Underdog

Our society will always be divided into two groups: those who are dissatisfied, and everyone else.

Among the dissatisfied, a small minority — like one in ten thousand — will be ideologues working to fix a problem that no one else understands. Your classic mad scientist, convinced that Godzilla will attack and so laboring late into the night on a death ray, is a case in point.

The rest of the dissatisfied are hypocrites. Their position in life is bad because they are incompetent, or more likely because they have no impulse control and so are addicted to alcohol/drugs, make poor life decisions, are lazy and evasive.

Every society reaches a tipping point when it sees these people as underdogs, or victims of a superior opposing force, and not as those who defeat themselves. Once underdog politics enters your civilization, move: the place is about to fall apart.

It’s hard to oppose underdog politics for the same reason it’s hard to ignore charities: it looks good to other people if you’re helping out the people below you. It makes you look like a good person. In fact, it’s powerful advertising, which is why major corporations line up to donate to charities.

Underdogs will always pick underdog politics. The same factors that made them underdogs, namely poor impulse control and possibly incompetence, make them make another bad decision, which is to demand underdog politics. It will destroy the society upon which they depend, but they are oblivious to that.

Underdog politics always take the same form: we have conflict because we are not equal, so penalize those who are more equal, and then we will all be equal and live in peace, prosperity, brotherhood and freedom.

Except that reality is a moving target, which means that when you lunge at it, it moves in another direction. You cannot directly change it. You need to indirectly change it by altering the cause of a problem, like inequality, and not by trying to adjust the effect or symptoms of that problem directly.

For example, if you want to end inequality, you might decide to make everyone equally competent, with equal impulse control, through genetic engineering.

But for the most part, underdogs don’t want actual equality — what they want is to be treated as if they were equal, and for society to foot the bill.

This dogma has not changed since 1789 and the French Revolution, although it existed long before that. In fact, each society that grows prosperous faces this problem, because suddenly it’s easy to have people living in non-critical roles. Parasites, if you will.

1789 triggered a series of wars for power to fill in the leadership gap created by deposing the monarchy. Those in turn led to WWI, which begat WWII and the Cold War, during which time the 1789 dogma flowered as a hybrid of liberalism and consumerism in the West. That is its final and most potent form.

Do I mean to say we’re living under exactly the same regime that afflicted us 222 years ago with a reign of murder, poverty, chaos and instability? Yes: we’re repeating exactly the same dogma.

Underdogs demand it.

A Right that simply accepts, without question, the universal suffrage of all persons, including women, wards of the state, felons, persons with sub-normal intelligence, and 18 year olds, is not a serious Right. Furthermore, many destructive trends have been unleashed in the modern world by extreme notions of equality that are incompatible with a healthy and truly free social order.

Here then is a proposal suggested recently by an intellectual acquaintance, the basic principle and outline of which make a great deal of sense to me. I am not embracing the specific details, since a variety of means to obtain the same ends are possible. But to me the basic idea seems compelling.

The franchise, my friend said, should be limited to married men with children who are net tax payers.

This means that the vote, and the ability to serve in political office, would be limited to men who are responsible contributors to society. Men who are not married, or who do not have children born in wedlock, or who are not net tax payers, do not have a sufficient material stake in the society as an ongoing enterprise to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction. Therefore they should not have a direct voice–as voters and office holders–in its direction. – View From the Right

What most people do not — or honestly: find it convenient not to — understand is that the right and left are different in ideal. This means that even if our current “right wing” politicians are not doing a good job of upholding the right, the idea of what is rightist has not changed.

The left is the idea that we must all be equal in order to eliminate strife. In essence, we must change effect to change cause.

The right is the idea that we must adapt to the order of nature in order to personally grow. In essence, we must change cause to change effect.

They are night-and-day different, but the leftist-friendly (because that’s what sells) media establishment, commerce, government, celebrities, neurotic neighbors, chattering classes and shopgirls of the world want you to believe otherwise.

They want you to think that left and right are the same, so we should just go with what’s leftist because it’s correct and our politicians aren’t doing it right. Or something; they don’t know. What they know is that they are dissatisfied underdogs and in the very short term, more equality might feel comfortable.

“Overwhelmingly, the data showed that students had positive implicit and explicit associations with creativity,” says Jennifer Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania.

But in experiments, people’s perceptions changed. In one experiment, the researchers made some people think about uncertainty—by telling them they might get some extra money after the study based on a random lottery. Other participants went into the study without that priming. They were all given a test that shows how they group concepts together. The people who had been made to think about uncertainty were more likely to subconsciously associate words like “creative,” “inventive,” and “original” with bad concepts like “hell,” “rotten,” and “poison.” In the other condition people associated creativity words with things like “rainbow,” “cake,” and “sunshine.”

“If I ask you right now to estimate whether or not you can generate a creative idea to solve a problem, you’re not going to know,” Mueller says. That feeling of uncertainty might be the root of the problem. When you’re trying to come up with a creative solution to a problem, you worry that you can’t come up with a good idea, that what you do come up with might not be practical, or that your idea might make you look stupid. – Medical Xpress

What this study is saying in a more concise form is: people dislike uncertainty. They would prefer a far more limited solution to taking a risk on uncertainty.

Underdog politics want to eliminate uncertainty through equality. But in doing so, they murder any ability to actually think, and to see reality itself, mainly because reality is less popular than an illusion because reality is more uncertain.

Because of the dissatisfied, we give up on our best hopes and instead accept mediocre solutions, so that we do not cause worries to our least productive and hopeful group. It’s a world turned upside down.

27 Comments

  1. crow says:

    “Once underdog politics enters your civilization, move: the place is about to fall apart.”

    That about sums things up. The truth, condensed.
    I take issue, though, with the left being all about equality. Although it looks like that, to anybody else (if there still is anybody else), equality is really no more than a banner to hide individual selfishness.
    The reality is every man for himself, and nothing else counts.
    The equality-hound desires to raise himself above the rest (without doing any work), while equalizing (neutralizing) all possible threats to his imaginary position.
    Such people demand to equalize upwards, and have no concept of it working the other way, too.

    1. crow says:

      A Genuine Man doesn’t need anybody else’s permission to be “equal”.
      Such concepts hold no interest for him.
      He is what he is.
      A Man.

      1. Decimator says:

        Very well put Crow. To further your observation, the equality monger equalizes upward with purpose in mind. He believes and intends to create a need of himself by others. The implied thought is to raise himself superior to every one else with everyone else’s in his best interest. By advocating for everyone else’s equality he remains more useful and superior, which implies that he is what others should try to be, to accomplish equality. Paradox? Yes.
        All the while, reaping wealth from those who follow. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are fine examples of this. These types are the truly dangerous of the proles and must be neutralized before any real social evolution can occur.

        1. Robert B says:

          Either that, or he is simply making money off the fools, ever think of that?

          “A sucker born every minute…”

          1. A. Realist says:

            Those who make money off the fools are the ones we blame for the downfall of our society. Why not instead blame the fools?

      2. Matthew Walker says:

        He may be a Man now, but if the mob spots him, he’s liable to be a wet spot on the pavement pretty soon.

        Can’t get too far being a Man if you’re surrounded by 300,000,000 damned dirty apes. We’re a very highly social species.

    2. I take issue, though, with the left being all about equality…equality is really no more than a banner to hide individual selfishness.

      That’s why they want it, there’s no other reason to want it. Equality is what you want when you want your selfishness to be accepted so that no one can legitimately criticize it. It also helps hide your inability to perform because then you can say “I meant to do that” and suddenly it’s a personal choice.

  2. Decimator says:

    “Once underdog politics enters your civilization, move: the place is about to fall apart.”

    Where, It is global? Antarctica is too damn cold and the only farming is for meteorites.

    1. Ryan says:

      you could go st. benedict on them, and live out in boonies, well i guess thats more UNIBOMBEResque.

    2. Where, It is global?

      The outer suburbs are a good place for those who are well informed enough to be misanthropes but still believe enough in humanity to want their children to have decent lives.

  3. Robert W says:

    This the great fallacy regarding leftist politics, that it seeks to create a universal society of equals. Nothing, in fact, could be further from he truth. The left, in order to remain viable, needs a permanent source of discontent from which to draw its political power from. Yes, they’ll pay lip service to the “poor,” the “disenfranchise,” and crime prone minorities, but they’ll never actually do anything about them. For to do so would, effectively, remove their power base.

    Leftist politics are just one great big con designed to make the most effective use out of the biggest number of gullible idiots.

    As for this bunk about non-married men who haven’t fathered children being reduced to second class citizens, well this sounds, to me at least, to be one of the more moronic things I’ve heard lately and reeks a Xtian mental retardation.

    1. crow says:

      You probably feel this way because you have not yet experienced the behaviour of people who have nothing invested, versus those who do.
      When you, yourself, have invested half a million dollars, or more, into your dream home, beautiful land, and peace-and-quiet, only to have it ruined by riff-raff scumbag drug and alcohol-crazed garbage-dumping renters next door, you may start to see things differently.
      They can always leave, if things get too hot, as a consequence of their behaviour, and do it all over again, somewhere else. Those who have invested heavily do not have the same options.
      The uninvested don’t care about where they happen to be living.
      The invested do. It’s not just financial, either: often years of work are involved, too.
      Thus the whims of the uninvested could be seen to carry less weight, comparatively, than the considered goals and plans of the invested.
      When you invest heavily in something, in whatever way you do, you tend to care for and about it.
      When it costs you nothing, or almost nothing, why would you care?
      You have nothing to lose by being as bad as it’s possible to be, without actually getting arrested, or done in.

      1. Ryan says:

        i despise the sense of entitlement that most youths have today, sometimes i have to catch myself and remember to say thank you,etc. the lack of a moral center is what has created this generation of sloths, gluttons and bacchants. the bible was never really a object of interest to me, until the political applications were revealed to me. you don’t have “wymen” flouting their ass cheeks, in pair of thermal undergarments, in the middle of a lecture on “american history”. you don’t have drunken louts smashing windows. and you don’t have a society that defends criminals. sodom was literally eliminated, there was no “community non-violence meeting”, or “stop crime week”, there was just one day a vast altar of nihilism and the next a pile of salt. powerful stuff.

        1. Decimator says:

          Most youth I encounter on any given day, would barely make a viable ballistic backstop. The good news is, projectiles passing though have a very hi probability of harmlessly coming to rest in someone just like them.

          1. Decimator says:

            Robert W,
            Surely that fellow simply failed to articulate his point accurately. I hope that the term,”not net tax payer”, is equivilant to dead beat, welfare recipient, drug addict, M-TV thug wannna be, jack-ass.

          2. Robert B says:

            He meant to say that those who do not pay taxes–i.e. you don’t pay taxes if you get a return greater than you paid in in the first place.

            It’s funny that Lawrence Auster is quoted just now in this context because he is presently engaging a discussion on this subject. His readers, however, are engaging in the “evil elite” meme instead of putting the blame where it belongs–on society’s backwash who demand to be equal–although next in line to them are the middle class who want the world made safe for their stupidity–not to mention “free” day care and “free” loans on their underwater mortgages that got that way because the couldn’t see past the new big screen TV or SUV.

            http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021071.html

            Go have a read and see what you think.

        2. Robert B says:

          I replied to your nonsensical, ill informed, childish rant.

          1. A. Realist says:

            If you bring that attitude into our comments here, soon this site will resemble every other site. It will be children bickering. Is that what you would prefer?

        3. Robert B says:

          Thats rich.

      2. Robert B says:

        It isn’t just the home, it’s everything in it–and, that most certainly includes the children. That is assuming you love them and actually care about their future.

        Having the belief that Liberals are largely mentally ill people, as I do, I do not believe they actually love their children. Children to these people are just something you do at some point in your life–or not. Why would I, or any sane person, want their child to grow up in a divisive world of racial spoils? Especially when they are the race that is being pillaged, plundered and raped? Only an insane person would advocate for more laws that will directly affect their children. But, these people, whether mentally ill or IQ deficient, are incapable of seeing the future consequences of their childish demands today. All they need is a soap opera, a beer and flat screen to keep them happy–for the moment.

        1. Children to these people are just something you do at some point in your life–or not.

          This is how the average person thinks of children, as a possession to make them look important to their neighbors, and they want the kids to get As, be good in sports or at least sex up the cheerleaders if they’re skinny but can play guitar. Average means mediocre.

      3. The uninvested don’t care about where they happen to be living.

        This may be the most recent favorite of your linguistic metaphors. It’s not just financial investment. The invested are those who are trying to live with a purpose and achieve something with civilization. The uninvested are there to take advantage of it and then with a hipster shrug claim it wasn’t all that important to them anyway.

        1. A. Realist says:

          “The invested are those who are trying to live with a purpose and achieve something with civilization.”

          In other words, those who want social order. The left wants disorder.

    2. Leftist politics are just one great big con designed to make the most effective use out of the biggest number of gullible idiots.

      This is another good point, every leftist idea is made to create an image and has nothing to do with reality, the purpose being to manipulate the herd so the leftists get what they really want which is an excuse to behave like mild sociopaths.

    3. reeks a Xtian mental retardation

      The right is dedicated to liberty which means the ability to act within some boundaries of sense, but this means there’s a lot of diversity among the right, including many who are christians. I don’t think we should alienate these people, they may have a lot to offer, and religion makes people happy and their kids are well-adjusted.

      1. A. Realist says:

        “The right is dedicated to liberty”

        It is? I thought the right was dedicated to social order.

  4. @ Robert B

    His readers, however, are engaging in the “evil elite” meme instead of putting the blame where it belongs–on society’s backwash who demand to be equal

    Conservatives are acting like hippies, trying to find someone in power to blame, which is the opposite of conservativism which is figuring out what actually caused your problem which is usually people not behaving in a civilized manner or being sociopaths. Auster is smarter than falling in to that trap but most conservative writers are not.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.785 seconds