No, that’s not a typo.
But neither is it correct.
And it certainly isn’t politically correct.
To focus too much on the social, is to become schizophrenic.
To replace life with milling throngs of people and people-stuff, is to leave being human
behind, and to start down a road to nowhere very good.
I often like to refer to myself as Piltdown Man. As opposed to Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, Homo-Sapiens, Erectus, or anything else. Whenever I am not Piltdown Man, I am a crow. And this suits me fine. As if defining myself was important anyway. I am what I am. A total mystery to others, but not so much a mystery to myself.
Ironically, though, Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraud. There was only the one example. Lauded as the Missing Link, it turned out to be no such thing, merely a clever prank. Oh well. Or perhaps, as I prefer to look at it, that the actual Piltdown Man has yet to be discovered, because he never really died, having discovered the secret of eternal life, and thereby leaving nothing for – ah – humans, to dig up…
Socialschism.
What happens when reality is disregarded, and the eye focuses down to one rather minor aspect of life, to the exclusion of all else. Gone is life, in all its mysterious and engaging glory. Leaving only the uber-mundane quasi-reality of what I think of you and what you think of me.
The leaving-behind of being, in favour of acting-as-if. The judging judge that judges others, while providing carte-blanche for itself. My goodness. Life-not.
So it is time for a revealing new word to appear in our decaying language. One that refers to something that – unsurprisingly – has long been misnamed, like all things socialist, to make it appear the exact opposite of what it actually is:
Socialschism.
The splitting-off from life, into a quagmire of childish nitpicking, pettiness, tit-for-tat and retaliation. The never-ending childhood-gone-wrong. The antidote to inconvenient adulthood. The retrograde progression towards infancy. Infantilism, in fact, but on steroids.
There are other words suggested by this root term. None of them good.
Socialskiving: where one ignores one’s responsibilities in favour of skiving-off while the mouth jabbers on about nothing of consequence.
Social-Schislls: the ability to become socially schizoid as well as, or better than, anybody else in the room.
Schizophrenik: the end result of reading too much importance into people, and the stuff that people do. And the unintended result, to leftists, of reading Amerika, and completely failing to understand it.
Maybe it’s time for Piltdown Man to finally assert himself, and take his destined place in human evolution. To save humanity from humanity. The missing link that gets to do it differently, and evolves in its own, separate, Piltdown way, towards a quite different result.
Had enough of Homo-Sociopathens? Who could blame you? I therefore invite you to join me on a completely different evolutionary path, as, you guessed it:
Piltdown Men!
45 queries. 1.039 seconds
[...] Amerika — Socialschism [...]
Social schism is beneficial if you fear competition. When society breaks down, you can do whatever you want and no one will point out that you’re selfish or stupid. What kind of person needs that reassurance? Several groups, I think. Neurotic foreigners, starting with Catholics and Jews; neurotic domestics, starting with the upper-crust blue bloods who don’t own their own law firms; abused children; drugs and drink addicts; homosexuals and other deviants; last but not least, any later immigrants. And the young, who are just clueless and bluffing about it. That’s your group of Democrats, liberals, progressives, and leftists. They are the disenchanted drop-outs who are so afraid of society they’d rather destroy it than fix it.
Good points. It’s all fear-based.
I remember, as a child, an MP being found-out while indulging himself with some tart called Christine Keeler, and the shocked horror that it caused in the general public. Followed by the many instances of MPs being discovered to be homosexuals.
What’s the point of being important and successful if you have to comply with inconvenient social-mores? Why not render those social-mores illegal and render legal all those things that were previously illegal?
And this is what we see. All based upon the fear of being found-out.
Make it good to be bad, and bad to be good.
Liberalism in a nutshell.
Make it good to be bad, and nothing I’m doing is bad. See, I can be a liberal too.
So you can. It’s easy. That’s why everyone is doing it.
But being able to point out the obvious is sheer genius.
Which is why so few are doing it.
A self-pitying, self-hating, resentful or underconfident one.
They form into groups of individualists who immediately request herd action, to protect the individual from the herd, so the individual can continue being individualistic.
That’s the paradox of liberalism right there. It’s selfishness, but selfishness smart enough to manipulate others into supporting it.
They really have managed to divide this society. Up is down and down is up. They’re getting away with it for now because most people are sleepwalking and, when confronted with the vision of the abyss, simply go harder into denial. They all want it to end after they’re gone.