Undoing modernity

As mentioned here several times, the founding illusion of modernity occurred in 1789 when people decided that they could do without specialized leaders.

Instead, it was declared that we are all equal. This means that we pick leaders from among us by voting. 222 years on, it seems this has not worked out so well. Corruption is rife. Leaders lie and are totally detached from what their citizens need.

Even worse, our society has run itself on a collision course with doom. We lowered our standards, dumbed down every test, and now are inundated in stupidity and the stupidity by its superior numbers determines who gets elected, what products will be in stores, and how our cities and jobs are designed.

In short, “freedom” and “equality” brought us servitude to the lowest common denominator.

One thing and one thing alone keeps this sick ship afloat: growth. Since equality is a popular notion, meaning that it appeals to the lowest common denominator in all of us like a catchy but moronic pop song or a McDonald’s “hamburger,” people want in to our society and this makes business grow.

However, this is not business of a solid nature. This is consumerism, or the art of selling stuff to ourselves. We are not exporting or generating wealth. We are selling products to each other, and then making products out of the debt and expectations of the companies that sell the products to us.

If you want a model for the death of a civilization, this is it. It cuts itself off from reality, uses its own internal opinions and desires to keep itself afloat, and grows based on this false wealth — or at least grows until it all comes crashing down.

The most recent recession is not the end-of-the-world most people think it is. Instead, it’s a warning hiccup: our economy is unsustainable because it is based on consumerism, which itself is based on the impulse control issues of our least intelligent citizens.

Economics has developed along a single line of thought, in which individuals, isolated from society, have “preferences” for a collection of goods and are motivated by self-interest to pursue the acquisition, at the lowest prices, of the most goods that their economic circumstances allow. Competing businesses, likewise, pursue maximum profit. Economic theory then “proves” that “markets” will establish prices that lead to the most “efficient” allocation of scarce resources. This will maximise growth for the economy as a whole.

Mainstream economics claims to be “value-free”. Students are cautioned not to mix normative propositions with their “positive” analysis. But self-interest is itself a value. This fact is cleverly disguised by putting forward the theory of consumer choice as a uniquely rational response to economic information such as prices, interest rates, tax rates and the like. Any behaviour not conforming to this theory is deemed irrational; other motivations such as altruism, love, the greater good or aesthetic appreciation are not considered: they are not the province of economics.

Such a value system might be just about tolerable if economics were restricted to a narrow sphere of inquiry. But over the past few decades economics has colonised not only much academic inquiry in the social sciences, but also public debate as a whole. Most notably, it has colonised politics. By giving “scientific” support to programmes of deregulation and privatisation over the past 40 years, it has managed to transform our economic structures to conform to its ideal of free markets, in the belief that competition between rational consumers and producers would enforce “correct” prices and lead to an economic optimum. – The Guardian

Before leftism, the idea that “everyone is equal” was viewed as being about as reliable as a ghost story, superstition, idle gossip or snake oil salesman. It was recognized as wishful thinking, not reality. Early critics pointed out that the idea of equality succeeded because it was vague. What does “equal” actually mean?

Its adherents insist that it means equality of opportunity. In reality, that translates into dumbing down of the entry test to any activity, so that the less equal can keep up with the more equal. Even worse, it means a coarsening of standards so that all can participate. Instead of being able to pick from among smart and complete people, we’re picking whichever of the random citizens can complete tests and file paperwork.

People don’t like to face this, but the “solutions” to this problem offered by Occupy Wall Street (and others) are in fact the same “solutions” that created it. Every aspect of OWS philosophy was first parroted by the French while they were busy guillotining enemies of the state. There is nothing new there.

In fact, consumerism/capitalism and equality/socialism are in bed with one another. Equal people buy more products. Equal people are more willing fodder for the machine. They tell you you’re equal, which is another way of saying you’ll only be accepted as more than irrelevant when you slave away in the machine for awhile.

Growth is fueled by this combined assault of leftism and consumerism. By letting people choose which aspects of reality they prefer, instead of making them face reality, we empower them to make terrible decisions and expect the collective to support them. It does, then regulates, opening loopholes that are exploited.

Estimates on the amount of derivatives out there worldwide vary. An oft-heard estimate is $600 trillion. That squares with Mobius’ guess of 10 times the world’s annual GDP. “Are the derivatives regulated?” asks Mobius. “No. Are you still getting growth in derivatives? Yes.”

In other words, something along the lines of securitized mortgages is lurking out there, ready to trigger another crisis as in 2007-08. – Forbes

You can blame bankers for their conduct, but they’re trying to do the same thing everyone else is doing: get out of this system by becoming more equal enough to be wealthy. When you have real money, you can stop 9-t05ing it and putting up with jerks and boring meetings just to get through a day. You have actual freedom, not just political “freedom.”

Even more importantly, what put bankers into this position to make this crazy wealth? First it was the population in hysterics after the last big recession, demanding that the banks be regulated. Next it was the politicians and bureaucrats promising to keep an eye on them. Finally, it was the banks — squeezed out of some of their other practices — turning to new ways to make money.

Why might they do that? Among other things, because that’s what consumers and stockholders, who are regular folk like you and me who ran out and bought some stock, wanted and continue to want. They want profit. Owning BOFA stock can make money. Having an account at BOFA is cheaper if they’re taking fees from someone else.

We constantly look for a bad guy in our society. This bad guy, ideally, is not one of us. He’s someone driven to do evil and if we can just find him and crush him, all will be good again. Yeah, we’ve tried that. A few hundred times. The bad guys crop up again, usually because our rules encourage them.

The evil is within. Growth is a symptom of the evil, but it also justifies the evil and supports it. As our modern dreams do not turn out as rosy as we expected, people are re-thinking modernity. Part of that is a rejection of growth and equality, and a desire for selectivity and quality instead.

53 Comments

  1. The People’s Republic of the West is a giant Ponzi scheme? Someone should tell our new immigrants that they are being imported to keep the scheme afloat.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      At some future date, the Morloks will learn the hideous truth and Eloi will then be on the menu.

      1. Ryan says:

        aw the lord of the rings allusion is so much better (not “marxist”)

        1. Brainsss says:

          Dude, you’re way off.

        2. Brainsss says:

          Sorry, misread that.

        3. How about “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

          I don’t think there are evil elites in charge, I think there are a lot of confused people who are putting those elites into power.

          1. Ryan says:

            ah yeah even better

      2. Brainsss says:

        Another metaphor for the Zombie apocalypse.

  2. LuxLibertas says:

    Perhaps the greatest problem systemic to modernity is mass herd schooling, which destroys creativity, encourages leftist groupthink, stifles human potential, extends adolescence ad infinitum, and socializes boorish behavior. Cheating is not only allowed, but given tacit encouragement. Bullying and social shaming become the de facto modus operandi of the herd. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves “victims” of massive fraud and falling face first off the treadmill of debt? Conform, cheat, or die. Suppress your own conquering spirit, nod your head to your illiterate teacher, do your homework, and hope you go to Harvard and become a good ol’ member of the liberal “elite”. Or get real good at sports and maybe you’ll get to be a dancing monkey for your idiot classmates. Sadly, gaming the system is about the only way to avoid this inanity, this soul crushing machine that we call “modernity”.

    Let’s walk through the stages of this modern life. First, infancy — an all too brief expansion of consciousness where the world is still filled with wonder and learning is possible. Next, early childhood. Here our bodies begin to be fattened with GMO poison, our brains infected by that parasite known as liberal thought. Our parents are either coddling us to death or smoking crack.

    Now begins the longest stretch, the insufferable epoch of adolescence and “school”, from which most never escape. A dingy desk in a dingy building surrounded by dingy people. The creative among us most make good use of that classroom window, where we look out unto the horizon and begin to plan our escape. Little do we know that we are going from one prison to another, and day dreaming won’t help. The schoolhouse, the office — they are modern jails, built by our idealistic pedagogues and accepted incrementally by the populace at large until openly embraced and then defended violently.

    The next penitentiary on this trail of tears is college. Not much to say here.

    After a brief respite of hedonism and drunken revelry, we shuffle off to the 9-5. I would imagine most of us are at this stage. It’s the last stop before the nursing home and a shitting death. If you played by the rules, your balls will be thoroughly cut off at this point, and there is little doubt your wife, boss, and friends will despise you. Because secretly they all despise themselves and the only thing they have to hold onto is the fact that we are all in this together. We are all equally miserable.

    If you gamed the system, “well done,” you say, hollowly. For you may have accrued material goods, vainglory, and herd approval, but unfortunately you don’t value those things anymore. Because you sold your soul and revere nothing but that which you know in your heart of hearts is fake and failure.

    Whether or not you played by the rules or gamed by the system, at this point you will probably lose your job, your nation, and your civilization, because the global economy and the West is going to collapse. There is a very very brief window right now to mitigate the problem, but that may just be wishful thinking. Wish in one hand, and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

    But the human spirit cannot be shackled forever. It’s possible to disengage yourself from the hive mind, and find true liberty. To awaken oneself to transcendence and a humble acknowledgment of reality. To unlock your own will, your inner self.

    Consider this. A 10 year old boy in 1750 had more life experience, self sufficiency, and literacy than most 30 year old “men” have today. There may again be a time when this is so.

    1. Ryan says:

      “The creative among us most make good use of that classroom window, where we look out unto the horizon and begin to plan our escape.”
      it was good to know i was not alone

      1. crow says:

        You were not alone :)
        That window got me in so much trouble!
        There was an actual world out there, that nobody else could see.
        I was wherever my eyes fell, anywhere but in that damned classroom, being relentlessly steamrollered into submission by mindless geriatrics who quite clearly knew nothing about anything…

        I did not submit!

        1. ferret says:

          Now I realize how lucky I was.
          Teachers in my class were intelligent, knew a lot, and ready to answer any question even not exactly on the subject. If a teacher could not answer immediately, she would prepare the answer to the next lesson. I’ve never been bored thanks to good teachers, though I wasn’t an outstanding student, just a good one.
          In the university professors were impressing me even more; most of them were determined to teaching me how to learn and understand. It was real pleasure and honor to me to talk to them. I should have valued more their lessons, I think.
          My point is, a good educational system is possible in principle, and there are examples.
          In the US, I believe, very few learn out of curiosity, but rather to achieve an immediate or coming soon profit. The (only) goal is to get good grades.

          1. A good educational system is possible in principle if that principle includes not trying to educate everyone equally and to make sure that each person gets a college degree because they want more $$$ in their greedy little hands even if they are morons.

            1. ferret says:

              “A good educational system is possible in principle if that principle includes not trying to educate everyone equally …”

              Agree. And not only regarding morons, but most of the population that would never become successful in the intelligence challenging area, do not need to be pushed towards college education that should be hard to get in. They can be happy and wealthy doing quality job in accordance to their expertise.

              There will be little real morons after the educational system reform. The society would treat them as sick people without trusting them any important job. But they will be the minority that should not grow, which is important. To make it possible there should be incentives for making children in healthy high IQ families. Many intelligent parents cannot afford many children just because they think about their future education that they possibly cannot afford.

              1. There will always be morons at least until evolution wipes them out. What we have to do is make sure that the smart people are the ones getting rewarded. That is not the case right now because there are too many shortcuts to success that involve making cronies, inside deals, welfare, affirmative action and all that. You can also always get an easy job at the government or even in private industry and after a dozen years there they promote you whether you are competent or not. This is moron welfare on the biggest level in history and it reverses our society so that idiots rule.

                1. Jack says:

                  Evolution doesn’t wipe out “morons”. I recommend reading your biology textbook again.

          2. Ryan says:

            In the US, I believe, very few learn out of curiosity, but rather to achieve an immediate or coming soon profit. The (only) goal is to get good grades
            excellent point

        2. Ryan says:

          exactly, oh lets all respect Mrs. ross or mrs. jenkins time, ohh they have BACHELOR degrees in teaching people to do 2 plus 2, ohh wow. i always learned more helping my father build stuff and pulling weeds, school is about the group, and sadly the group is all about making sure “I” is just as important as every other “I”, especially the quiet one that refuses to talk and stares out the window concerned with life, i remember i used to daydream about gunbattles between good guys and bad guys on the playground, kind of eery though.

    2. Brainsss says:

      You should write an article.

    3. All of this is true but the counterpoint question is what do we do with most people, who aren’t particularly good at school and have no direction of interest that will lead to a career, so are doomed to average office jobs no matter what we do with them.

      You brilliantly describe how modern society is pure mindless rote boredom and conformity but in my experience this is because most of its people want that kind of experience. I don’t know what I think about this either.

      1. LuxLibertas says:

        First we change ourselves. Then, well, there’s a lot we could do. On the federal level we could roll back and eliminate most of the leftist institutions, bloated bureaucracy, welfare programs, public schools, withdraw our empire, kick out illegals, and defend our borders from all future migrants. On the judicial level we could actually prosecute fraud and theft, reestablish the rule of law, and enforce property rights. On the societal level we could eliminate all freebies, fight vociferously against liberal ideology, push organically for a transcendental shared value system based on common culture, encourage inward reflection, deep ecology, and self sufficiency.

        Where I may diverge from this site is in the perception of the “proles”, “masses”, etc. People nowadays are certainly incompetent, addicted to debt, clueless, and utterly dependent on the system. Little doubt in my mind that reality will be way too much of a shock to their system, and then the guillotine age begins. However, in different times and circumstances, when we lived in a wide wild world, average people were more competent because they had the liberty, spirit, and the incentive to do so. Think of the damn pioneers. Adversity strengthens the soul. We need to live in a harsh world, period. I would venture to say that 90% of people could learn to read in 60 days or less — if they weren’t in school and needed to in order to survive. For god’s sakes, feral children and apes probably learn more words than the average high schooler today. Yes, our biology determines us to a large degree and sets certain limits on our intelligence and aptitude. But so does culture, our family, and our own will. Change is not as hard as most people make it out to be, given the appropriate environment. The best thing we can “do” with incompetent people is allow them to fail, and not to elevate retardation as a higher source of power.

        That said, the only way we could get to where we wanted would be through a shift in attitude via a slow transition to a new manner of thinking.

        1. Brainsss says:

          I don’t believe you and the site diverge. It is an incredibly sad fact and waste of potential that we are using a time of abundance to produce little of value. We’re like a cancerous growth, destroying our host world. We have no purpose for this excessive growth other than “to grow.” Questioning the growth and suggesting that maybe we should stop producing so many mouths and tragically pointless lives labels you as evil. Suggesting we shouldn’t act like parents and feed every hungry mouth just because it is hungry makes you an outcast. What is the purpose? We may have a little bit of room left, but why destroy it? When there is nothing left, what was it all for?

        2. The pioneers weren’t proles, they were middle classes looking for a better life but mostly trying to escape the collapsing regimes of Europe. The proles are the people who do jobs where they need to be told exactly what to do, like loading paint on trucks, except that now a lot of them are administrative staff and bureaucrats and are screwing that up too. We have too many proles, if we had fewer we’d have less problems, but in any case they need to be told what to do and we need them not to vote, or have opinions in public, because they are always wrong. The masses are the crowd and they are masses of asses, they destroy everything.

          1. LuxLibertas says:

            Ah, I see what you mean.

          2. ferret says:

            “we need them not to vote”
            What about taking a test before getting the right to vote?
            Or one’s vote will be weighted according to the test result?

            And why vote at all? It seems irrational. Competent people should be chosen according to their abilities and real contribution they are making.

            1. Agree here. It is irrational to vote unless the vote is confined to those who have proven able to succeed at making choices of that nature, although it’s not popular to say that. Democracy makes the gigantic unfounded assumption that the people who can barely figure out their taxes are somehow the most competent to decide the future of our nation. Oh well the disaster will be obvious soon enough.

              1. ferret says:

                “…the people who can barely figure out their taxes…”
                and only with the help of Turbotax or Taxcut.

                1. But they did figure out how to download those from The Pirate Bay.

                2. Ted Swanson says:

                  And don’t forget Tax Slayer!!!

      2. ferret says:

        “what do we do with most people, who aren’t particularly good at school”
        This is mostly the failure of the educational system. In the US students are spending years learning almost nothing and developing nothing but political correctness. Scientists found that the best time to learn is childhood. There is an opinion that man gets half of all life information to the age four. I saw kids speaking couple of languages fluently just because they learned early.
        If the educational system will be organised to educate according to one’s possibilities, these “most people” will benefit a lot and will become good specialists in many areas that doesn’t require extraordinary knowledge and skills. One shouldn’t be god for making pottery, as a proverb says. And this improvement in education will change or resurrect the culture on national level.
        Only problem is to make all appreciating the right education.
        In the novel “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes, the main character, Charlie with IQ of 68 was working hard to become smart (and this was taken from a real life situation). I believe, other people are capable of achieving a lot, if it is considered to be popular.

    4. Jason says:

      The window, oh god!

      I’m a grade 9 drop out that sells porn so I don’t have to work a 9-5 dream coffin

  3. Ryan says:

    now this is where the learning is done, and think all you need is an internet connection.
    i wonder sometimes, how this will all work out, the west won’t just ignore demographic replacement and the economic situation is, as noted here, UNSISTAINABLE, i mean some kind of thing will work out, hopefully “we” are a factor in the structure. perhaps something like the 5th century germanic migrations period, or “local warlordism” like siberia in 1918 and china in the 20-30s, that is what i have always “envisioned”

    1. Local warlords is a good idea but it seems to me the Western way of doing that is strong cities within independent states, like the German medieval ideal.

      1. Ryan says:

        ah good old “electoral warlordism”

  4. I don’t understand the point of quoting the Grauniad in this piece –

    “By giving “scientific” support to programmes of deregulation and privatisation over the past 40 years, it has managed to transform our economic structures to conform to its ideal of free markets, in the belief that competition between rational consumers and producers would enforce “correct” prices and lead to an economic optimum.”

    These people are fucking morons who confuse free markets with endless democratic regulation and state-funded Private Finance Initiatives, who think they’re being bullied and oppressed when they’re the mob who deems what’s socially acceptable and what’s not. Not to mention hilarious propagandistic bullshit in confusing emergence with “enforcement”.

    If Amerika has decided to side with this bunch of cunts, I’m out.

  5. Ah-ha says:

    “As our modern dreams do not turn out as rosy as we expected, people are re-thinking modernity. Part of that is a rejection of growth and equality, and a desire for selectivity and quality instead.”

    Who are these people you speak of?

    1. crow says:

      Anybody still capable of original thought.

      1. You won’t see these people on TV but they exist and I know a lot of them. They tend to be humble and have careers they love and they do not live necessarily in conventional ways, most of them don’t buy TV dinners for example or watch a lot of TV and many of them are not astentatius and you would not guess that they have anything more than average.

        1. ferret says:

          “I know a lot of them … and you would not guess that they have anything more than average.”
          How did you manage to know many of them if they are hiding so well?

          1. Good question. You usually meet them professionally or through similar interests, which they seem to often have. I meet a lot of people through work and there are a lot of them who are like this, not astentatius but intelligent. A few are fairly wealthy too.

            1. ferret says:

              Oh, you are lucky. I have bunch of intelligent people around me at work, but they don’t seem to be inclined discussing all this “Amerika” stuff. I don’t have a single friend to meet and talk; I’m happy the Internet makes it possible.

              1. Ryan says:

                exactly, its pretty hard to discuss “race” at work

          2. crow says:

            Like attracts like.

    2. ferret says:

      “Who are these people you speak of?”

      I think, these people (and they are minority) see how everything goes “wrong”, i.e. the Western civilization is approaching the end of its life cycle. For some reason, these people don’t want it will happen now, or even at all. It seems like it’s possible to escape this fate; just a bit more rational people, with a little bit different morality, and so on.
      There are no examples in the history indicating it is possible, so it will be the first one.
      I saw people that were dying but didn’t want to. This is something similar, I think, only on different scale.
      But why to worry about the civilization that cannot sustain? It would be better to think about funerals. Though I may be wrong.

      1. crow says:

        I don’t see you being wrong about much.
        I eagerly devour your offerings whenever you offer them :)

  6. Decimator says:

    Education is paramount. Big government has no place in it. That is the responsibility of local government and community. Community should be culturally homogeneous. Differing cultures will segregate by nature and this will lead to distinct differences. In the offhand chance that a lower order of culture has an individual who is exceptional, that individual will probably assimilate to a higher order culture by choice or desire. Eventually sub cultures will degrade and revert to colonies of poverty and sub intelligence. We should humanely issue them the basic, one time allotment, of catalyst items to allow personnel sustainment and that is it, forever. develop or fail. Notice the key word assimilate. that was replaced by a combination of equality and diversity.

    Weighted voting is a must. I am working on a writing I refer to as,”My Solution”, and wish to publish it for review one day soon. Problem is, I know nothing of the process and have some fear of being ostracized and labeled as another “Hitler”. possibly costing me employment ect. The company I work for is a diversity giant. (Siemens)

    Suggestions welcome

  7. Nicholas Marville says:

    First of all, I have to say honestly, there’s some pretty awesome and accurate replies in here with useful suggestions.

    However how to move these ideas forward is another matter. Book agencies are falling so it’s hard to see how one could form a culture of ideological common ground that could serve as a platform. Even if you write a brilliant book or essay, who’s going to read it since we’re already flooded by information as it is. The example of intelligent co-workers who don’t discuss these items and that the only one to talk to seriously is through the internet, says enough.

    Those who share the hope that there will be an intelligent grass roots movement to opt for “quality over equality”, will have to admit that we’re already set very far apart. Whoever still has “true friends for life” that you meet regularly? I don’t see much to do that makes it possible to avoid the 9-5 routine, unless you’ve either inherited a lot of ‘old money’, so you can live of renting houses, interest, company shares, or you go into selling porn as someone pointed out. Let’s say you have a brilliant idea and write it down . . . How will it NOT be gobbled up by the mealstrom of information that’s spouted out and that makes everything equally interesting and equally trivial? Triviality seems unavoidable. Let’s say you get it published (which requires tons of goodwill and important connections), then you have the problem that it won’t even be read (due to declining general ideological motivation and culture). Finally, you have the problem that it won’t impact upon the lives of the readers. They will read it, nod, and go on with 9 to 5ing.

    Then there’s another problem, that I’ve spoken about with Brett before also, we’re all stomping down upon the proles, upon the incompetent, but how does that really help us other than to make us feel better about ourselves? It’s a fine point, and I acknowledge it’s been made by myself as well as by others, yet I expect very few are going to admit to themselves: “I am a prole, I deserve to be ruled.” Some of us may be feeling very lonely and misunderstood, etc, and then we talk here on the internet about the proles and about how everything is falling down around us. When people write this way, it’s generally because they envisage themselves ruling those proles, and not them being ruled.

    It would be much better if we had groups of real friends, familiars and acquaintances around us to sit down with and discuss ideas, and include common people into it, rather than to stomp down upon common people because they are so incompetent. I don’t think an “myself and whoever anonymous other happens to agree with my post here on the internet versus virtually everyone else on the planet”-mentality is going to achieve what we want to achieve. It sets up an ideal/imaginary community (of writers on the internet and competent elites who we never/rarely met in person yet somehow respect), versus the real society of the world. And even the imaginary community, although it can be a source of relief, is very brittle, because someone either posts something that another disagrees with or just random bullshit and before you know it’s there’s a huge flame-war going on.

    Many writers seem to miss that competence is always constituted by requirements of the surroundings. When those surroundings are set up so to make live convenient, and with that as only aim, then being competent is also not elevating. Even if we have ‘competent elites’ they lack the proper vision, and their only talent is that they either learned to game the system better, just to “get out of 9 to 5ing like all of us want”.

    1. Nicholas Marville says:

      Either, or, I meant to say in the last sentence, they rose through the ranks because they did the 9 to 5 ‘slavery’ long enough. They got promoted because they upheld routine and posed no threat to the stability of the existing regime, whether that regime is a public or private institution.

      1. Decimator says:

        You are correct and everything you mentioned are my concern. One thing you said sticks out and concerns me the most. “ruling the proles but not being ruled”. This is the major human flaw. Though self acceptance, I see myself as one of the proles. The thing is I realized it a while back and was introduced into this world as one. Getting out seems like an impossible maze but it isn’t. I would like to share my path. I don’t seek fame or fortune and don’t want to ,”sell a book”. would rather have a sounding board to clarify my thought and check my self. I’m trying to avoid serving myself, Ive done well at that and realize it is part of the problem.

    2. ferret says:

      “Even if you write a brilliant book or essay, who’s going to read it…”
      An advertisement is necessary, the Internet helps. A new movement with at least not repelling name, e.g. “Quality Of Life” is needed. No “proles”, “idiots”, “elites” should be pronounced. We are parts of an huge organism, all are important and need to be respected. What part of the body is most respectable when experiencing pain in the ass?

      “Let’s say you get it published (which requires tons of goodwill and important connections)…”
      I gave up on publishing. Instead, I’ve self-published couple of books (piano course) and print them on demand in my home office. The amazon.com gives you an opportunity of selling books, though I haven’t tried it yet.

      “Finally, you have the problem that it won’t impact upon the lives of the readers.”
      Every word said an heard make a change, and a huge change, if it is in resonance with people emotions. Emotions along with simplified common sense should be considered.

      “I am a prole, I deserve to be ruled.” I would be happy been ruled by a competent, highly moral, etc. person or committee, whatever. Competent for me means with the knowledge of history, understanding how open thermodynamic systems developing, understanding of non-linear systems with deep negative feedbacks and delays in information paths, that is, cybernetics (who forgot what is it, check with wiki).

      “It would be much better if we had groups of real friends, familiars and acquaintances around us to sit down with and discuss ideas, and include common people into it, rather than to stomp down upon common people because they are so incompetent.”
      To have groups of real friends is always good, but to consider myself “common” in an elite group :( So they should not be mentioned as “common” or “prole”, otherwise there will be no support from people.
      Sometimes (e.g. in my case) incompetent people sincerely want to help, feel a desire to share their thoughts based on common sense.
      To reject completely idle (disturbing) people from these groups, the certain technics can be applied.

  8. [...] 2011in LinkageFrom here.Brett Stevens – “Platform, by Michel Houellebecq“, “Undoing Modernity“, “How to Lower Your Taxes by 25%“, “Occupy Irrelevance“, [...]

  9. This is the nature of liberal democracy; it is closely related to the modernity too.
    It will destroy the human civilization within 4 or 5 decades. We must get rid of this stupidity as soon as possible.

  10. [...] leftism vs conservatism in the MRM by Brett Stevens http://manospherecopies.blogspot.com/2012/06/inmalafide-no-i-dont-care-about-your.html also see: “the founding illusion of modernity occurred in 1789 when people decided that they could do without specialized leaders.” http://www.amerika.org/globalism/undoing-modernity/ [...]

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.180 seconds