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.
Having watched twin travesties unfold at both Missouri University and Yale, is there any remaining doubt that the current institution of higher education in the United States is utterly dysfunctional? Perhaps there is. For one thing, I haven’t defined the function set I’m claiming to have gone unfulfilled. Another, more damning critique of my critique would be the fair and logical question of with what do you replace this institution?
…in post-1945 America, the source of all new ideas is the university. Ideas check out of the university, but they hardly ever check in. Thence, they flow outward to the other arms of the educational system as a whole: the mainstream media and the public schools. Eventually they become our old friend, “public opinion.”
But there is more to it than just that. 99% of the people who set foot on the average campus will not get anywhere close to developing an original intellectual idea. You could be forgiven if you were to believe that sort of thing was subtly controlled against. No, not just forgiven. You should be patted on the back.
This is because the Modern University is a high-pass filter selecting for conformity. You can’t legally test job applicants for IQ or even easily define what social habits they should carry around in their personal and professional knapsacks. However we officially condemn all sorts of segregation; we all want markers so that we can effectively ostracize defectives and outcastes. So what do?
You turn perspective respectable members of society loose and you measure their survivability, maintainability and suitability in a realistic facsimile environment. Based on how they do their over four years, we can then make a fairly educated guess as to whether an aspiring caste member is acceptable. College is a four to six year corporate and government cattle call. Towards the end of year four, the soon-to-be-graduates then send out their resumes and display themselves the way livestock is put on parade at the Fort Worth Stock Show.
And finally, we have the unspoken and deliberately ignored mission we would hope our university system would undertake. We should hope our educational system would promote and champion a serviceable pattern of folkways for a nation similar to what David Hackworth Fisher describes in Albion’s Seed.
So does the Modern University inculcate new and brilliant ideas, select acceptable and mature individuals to govern and work important jobs while also inculcating a future generation of leaders with the timeless folkways that have lead a nation to greatness?
Ok, ok…I’ll pass the spliff left before I boot and disgrace myself. Clown question bro. I wouldn’t put that idiotic student yelling at the Yale professor in charge of in charge of organizing a circle-jerk if you proved to me she could comprehend Euclidean Geometry. The journalism and communications professor at Missouri who demanded some muscle to help her censor the press is not what I’d describe as a high-pass filter. Folkways? That’s a bit like asking Coach Jim Mora whether or not his team should go to the playoffs.
The Modern American University has truly established its very own benchmark of intense, ineluctable hyper-suck. It needs to be replaced, but how?
Corporations and government can most easily acquire their talent without the university system. Many of the tech leaders in Silicon Valley are already hiring without demanding college degrees. They often screen potential employees with “vocational aptitude tests” that I could of sworn were ruled illegal in the landmark Grigg v. Duke Power court decision. The US Department of Defense operates several teaching facilities for both military and civilian employees. They were legally required under the DAWIA to incorporate the Defense Acquisition University. Those that the largest corporations and government cannot train could seek out apprenticeships and a meaningful existence working in the skilled trades. A revived guild system of sorts would do wonders for our nation’s currently stagnant economy.
Folkways can be inculcated now by any number of organizations that cater to individuals whose families choose to enroll them. Boy Scout Troops, Bible Study Classes and Little League sports teams can all provide fill for the vacuum that exists in our educational system. If parents are proactive, they can send their offspring out into the world at age 18 with a strong grounding and appreciation for an organic culture. The challenge then becomes having that positive acculturation survive the idiocy spew they encounter on the modern campus.
As for the ideation: There the University may well be irreplaceable and irrevocably lost. Legitimate scholarship has been replaced by scientific fads, and ideological sell-outs like the Missouri Journalism Teacher that recently demanded censorship. War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength and at many of our best universities, PC-Sanctioned Idiocy is now Intelligence. SETI would not register a positive if it accidentally aimed its telescopic ear at Yale University.
Maybe the ultimate substitute for all that the university is now failing to even attempt to provide is something we each have to do at the individual level. Just figure out who we are by examining our own lives and working towards doing what has always traditionally worked. Or perhaps Lynyrd Skynyrd put it better than a room full of stuffed-shirt Nobel Laureates.
The utilitarian assessment is usually wrong. For the price of Budweiser, we could have good beer; for the price of fast food, quality food. But profit is made by cutting expenses and increasing advertising to lure in the masses.
Conservatism, Inc. — the Republican party in the United States, its counterparts in Europe, and their media hive — follow the same model. Real conservatism means taking on the illusions of liberalism, but that can entail failure, so it is safer to merely be the opposition party and rake in those donations.
Not only is the above not conspiracy thinking, it is sound economics. In a time where politicians depend on voters as representative of a certain number of dollars, and no culture exists to keep people honest, count on self-interest as the dominating force.
Mainstream conservatives have created a myth for themselves: as individuals, work hard and get ahead, do what is right, and go to church. Ignore others. You succeed at their expense if necessary. Not only is this morality, but also Darwinism. In nature, the best try to rise above the rest.
In the end, this results in the kind of groups we see across the third world: a few rich white people at top, ruling over the vast toasty masses who are illiterate, low IQ, mixed-race and generally dysfunctional. The third world would not be in the mess it was in if even a plurality of its people were capable.
The glitch of this is that it entails giving up on civilization. Society comes to serve the individual, and some rise to the top and live a good life, but only as slaves. They are slaves to their businesses, dependent on their private security, and have to keep a low profile so the surly groundlings do not riot and overthrow the government yet again.
In the airport at a nearby city, every time there is a revolution in South America, we see lots of people in the duty-free shops, speaking Spanish and buying luxury items. Generally they appear Spanish, but over time, they have become darker and more Asiatic in appearance.
What happens is that as the civilization goes, so go its elites. The people who rose to the top by beating out others now exist in a “bubble world” of their own wealth and social group. They become bored, selective outbreeding occurs, and soon they are “white” in name only.
Even more, they have ceded civilization. They cannot enjoy the simple pleasures of walking down a village street, or going to the market, or relaxing. They are always targets, aware that the masses over which they rule not-so-secretly hate them and will rape, rob, kill and maim if given the chance of a few seconds.
This is why mainstream conservatism fails: its answer is not to fight, but to protect the individual, and in so doing, it makes conservatives a target. In Russia and France, such people were executed. In South America, they live in fear, and now in the United States and Europe they are realizing that even their gated communities depend on rule of law, public services and some governmental competence.
Conservatives have abandoned civilization for too long. An oncologist would recognize liberalism for what it is, a parasitic organism comprised of the lower echelons of society attempting to destroy the higher. It has no more complex ideation; it is simple resentment, based on the universal tendency of every group to clobber whichever other groups it can dominate. Because its members are less brave than socially crafty, it works entirely through passive aggression, at least until it has the numbers to go on the usual murderous rampage.
Yes, you can beat the system. You can be rich and rise to the top. You can beat out all the surly groundlings. But you will forever also be a slave. You will work long hours and never be able to relax. Eventually, you will be absorbed by the genetics of the people below, and never reclaim what once made you proud of yourselves.
The only conservatives to realize the truth of this matter so far have been the extremists. Hitler dreamed of a thousand-year Reich to rival the ancient Greeks; Mussolini saw the restoration of Rome; today’s New Right sees a revival of European civilization as a world leader. All of these miss the point however, which is that the goal of civilizations is to avoid self-destructing genetically.
You may not particularly like your lower-caste neighbors or their ways, but they are part of the same ecosystem as you are. You share biology. Their steady path upward through Darwinism, with the best rising and the rest falling, provides future people to serve those roles and maintain civilization. Wealthy elites cannot do that alone, as the collapse and genetic absorption of South America shows us.
If conservatives are to ever have hope again, it is in abandoning this slow retreat. Realize that we either take over civilization and point it toward health and qualitative improvement again, or we are lost. You personally may avoid it, and your children even, but then you will be destroyed, and all of the history of your people and that once-possible greatness will vanish forever.
A lot of people have suddenly realized that they should show solidarity with France. It’s nice of them to tune in. They so endeavor for two reasons.
Something genuinely horrible happened in Paris this Friday. Several hundred French civilians were deliberately targeted and slaughtered by Muslim radicals who indiscriminately (and with impeccable multiculturalism even), gunned people down in a spirit of true egalitarianism.
The political and governmental policies that made this possible are near and dear to the hearts of much of the Post-modern West. When Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer were contemplating bi-partisan comprehensive amnesty reform, Senator Rand Paul attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would screen people to avoid having terrorist organizations use a comprehensive amnesty reform as a Trojan Horse. Here’s the bi-partisan response his amendment got from the politico-corporate elite :
“Two, three years ago, I introduced a bill, or an amendment, to the immigration bill that would have provided for more scrutiny of people coming into our country: refugees, immigrants, students,” Paul said, when asked about his response to Friday’s attacks.
“They would have had background checks and they would have had a much higher degree of scrutiny. And the point I made in my speech was, I introduced this to Rubio and (Democratic Sen. Chuck) Schumer’s immigration bill and then Rubio and Schumer and all of the authors voted against any conservative amendments. And I think that was a mistake, not only for the bill, but also for our national security.”
So almost 200 mostly undeserving, very mundane people have been burned on the funeral pyre for the sake of open-borders, population replacement and a nice, big reserve army of the unemployed to reduce corporate labor costs. Therefore, a lot of guilty and disingenuous people want to put French flags in the background of their Facebook profiles and wear ribbons to commemorate the people who were sent to the slaughter because we were all so open-minded that our collective brains fell out.
So this new found appreciation of the French People is touching. So is the pedophile that does really vile things to the neighbor’s five-year-old. But that bit of snarky nastiness brings up a valid question: What if I really do empathize and grieve for the innocents blown up and gunned down in Paris? How do I legitimately show solidarity with those whose deaths I verily lament? JPW is very happy you so inquired. Here’s my Mizzou Manifesto’s worth of suggestions.
Cease and Desist with Visa Programs such as H1B until the US Workforce Participation Rate hits 75% rather than the 61% it sits at now. If you don’t have the reserve army of the unemployed, you don’t have people who are we tell them twice and they ignore us, may God have mercy on their souls.
Reject Immigration from places prone to radically anti-Western activities. As was earlier pointed out at this site, successful immigrants come as settlers that take over and replace prevailing cultures. If you want to disbelieve Mr. Warkin, ask yourself how well the Iroquois Nations did with assimilating General George Washington. They are looking to replace you, not join you or become like you. If they wanted to emulate you, they could do so while sparing the expense of long distance transit.
Help France do whatever is necessary to speed members of ISIS to their next destination on the wheel of karma. Terrorists do not really perform acts of terrorism because of stress. They execute terrorist attacks because they believe it works like hell. The body count inflicted in the general vicinity of where these terrorists live must be high enough so that no one will continue to offer them shelter or succor. The economic butcher’s bill that a terrorist organization or society must pay for terrorist activities has to go a lot higher. Otherwise, terrorism will still be viewed as a tactically intelligent option for extracting bribes and concessions out of Western Democracies.
Adopting the JPW program for dealing with ISIS and all other JV squads suiting up to help the world burn would show far greater sympathy and remonstration with the grieving victims of French Terrorism than lots of French flags on Facebook and at NFL stadiums.
To prevent those who have died from dying in vain, we must set an example for the rest of the world by rejecting the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity that so inspire ISIS to believe that terrorism is an obviously good tactic to deploy against the West. The question for our leadership becomes which is politically and morally easier; protecting our people or letting the politically and financially lucrative conditions that make innocent Westerners such fun and easy mass terror targets remain in situ?
How our society answers this question will tell you how much the elites who lead us really care about victims in France or in either of the Twin Towers.
If the sins of Exxon-Mobil were not immediately met with condign and harrowing punishment then the world would spin properly upon its axis. According to Amerika’s Eva Inevitable, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Exxon-Mobil Corp has withheld data on climate change.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Thursday she believes the U.S. Justice Department should investigate the failure of Exxon Mobil Corp’s to disclose data related to climate change. “Yes, yes they should … there’s a lot of evidence they misled people,” Clinton said replying to a question by climate activists after a campaign event at a community college in Berlin, New Hampshire.
This statement contains enough male bovine scatology to fertilize the typical cow field. Only Vladimir Putin, Iran and Saudi Arabia would benefit more from the immediate price hike in fossil fuels then Exxon Mobil if we really got serious about rationing energy in America. CO2 emissions are best curbed by idling factories. Factories are most easily and peaceably shut down by the creation of artificial scarcities in the energy market. Artificial shortages are premium opportunities to price-gouge consumers. Therefore Exxon-Mobil starts sharpening the corporate switch-blade every time some flap-gum egghead tells us how we need to be punished with higher energy prices. The only data Exxon-Mobil should logically withhold as a corporate strategy would be data that quantitatively disproved Global Warming.
So nobody with an IQ>80 should believe Hillary Clinton doesn’t know in her heart and mind that a) Climate Change is nonsense and B) Exxon Mobil makes a lot more money propagating the same recycled tripe Hillary is pedaling to her base freaknoids then they would if the truth set us free from price-gouging by the oil industry. Exxon Mobil’s sins are of a deeper and darker nature than merely aggressive unethical capitalism. They have stopped paying their protection and could possibly even break Omertà.
No, not that Omertà, silly. Vinny The Toe-Cheese Morbito won’t be collecting from them for The Outfit. Hillary, however, fully expects their payment with vig. You see Exxon Mobil and and five other corporate heavy-hitters have stopped donating to The Clinton Foundation. And, this my five or so constant readers, is the type of climate change a Progressive actually cares about fighting.
On Sept. 26, CGI, a branch of the Clinton Foundation, convenes its 11th annual meeting with a star-studded cast. Bill and Chelsea Clinton will be joined by Ashley Judd, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Ted Danson, Tina Brown, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sir Richard Branson, Bill Gates and George Soros. What will be missing is more than a million dollars from a who’s who of corporate behemoths that sponsored the meeting last year. Six high-profile firms ended their cash donations, to be replaced with only one similar high-profile corporate donor so far. USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow’s name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company’s exit is not confirmed.
Bill, Chelsea, Ashley Judd, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Ted Danson, Tina Brown, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sir Richard Branson, Bill Gates and George Soros all have one unifying, deeply-held political principal close to their hearts. They don’t talk about how swell and wonderful you are until their happy arses get paid. This is where the vile, corporate greed and filthy lucre of Exxon Mobil becomes a true thing of E-Vil! None of that filthy lucre is fueling the engines of Progressive self-regard.
The Clinton Foundation might as well be a termite hotel without it. Bill, Chelsea, Ashley Judd, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, Ted Danson, Tina Brown, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sir Richard Branson, Bill Gates and George Soros have all been told to go vampire off of someone else’s neck. The protection racket doesn’t work if the intended targets politely decline your protection and don’t make their payments. That’s why there is an individual mandate tacked on to ObamaCare. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would want Obama to care otherwise.
The only way to prevent the whole protection racket from unraveling is to create a few unfortunate happenstances that make sad, pitiable examples out of people that don’t remember to pay up. So Exxon Mobil is guilty of attempting to change the climate. They were attempting to change the Progressive Climate of Fear. This just can’t be tolerated. The Spotted Booger-Fish could go extinct tomorrow. The ecologically vital Clinton Foundation must be defended at all costs.
Thus Exxon Mobil will get tied to the whipping post. As someone who believes Global Warming is a dishonest religion that is the academic and political equivalent of Scientology, I’m not shedding very many tears over Exxon. They, like Enron, were ready to climb into bed with Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest of the IPCC charlatan show so that they could price-gouge consumers of energy to fare-thee-well. They lay down with the Progressive dogs, they can try eradicate the Clintonista fleas. Think of it as an object lesson. Once you throw in with the Progressives, they will never let you go as long as you still have something left that they can leech.
When an event like the Paris attacks happen, the excuses begin. People choose non sequiturs instead of rational responses. This seems baffling until we examine their motivations.
Most people want simply to believe. To believe they are on the right path, that their lives will succeed, that they will be well-regarded by others. This lets them make it through the day, which is all they hope to do because most live by not wanting to die, not having anything they really look forward to.
To keep that belief alive, they need to avoid criticizing the direction of our momentum. Any big changes would mean both that they as individuals must change, and that they as individuals have been doing it wrong for some time, which they interpret as an attack on themselves.
For this reason, they delight in non-solutions. And so it was when three Islamic extremists shot up Paris and left 89 dead, the standard response from 99% of humanity was to choose a non-solution.
This non-solution took two forms: the more aggressive screamed nasty things about Islam, and the less aggressive shrieked about how we should not blame the refugees.
Neither group will address the elephant in the room, which is that diversity of any form is poisonous. You can have social standards when everyone is the same. When they are not, your social standards become injustice and are removed.
This is not “Us versus Them.” It is “Us versus all Others.” Not that we have to go to war with them, but that we must exclude them, even when we like the group involved (like Jews, Koreans, Japanese or Irish).
To every group, there is an implicit ranking in the world of those who are succeeding relative to those who are not. Any group above them on that list is a target. They have more stuff that we do; we can invade and take it. This is because civilizations at a lower level do not understand what it takes to get to a higher level, just like fools can dress up as judges but would do a horrible job.
Every other group wants to invade and take our stuff. This takes two forms: the aggressive form wants to attack us, where the passive form wants simply to show up as refugees. The two are the same impulse: changing ourselves is hard, so we should either move somewhere easier, or invade that place.
We stand alone in the West. We know who we are — we are Us — and we know that anyone who is not-Us does not belong among us. That is the only way we or any other group is able to survive.
We do not need to think ill of them to make this decision. Whether they are good, bad or in the middle, the Other do not belong among us. Whether they come in peace or in war, they do not belong among us. Only we belong among us.
All of the fools posting jokes about Islamic goat sex and demanding we bomb ISIS belong in the camp of denialists. So do all of the fools posting about how the refugees are innocent. Neither sub-topic has any bearing on the real topic, which is how we survive without the Other among Us.
Our civilization has real problems. Its falling birthrates indicate misery and narcissism, its ongoing leadership problems show democracy has failed, and its continued reckless expansion shows a lack of standards. Those are the real task we need to fix.
But we cannot do that with Others among us, because as we improve our social standards, it will clash with the Other. For that reason, our best policy begins with taking everyone who is not indigenous to our civilizations, and sending them (gently) on boats to far away.
When you look back through history, this mistake happens time and again. The Holocaust was one form of it. Hitler should have realized that he needed to deport and push back anyone who was not ethnically German; instead, he fixated on the Jews, although at first he wanted to repatriate them.
Had he stuck with that policy for Jews, Roma, English, Chinese and liberals alike — gently putting them on boats to elsewhere — he would have achieved a lasting blow for sanity. Instead the urge to scapegoat took over, which resulted in the big point being missed.
Big point is: there is only Us and Other. There are no grey areas. We must preserve Us, so all of the Other — no matter how nice, smart and clean they are — must go back to their native lands.
It’s a sad day. I’m writing this awful post that assuredly get my Alabama privileges revoked lock, stock and barrel. The mordant sense of my pending ostracism brings to mind an old Alice Cooper lyric:
I went to church incognito when everybody rose
The Reverend Smitty he recognized me
And punched me in the nose!
So I blaspheme on a Monday morning and ask the truly unthinkable. Does SEC football truly matter? If so, in what way? Economically? Socially? Is it a control measure to keep us plugged into the matrix? If it were, would anyone willingly yank out the heroin drip?
You see, there was an incident where some idiot vandalized university property with graffiti that included the hated swastika symbol. A large number of African-American players believe this incident is indicative of a racially hostile climate aimed primarily at them. In response to this Banksy of The Bungholes, the Mizzou Tiger footballers have threatened to boycott games until they receive satisfaction regarding a list of demands. One of their cohort is on hunger strike.
The aforementioned list of demands has 8 points that generally make it seem as if these blokes believe they are entirely valuable for U of M to live without. The University president must resign. He must public confess to his e-vil White Privilege. They consider Joe Stalin a piker and demand a 10 Year Plan to meet their market basket of whims. They make the predictable demands for other people’s money and include calls for minimum quotas of minority hires. The Reverend Al Sharpton must be reading this extortion notice with both envy and a certain, grudging admiration.
So what is there to do? These guys are ballers. They don’t solve Diffy-Qs or compose the next generation of great literary sonnets. None are the violin soloists in the University of Missouri Orchestra and few if any could offer a cogent historical interpretation of the underlying issues and significance of the Cataline Conspiracy to late Republican Rome. The University of Missouri’s original purpose for existence and taxpayer subsidy would in no way suffer if they fired Coach Pinkel, immediately forfeited all remaining games, refunded the remainder to season ticket holders, and told the arrogant tosser on hunger strike to go eat cake. So why not so endeavor?
We’re told that the economy loses millions if this Saturday’s vital contest against BYU gets forfeited. We are told society suffers if the demands of this united team aren’t met. What portion of society? The Coach Potato lobby? Does anyone take a premature dirt nap if a bunch of middle-aged losers get made to go rake their yards Saturday afternoon? Does America decline and fall if the SEC East race gets knocked into a cocked hat? I can’t help but think that Unabomber had a point about surrogate activities.
The president of the University of Missouri system resigned Monday amid criticism of his handling of student complaints about race and discrimination. President Tim Wolfe said Monday that his resignation is effective immediately. The announcement came at a special meeting of the university system’s governing body, the Board of Curators.
The University of Missouri now apparently in business to field a football team first and hold a few classes and stuff as an afterthought. If fairness, they are hardly unique in struggling to field a university that their athletic department could feel proud to be associated with. I even remember getting told by one my graduate professors at UCLA that a lot of the laboratories or buildings that existed would be there without the money big time athletics brings into the university.
At some point it becomes fair to ask whether the academicians are doing enough to justify their presence amongst the ballers. Does Creative Lit bring in as much revenue as a good Women’s Gymnastics Squad? How about a swim team. What does this university exist for? Is it a revenue engine or an intellectual stronghold? What matters more, football or physics? The socially correct answer is obvious. But is that answer matching the reality we currently see on the ground? Tune in this Saturday and find out.
Our smug and self-entitled news media have wasted no time in coming up with a counter-meme for the disaster in Bataclan, Paris yesterday. That meme is:
These horrible terrorists are the people that the refugees who are flooding over our borders are running from. Therefore, it’s unfair to blame the refugees for this.
Then they sit there, wide-eyed and vapid, awaiting their reward for pleasing the Great Khan… errr… Stalin himself… errr… the emotionally dramatic mob.
Like most leftist arguments, this one is a misdirection:
The problem is diversity, not refugees. Refugees are one type of diversity. That destroys the host society and wipes out the indigenous people along with the newcomers, leaving behind the “third world trail mix” of mostly-Caucasian but African/Asian hybrids that seems to be in place in most failing societies.
The refugees bring with them this type of society. Our society did not develop into jihadi terrorists who shoot up innocents in theaters; theirs did. Something happened there that is different and bad, and refugees are bringing it here.
We must be able to act in self-interest too. Almost all of the world is always starving, failing or otherwise unsuitable for our occupation. We are the exception. It is an easy answer for them to decide to come here and take advantage of what we have, but they cannot produce it, nor can they uphold it, as we see from the remains of once-thriving white societies in Brazil and Mexico.
The solution is for them to stay at home and fix the disaster there. When your government is bad and you are surrounded by religious crazies, the answer is to man up and fight the bastards back. Drive them into the sea. But it’s easier to just throw up your hands and go somewhere for free welfare.
These are not nice easy brainless and brain-numbing points like the media gives you. They require some intelligence to understand, and therefore, will be ignored. But they are there for you to understand why this media trope is a lie.
Our media and our politicians are obsessed with control. One form of control is the ability to spend the lives of others, to organize them, as if playing with dolls in a dollhouse. The talking heads on the news and in print love to do this. They were not personally harmed, so for them, the others are mere symbols that the talking heads will arrange into whatever form flatters the talking heads the most. This is one of the biggest problems in modern society: people manipulating others for their own personal sense of well-being.
Back in reality, what is happening is this: civilizations go to war with one another. One method of war is terrorism, another is refugee-dumping, like Castro did to the USA during the 1980s. We are fools if we accept either, but that is exactly what our politicians and media want us to do.
When Michel Houellebecq hits the news for his new novel, Submission, it makes sense to remember his roots: writing about the tedium of modern life and fleeting glimpses of beauty, truth and purity that tempt people from it. Usually, as tragic characters, they cannot realize that beauty because of their broken psychologies and neuroses.
Houellebecq burst onto the scene in 1997 with Whatever, a cynically humorous book — think Louis-Ferdinand Celine or William Burroughs — about the failure of modern life. Its characters struggle through pointless and boring jobs, alienating sexual relationships and dysfunctional families, all while wandering through a 21st-century dystopian wasteland that is both beautiful in its ruin and crassly plastic in the assumptions through which most people survive.
Two years later came Elementary Particles, a classic postmodern novel — think Thomas Pynchon’s V — where two characters take opposite versions of the same path. Written much about wave/particle duality, as a metaphor for both the fragmentation caused by individualistic society and the soul itself, this novel traces two brothers as they wander through the endless existential pitfalls and career successes of modern France. It defines the West handily: to succeed while feeling empty and never having what one actually needs.
After that, Houellebecq wrote Platform, a book which compared sex tourism with terrorism and found moral and existential emptiness at the root of both, and The Possibility of an Island which examines isolation through immortality while looking at the nature of cults, as the West increasingly begins to resemble one in the book. He followed that with The Map and the Territory which explored the difference between symbol and meaning, in a nudge toward the idea that nations are more than mere boundaries but are formed of a shared idea, feeling and spirit. All of his books center on the same notion, which is that modern Westerners are hopelessly lonely because they have removed themselves from life through layers of abstraction.
The downfall of the illusion started with two important thinkers and a musical movement. Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, wrote a treatise called “Industrial Society and Its Future” in which he identified technology as the primary enemy of humanity, but also illustrated in clear Nietzschean terms the pernicious influence of Leftism and liberalism through their common origin in egalitarianism. He analyzed them through psychology, not ideology, which helped dig deeper toward the source of our decline. Michel Houellebecq wrote a book in 1997 called Whatever that simultaneously revealed the insanity of liberalism, the inanity of today’s style of work, and the empty misery of modern sex lives, also digging into the psychology of modern life rather than taking Leftist ideas at face value. The musical movement of “black metal,” a type of violent, alienated heavy metal, reversed the psychology of rock music which described itself as “good” in order to defend the callow pursuit of individual desires and karmic drama. The rock approach was both hedonistic and based in “protest songs” or declarations of the victimhood of the individual, cruelly forced to submit to social order, standards, values, and anything else which stood in the way of self-gratification, echoing the egalitarian ideal of liberalism.
Black metal turned its back on “good”; it aspired to “evil” and rejected all that was popular, human, and based in the individual in favor of a naturalistic wildness and feral self-interest like one might find in a Jack London novel. Where rock music assuaged the fears of teenagers that they would be inadequate in some Darwinian contest, black metal affirmed the need for war, death, and competition to restore the strength, honesty, and appreciation for natural beauty in humanity. In doing so, it transcended the individual, and while much has been written about its tendencies toward Satanism, the real drive behind the occult leanings of black metal seems to have been a rejection of the moral binary that made people believe that “good” came from flattering individuals with equal validity granted to all their desires. In rock, the individual and the social group become one; in black metal, the social impulse and the individualistic are together rejected. The morally obedient shopkeeper is replaced by the feral and lawless warrior, artist, and adventurer.
These rising ideas came only a few years after Francis Fukuyama penned his famous (and now partially retracted) The End of History and the Last Man, which posited a final evolution of humanity into liberal democracy, state-subsidized consumerism, and multiculturalism. Some conservative writers explicitly rejected this notion, most notably Samuel Huntington with his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he argued that history was very much alive and continuing through conflict between civilizations, which were formed of ethnic, cultural, and moral commonality more than by political and economic ties.
Putting Houellebecq into this context, we see him as one of the steps in the groundwork of ideas that led to the explosion in right-wing thinking that linked nationalism, anti-sexual revolution, anti-modern and anti-consumerist thinking together. This followed the Kaczynski/black metal nexus that linked the right with a more intense form of environmentalism that demands, like the Deep Ecology mission statement, that we re-order our society so that it does not create behaviors that damage the environment, instead of applying the band-aid of regulation and energy efficient appliances that leftist environmentalists like.
Last week’s Spectator carried a piece about Les nouveaux réactionnaires, French intellectuals who reject the culture of 1968 and the politics of multiculturalism. As Patrick Marnham writes:
The new reactionaries are convinced that one of the cornerstones of French culture, ‘freedom of expression’, is dying. They reject ‘post-colonial guilt’ and are appalled by ‘cultural relativism’. To get down to the nitty-gritty, they take the view that France’s sovereignty is under threat from Arab immigration. Europe’s migration crisis has highlighted their fears, and the lip service that President Hollande pays to Angela Merkel’s refugee-quota system — widely unpopular in France — has further aided the reactionaries’ arguments.
The neo-reactionaries don’t appear to be reactionaries as such, just people who have fallen out with the Left over multiculturalism just as neo-conservatives fell out with the Left over Communism. No true reactionary could argue that a “golden age” began in 1789, as the article states – a year that brought about the “regicide state”, in the words of the late Fr Jean-Marie Charles-Roux.
It is for this reason that many of us who read Moldbug do so in the context of Houellebecq, or more appropriately, as a series of libertarian arguments designed to make us see Houellebecq’s point of view. Other movements like The Red Pill started angry but found themselves coming around to Houellebecq’s observations, such as that men are lonely because of a lack of lasting and faithful love. Even the most recent New Right resurgence has a distinctive Houellebecquian tone (that word just broke my spell checker) in that it looks more toward identitarianism as a source of commonality than a pragmatic adaptation of policy.
Like many people who pretend to parle a little francais but get tired after reading a page, I’ve only just now read the newly-translated “Submission,” Michel Houellebecq’s dystopian vision of a near-future French republic that succumbs willingly to a vaguely Tariq Ramadan-esque form of political Islam. When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.
I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory. And I do mean neo-reactionary in the internet-movement, Mencius Moldbug sense of the term (if you aren’t familiar with this particular rabbit hole, good luck): The overt political teaching of “Submission” is that Europe is dying from the disease called liberalism, that it can be saved only by a return of hierarchy and patriarchy and patriotism and religion and probably some kind of monarchy as well, but that religion itself is primarily an instrumental good and so the point is to find a faith that actually convinces and inspires and works (and that’s, well, a little manly), and on that front European Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism is basically a dead letter so the future might as well belong to Islam instead.
Kaczynski saw liberalism as a psychological disease; black metal saw it as moral cowardice; Houellebecq sees it as a spiritual disease (calling to mind one of the greats of Swedish death metal, who composed an album entitled Terminal Spirit Disease). Perhaps all three are right. Perhaps it is simply illogical and dismantling of civilization, which in turn creates the effects of all three as people become the particles adrift of Houellebecq’s second novel. Like Celine’s Journey to the End of the Night, his books feature characters venturing through a society that is on its surface thriving but a few levels deeper as dystopian as Blade Runner. The only movies that come close to portraying this kind of disconnect are Apocalypse Now, Demolition Man and Repo Man which reveal the underlying loneliness of anyone who is awake in a time of sleepwalkers who have bought into whatever political or economic justifications seem to make people feel successful for living in this time. It is why they meet so much resistance: they attack society, true, but more pointedly, they attack our individual illusions of living in a good era, which makes people upset because they rely on those illusions in order to tolerate all of the tedium, parasitism and nonsense.
When François at the beginning of the novel writes that the great majority in Western societies are blinded by avarice and consumerist lust, even more so by the desire to assert themselves, inspired by their idols, athletes, actors and models, unable to see their own lives as they are, utterly devoid of meaning, what he is describing is the function of faith in modern society. The fact that he himself does not possess such faith, that he exists outside of it, within the meaningless, as it were, he explains as follows: “For various psychological reasons that I have neither the skill nor the desire to analyze, I wasn’t that way at all.”
This is the only place in the novel that opens up for the idea that the emptiness and ennui that François feels is not just universal, a kind of existential condition applicable to us all and which most people hide away behind walls of illusion, it may also have individual causes. That is somewhere he doesn’t want to go, and thus a vast and interesting field of tension is set up in the novel, since the narrator is a person who is unable to bond with others, feels no closeness to anyone, not even himself, and moreover understands solitude existentially, that is from a distance, as something general, a universal condition, or as something determined by society, typical of our age, at the same time as he tells us his parents never wanted anything to do with him, that he hardly had any contact with them, and that their deaths are little more than insignificant incidents in his life. Such an understanding, that the ennui and emptiness he feels so strongly are related to his incapacity to feel emotion or establish closeness to others, and that it is difficult, indeed impossible, not to see this as having to do with lifelong rejection, is extraneous to the novel’s universe, since nothing would be remoter to François’s worldview, an intimate model of explanation would be impossible for him to accept, a mere addition to the list of things in which he doesn’t believe: love, politics, psychology, religion.
The point here is that most of us are accustomed to “Systems” like democracy, capitalism, etc. and we tend to see solutions the same way. “Get religion in there!” screams the American Republican. But that, alone, will not do it. Religion is not a system of rules like our regulatory state or EU laws, but a compulsion within the individual to charge life with meaning and thus, want to do good. Similarly we cannot like the Nazis impose Nationalism by rules, but need to come together as a people toward a common idea of positive logic, or what we want to create on an ongoing basis. National identity is like that, as is religion, and also the alertness to life itself that Houellebecq’s characters get a whiff of but can never complete. We must regrow our souls, and this cannot be done externally. It can only be done through vague and amorphous ideas like identity, reverence, and transcendence. We must re-grow the love for life in our souls to see what good is, and through that, to re-animate the corpses of religion, identity and culture.
Houellebecq is not as popular on the internet as those who offer Systems. Moldbug offers us the idea of taking the gated community to the next level and creating libertarian micro-states within the dying realms of the West, but that does not address the internal problem, which is that people have not beaten their internal rottenness. The Orthosphere offers us religious fanaticism informed by history, which beats out the fundamentalist and extremist variants and is mostly right, but not a solution in itself. Cramming people into religion without having their souls ready to come to it will turn religion into an ideology and, as a glance over the alt-right Traditionalist and Catholic blogs show us, has already done so. Even capitalism can become ideological, or externally-imposed as a universal, when designated as The Solution. Those ideas are simpler than the thought of a spiritual revival against disease, and so they win out over Houellebecq on the blogs of the world, but none seem satisfying because ultimately they lack what Houellebecq has given us: a map out of the territory of darkness of the soul by noticing beauty and making ourselves receptive to the possibility of goodness, joy and delight in our world.
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.