The end of the age of binaries

ruins_of_a_once-great_empireWhat do we really expect from our news media? They are people who ask questions. Others answer those questions, as they see fit. These answers often have nothing to do with reality.

News media also must sell their news-entertainment product, so they chase after the biggest stories they can find. They are rewarded for getting their first and bringing it “to the attention of the public,” and only secondarily for getting the details right. They are not rewarded at all for unpopular or complex topics, or worse, unpopular complex topics.

Does that mean I should trust the media to tell me the truth? That’s a binary question: I can answer yes or no, or duck out of the question with “I don’t know” or inexact terms like “sometimes.” Ducking this question is the correct answer because the question is framed as a binary.

We are in the grips of a narrative, which is a story that we tell about ourselves that explains how we are good and right, that has held us for the last 224 years at least. It is a binary: it is the story of the oppressive natural majority and their ways versus the rights of the minority group, which includes any individual who is not happy with the way the majority does things, or even how things are going.

All of our movies emphasize “the little guys” joining hands to take down the big guys. At first it was kings, then Hitlers, now it’s corporations. All of our news articles emphasize the individual opposed by restrictions imposed by the rest of us or by reality itself. Rebellion is seen as an act of honor, goodness and mercy.

Yet none of these rebellions actually solve problems. They generate drama, and make us think kindly of one or more people, but they don’t end the situation described. They may take out one or more bad actors, but those are immediately replaced. The war never ends. The revolution never ended and never will, if they can help it.

One of these narratives is majority versus minority in terms of race, ethnicity and culture. The first blood of the French Revolution was barely dry before the revolutionaries started calling for “internationalism,” or that we would abolish all borders and everyone can go wherever they want. (It took the revolutionaries another century to realize that they would need to demand welfare as well, because the real limiting factor on travel was cost.)

Internationalism lives on as multiculturalism, which itself is a form of pluralism, which is basically “everyone do what they want.” Pluralism is expressed through tolerance of different points of view, and basically says we live and let live. The only casualty is any kind of social standard, and the higher standards die first. it’s a race to the bottom.

Pluralism is such a brilliant sleight of hand that useless people have invented it in every society, culture and small group known to human kind. Basically, such individuals want zero oversight; they want to do whatever they want and to have other people be forced to put up with their laziness or other dysfunction.

The only way to “sell” this type of idea to other people is to demand it for everyone. Soon you have a mob chanting for pluralism, but what they really mean is that they want to destroy the majority and destroy the idea of common social standards and values. They want personal anarchy, but others to keep civilization going so they can enjoy it.

In many ways, this was the greatest sales job in history. People who wanted anarchy and were willing to band together to demand it, or Crowdists, sold others on the idea. Those others then would object loudly if anyone tried to stop them, on the grounds that they were “peaceful” (which has nothing to do with the consequences of one’s actions) and being “oppressed.” Victimhood quickly became a weapon.

With it, this sales job brought a history permanent trapped in binary thinking. Yes/no; good/bad; majority/minority. However, this model is cracking because it was never realistic. It was created as a marketing jag to convince the useful idiots of the world that there was one enemy, and banding together to destroy it would fix all problems.

If you’ve read the ancient tales of the scapegoat, which was a sacrificial goat into which a community cast its own evils and doubts and then murdered it, or the witch hunts and lynch mobs of the last few centuries, you know exactly what this is. “Everybody gang up on the big guy, and then we can do whatever we want!”

As a result, anyone who was not wholly with the majority was free to join the revolution. At first it was only ethnic minorities, homosexuals and drug users. But the franchise increased to the point where even non-conformists and hipsters could join. The revolution snowballed.

But this coalition had a fragile point: it only worked so long as everyone saw themselves as unified in opposition to the majority. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? But this is now obsolete, because the consequence of pluralism is that society fragments into infinite groups, and by the nature of having fragmented, they don’t agree with the others.

For example, our nation’s prisons segregate inmates by race to reduce violence. It’s not just the white people who cause problems. It’s every group representing its interests against every other group. This destroys the idea of a common ground and goal. It’s take what you can, and give nothing back.

The same thing is true of our economy. The Civil Rights Commission recently released a report revealing that amnesty for Hispanics would disproportionately harm African-Americans. Shocking new — we’re replacing one group with another. The old game was blacks versus whites. The new game is every group against every other group.

With this illusion, two centuries of promises die. But that’s how it always is with advertising, isn’t it? It’s only after the warranty runs out that you realize you’ve been sold an illusion. And then, no one will pay to fix it but you, and you’ll pay a lot more than if you’d just left it alone (don’t fix it if it ain’t broke) in the first place.

11 Comments

  1. Ted Swanson says:

    Yep, it’s always funny when these various factions bump into each other and have no recourse to the majority scapegoat. I suppose you could call these “naked lunch” moments.

    1. Been thinking a lot about those moments of late. Specifically, how this movie came out as the book was being written. Can’t help but have been an influence.

  2. Vigilance says:

    Liberalism was bound to fail because it is only an anti-religion. Inverting the values of pre-enlightenment society wasn’t a great revolution in thought. it wasn’t the result of new ideas. Being wholly reactionary in nature, it never had potential to accomplish a single positive goal from the inception.

    1. Liberalism is based in revolution, or finding some “oppressor” to blame for a perpetual status of “victimhood,” but it has no idea what it would do when it gains power, which is why the last 200 years have run out on us.

      1. Vigilance says:

        The bottom line is that humanity is exactly as liberalism says it is and it is not everything liberalism says it can be. Experiments in imposing this theory onto humanity have been abysmal. The truth is, there is no word to describe the mass of graves beneath their feet.

    2. Liberalism is a cult of hatred. That is why when it does gain power, it turns on itself.

  3. Meow Mix says:

    I remember reading an article some time ago about a group of bisexuals complaining that they had been kicked out of an all-gay swimming club simply because they were bi. The homosexuals attacked them on the basis that they weren’t ‘really’ gay and that they could be turncoats on the ‘gay community’ at any minute. Likewise, the bi crowd received little love from the straights, who confusingly consider them gays in denial. Meanwhile, the most oppressed of all oppressed groups, the blacks of course, are some of the most viciously homophobic of them all.

    This is the circus of idiocy the left has given us: they wanted to raise these oppressed groups up with identity politics and feel good diversity and what do these groups do as soon as they have power? Attack other groups of course, and try to dominate over the others.

    We on the right knew this would happen. We knew that feminism wouldn’t bring equality, but rather a war against men. We knew that multiculturalism wouldn’t bring equality, but race war.

    I fear not though. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Give the left exactly what they want and watch them self-implode. They want diversity? Give them more. They want socialism? Give them more. The leftists hate people like Ann Coulter and Thomas Sowell precisely because they are the perversion of their very dream world: emancipated ‘victims’ who turn into rightwing oppressors.

    It’s a lot of fun to watch, like the crumbling worker’s paradise in North Korea or any of the other leftwing failures.

    1. It’s the nature of pluralism itself. When there is no standard, all there is will be constant fighting over what the standard should be. It’s like being caught in an endless planning committee meeting.

    2. Ted Swanson says:

      Gosh, who knew there was so much intrigue and Machiavellian scheming down at the all-gay swim club!?

      1. RiverC says:

        Gay perhaps, but not very gay after all.

      2. You know how women are catty? Add the aggression of men to that cattiness.

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.894 seconds