Souls

No term sounds less “political” in politics than talk of the human soul. It embarrasses us, like looking at toys from our childhoods. We view it now as a starter concept, the first fumblings of awareness in an attempt to understand our world, and we push it aside with mortification.

And yet the concept persists, simultaneously with the excessive granularity of our “adult” concepts causing them to lead nowhere, which adds some doubt. (Intelligent observers will note that all experiences aside, ice cream in summer is still the best thing in the universe, which is unchanged from childhood as well.)

When we talk about why we dislike modern politics, or modern society at large, one of the first words that comes to mind is “soulless.” It’s hard to find an adjective that encompasses the degree of obedience to utilitarian standards and lack of consideration for the value of experience and pleasure in life.

Oddly enough it is this soullessness that we desired in the first place. Back in 1789 in France, we the people wanted to overthrow the human hierarchy and make us all equal. In doing so, we signed away our souls.

In terms of cause-and-effect scenarios, equality was the cause; the effect is anonymity, which sets off a chain reaction of other effects. First comes the liberal paradise that we are promised, and then, the effects of that paradise demolish any gains it made and begin the process of destroying civilization.

Among other things, equality creates in us a need for control. If we are all equal, we all start out with nothing and only rise to an acceptable level when we have differentiated ourselves. Since only a few can differentiate themselves by ability, this results in the vast majority of people instead looking for social power, which they assert by controlling others either directly (public shaming, guilt or socioeconomic power) or indirectly (social power, covert implication, infantilization). Control is the byproduct of having no hierarchy. Now instead of having a few leaders, we have a vast sea of equal people, each trying to get his head above those of others.

The nature of equality is to reduce all experiences to their lowest common denominator. Not only does it spread resources too thin to concentrate enough for real quality, but it demoralizes those who might exceed the norm. The result is much like a Soviet collective, where each person does the bare minimum because there is no point doing more, and rising above the herd in any form — including doing more — can get the others mobilized against you.

Another way to view this is that an egalitarian society creates a false goal. Instead of having a clear target of what we want to accomplish, we are given a canvas composed only of the social strata. This becomes our target, and the reality of what we do becomes secondary. In other words, if we are all selling the same mediocre product but I come up with an excellent advertising campaign for mine, I get ahead. The new reality is the non-reality of public opinion, which is subject to trends, crazes, moral panics, illusions and fears.

Equality creates a need for us to compensate for the damage done by our equality. No one wants to be a generic person, but since we are now all faceless equals in a city, the only way to rise above is to push others down. You can do this by being outlandish or ironic, or by presenting yourself as a moral guardian of others, or even simply by having something others want, like money or intoxicants. Then you will be an equal above equals.

The real damage done here is to our minds and souls. Control makes us feel powerful. Equality is not powerful. In pushing ourselves above others, we damage the part of us that cares about real goals and replace it with the part that cares about “goals” in changing the minds of others. Money, popularity, democracy.

As this goes on, society separates inside as people are alienated from each other. It always has been this way; human nature has not changed in the past 10,000 years. And while regaining our souls may save our society, this is ultimately a struggle to behave so that we like ourselves again.

73 Comments

  1. crow says:

    There seems to be no content to society, any more.
    I went to town, today, and had dealings with people, which I don’t do very often. What struck me, as always, was the empty, drained feeling that remained afterwards.
    Either people refuse to give anything of themselves, or they actually have nothing of themselves to give.
    I start out optimistic, enthusiastic, cheerful and amiable.
    By the time I crawl back home, I am a depleted shell.
    There’s something terribly wrong with all of this.
    But deciding exactly what it is, is very, very difficult.

    Meanwhile, people buy ‘next-year’s car’, fork out credit for ‘next-generation technology’, and watch videos of ‘the next big star’.

    No wonder people seem not to know what they are, any more, or where they are, or even when they are.
    It’s all a bit shocking, sometimes.

    1. Sun says:

      Did you not get the memo?

      This is the 21st century where materialism and self gratification reigns.

      People are walking products. Shirts marketed with logos. Hats. Sunglasses. And other useless shit to promote an image. An image that they believe makes them individual and unique like “everybody else.”

      The technocrats tell us that technology is bringing people together, when in fact it is driving people apart.

      It takes “effort” to talk to people. “Effort” is not an American virtue. Nice shit is.

      Our instinctual desire is still there to try to be friends with people but we want to do it without effort (and to be social to specific people of interest).

      Facebook comes to mind.

      A “social” network that connects people is it slogan. People befriend dream dates and jealous friends with an ease of click of a button. We are no longer needed to talk to others in real life situations and our social skills start to decline. You involved people without one and it doesn’t give you any real friends.

      Why get a girlfriend when you got porn? Why go out when you can watch TV or play video games? Why date men when you got a career?

      Cars make it worse being a metal bubble that carries people from point A to point B. There only time you’ll ever make eye contact is when your rubbernecking at the car-hit pedestrian or the driver adjacent at the red light.

      Meeting people face to face alerts danger and suspicion as you they never met you. Like a child who starts to find out how ugly the world actually is.

      P.S. Don’t even get me started on the Southern Californian modern post-feminist white woman. Then you will know the true meaning of “depleted shell.”

      1. Ryan says:

        wow, sometimes i can’t handle this stuff, but i know deep down its true and that “freudo-marxist” concept known as psychology wishes to call disillusion “deppression”, which is happily cureable for only 59.99 a pill bottle!

        1. Esotericist says:

          In modern society so many people are depressed, and no one is willing to consider a source outside the individual.

          Living in a failing society which also has no values and as a result endorses venality. That alone will cure you of happiness.

          Freud and Marx are not needed. Liberalism is just selfishness. It comes around every generation in every country. Only sometimes does it get powerful enough to crush a civilization’s soul.

          Obviously, it did in the West a few centuries ago, and yet we fight. Tenacious bastards we are. Thank God(s).

          1. Ryan says:

            thank abraxas!

      2. A. Realist says:

        The thing that most people don’t understand, is that leftism is a social trend.

        People are well-intentioned and lazy, their friends like leftism, and it’s so simple that they can just go along with the crowd and feel good about it.

        This is why it spreads like a disease, or like a social panic like the Salem witch trials. Its victims are innocent in the specific, but in general they are too intellectually lazy to be making political decisions.

        Ancient Europe knew this and so they made sure peasants had no stake in the political process, effectively dis-enfrachiseing almost all of the population.

        When the US started , they wanted to continue this because they knew that the average person was not ready to make these decisions, so they limited voting to landowners which are like today’s rich people.

        1. Actually landowners were in America the majority of the population. The real reason for the distinction is that people of no ownership have no stake in anything, so why should they be trusted with things they have no stake in and can only drain money out of? Things get more complicated in industrial societies where such an easy benchmark as “land ownership” may be hard to find, but I think paying a minimum in taxes is a good start.

          There is also great exaggeration about the power of celebrity culture. As powerful as the news media, the record companies et cetera may be in capital, they are not making money, because no one buys their stuff. Their servants blame it on illegal downloading or what not, as they must to save their own necks, but the reality is that these businesses never made most of their money on that. And it’s been this way for a long time – the newspapers stopped making money in the 70′s, the record companies the 90′s. The “celebrity culture” that we’re all “addicted” to does not seem to be a very powerful addiction.

          Instead we’re just left with a few either imbeciles or psychotic megalomaniacs (most likely the second – even imbeciles eventually learn) in charge of all this capital that drives prices down and prevents expansion of crucial sectors that are a major part of our culture – sort of like all those unprofitable steel mills that the Chinese keep open even though they’re losing billions of RMB a year and selling their steel for less then it costs to make it, only at least steel isn’t a major part of your national society.

    2. Esotericist says:

      How can there be content? It would violate our need for every opinion to be valid. That leaves only the blandly inoffensive and the “shocking,” usually of a sexual nature, which is justified as defending our rights.

      1. crow says:

        Ah yes. Silly me. And here I was, hoping for ‘content’.
        Like those parties we used to go to in our misspent youth: ‘BYOB’.
        In later years there is no party, but still you have to ‘BYOC’.

        Great comment, Sun.
        Intense, or what?
        Enjoyable (:>

        1. Sun says:

          Well, I aim to impress.

          I glad that you got some satisfaction from my horribly written gibe with a failed attempt of sounding somewhat intellectual and above the rest.

        2. Ryan says:

          “BYOC”, what is that C sir, i mean bird?

          1. crow says:

            Bring Your Own Content, Ryan, old chap.
            Elementary, what?

            1. Ryan says:

              ah i see, content yes i thought it was like car or can opener and then even cat for some reason.

              1. A. Realist says:

                Bring Your Own Crow?

                1. crow says:

                  Very droll.
                  But how many people could actually provide one?
                  Pretty dull party, eh?

  2. Sun says:

    What is interesting is the moral supremacy that most egalitarians have.

    Everyone engages in it.

    The Leftist garners this innate moral superiority by rationalizing that a person who engages in supremacy only does so, out of deep seated insecurity and lack of self worth. And so, the Leftist develops his own self worth by lambasting the faults of others.

    “We are all equal,” cries the Leftist. “However, some of us are more equal then others.”

    1. Sun says:

      I would go as far as to say “innate (maybe ‘subconscious’ a better word then ‘innate’)” intellectual superiority” as well but who is counting…

    2. Esotericist says:

      The whole point of leftism is that it is a way to be more equal than other people while destroying them by forcing them to be equal.

      1. Ryan says:

        you’ve got it exactly sir, i wish i could shake your hand! that belongs in the dictionary!

      2. Sun says:

        Well the “right” is bad as well.

        At lest the right is forthcoming and direct about it, which is to say–the lest–is in a way more tolerable then the left pretending that they do not engage in such practice.

        But alas, I am hate the simplistic and binary political spectrum society has made.

        Also, I do not think they they do it on purpose [with any knowledge of what they are doing. Rather a certain case of intellectual stupidity--cognitive dissonance from reality and progressive mind in only abstract thought], but rather their egalitarian principles (and other stringent political views) mask a bedrock for a moral/intellectual superiority over others who don’t share his or her views–the left’s “elite snobbery,” if you will.

        Or as Mr. Condell put it so poetically, “Middle Class Left Wing Pricks.”

        1. A. Realist says:

          The problem with the right is that they rely on Social Darwinism and “freedom” to sort out problems. I think the leftists are right in that we should use government regulation, and that rules like “do whatever you want in your house or car” are non-sense. The problem with the leftists isn’t their method however it’s their goal, which is hopelessly two-faced since its putative object is individual equal validity or “equal freedom.” However its actual goal is destruction of social standards so the individual experiences total permissiveness. This is like relativism, an escape from the requirement for validity at all. In turn that eliminates any commonality of values among the members of that society at all, so it falls apart.

      3. A. Realist says:

        Who needs equality? Those who aren’t able to function above the minimum norm.

        Who gets punished by equality? Those who have risen above this minimum.

        What’s the end result? We all regress to the mean and it is the minimum, which gets lower every generation.

        Eventually it is Russia in 1991 or pre-Napoleonic France and the society falls apart and the dictators take over.

        Leftists are like angry children who want permissiveness to pursue the means of their own self-destruction.

    3. I don’t think Leftists really believe in equality. I think many things Leftists say are just covering their behind for all the things they used to support that they no longer do and the giant political coalition that they have to keep together even though they no longer serve 75% of its members. Since Leftists essentially brainwash each other, they can do something like that.

  3. Oznoto says:

    Of my experience: “Equality is the greatest insult to nature ever hurled by an ideologue”, “Quality and quantity run at equal and opposite proportions to each other”, and “Modernity is not only soulless but soul-destroying”. On this I think we agree.

    However, some of you forget that we abandoned royalty for a reason. When royalty is hereditary it tends to degenerate from inbreeding and becomes perverse, and the “nobles” lose their virtues and become vile. Such was the case in pre-revolutionary France.

    That the French revolution was a disaster is beyond disputandem, but a return to Royal Rule would be a return to the past, which history has proven impossible.

    1. Esotericist says:

      This reminds me of things they told us in school. I can’t agree. We know a return to the past is not only possible but inevitable, since when societies collapse they return to a state of anarchy. We also know that not all royalty were inbred and a few inbred kings did much less damage than only 100 years of democracy.

      1. Oznoto says:

        When societies collapse, they do not return – but proceed, to a state of anarchy; going backwards is impossible. Yes, it is possible that a few inbred kings did less damage than 100 years of mob rule, but I still favor a meritocracy of some sort. Unless a man can by his abilities and virtues rise up out of his humble circumstances, the seeds of revolution will exist. That’s why a hereditary caste system fails. However, I think overbreeding of herdish masses and medical technology that ensures the survival of the unfit is the real culprit here. There’s nothing wrong here that a global geological cataclysm wouldn’t cure.

        1. crow says:

          True, you can never ‘go back’, but you can always start over.
          There are methods common to any course, but the possible outcomes are limitless.
          Maybe, at some point, humans will stumble across something that works.
          Then again, maybe not.

        2. ferret says:

          “I think overbreeding of herdish masses and medical technology that ensures the survival of the unfit is the real culprit here.”

          Medical technology is causing the accumulation of genetic defects that will lead to the specie being unable to sustain. At that point the majority will die out. This will fight the overpopulation, though not so nicely as it could be if people were a bit more rational.

          1. Cantillon says:

            It might be a mistake to expect too much from genetic research. Height is one of the most heritable traits, yet we can’t explain most of its variation using knowledge of all the genes found to influence height.

            1. ferret says:

              It’s not about the genetic research.
              My point was, people that died before from a bad mutation, now can reproduce giving these broken genes to their children. One day there will be too much problems for the medicine to resolve, and the majority of people, those with so many problems, could not reproduce anymore.

      2. ferret says:

        “…kings did much less damage than only 100 years of democracy.”

        But kings allowed the revolutions to happen. They are responsible for all we have.

        Russian communists joked: “Nikolay the Second should be awarded for creating the revolution situation”.

        1. crow says:

          There’s something very odd about the ‘Posthumous Award”.
          Still, Russians only joke about it.
          While Westerners take it seriously.

        2. I can’t agree here. The rising population of proles was what caused the problem. The kings had a simple task before them: either kill half the population, or face revolution. They did not want to harm their people and so were destroyed.

          1. ferret says:

            They did not want to care about their people, educate them, and so were destroyed.

            And this situation will repeat itself until the government becomes monatchy, or aristocracy, or polity, or whatever different from a group self-interest type. There should be a aproach to the society as a whole system.

            1. I’m an esotericist, so I have to disagree categorically here.

              You cannot educate someone of IQ 95 into being someone with IQ of 115.

              You can propagandize that person, but there is no guarantee they will hold loyal to the propaganda.

              All you do by educating proles is give them more reasons to deceive themselves.

              http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf

              1. ferret says:

                “You cannot educate someone of IQ 95 into being someone with IQ of 115.”

                It is impossible because if we educate people, and the process of education improves cognitive abilities, it would not affect the measured IQ because it is scaled for the average 100.

                The IQ of proles are not equal. It follows the Gaussian distribution curve, which is symmetric. That means, if the average is 100, half of the population has IQ>=100. That means, half of the population is intelligent enough to understand simply articulated right ideas and thus to be your friends.
                Another half of the population with IQ<100 is partially able to understand simple things based on the common sense. But, at least something!

                I believe, at least 75% of the population can understand and support right ideas. Those, who don't understand, but get it only on the propaganda level, are better to be with you anyway. You don't need enemies. No matter what the percentage is, the many supportive people you have, the better. That means, right education can only help.

                Thanks for the link, it looks interesting and will take me some time to read; though, on the first glance, there is no strong correlation between the ability to learn and undestand new stuff and the inability to recognize one's incompetence.

                "All you do by educating proles is give them more reasons to deceive themselves."

                I will comment on this after reading the study.

                1. ferret says:

                  I have read this ‘Unskilled and unaware’ article.
                  My comment would be too long to be posted here; so I don’t comment. If you need my opinion for whatever reason, you can email me.
                  Thanks again for the link.

              2. The even bigger problem then IQ is passion. The reality is that thinking is hard, is emotionally dangerous, and is draining. Not everyone WANTS to do it. Even if you have the IQ to be a great genius, if you lack the passion, care, or at least tough attitude to make that thought meaningful, then you too will fail, and you too will get nothing out of education. On average, achievement actually tends to peak around 130 on the IQ scale, and one theory for that is that high IQ people usually don’t have enough problems in their life to develop that attitude. Steven Hawking in particular did not amount to much until illness struck him down, nor did MacArthur until he was beat up at West Texas Military Academy for being a mamas boy – maybe there’s a lot of truth to what they say about wrestling with God.

          2. ferret says:

            Normal people educate even their dogs to enjoy them rather than to have a lot of problem.

            1. crow says:

              Haha :)
              There’s a disarmingly simple, yet profound observation!

              1. ferret says:

                There is another on of this sort that fits the situation:

                If one washes only his noble head, he ends up with the pain in the ass.

                1. I think you’re missing the point here:

                  It was by taking care of the proles that the aristocrats conveyed themselves to doom.

                  Prole-rule has never worked.

                  1. ferret says:

                    My point is so simple:

                    I wash my entire body in order to keep healthy only, not for my ass to tell me what to do next.

                    To take care of the proles does not mean to allow them to rule.

          3. ferret says:

            Educated people breed much less.

            1. Oznoto says:

              Guilty as charged. Well educated, multi-lingual, high IQ, and no children, by choice.

              Brett really seems to have it in for the proles, even the intelligent and capable ones who wish to rise by their abilities out of their ignorance and poverty.

              That seems rather mean spirited and anti-meritocratic to me.

              1. crow says:

                Anything approximating clarity-of-vision seems mean-spirited, in this current age of anything-goes.
                Brett has a clear-vision. It can’t be individually tailored to every individual. Nor does it condemn any who do not measure up. It condemns only those who can’t be bothered even to try to contribute anything to their society, during their lifetimes.

                1. ferret says:

                  “It condemns only those who can’t be bothered even to try to contribute anything to their society, during their lifetimes.”

                  Most of people in the USA are nurtured and educated so (see the link below). What is better to do with them:
                  a) Build a high fence and don’t allow them in;
                  b) Educate to make them patriots of their country;
                  c) Consume them as biofuel (go green).

                  Do I need a clear-vision to make a choice?

                  And where that proles or not, who did and still doing this:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUU7cjfcdM

                  1. crow says:

                    You need clear vision to make any choice.
                    But you first need clear vision to understand the need for it.

                    1. ferret says:

                      A person with clear vision sees no choice: clear vision frees from illusions.

                    2. crow says:

                      There are always choices. Good ones, bad ones, smart ones, stupid ones. Only programmed robots see no choices. Humans have the inherent, built-in luxury of being able to “fuck-up in spades”.
                      Thus clear vision is a useful attribute.
                      If you do choose to “fuck-up in spades”, it was a choice, made available to you by clarity of vision.
                      What a dumb discussion :)

                  2. Ryan says:

                    i enjoyed the link mr. rodent!

                    1. ferret says:

                      Our consumerist future is garantied. Scary video.
                      Ryan, I’ve picked this name ‘ferret’ exclusivelly in order to please Crow. He was complaining about the lack of animals in this deeply ecological forum. He felt lonely.
                      My real name is Kirill which has couple of meanings: “Sun”, “King”, and the like; all sounding rather pompous. And it’s so annoing to getting constantly ‘Krill’ thanks to the autospeller!
                      You see, this ‘ferret’ isn’t due to the lack of respect to others. If you still find the idea of talking to an animal offending, you can call me Kirill. :)

                    2. Ryan says:

                      ferret is good, I thinking i might go by “turkey”, but i prefer my own name as it is rather symbolic of the “me” generation, it is a crude gaelic translation of RI-meaning “king” ,and “AN”- meaning “little”. with millions of ryans running about, (even non-white ryans, completely ignorant of the meaning) all stroking the vanities endlessly. we can see the mentality of the baby boomers who’s children were “little kings”.

                    3. Ted Swanson says:

                      I chose the name Ted in honor of my Great Grandpa!

                      SQUAWK!
                      (:>

                    4. crow says:

                      But did you choose the name “Son-of-Swan”?
                      I think, maybe, it chose you (:>

      3. Cantillon says:

        I was reading an old-fashioned systematic study of royal bloodlines in Europe. It found that inbreeding as such did not necessarily lead to problems. It was only inbreeding where there already existed an inherited ‘taint’. People forget that although there are costs to inbreeding, there are also benefits in being able to concentrate certain rare combinations of particular traits and talents otherwise scarce in the population within one family.

        1. ferret says:

          You are right, inbreeding makes the standard deviation of the distribution curve wider symmetrically, i.e., more idiots and more genius are born.
          Perhaps, an idiot hurts more than a genius helps.

          1. Perhaps blaming the aristocracy is just more liberal propaganda, which given that (a) liberals indulge in it and (b) everything they say is lies, is the most likely truth.

            1. ferret says:

              Impressive…

    2. Cantillon says:

      History has its cyclical aspect, and old forms never entirely disappear. But of course old forms are not likely to repeat themselves exactly either. It seems plausible enough that were we to see a withering away of the state at some point in several decades time (we have lately seen a hint of how this might happen, although I think the real thing will not happen very soon) other modes of governance might rise to take its place. One positive result of the concentration of wealth in the US might be the creation of a new aristocracy. For now, the problem is that they mostly feel utterly disconnected from the great mass of Americans. But one might imagine a spiritual awakening of sorts in the turbulent years ahead, and history tells us that attitudes can shift a great deal in some quite surprising ways.

      1. ferret says:

        “concentration of wealth in the US might be the creation of a new aristocracy.”

        Aristocracy is created by spirituality and education in many generations.
        Money creates oligarchy; one generation is sufficient for that.

        Give me a lot of money – I will be a fat ferret. Maybe with a title.

        “For now, the problem is that they mostly feel utterly disconnected from the great mass of Americans.”

        They feel nothing, and also they believe that high standard of living is all they need. They have no idea about the quality of live. They don’t understand the quality of life is the goal. Until they do, there will be no surprises, I think.

    3. Ryan says:

      machiavelli was famous for saying that, (and i clearly am paraphrasing, so please mock me if i butcher his meaning) it is not important what type of governance is in place, that is only important to the “proles” or the “half-witted”, while DURATION is the true goal of statecraft. the duration of a regime is the SOLE importance. so if nations are essentially ideas (which they are, and i want to argue so yell at me if im wrong) and once the idea is dead so is the nation. a soverign individual is not important, a king is no different than a “big man” or a “helmsman”, or whatever else they think of to seem legitimate to the halfwits. what made stalin so successful and more importantly endearing to his people was his careful use of ideas to foster nationalism. see the idea of a “proposition nation” is good for the current regime since it legitimizes them to the replacement immigrants (but can as we know, alienate some).

    4. Meh. I think Britains royalty has generally done very well, and far from this monotonic degeneration from previous greatness at Victoria you saw major improvement, and certainly Elizabeth is an improvement over Edward!

      The real problem with monarchy in a country like the United States (notice how I said that) is there are two fundamentally different kinds of countries, and America and Britain lie at opposite sides of this distinction: the tribe-writ-large and the empire-writ-modern. All nations are essentially tribes or empires. Britain is a tribe, America is an empire. The only time an empire ever does well under a monarchy is when it is ruled by a tribe for the tribe, and when America broke away that was no longer the truth. It also ceased being the truth in Ottoman Turkey when the Greeks and Balkan peoples became major drivers of the nation economically, and in the end the Ottoman Empire did not survive this contradiction of a system developed for a tribe failing for an empire and instead entered a long and painful death.

      The United States, as an empire, does not have the family connection to make a monarch anything more then a dictator, and like all dictatorships would fall whenever the political winds blew the other way, much as the Kingdom of Hawaii did when American settlers arrived, or as China has with every single one of its kingdoms, gradually corrupting its own nature trying with all its effort to make a system work that can’t. Instead the United States has the shared vision of conquerors, philosophers, and achievers, and this is best represented with a reasonably free and democratic Republic. Over time, China too may realize this.

  4. ferret says:

    “only a few can differentiate themselves…”

    Just an old stupid joke:
    A guy in a mental hospital is running and yelling: “I will differentiate you, all of you!”
    All are running away except the guy reading a book. The nurce asked him: “Why are you not scared?” – “Because I’m e^x”

    1. crow says:

      Hmmm…
      Maybe because I am not a Russian, I confess, I don’t ‘get it’.

      1. ferret says:

        e^x is the exponential function that does not change when you differentiate it (get its derivative). It’s not a national trait of this function: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

        1. Ryan says:

          ah once again the cold space of the internet claims another joke, with its cold type.

          1. crow says:

            It’s acceptable to lose a few jokes, along the way, on the internet. There’s plenty more where they came from.

          2. ferret says:

            “cold space of the internet”

            It can be warm if you talk to people rather than the Internet.

    2. +1. You horrible, horrible man… :(

  5. My only criticism of this article is that I’m not sure anyone really goes for that. I know liberals talk about equality, but do they really care about it? I think limousine liberals are the biggest elitists of them all, not even caring about proper equality of truth and the law, and the only reason they’re not Red Tories is because they’re commercial rich and the Red Tories didn’t invite them and consider them peasants with money anyways. The non-limousine liberals are mostly just their illiterate stooges and get treated as such, controlled in certain ways and made useful. There are some in the conservative movement who care about LEGAL EQUALITY, your Sarah Palin type Right Populist, but egalitarianism in the largest sense escapes even that type as a priority. They see equality as merely meaning stamping out injustice, and do not take it any further. There are also left-populists, who are really just paranoid scared rabbits screaming for help and willing to bend over for anyone who will give it or seem to and get exploited as one would expect, yet another set of liberal stooges.

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 1.314 seconds