Displacement

People think of the world through a one-way filter in which whatever they want is most important, and everything else comes secondary.

As a result they are blind, deaf and dumb to the thought that the increase in their “rights” — a marketing term, like “maintenance-free” — will also displace someone else’s right to something beyond the individual.

For example, many of us would like a return to an America from a healthier time. Nuclear families, socially conservative values, a world presence that reflected a moral not political goal field, and generally quiet living.

As one pundit put it, “More Mayberry, and less Gotham.” Say no to the dystopia pre-apocalyptic wasteland, and embrace the boring and stable society that was like a canvas for us to create vivid lives within.

The modern leftist — no, it’s at a lower level than leftism. The modern hive-mind lynch mob popularity herd wants to obliterate any discussion except that which gives more things to the individual.

These people want the individual to make choices without oversight, for self-gratification only, without regard to consequences beyond a narrow legal sense. This gives the individual ultimate freedom.

However, this assumes that the individual needs the option to do just about anything. The fact is that most people do similar stuff, as they have for centuries, because that stuff is a reasonable adaptation to the demands of being human.

The freedom we want is the ability to have families, live well, learn from life and develop ourselves.

The crowd fools us into thinking that, in the name of the 0.10% of people with anomalous needs, we need absolute freedom so that we can feel like our lives have possibility.

In reality, we don’t need any of that, and most of us will move away from people exercising “freedom” in ways that conflict with our biological and social roles.

There’s an argument that we need liberty, which is non-interference by people who know less than we do about what we’re doing, but that mostly requires getting parasites off our backs. Bureaucrats, unions, nannies, anti-smoking activists.

In the name of freedom the modern hive-mind sends us on a one way street toward more permissiveness, fewer standards, and less social organization. This displaces those of us who see our lifestyle as contingent upon a stable civilization that supports our values system.

Imagine two people. One wants a society where the individual can do anything. The other wants a society where the individual gives up unnecessary possibilities in exchange for a stable life so that the individual can get to know himself/herself, and grow in the most important ways, which are all internal and occur through nothing more complex than meditation, prayer, idle moment woolgathering, you name it.

These two people are incompatible. If either gets what he or she wants, that will displace what the other person wants. Our society accepts the one-way road to permissiveness, so we’re accustomed to see the first person’s demands as rational and the second person’s demand as fascist and evil.

While our government and liberal media spend their time chasing after various tiny groups to make sure that their rights are represented and tax dollars spent on sustaining them, middle America has a different agenda.

These are the people who keep our nation strong. They lead at their jobs and in having stable families. People look up to them.

Their idea is something like this: they will “tolerate” another person’s desire for a permissive society. But not everywhere. Middle America still wants its Mayberries for itself because that’s what it likes.

Its goal is not to exclude others, but to exclude itself. Let others have their permissive and exciting world. Middle America wants its quiet existence.

However, it has been displaced by the notion that only more permissiveness is moral, fair and acceptable. As middle America realizes that “tolerance” is a keyword for its own elimination, watch this oblivious attitude get replaced by a strong vigilance.

16 Comments

  1. Mojo says:

    “Imagine two people. One wants a society where the individual can do anything. The other wants a society where the individual gives up unnecessary possibilities in exchange for a stable life so that the individual can get to know himself/herself, and grow in the most important ways, which are all internal and occur through nothing more complex than meditation, prayer, idle moment woolgathering, you name it.”

    In the first person’s utopia, they may both live as they please. The first person who lives hedonistically does not erect any barriers to the second living virtuously.

    In the second, only the second may live as he pleases. They are both forced into virtue, which means it was not chosen, consequently, it is a false virtue, as it has never been tested by vice.

    Seems that one’s ideal society displacing another’s rights works the OTHER way to that which you suggest.

    1. .. Er.. Nope.

      Universalisation of permissiveness through state action means y’all are wrong, and have already been proved so.

      Enforced tolerance of other other peoples and social deviants – The state-sanctioned safe passage of Little Rock Nine’s into formerly homogenous and safe communities – Makes cultural stability and hierarchy impossibility as the lowest common denominators and their destructive actions are protected as sacred “rights.”

      You are ignoring the undeniable biological fact that the individual is part of a whole, and hedonistic, self destructive actions they take affect the whole adversely.

      They can, if they really want to – But if they aren’t kicked out for doing so, then the floodgates are opened and Sleepytown, USA becomes a wasteland of narcissists.

      If you tolerate one self-destructive nutter putting themselves before society, then the branching nature of personal choice leads you to tolerate every nutter until you step back from the brink and admit wrongness.

      In reference to your “never been tested by vice” fallacy; I guess my virtue of living peacably isn’t really virtuous as I’ve never been tempted by declaring war on my well rounded and peaceable neighbours.

      1. You are ignoring the undeniable biological fact that the individual is part of a whole, and hedonistic, self destructive actions they take affect the whole adversely.

        On the nose.

        Individual actions in a group define the direction in which the group moves and what behaviors will be rewarded.

        Permissives hide behind “you can do whatever you want, you have equal freedom” as a way of denying this obvious fact.

      2. Ted Swanson says:

        I knew Buttercup was a keeper!

        1. crow says:

          He wasn’t until Amerika cured his depression :)
          Now he’s Born Again!
          Well done, all of us.

          1. D’Awww.

            Interestingly enough one of my followers commented on a reblog of me a while back.

            “Welp, it took me a week to unrustle my jimmies and I’m back to reading Amerika et al”

            That’s nice, that’s good

    2. In the first person’s utopia, they may both live as they please.

      No, because “living as they please” includes having a society that supports that choice and provides them with similar-minded others so they can socialize, breed, etc.

    3. EvilBuzzard says:

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

      An interesting article on Libertarian Morality. May help you figure out what at least one of those two utopias would be like.

  2. Missy says:

    It can’t be happily sorted out. Let’s divide up into two countries – one liberal, the other traditional. Then watch the ensuing fun over there in La La Land.

  3. crow says:

    Again, it’s all about context. The background against which a life is lived, like the wall behind the frame that displays the painting. The room that frames the wall, the house that frames the room…
    Remove God, and that’s the end of context.
    Remove tradition, and it gets even worse.
    Remove any inclination for people to consider each other, and you get…
    Modern America.
    A place where everything it claims to stand for, it doesn’t stand for at all.
    A place of as-if, but actually not-at-all.
    Along with every other society that emulates it.

    It looks like a job for Superman!

    1. I think it’s essential to have something larger than the self. If people insist on remaining atheistic, that can be a transcendent nature worship but it must be reality-based and transcend the individual. When we think of ourselves as the goals, and everything else as the means, we do nothing but destroy. As you say, it’s all context.

      1. crow says:

        Agreed. Essential.
        “Transcendent nature worship” is really the only real worship there is: all religions take that and warp it to some degree or other.
        When men set themselves up as the be-all and end-all, you get what we have: a big, dysfunctional mess.

      2. Anon says:

        It’s telling how the true thinkers all arrive at this type of thinking at some point or other.

        The problem for atheist is that many of them are atheists precisely because they detest the concept of “outside-of-self”, or even worse, “bigger-than-self”.

  4. EvilBuzzard says:

    A right stops being a legitimate right when it involves helping yourself to someone else’s time, labor or property. We used to understand that in the US, then we got The New Deal and The Great Society. You gotta’ share the wealth, Brett. (Especially if it’s someone else’s).

    1. I agree. To some degree, there will be taking (taxes) and there will be requirements that time be spent on shared social function. But back in the day, it was like working together through a consensus of values toward a common goal in maintaining and growing the community. That gives back after anything is taken. Today, they take the money and hurl it into these Great Society programs, and it vanishes, leaving poverty and dysfunction in its wake.

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        The Income Tax was always a Progressive agenda point in the late 19th Century for that very reason. They understood barriers would be broken and concepts altered if they could slip that one in. William Jennings Bryan was a big reason the income tax became part of the American Way.

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 0.878 seconds