Consequentialism, Marley finally spoke a language Scrooge still understood. The Ghost of Christmas Future was bleak and horrible like the rewards of Modern Society to the soul that doesn’t rebel. Scrooge could still manage to understand that if he played a stupid game, he would win stupid prizes. When he was shown what would happen to him personally, he understood that the herd of moderns would no longer be there to protect him. When Scrooge was made to see that his safe space was truly an illusion. The chains of false modernity could not be wished away by an advertising jingle or a political slogan. In the vacuous glare of the malignant haunt Scrooge saw the empty, desolate evil of his own, personal Desert of The Real.
In showing Scrooge what was real, Marley gave him a better gift than he could ever have received. Thus it is my holiday wish for my five or six constant readers that they receive that gift of perception. No matter how ugly each of our Ghost of Christmas Futures may appear, embrace them. The Ghost of Christmas Future is that bad-ass uncle with the Kawasaki that may or may not bathe once a week. Nobody in the family really likes him, but every last one of the tossers secretly envies him his freedom from pseudo-erudite BS. That uncle sits you down as he kills a beer and murders a Marlboro. He tells how it really is even if it scares your little face off. He is the real spirit of generosity because he tells you what you need to survive in the brave, new world. To all of you brave enough to be Americans instead of Amerikans; Merry Christmas and New Year. (And Io Saturnalia just for good measure!).
When a society is healthy, it is ruled by its best — smartest, wisest, most morally honorable people — and most agree on a general direction.
As a society becomes diseased, wealth and power fall into the hands of those who are clever enough to manipulate others, and so the social model changes. Instead of hierarchy, it becomes a mass which requires dramatic and vivid threats to move. Thus the model of society becomes constant war: there is always an enemy holding back the Utopia waiting just around the corner, and everyone must mobilize right now to fight this scapegoat.
The pattern repeats time and again: aristocrats led man, woman and child to the guillotine; Jews marched into death camps; dissidents thrown into gulags; careers destroyed by un-PC comments. Mass-motivation by making an idea popular, and retaliation against those who do not join the mass, is the fundamental archetype of such societies.
In order to perpetuate this condition, such societies must be saturated in background information that supports the narrative that justifies mob rule and suggests it will work out okay. This technique works by putting the same message into many different forms. The same terms are used in political speeches, in the dialogue on sitcoms, in interviews with celebrities, in academic and scientific literature, and as the topics of movies, plays and books. This is the method revolutionaries use to shift public opinion, but now, we live in a perpetual revolution.
This produces echoes in the mind of everyone in the society. When they think of doing something, the voices of doubt and guilt speak to them: why haven’t others done this? what will people think? will this make me look like I’m in control of my life and living well, or like an angry loser?
On top of that, other echoes harmonize: what would my role models do? how do I become popular and thus successful? am I doing what others like? In the background, still other voices sing: people didn’t like what you did that one time; someone else tried this and failed; only obedience and conformity are realistic, because you have to be pragmatic, you know.
These voices form a chorus with the millions of media images, conversations with others, and official announcements that pervade our lives. Commercials tell us to be smart, sexy and hip by doing certain things; friends over-brag about what worked for them, lying about the success in order to make us feel bad about our own attempts; movies and media show us what is “popular” and therefore right.
It’s a wonder anyone can think anymore. Oh wait… they don’t, really. They react, choosing the best option that takes the least of their time and mental energy, and end up following the herd. As a movie villain once said, “It’s all part of the plan.”
The order of nature is that the best rise and suppress the rest, who are generally delusional and occupy their minds with trivialities. The order of humanity is that the rest suppress the best for the pretense of the rest, and thus all human societies die by entropy.
Among their many weapons, the favorite of the rest is the use of constant voices in your head through memories and images. They are focused on their own internal drama, so they take none of it seriously, where the more thoughtful and open to ideas a person is, the more they are inundated. It is the psychological equivalent of spam, or those thousands of emails, ads and flyers in your mailbox that try to tempt your curiosity to sell you irrelevant junk.
Any sane society would have boring movies, pop music and mass culture so that people had the ultimate freedom, that of an empty and clear mind, and through that, the ability to make proactive choices and find options that are not sitting on a shelf like products, but need to be created. We have gone the opposite direction and that is, as a cynic might say, “telling.”
If E-VIL, Greeeeeedy 1%-er Martin Shkreli didn’t exist, some Leftist filmmaker out in Hollyorc would have to invent the man. Before Martin Shkreli hatched, Oliver Stone did. The character in Wall Street was named Gordon Gekko and his famous “Greed is Good” soliloquy justifies this month’s Netflix Bill. I’ll save you the cost. Here goes.
So what did Martin Shkreli do that was vile, sick and amoral? He raised the price of a drug his corporation sold and reaped every penny of profit he could from it. The drug, Daraprim, treats parasitic infections. It used to cost $13.50 a pill. It now costs $750. Why did Mean, Old Martin charge such an exorbitant price? Because he could.
I can imagine the scene from an updated version of A Christmas Carol.
Cratchett: “Please, Mr. Shkreli! My son Tiny Tim has a compromised immune system and your Daraprim pills are his only hope to wipe out his parasites. I can’t afford $750 per pill….What will I do?”
Shkreli: “Bob, Old Buddy, Old Pal, Old Schmuck, let’s go through the relevant options here. 1) You can get your defecation in sequence and learn how to sell those little, pruned nuts off. Then you can afford whatever the fornication I feel like charging you and Tiny Tim will live to see his Bar Mitzvah. Or 2) You can invest in a good, sturdy shovel and a warm pair of gloves because, let’s face it Sparky, your ass is broke and the undertakers here don’t work cheaply.”
Now we all know the scene I created above would never come to pass. I’m sure people with sick children are that desperate and I’m sure Martin Shkreli is genuinely that obnoxious a mentula. He’d piss on cute, little Tiny Tim and laugh if it gave the poor tyke pneumonia. It’s just that both Mr. Cratchett and Mr. Shkreli have an ally here. That keeps Tiny Tim alive and keeps Martin Shkreli well supplied with nose-candy for all his holiday partying this winter. It’s you, it’s me and all the other suckers imprisoned in the US cartelcare, oops I mean healthcare system.
Insurance companies will pony up. They will do so voluntarily, or ObamaCare will be tweeked a notch to make them pony up voluntarily. What Mr. Shkreli has done here is reveal three flaws with our current society that manifest themselves in our screwed healthcare system.
We are altruistic beyond all reason. People who have compromised immune systems are going to have a very hard time surviving, even if you microwave all their parasites with the wonder-pill. You could teach 500 kids in Detroit how to read for the price of saving Tiny Tim until he reaches adulthood and is too sickly to ever hold a full time job. Or you could fail to do either while expending the money to do one or both. Or you could draw the line on this pathological altruism somewhere and perform the incredibly hard cost-benefit analysis that is necessary.
And here’s the kicker! If either Cratchett or Shkreli invested their own money in saving Tiny Tim, I’d say ‘God Bless” and wish them a mountain of luck. They aren’t. They are investing your money and not even asking please or telling you thank you. You are saving Tiny Tim (and indulging whatever itch Mr. Shkreli feels like scratching) every time you pay for that increase in your health insurance premium. Neither Cratchett nor Shkreli has to wonder whether saving Tiny Tim is worth the fight.
Neither Shkreli nor any other drug maker (or other economic actor) has any moral or practical economic limit on what they can screw over you, the health-insurance premium payer for. We are all individuals that get to do our own thing. Shkreli’s thing is robbing the insurance industry and by extension all of its customers. Unlike Mark Zuckerberg who buys regulatory capture over the immigration process to artificially lower his labor costs, Shkreli just puts that .45 right up against your dome and calls for your wallet. If anything, I like him compared to Zuckerberg. There’s no treacly pretense of any decency. The red claws and fangs are out there in clear view.
So you’re probably thinking this guy Shkreli should have a .50cal sniper round with his name on it. Maybe you lack the educational background to properly discuss his business ethics, but he can go take them up with Jolly Old Saint Pete. I’d have to agree with you on that one. Guys like Martin Shkreli have a notch in the ecosystem, but a wise man makes bloody well sure they don’t get to practice it near his location. But that brings me to my final point here.
If you don’t like Martin Shkreli, you don’t like our contemporary society. Amerika is in part Martin Shkreli. He’s just way more blatant about the whole thing than Bono, Bill Gates or Bill Clinton. He doesn’t tell you how much he cares. He shows you by skinning you and leaving you for dead.
Martin Shkreli is a serviceable villain. He is truly malicious, but his greed is good. It clarifies a whole bunch of things that the typical Amerikan Crony Kapitalist would rather leave carefully obscured. If you want to see him stopped, than you have to help dismantle the Government-Capitalist Complex that thrives on regulatory capture and dishonest, corrupted democracy. Shkreli, like Barack Obama, like Neal DeGrasse Tyson, like Speaker Ryan, Like Hillary, like Jeb Bush, is Post-Modern Amerika. We have met the enemy. Is he staring back at you out of the mirror this morning?
Our coddled First World Problems students at the universities, like all leftists, are children of privilege.
We did not have leftists in the West until the French made life so much better for the poor that those r-strategists outbred their superiors so greatly that revolution was sure to follow as soon as a crisis occurred that could be blamed on leadership and not merely overpopulation. Leftists follow this model: superior forces create and stabilize, leftists breed like yeast, then blame their superiors and take over. Classic rebellious child with too much free time scenario.
Humans do not like to face reality. That is in fact the primary challenge of life itself: learn reality. Deal with what is actually there, instead of your thoughts about it, your interpretive dance, your blogs or excuses. Politics falls mostly into the latter camp of “excuses.” Excuses for the lower echelons of society and their low performance. Excuses for those who act in criminal ways. This disguises the fundamental psychology of the leftist, which is excuses for himself.
Leftism demands equality but what it actually wants is state-sponsored individualism. Or: I don’t have to discipline my inner monkey. I can be as useless as I want to be, so long as I tip-toe around the rules and don’t get caught, but I do not have to participate in any kind of plan, social standards or even measures of competence. I am perfect, just the way I am, and no one can tell me “no” — in fact, the rest of you should get out of my way because I am the original Precious Snowflake.
If you want to know why Leftism is eternally popular, it is this attitude. Like Mr. Rogers, it tells people they are OK just as they are. There is no need to discipline themselves to stop their inner monkey from raging, or to shape their minds to understand reality outside of them, or even to worry about the consequences of their actions and be accountable through them, which occurs before those actions through a mental process we call “morality.” They just need to be. They’re beautiful just for being humans and doing the monkeyshines that humans all can do because they’re lowest common denominator: dancing, making “art,” copulating, chatting, getting drunk, eating and posting to Tumblr.
This is what conservatism is up against: inertia. Liberalism validates human behaviors that are useless by declaring them “equal” — just as important as — heroic acts, essential acts and exceptional acts. Liberalism is the anti-Darwin. It argues that people do not need to improve themselves at all, but most be easy on themselves. It is anaesthesia for a dying species. It says don’t worry about the obvious failure that we are undergoing, just bend over and think of England.
The conservative impulse toward religiosity comes from this realization. We see life as a moral battle for mental clarity. We recognize that most people are still monkeys, and by most we mean 98.6% or so. They live through their impulses, are in denial about realities, and their agenda is wholly based in a fascination with their own appetites, lusts, shopping and desires. As a result, they have abdicated the higher mental functions that allow planning and creation, including of civilization itself.
Zen Buddhism bases much of its approach on the same idea. To a Zen Buddhist, the problem of life is that most people are mentally undisciplined monkeys who are destructive by the very nature of their careless, solipsistic, self-obsessed and oblivious behavior. This is the essence of the Zen master slap: “Wake up! Reality is out here, not in there, inside your head! Your life is illusion and you have no idea what you’re doing!”
In the West we refer to this tradition as esotericism. An initiate, usually a teenage boy, is put to a quest as part of his study. On that quest, he has to snap out of the umbilical sac of solipsism and start looking at life not just as real, but through a critical eye. What are the actual motivations of others, despite what they say? What are the strategic positions people take and what are they protecting? What does this tell us about them? You may notice that the same questions arise in the analysis of religious texts, or in a good literature degree, which you can still get in some rare places. They call it critical thinking there.
The point of this is that the appeal of liberalism is entirely a lie. It justifies ignoring the essential task of life and replacing it with an easier task. This appeals to idiots, lower castes, and neurotics, and these types will never stop pushing this agenda. In sensible societies, those in power are aware of this and constantly exile such people. You cannot do that with the rule of law; you need the rule of exceptional and far-sighted men. If you stop, the insane people build up and then they overthrow you with superior numbers, since oblivious people think they are immortal — after all, they’re solipsists — anyway and so are prone to attack in thoughtless groups.
With this in mind, the last thing we want on a college campus or anywhere else is a “safe space.” Safe spaces are solipsism bubble zones where people can go if they fear someone might mention reality. In safe spaces, people can bloviate on about their ideological ideas without being contradicted by someone who has noticed flaws in their narrative, i.e. reality peeking through the carefully-constructed artifice. Safe spaces are designed to blot our reality and replace it with a giant neurotic and morally flatulent human mind. They are the triumph of narcissism, fear and intolerance (of reality!) over common sense, logic and survival. They are suicide cults.
Bashing college kids for this is like swatting a piñata or shooting fish in a barrel. We all know they are delusional; they’re kids with no experience of the world. They are simply acting out the stuff their professors taught them, and in this case, their professors are neurotic Generation X-ers re-enacting what their neurotic Me Generation parents taught them happened in 1968. But looking past this easy game, we should think about safe spaces in general, and the tendency of societies to make them.
The first people to found a society are conquerors, which means both warriors and nerds. The warriors clear away the other monkeys who will steal, sabotage and subvert — they call this genocide sometimes, but it’s the same reason that American settlers killed Indians and Israelis blew away Palestinians — and the nerds start putting together irrigation, sanitation, libraries and other essential things for civilization. At some point they both look at each other and shrug. The basics are done. Now all that is left is to improve what is there. And here is where the problem enters.
When a society is first minted, it has a goal: push back against that which holds it back, including nature and ignorance. This is a forward moving task. After it loses that simplicity, it needs a new task. The most obvious is to try to protect its people from the dangers of life. This is a backward moving mentality, and it always takes the form of looking at who is hurt or gets hurt and trying to “fix” situations that are the consequence of these people’s inabilities or solipsism. This is the start of the idea of safe spaces; society itself is the safe space.
I say we undo all of it. Abolish the FDA; take whatever drugs you want and if you die, we throw you in a ditch. Remove the warning tags from mattresses. Get rid of speed limits, DUI laws, handicapped parking, movie ratings, the lot of it. Those things create a mentality that destroys civilizations because they create an intermediary in place of reality. People no longer worry about the consequences of their actions, but whether those actions are legal. Get rid of all of it. 99% of our laws need to go into the dumpster with the rest of the “think of the children!”-style neurotic rule-making.
We need a society where for every action, the person making it is thinking, “What will happen when I do this?” Not lost in a fog of assurances about how the government would ban it if it weren’t safe, or how he has guaranteed health care, or how his friends think and that might make him a YouTube star. Have him thinking solely about the results of his actions. Don’t give him a forest of laws and nagging nanny moral codes so he can attempt to justify what he is doing. Measure it all by the outcome. If you try to shoot Hitler and you blow a hole in an orphan instead, it really is not different from killing that orphan any other way. Reality matters. Consequences matter. And in the end, you either helped a situation or hurt it — but helping can be hurting, if it enables weakness, stupidity and solipsism to thrive.
I remember the rise of the administrative state back in the 1980s. Suddenly there were warning labels on everything. As a result, people stopped thinking about the consequences of their activities. They just looked for the warning label and, if they didn’t see one, went ahead. If things went wrong, they blamed the government: “There should have been a warning label!” Government gladly paid the fines from these lawsuits because it saw an unstoppable, infinite way to justify increases in its power. All they had to do was find some poor idiot who couldn’t figure out that pulling the pin on a hand grenade and inserting it in his rectum was a bad idea, and boom! another 400 bureaucrats and cops were hired, another 10,000 lines of regulations and twenty federal laws were added, and the great leech-off-society parasitic jobs program called Government could continue.
What encouraged them further was the fact that people — who are basically monkeys — liked this condition. It meant there was always someone else to blame for their own stupid acts, and they could “save face” by blaming the government or some poor manufacturer for whatever stupid thing they did with a product. If the mattress does not tell you not to light it on fire and ride it into a pool of gasoline, your life-changing injuries are certainly not your fault, Mr. Plaintiff!
I’m sure the original intent behind these laws was to protect the poor and stupid from destroying their lives, but like any true evil, the laws took on a life of their own (like a cancer, come to think of it). The dumbing-down of our society really began at that moment. No one was any longer accountable for understanding reality and making the moral decision to ensure their actions did not end in bad results. Nope: there was a warning to read, and someone to blame if it went badly, and because Government was now running the show, there was always some kind of benefit to apply for when you maimed yourself and could no longer work.
No consequences for anyone. That’s what a safe space is, and that’s why all of them should be abolished.
A young woman attended a rock concert in Paris and terrorist guerrillas attacked the civilians inside. She wrote her thoughts on the event in James Joyce style stream of consciousness, and the media picked it up. It seemed to express something that others also wanted to express.
Here is her text:
You never think it will happen to you. It was just a Friday night at a rock show. The atmosphere was so happy and everyone was dancing and smiling. And then when the men came through the front entrance and began the shooting, we naively believed it was all part of the show.
It wasn’t just a terrorist attack, it was a massacre. Dozens of people were shot right in front of me. Pools of blood filled the floor. Cries of grown men who held their girlfriends’ dead bodies pierced the small music venue. Futures demolished, families heartbroken. In an instant.
Shocked and alone, I pretended to be dead for over an hour, lying among people who could not see their loved ones motionless. Holding my breath, trying to not move, not cry — not giving those men the fear they longed to see.
I was incredibly lucky to survive. But so many didn’t. the people who had been there for the exact same reasons as I — to have a fun Friday night — were innocent. This world is cruel. And acts like this are supposed to highly the depravity of humans and the images of those men circling us like vultures will haunt me for the rest of my life.
The way they meticulously aimed at and shot people around the standing area I was in the center of without any consideration for human life. It didn’t feel real. I expected any moment for someone to say it was just a nightmare.
But being a survivor of this horror lets me shed light on the heroes. To the man who reassured me and put his life on the line to try and cover my brain whilst I whimpered, to the couple whose last words of love kept me believing in the good in the world, to the police who succeeded in rescuing hundreds of people, to the complete strangers who picked me up from the road and consoled me during the 45 minutes I truly believed the boy I loved was dead, to the injured man who I had mistaken for him and then on my recognition that he was not Amaury, held me and told me everything was going to be fine despite being all alone adn scared himself, to the woman who opened her doors to the survivors, to the friend who offered me shelter and went out to buy new clothes so I wouldn’t have to wear this blood stained top, to all of you who have sent caring messages of support — you make me believe this world has the potential to be better, to never let this happen again.
But most of this is to the 80 people who were murdered inside that venue, who weren’t as lucky, who didn’t get to wake up today and to all the pain that their friends and families are going through. I am so sorry. There’s nothing that will fix the pain. I feel privileged to be there for their last breaths. And truly believing that I would join them, I promise that their last thoughts were not on the animals who caused all this. It was thinking of the people they loved. As I lay down in the blood of strangers and lay waiting for my bullet to end my mere 22 years, I envisioned every face that I have ever loved and whispered “I love you” over and over again reflecting on the highlights of my life. Wishing that those I love knew just how much, wishing that they knew that no matter what happened to me, to keep believing in the good in people. To not let those men win.
Last night, the lives of many were forever changed and it is up to us to be better people, to live lives that the innocent victims of this tragedy dreamt about but sadly now will never be able to fulfill. RIP angels. You will never be forgotten.
You don’t come to Amerika for the usual tripe and drivel that is designed to make you feel better about your society failing by blaming scapegoats and inventing unicorn crusades to “fix” the wrong problems. You come here for the skinny.
There’s one word to describe the above:
This is not an attack on Ms. Isobel Bowdery, who realized her career was about to get a huge bump if she caught some fame, so she wrote down the right clichés in the right order expressing the right sentiments, illusions and pretenses. She is no different than a good student writing down what his teachers want to hear and handing it in.
But still the same, this is comical. It’s someone writing from Teletubby World where everyone is a happy little bubble, dedicated only to their own introspective personal drama, and the world is just a backdrop for that which never changes. It is the typical effete, narcissistic and oblivious outlook of late civilizations.
In Isobel-Teletubby World, society is not a struggle for anything. It exists for the citizens to do — to do whatever they want, of course! There are good people, and bad people, and the good people never hurt anyone or stop anyone else from doing anything. Nope, even when attacked in a theater where they outnumber the attackers 400 to 1, they will never step on someone else’s dream. No, it’s better to die in clumps and then engage in emotional self-expression on Facebook.
No one wants to use such strong language, but people in the West today are spoiled brats. They think the world exists for them to make the choices they want on an arbitrary basis, and that if it it does not, it is just mean. Upside-down frown goes here. They have a strong moral commitment to the idea that it should be a nice place where everyone nice can do whatever is nice and everything will be fine and maybe we will never die.
But that’s not real, or even all that interesting.
Nietzsche tells you to blame Christianity, and surely the good/mean fantasy dichotomy could come from that. Others blame commerce, and definitely the idea of life being like a shelf of products with arbitrary appeal fits in there. I tell you that what you see here is what happens when people no longer have a goal and have taken society for granted: the narcissism which is always lurking in each one of us comes out. This narcissism predates our passage from ape to human. It is the oldest sin, which is for an animal to assume that because he conceives of the world through his mind, it exists in his mind. If sin is error, this is the grandaddy of errors: a denial of reality.
And yet that denial is the idealized behavior in the modern West. For Isobel, the world does nothing but exist as a support structure for personal drama. It is a world of feelings that can be shared with other people (if they’re “good” — meanies don’t have feelings). It is brutally human to use our ego as a counter-attack against our smallness, and to not claim but treat the world as if it is a giant buffet for us to sample, which requires we imagine it has no significant consequences. Sure, we cannot murder or rape, and we must go to work and pay taxes, but most people avoid those crimes and do those activities anyway so that is not an imposition. To someone in that frame of mind, an act of terrorism seems like the hand of Satan reaching in to paradise for no purpose other than cruelty.
Most voters not only live in this nonsense world, but they created it by refusing to listen to any candidate who does not endorse it. Intellectually, it is baby food; like the half-lies of a salesperson who just needs to make enough fools buy his product for him to have that house in the suburbs. Morally, it is deceptive. We all know the world cannot be this simple, but we want it to be. As soon as we have the wealth and power, we insist that everyone else agree it is this way, so that we “feel” safe even if we are not.
What Isobel expresses is a consequence of this control, or the forcing of everyone else to act as if reality is not real and the fantasy world is the ultimate reality. Like domesticated animals, they do not fight back, but go trembling to their doom. They blame the instrument of their demise, not the illusion that led them to this point. Control creates a mirror image in citizens, much like their mirror neurons learn the world around them by mimicking its structure. People who are controlled come to rely on that control, in the Stockholm system way, but also blame that control for all their problems, which is why they like it. People enjoyed the Soviet Union because no one was ever accountable for their own behavior; the State was, because it had total control. That was why individualists supported it in the first place: much like regulation of an industry removes the onus from that industry to act responsibly, since they only need to comply to laws, total control removes responsibility for one’s actions and accountability for the motivation behind them. Under total control, everyone is a rodent acting in self-interest and no one ever is to blame.
Our method of control in the West is what Isobel expresses in her message: socialization, or people getting along with others. Teachers love it when everyone gets along, as do housewives and Republicans. They don’t want to see conflict, because conflict is “bad” because it interrupts our perfect solipsistic paradise. They want everyone to be nice and to exclude those who are “mean,” which translates to conflict never arising because we are in good conformity. No one will raise a controversial issue for risk of being not-nice. Everyone will agree everything is fine because they want other people to like them. The only things that can be attacked are those that people universally agree are mean, and those are uncontroversial, so people use them merely to signal their own nice-ness. It is a perfect world, a perfect illusion, and it is how societies generally self-destruct: they domesticate themselves, lose their ability to respond to reality, and then fall apart when reality intrudes.
Let us look at the big point that Isobel makes:
It didn’t feel real.
I’m sorry, is this planet earth? The one that has been wracked by wars from its earliest days, where Barbary Pirates roamed the seas and bandits lurked in wait throughout the countryside? The one where various ethnic groups are always murdering each other, frequently successfully, and the globe is a map of bones? Or even the place where drive-by shootings and knife fights are common? What about the periodic outbreaks of disease, the huge hurricanes, or the asteroid that will eventually, statistically speaking, eliminate all life here? The only way one can have such an outlook is to exist in a constant state of denial.
Hollande said the nation will honor its commitment to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, assuring the mayors, “France will remain a country of freedom.”
…“Some have wanted to link the influx of refugees to Friday’s acts of terror,” Hollande said, evoking calls by French and American conservatives to close the borders to fleeing refugees. But he declared the nation has a “humanitarian duty” to help migrants escape war-torn Syria.
Whatever happens, we must be nice. And if our policy is completely nonsense and stupidity, we’ll generate a whole lot of rules to bind it so that people feel better about it. Reality? That’s on another planet, man, no one is paying attention here anymore.
But this is typical. As Richard Fernandez points out, people would rather save the pleasant illusion that feel a small amount of pain by facing reality and acting on it:
The dilemma the West now faces is that it cannot survive on the basis of the platform which its elites have carefully constructed since WW2. They are being beaten to death with their own lofty statements. They must either continue to uphold the vision of open borders, multiculturalism, declining birthrates, unilateral disarmament and a growing state sector at all costs — in other words continue on the road to suicide — or retreat. As recent events at American campuses have shown, when faced with the choice of saving the Left and saving the actual world, the odds are that “the world” goes over the side first.
What needs to be done? This isn’t rocket science. It’s clear that cultures do not mix, but can only assimilate each other after a long period of conflict, which means that diversity is both suicide and genocide. The solution is to shut the borders, deport anyone who is not indigenous genetically to each country, and then resume what worked before the mass appeal madness of the liberal century, namely building up culture and the moral and intellectual quality of individuals instead of relying on liberalism and its illusions to be our substitute.
Our world is formed of three forces — diversity, democracy and pluralism — that are different faces of a single force, individualism. Individualism is the oldest evil of humankind because it always leads to narcissism; first, the individual says that his needs come before all else; second, when he is protected from accountability and consequences for his actions by the first postulate, he becomes narcissistic. Imagine a Hollywood star living alone in a vast mansion, with enough money that he must never face society, and you see the kind of spoiled, bored, empty and miserable brat that modern society creates out of its people. It does so with diversity, democracy and pluralism as methods of isolating the individual from accountability to reality.
As others have pointed out, reality-denial is a sin, and like all sins, it eventually becomes deadly, because like the asteroid it is statistically certain that over time, the piper will have to be paid — it is just not clear when. Like Malthus and other dire predictions of our illusion, its date of impact is unclear, but the inevitably is clear and just makes us more nervous and defensively vapid as time goes on.
Europe’s embrace of secular humanist multiculturalism as a belief system in place of religion and nationalism will not go away anytime soon, if ever. If it persists as the dominant Weltanschauung Europe is likely doomed. Change, if it comes, will emerge from popular opinion among the non-Islamic European masses, and the movements and parties that represent them, like the National Front in France, or Pegida in Germany. This is something that the elites will battle vigorously, possibly with both police and military forces. Civil unrest and the repressive measures that they may provoke may weaken Europe further, undermine democratic principles, and possibly make things even easier for Islamic radicals. But if European elites will tolerate popular change without imposing authoritarian crackdowns, Europe has a chance in this regard.
What no one will tackle is that this is a two-way relationship. Establish democracy, and the voters will demand illusion. Establish illusion, and you force people to engage in it exclusively. At that point they become domesticated animals, shaped by the hand that disciplines them, and when the control illusion fails, they simply fragment because they know no other way of life. This means that no one can even discuss the issue honestly because they are too busy emulating the past, and even that past is not what they think it is:
In the last two hundred years, there have been periods during which there were no immigration laws at all, and periods during which those laws were complex, and even evil. There have been periods during which outsiders flooded in, and periods during which the borders were all but closed. The system has been unpredictable: A Japanese expat heading for California in 1885 would have been welcomed with just an inspection; his grandson, applying in 1933, would have been summarily turned away. Romanticize it as we may, this area is just not as simple as we pretend it is. When a free-speech or Second Amendment advocate notes in absolute terms that this is a nation founded upon certain political precepts, he is correctly reminding his audience that the government is legally allowed to restrict his liberty in only a small number of ways. When an immigration advocate appeals to history, he is doing little more than begging the question.
What he doesn’t say here is that history runs in cycles, as de Tocqueville and Huntington noted, because democracy consists of pleasant-sounding ideas that unite people, but when they are applied, it turns out that reality is more complex than the universal homilies that attracted democracy. Mob rule is based on feelings, and then when those feelings produce disaster, there is a backlash. American immigration consists of repeated attempts to let in everyone, followed by disasters, at which point American law allowed people to either remove the immigrants or exclude them, at which point they self-deported. Europe has a similar history marked more by pogroms than democracy natterings, but the cycle remains the same. The domesticated sheep lunge after their feelings in order to show everyone how nice they are, and then it explodes in their faces and the remaining adults — a dwindling group over the years — take over and fix the mess.
The latest terrorist drama in Europe represents just another iteration of this pattern. In Isobel-Teletubby World, everyone is nice and pleasant and just wants to have a good time. But then some meanies appeared, and they have done something terrible and it is very sad, but that does not mean we should change what we are doing, because — unlike them — we are nice. Nice is sociable and should be rewarded through more socialization, and if another terrorist attack comes, it will feel just as unreal because we have shut it out of our minds, eyes slammed tight shut as we distract with mindless self-indulgence and hope for painless deaths.
I am not asking for five minutes of your time today to preach a gospel of kindness, equality and tolerance. If you’re looking for such a thing, you have plenty of other people to choose from. The whole world, from the Pope in Rome, to the President of Russia, the CEO of Coca Cola anyone you’ve ever heard of claims to stand for these values. These values are universal, they govern our societies, we see them as so self-evident that we never even question them.
As civilized beings, we take over certain values we interpret as self-evident. They are self-evident to us, only because we are genetically programmed to adhere to them. Our brains are smaller than those of our ancestors and our digit ratios reveal our genetically emasculated nature. It is us alone, who eschew violence. It horrifies us to our very core. What happens among chimpanzees on a daily basis hits the news when it occurs among our own specimens.
There is a simple factor here at work. The secret of our success is that we export violence. The industrialized holocaust that happens to the beasts delivered on our plate, or the various organisms killed to make way for our farms and plantations are kept out of the spotlights. To us this is not violence because it affects non-humans. To us this is a way of life. And as our numbers grow, so too grows the violence that we export.
After successful genocides, streets and landmarks are renamed, as new people take up residence, hoping that nothing will remind them of the slaughter that created space for them to live. So too, nothing serves to remind us of the vast forests that covered all of Europe. There exists no monument for the trees that were felled to grow the grain that sustains you. The giant oyster reef that once covered the bottom of the North Sea before its eradication through bottom trawling is memorialized only by a late 19th century British atlas. Nothing serves to remind the world of the violence we have inflicted on the entire non-human world. To us a new normal exists, of a sea composed of desert and a countryside composed of grain.
It’s easy for us to say that some hypothetical future person should not come into existence, especially when we reduce them to a number. Nobody would mourn if he heard today that the projections by the United Nations are wrong, that Nigeria by 2100 will not have 900 million people, but rather, a mere 800 million, because women decided to start using contraception. We don’t mourn those who do not come into existence, even though each and everyone of them is as unique as those of us alive today.
When more people come into existence, we collectively accept that this will be a mistake that we will have to cope with. We convince ourselves that something will show up in the near future that will turn what has been a zero-sum game played between humanity and non-humans since the dawn of civilization into a scenario where both can benefit, even as all evidence shows that the destruction accelerates.
But why should it be a given that only those who might be born in the distant future might be excessive? Could your neighbor’s pregnancy be an excessive one? Could someone you know be the product of a birth that should not have happened? We forget to take contraception, pregnancies happen, then our flexible and irrational minds adapt to reinterpret another burden as a gift. Margaret Sanger declared in 1919 that the world is already overpopulated. Such an observation implies that most of us should never have come into existence.
The question we ought to ponder is what added value the billions of us who now clutter up this planet serve. What is something you would genuinely miss, in a world with half as many people? To you there would be nothing but benefits. There might still be fish in the ocean. You might not have to spend until retirement paying back the debt you had to enter just to call a plot of physical space your own.
The second question to ponder is the inherent mediocrity of most of human existence. We value all human life that exists over non-existence, but why? When children are asked what they wish to do when they are adults, none of them respond that they wish to sit in cubicles and stare at screens. Nobody ever chooses to be born to a mother like June Shannon, who invites a man into her house who sexually abused her daughter. Those of us who are born into such circumstances tell ourselves that we have to cope with it, a price worth paying over non-existence.
When we are born into mediocrity, it is hard to acknowledge that our mediocrity should not exist, but perhaps we are capable of recognizing it when it affects others. If you imagine, that God informs you that by 2050, your nation will be identical to its current state, except for the addition of 50 million people who will live in slums, their existence characterized by illiteracy, open sewage streams and rampant rape, drug addiction and prostitution, would you consider that an enrichment? If not, then why should West Point, Monrovia exist today?
When you take a honest look at the world, how many billions of people live lives that you would not prefer over non-existence? Would you thank the Angel Gabriel, if he informed you that after hard negotiation he had managed to arrange a reincarnation for you as a young Ugandan girl who will have her breasts ironed by her mother to protect her against rape by adult men?
To me it is self-evident, that most people alive today should never have come into existence. Nor am I ashamed in any way to differentiate, to declare that some births were a better decision than others. It’s obvious to me that June Shannon should never have reproduced. If she had abstained from reproduction, some space would have been freed up in another family, where a girl might be born who would not be sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriend, a girl who might have an enjoyable life worth living.
There is a Dutch expression that soft healers make stinking wounds, meaning that solutions that avoid pain tend to exacerbate the underlying problem. Is it not a soft solution, to implore the teeming masses through soft rhetoric to abstain from suppressing their own misery by bringing more of it into this world, only for us to be ignored time and time again?
Africa will have three and a half billion people by 2100, forced to share a continent that will not grow in size with them. If those people had a say in the matter, most would not choose to be born in Africa, nor would they choose to be born as Muslims. They would make the same choice that most sensible people around the world would make. They would choose to be born in rural Scandinavia, to good looking upper-middle class friendly parents.
To abstain from cruelty, can sometimes be the biggest cruelty. The cruel question that has to be pondered, is whether it is time by now to start over with a clean slate. Most of humanity exists in a state of mediocrity, a mediocrity that has to destroy the lives of elephants, orangutans and other animals for us to be able to sustain it. Most of them will never be great poets or artists, functional literacy is the most they can hope for.
There is no reason to think that anything of genuine value would be lost if most people were to disappear today. The science of biotechnology would allow us to preserve those who are capable of producing societies worth living in, the type of societies that people risk their lives on the Mediterranean sea for to reach. I would say that it is long overdue.
It might seem like a massive cruelty to some of you. I can not help but wonder however, what the opinion on this matter could be of the orangutan mother who escaped with her child from the man-made fires that destroyed the Indonesian rainforest she lived in, only to be physically attacked by people whose village she fled into. Perhaps she is able to judge our species more objectively.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” – John 8:32
The truth is not comfortable. The truth is not easy. The truth is a bitter pill to swallow. One can no longer justify the comforting illusions one once held. You drink too much, or you are too fat, or you spend irresponsibly, or have character defects — most people cannot even stomach these simple truths. How can we expect them to digest the far more bitter fruit of the reality of Crowdism, parasitism, and the rather unfortunate fact that no, we cannot all just cannot get along?
Nikolai Gogol, one of the greatest Russian authors, towards the end of his life changed his liberal attitudes towards the Russian serfs, who he had previously advocated educating. Instead, Gogol told landowners that they must not beat their serfs, but instead of teaching them to read, the master must instead read Scripture to them, encourage Christian piety and become “a patriarch, the inceptor of everything, the vanguard of all things.”
But if knowledge is knowing the truth, should we not seek to educate everyone of it, to proselytize the anti-modernist way of seeing things, so that others may know the truth?
The answer is, of course, no.
Questions about truth become entangled with questions about education, and even more mixed up with issues of morality. It is true that it is worse to have a misleading or bad teacher than to have never learned anything at all. And it is also true that most people would likely misuse or misunderstand whatever they are taught. But these are questions of education, learning, exercises of the mind and not of the soul.
But education is not truth, and truth is not education. The fact that we conflate the two shows how deeply most of us have ingested the progressive narrative. What they mean by “education” has no relation to the truth: outside of the teaching of concrete theory like mathematics, it tends to be post-modernist propaganda. A false education can lead one so far down the path of nonsense that one may be completely lost. And when surrounded by an echo chamber of one’s peers in which everyone is trying to show off by demonstrating how “educated” they are, one can then never escape that false education.
A true education though, besides subjects like history and mathematics, is primarily the trivium, which is not comprised of knowledge itself but tools for assessing and applying knowledge: rhetoric for persuasion, logic to ensure consistency, and grammar to be able to communicate.
All of these things are separate from the truth. But what is the truth? In our context, what is true is what is in accordance with physical, logical, and spiritual reality. As such, the truth is something that can be checked and communicated by those who are properly educated- its existence is prior, and it does not depend on “educated” people to discover it.
But one needs to be properly educated to begin to understand more detailed formulations of the truth, and even more educated to engage with them philosophically and otherwise. So do the common people need to be educated, or know the truth, or both?
The answer is, to adopt the attitudes of Gogol. The common people need the truth; they have always needed it. Each man cannot be expected to be his own Aristotle. He needs the truth conveyed to him in a way that he can absorb, through myth and storytelling, and through heuristics, or homegrown wisdom born of experience. And he needs an example, a signor or patriarch to demonstrate to him virtue in action. This is why great epics like the Odyssey, Bhagavad-Gita and even The Bible exist: to tell us truth through concrete cause-and-effect histories like parables. These take the form of myth, but they show us the pattern of life: a decision presents itself, a character either overcomes his inner flaws to make a right decision or gives in to the wrong, and a result occurs that shows the consequences of his actions.
The best myths convey truth on multiple levels of understanding, and heuristics come into being due to wisdom being past down by those with concern for the truth. So must each man be educated? No, a thousand times no. But for each man who is educated, it will be his obligation to set an example to those beneath him and how he must conduct himself, and reinforce and re-sacralize the myth that teaches those beneath him each generation. Further, the gentleman, the signor, must allow and encourage the development of good heuristics amongst those who stay uneducated, understanding that if the right example and direction is set, the earthy wisdom of the common man will fill the gaps with heuristics.
So must each man be taught the truth, so that he might be set free? Yes, is the reactionary answer, yes, but in a way that matches his ability to understand. But shall each man be educated? No, is the answer. But if the example and environment is made that he lives in a place that loves truth, and loves wisdom, then wisdom will be all the education he ever needs.