Posts Tagged ‘democratization’

Collapse: Modern Sexuality

Friday, March 17th, 2017

The democratization of sex — making it available to all on an individualistic basis, or demand-based economy — has led to unexpected consequences, namely that making something universal makes it worthless, and now people are pulling away. Notice the demystification of sexuality caused by sexual liberation:

The debate was ignited on Mumsnet after one poster revealed how she disagrees with the assumption that everyone wants sex, and she was by no means the only one.

Even those who have previously enjoyed an active and even satisfying sex life agreed that they were perfectly happy never to be intimate with a partner again.

She and others pointed out that believing everyone should want sex is akin to thinking everyone must like cake or cats, and there’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t.

Now that sex is everywhere, it has low value, sort of like running water. We are learning that sexual liberation means sexual conformity, and because the herd is all doing the same thing, value flees to those who are outsiders and doing something else, like tying sex to family and existential purpose, which makes it more valuable where “liberation” makes it less valuable.

Like all things Leftist, sexual democratization renders worthless something one prized by destroying the best examples of it so that the other examples can feel “equal.” In other words, no one gets what is beautiful; beauty is destroyed so that the average can rule. This is what the fearful and tyrannical human ego does to any segment of experience.

For example, Americans are having less sex because sex is sort of like running water or wi-fi now, i.e. everywhere and without much significance, which cries out for it to be bonded to something larger and more transcendental than what modernity has reduced to a bodily function:

American adults are having less sex than they did a quarter century ago, with married people showing the most dramatic decline of all.

The paper, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, showed a drop across gender, race, region, education level, and work status. One factor is the higher percentage now of unpartnered people, who tend to have less sex than partnered ones. But a major driver is a steady fall in the rate of sexual activity for people who are married or living with partners, which reduces what had been known as the “marriage advantage.”

…At the same time, Americans overall became less coupled. In 1986, 66 percent of American adults were living with a partner; by 2014 only 59 percent were, according to GSS data. People who are not in couples, including those who have been married in the past, tend to have sex half as frequently as people who are, the study said.

In other words, sex has become a bargaining chip. People trade it for acceptance in a relationship, and once they are in one, there is no need for a further transaction. The liberation of sex has made everyone into slow-motion prostitutes. And as a result, sex has become a chore like any other job, something done in exchange for money or power and therefore, something undesirable.

This is the nature of all things under egalitarianism. Because society is re-oriented toward a minimum, everything which is not mediocre becomes a commodity, and as the herd chases after it, its value falls as it becomes democratized or spread around. In the end, nothing is worth anything, but each prole can claim they are a king… albeit in an entropic wasteland where nothing has value.

Democratization Of Education Makes Education Worthless

Monday, March 13th, 2017

The average voter does not understand cause and effect. For this reason, crises seem to them to pop up out of thin air, and solutions involve making rules about what is acceptable. Naturally this fails and the problem begins again, with no diagnosis ever of the actual causes.

Consider the crisis of modern education as seen in Canada:

Since graduating last year, McCrave has applied for 250 engineering jobs, but he’s only had four interviews and no job offer.

McCrave isn’t alone. More than 12 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed and more than a quarter are underemployed, meaning they have degrees but end up in jobs that don’t require them.

The latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that the unemployment rate for 15-to-24-year-olds is almost twice that of the general population.

Once upon a time, a college education meant something because a high school education meant something. The problem is that good education is the opposite of egalitarian; it produces some winners, lots of people who do just okay, and some losers. This offends our democratic sensibilities, so we democratized education starting in high school.

The hard tests that required thinking? Out, replaced by rote memorization and regurgitation. Reading complex books and understanding depth of thought? Out, replaced by political thinking. Classes that pushed kids beyond their comfort zones? Out, replaced by safely pre-chewed bits of information. Thinking was replaced by conformity.

These sound like clichés because people have been complaining about this tendency of modern “education” for some time. However, stereotypes are often true as are many clichés because they reveal something that our society seems unable to change that nonetheless irks. It just took a few decades to collapse.

First, since high school kids declined in ability, colleges converted the first two years of their coursework into being mostly remedial. This probably happened in the 1970s, and so it became necessary to have an advanced degree to get anywhere. However, a college degree still seemed to hold weight, until Political Correctness hit in the late 1980s.

At that point, the remaining collegiate part of education was dumbed down to include all those new protected groups. Not everyone can think, so thinking was out… tasks became rote, more memorization and research than thinking. Grades became inflated, especially if politically important topics were mentioned. And so, a college degree became worthless for Generation X.

This meant that higher degrees were required, and that in turn increased the number of people willing to do anything to get an advanced degree. As a result, schools expanded to hand out more of these degrees, resulting in a need to democratize post-collegiate education. Graduate school got a lot easier, but only a few kids — at the top of the class — came out on top.

Now industry has caught up with the full democratization of college. A high school diploma meant little more than that the recipient was an obedient memorizer; now a college degree meant the same. As a result, doors started to open with post-collegiate degrees, but then treated the first few years of work (“entry-level”) as an apprenticeship.

This means that students are getting a start in life at age thirty as opposed to age twenty-two, and because so many people are over-qualified, jobs are hiring five people to do the work of one, paying everyone less, and promoting very few people to a decent wage. This means that most kids Gen X and beyond could expect to struggle for peanuts until they were forty.

Not surprisingly, many of them have dropped out and accepted do-nothing mediocre jobs instead because that way, they can avoid spending years of their lives on time-consuming but unproductive behavior. The intelligent are the most penalized, since for them the ersatz coursework is the most tedious and pointless.

Democratization of education has now reached all levels of our “education” system, such that there is high pressure to force success on low-IQ and low-motivation students, resulting in scandals as teachers cheat the standardized tests:

Prosecutors alleged that Hall had run a “corrupt” organization that used test scores to financially reward and punish teachers. The extent of the test-cheating scandals around the country remains unknown because they are hard to find and prove.

…No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush’s chief education initiative, and then Race to the Top, President Obama’s central education program, placed increasingly high stakes on standardized test scores. They had to go up, or else there would be negative consequences not just for students but schools and teachers and principals. Such testing mandates were coupled with a “no excuse” management push by school reformers who said teachers had, well, no excuse not to raise their students’ test scores. Not sick or hungry students, not a lack of materials, not overcrowded classrooms. Obama’s Race to the Top initiative — which pit states against each other in competing for federal funds in exchange for implementing specific school reforms — linked student test scores to teacher evaluations and pay.

At some point, some schools began reporting test scores jumping high in just a year, though later, these “miracles” did not stand up to scrutiny.

Why are standardized tests popular? They are meritocratic, meaning that everyone is given an equal opportunity to memorize enough stuff to do really well on them. No one is rewarded for intelligence or the ability to think deeply, but anyone can become a superstar by devoting all of their time to memorization and gaming the test.

In this way, the politicians can turn to the dumb voters — who demand equality at every turn — and claim that the problem is being solved. Even if Johnny is dumb as bricks and perceptive as a mushroom, he can succeed by just spending those extra hours… weeknights, weekends and other free time he might need to mature like a normal person… on memorizing and conforming.

Because people need jobs, the democratization has extended to entry tests for public service, which means that we must dumb those down, too, so that they are also democratic:

New York education officials are poised to scrap a test designed to measure the reading and writing skills of people trying to become teachers, in part because an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing it.

…The literacy test was among four assessments introduced in the 2013-2014 school year as part of an effort to raise the level of elementary and secondary school teaching in the state.

…But the literacy test raised alarms from the beginning because just 46 percent of Hispanic test takers and 41 percent of black test takers passed it on the first try, compared with 64 percent of white candidates.

In typical democratic inversion, the test designed to raise quality is instead made to certify low quality, which means that teachers who can barely read and write are instructing children in the same, which does nothing but damage those who could learn so that those who cannot can feel equal too.

This is happening all across the West, at every level of profession, as we see from this appalling example from the UK:

New Transport for London rules include a requirement that drivers complete a £180 written essay and speaking test to gain a licence to work in the capital from September.

…But opponents have claimed it would lead to indirect racial discrimination as many drivers were immigrants, as well as putting around 30,000 jobs at risk.

Democratic thinking always prioritizes universal inclusion, or egalitarianism, over competence. As a result, standards decline and institutions fail. This is a form of soft corruption that then spreads like a wave through the rest of civilization, punishing the competent and defending the incompetent.

The markets react by being skeptical about new hires and paying them less, then keeping only the most devoted. The end result is that you must give much more of your time in order to just rise above the minimum, and this in turn alienates people by keeping them immature as they never have time to develop intellectually, morally and socially until later in life.

Once upon a time, STEM education was a safe bet. The idea was that becoming competent as necessary skills guaranteed employment. Instead, through the democratization process, it has now become a way to join a mass herd in which only a few will be winners, and the rest will merely be profit centers for those selling education by the pound.

The Grand Goal Of Leftism And Globalism

Monday, October 10th, 2016

civilization_is_attainable

Recently John Rivers described the “grand (elite) plan”:

  1. Import millions of Muslims.
  2. Install police state for our protection.
  3. Exempt Muslims from police state to cause Islamophobia.

This is not a parody because it is really happening. So it’s more like a jester warning the Court of a danger using humor because after all, some things can’t be discussed (directly) as Trump so eloquently stated.

However, a “plan” suggests that there must be something else, such as a conspiracy, or alien leader, with a specific goal in mind. This reminded me of the book The Goal written by Eliyahu Goldratt and Jeff Cox in 1984. Mr. Goldratt was educated as a physicist but made a name as a business consultant because he developed the “Theory of Constraints.”

Where most managers would increase production to make more money, Goldratt suggested that a company can do it by removing “constraints,” such as to improve “throughput” by for example optimizing bottlenecks. But the focus is not on the one bottleneck, it is on all the bottlenecks at the same time, because that is the “goal”.

It is therefore important for a company to keep its “goal” in mind because changing it requires a change in the mathematics of the entire production line.

It has become glaringly obvious that NWO politicians do not have a goal, or something like a better civilization or improved trade that can be used to develop a “mathematical” plan. This is why the court jester had to suggest a “plan” in a wry sense of “goal” humor.

It is possible at this point to digress and write about development plans for cities, or countries or even the United Nations. It is also possible to digress into analyzing leaders and their ships. But it is more expedient to simply jump the grade and write about the real elite, because they have a simple goal supported by a simple plan.

According to the book The Richest Man in Babylon written by George S Clason in 1926 (and even though the book is in front of me), I am not going to recite it, but in short; the goal is to make money and the plan is to:

  1. Find a target.
  2. Invest spare money.
  3. Re-invest profits.

It is almost similar to Warren Buffet’s goal where he stated: “I never sell”. Recently I read that he is looking for people that “are spending money.” Obviously he is out of targets. This made me wonder why on earth Buffet supports the grant-giving, immigrant-buying Clintons. The answer in this context would be that he is just the same as Facebook, Apple and other tech people wearing out the White House carpets. The market is not consumers anymore; it is the parental politicians treating consumers like (their) children.

At this point one reaction will be to think that it is obvious that rich people want to make money. However, it is more than that, it is just money meaning there is absolutely no race, religion or ideology involved. Slowly it becomes clear that the real elite’s goal, is just (more) money.

So what is their plan? The concept for this, apart from investing as described above, is not to invest, but to subvert “people” towards a point where “wealth” is simply transferred. The subversion process follows the same technique that a politician would do to a competing politician, political assassination. There are many cases in the current year where an “assassination hit” was called onto a “hurdle”. In the case of money, it is called an “economic hit.”

The best book to read here is the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins in 2004. He was himself an EHM (Economic Hit Man) and writing the book in 1982 he intended to title it “Conscience of an Economic Hit Man.”  Clearly he was the “do-er” and not the “investor”. He updated this book to the title “The New Confession of an Economic Hitman” and even has youtube and a website. Now in 2016 he states that “they are coming for your democracy” in an article by Sarah van Gelder.

Clearly there are many “stories” that should now be told, but suffice it to say that many countries were targeted, one of which was Greece. Another target was the mineral rich South Africa. The entire “democratization” so much lauded in the international press via Hollywood films and Nobel Peace prizes was a front duping people into do what they were told, while the gold reserves were shipped away and cash moved through the back door.

This ability to destabilize countries for some strange benefit has been going on for quite a while now, even implicating Hillary Clinton in Honduras. The point is that the elites doing this are gaining experience, allowing them to optimize their own production “throughput.” South Africa was a spectacular financial “bloodless coup” (for the elite) and many techniques used to subvert the conservative population, is now used on American conservatives, such as firing conservative military and police officers, guilt-ridden education and media-of- fear.

One technique they routinely apply is to corrupt an internal “elite” inside a target country. The amounts of money is jaw-droppingly large for these “small” politicians, but provided with the right amount of moral egalitarian motivation such money is greedily accepted “for the common good”. Examples of such corrupted small “elites” can be readily found because they literally do the same things such as:

  1. Write a “book.”
  2. Become part of the “after-dinner” club.
  3. Sell “connective” information.
  4. Set up a “charitable” foundation.

During the economic hit on South Africa this “small” elite was not readily identifiable as is now the case in the United States. The emergence of “Cuckservatives” allowed easier identification of the subversive small elite club eying enormous riches after giving up their country for adoption because it’s “the right thing to do.”

Race, religion and ideology have nothing to do with it. But the elite will use whatever is necessary to advance towards his goal. For example they can use blacks to destabilize whites on racial grounds, they can use Islam to destabilize Christians and they actively use liberal-democracy as their preferred ideology because it plays into their hands. In the US it’s the Lutheran Church apparently deciding where what immigrants go.

So, essentially the entire “hit” is not a conspiracy, it is simply a process put into place that allows unfettered access to convenient players at a lower level, such as Black Lives Matter, without them even knowing about it. Even Church leaders may express their support for activities not knowing what really is behind it, such as the Anglican Church harboring terrorists in South Africa (and proud of it today). All the “elitist” will do is to remove “constraints” while encouraging those participating idiots such as SJW’s or journalists to produce the required narrative that may allow changing of laws etc.

In fighting this dys-civilized scourge (not un-civilized), new warriors are needed, because we are in a sense fighting against ourselves and that include all races, religions and ideologues. These warriors will have to help us prioritize the “enemy” and help us focus on the low hanging fruit first, so that we can get our own processes in place.

On a personal note: Dr. Nicholas Samuel, who just published a book visible at www.unendingrecovery.com agree with my pinned tweet that “the evolution of the market has thrown up pseudo markets that weaken the middle-class backbone.”

If we don’t establish an own goal of fighting greed, civilization will last a little longer, but only for those hiding behind security and guns. Ask any expat in Africa.

The Left depends upon studied intellectual decline

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016

powerball_mathematics

I’ll keep it brief this time. The picture above speaks volumes. It shows us that Leftism is truly a refuge from competence and a safe space from the requirements of basic human competence. It’s hard to find your place in the world when you are that allergic to simple place value.

People like Hillary, Bernie and Barack Obama live off of people like this. Speaker Ryan doesn’t have a prayer of passing his recent budget if the population of our country stays awake in 6th Grade Math. The only way Leftism continues to remain popular is if it rallies the support of people like the woman below. They are the electoral majority that makes Obamacare possible.

The street

Monday, October 19th, 2015

shcool

We should talk more about the “street” instead of the – mostly — boring politics of life because talking about streets highlights the contribution of engineering to society. It also shows us the limits of a government-based model of human civilization.

Let us begin with a definition of the role of the humble street. Streets facilitate logistics, whether people or goods. In a positive sense streets support mercantilism and in a negative sense they support raiding or war.

At first streets were a necessity, but later became a convenience. The same politics that regulated necessities were used to reduce streets to a tool for economic purposes.
Streets occur in several types – for example footpaths, dirt roads and paved roads – which also track this development from necessity to added value. Despite remarkable technical improvements of streets to the extent that they became known as “road transport,” the context broadened considerably through the development of an “integrated transport system.” This included ships, aircraft and train networks.

At the level of government this system became important enough to be allocated its own executive department where capital cost budget projections could be traded off against foreign relations such as: do we make war against Iraq, or do we fix our roads; or, do we import immigrants en masse, or do we build high speed trains to alleviate pressure on road maintenance costs. Of course these foreign interventions also require roads to facilitate execution but that falls under a different budget.

Streets have a human impact (after all, they started as footpaths). The entanglement of government caused streets to become “engineered” for specific requirements which reflected political and economic needs. This created the worldwide standard of paved streets with markings, safety lanes, lighting and sidewalks for pedestrians. Use of those streets however reflects local conditions. In Africa a “street” is mostly used by “pedestrians,” and in New York people hang out on the street mostly to commit crimes, but in safe suburbs one can see children playing ball-games or flying kites through the streets.

In a metaphorical sense, streets represent a public commons used to voice political opinions. They are places to attract attention because humans have nowhere else to do that now. With the rise of virtual spaces, social media has taken on that role of the street in political expression. This expression represents a bottom-up viewpoint that is opposed to the official one issued forth by those in control, or “elites.” In Cameroon there is a street “language” that expresses a counterpoint to the narrative imposed by the elites. When someone dies, it is commented that “the elite ate his food.” Similarly, in the first world we have Occupy Wall Street claiming to represent the 99% against the 1% who are our financial elites.

This leads us to see social media as a reflection of “counter-narratives” and not classifiable as solely left or right. It is the opposition, the opinion based on local conditions and not the top-down view of those in control. For this reason, it is unethical to ask one question to a billion people and expect them to understand it in the same way and then to react “appropriately,” given the variation in local meaning.

That in turn leads us to question the ethics of blocking accounts, especially where one question is asked across many local areas. Responses may vary. If social media is our new version of the street, blocking accounts amounts to removing voices from the discussion, and thus blocking an ongoing opposition narrative that takes neither side of the debate.

Following a libertarian or free association model in our metaphor of social media as a street, users should be allowed to classify themselves through free association. They choose others who share their opinions, and thus there are no “bad” opinions that constitute offenses for blocking accounts. This is analogous to how people form groups on certain parts of the street, based on common interest, in a proper “transport system.” If they could buy their own cars and get to the location, they could also ask their own questions – and have their own standards, instead of a central authority trying to impose One Right Answer on a billion people.

When Occupy Wall Street activists complained about the 1%, they got together on the street built with money contributed mostly by the elites. It became the negotiation ground. In the same way Greeks negotiated with their three lenders (or rulers) to solve their debt crises on the streets of Athens. In the same way it appears that social media users want to negotiate with the companies that provide social media as a service, but ethics are not mature enough for those companies to understand that their sites are not spaces they own, but public spaces analogous to the street.

In this scenario, the engineers triumph. They designed streets and now they have created social media, and that has created a space for community that no one question or one company or even one government can rule. The opposition has become fully democratized, but our dot-com companies and regulatory governments are slow to catch on. To the engineers, however, this was a foregone conclusion. “If you build it, they will come,” and since they can freely associate, there is no need to filter content. Again engineering takes the lead. Leonardo da Vinci was not called “the second millennium man” for nothing.

Paranoia

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

For all of our “enlightenment,” scientific learning and vast statistical knowledge, we also suffer intense paranoia in this modern time. Paranoia occurs when you fear a threat but don’t know where it will come from.

Our news media, politicians and even friends in conversation treat all misfortunes as if they sprouted out of the ground. “Crime rises in the inner city,” they say, missing a fundamental part of the equation: why.

All issues are this way, with one crucial exception. If we can blame someone who is in a position of authority, our paranoia goes away. I call this The Revolutionary Narrative because we have a story of our society’s founding like any other society. Since all of our modern industrialized first world nations survived revolutions, we have re-written history to explain those revolutions as good things.

For example, here (roughly) is the American Revolutionary Narrative: We evolved from monkeys who lived painful, dirty, degrading and short lives. Early human life was almost as bad, and whoever had the weapons ruled over the rest of us. When we found Science and started having Revolutions so that individuals like you and me were seen as equal, we overthrew the corrupt kings and fought off the evil fascists. Now we live in a society of increasing enlightenment, peace, justice and good intentions.

But if we don’t have someone in a position of power — a corporation, king/autocrat/fascist, organized religion, or large corporation — to blame, who do we blame? We don’t know, so we “socialize” blame and we each take on the guilt without thinking twice about it. Our oceans are polluted? We, humanity as a whole, are bad. Each of us. Feel the guilt or you’re a jerk.

Our modern paranoia is that we are constantly looking for someone to blame yet, because our dysfunction is within, our problems march onward with increasing strength. No wonder we’re paranoid: we’re slicing at heads of a Hydra, but we’re even slicing the wrong Hydra. That our obsessive quest for someone to blame might be the largest part of our own problem has not occurred to us, so we swing wildly in the darkness and when we connect with something — anything — we declare victory and go home.

Do you remember The War to End All Wars? That was World War I, back in 1914-1918. How about the French Revolution, where the aristocrats were killed so that maniacs like Napoleon could trash most of Europe (including France) in a short-sighted ideological quest? Or how progressives in the USA swore that everything would be great when we replaced George Bush with Barack Obama. Or the same fawning when Clinton was elected, the EU was formed, Hitler was beaten, the Wall fell, etc. The pattern repeats: we construct an enemy out of our projections, destroy that enemy, and then wonder why our problems continue. It’s amost like they are within us. But that’s not a satisfying answer, so it’s on to find a new enemy.

The Revolutionary Narrative strengthens itself when it is wrong. If we depose a dictator and yet our great progressive society still has problems, we are supposed to find another dictator to depose. If corruption is rife in our society, we must find a corporation to blame; if not the corporations, maybe organized religion, since we don’t have kings anymore. If we can’t find one, suggest one might exist and we just haven’t found it yet. In the same way we find gender-oppressors in every toy, racists in every standardized test, and Hitlers in every third-world strongman.

We don’t stop to think that we might have it backward: that third world strongmen exist because their countries are unstable and require a strong autocrat to rule them, that there might be pre-existing differences between people (a/k/a “we are not all equal in ability, only equal in that our votes count the same”) which explain some different results, or that boys might like to play with fire trucks while girls prefer female dolls. Maybe these are right, or maybe they’re wrong — that’s not important in this moment. What is important is this: we have prohibited our minds from even considering any possibility outside The Revolutionary Narrative.

Yet because The Revolutionary Narrative “sounds good” to most of us — We The People rise up and depose the bad guys, set up an empire where everyone (be sure to widen your eyes when you say that word; most people do) feels important and no one is excluded for things they can’t control — we can’t quit our addiction to it. So we keep pounding square pegs into round holes, and when that fails, we get paranoid and then, the only solution is more Revolutionary Narrative. Straight into the main vein.

If we overcame our paranoia, we’d see that we have it backwards. Our problem is not oppressors; oppressors appear because of our problem, which is the laziness, incompetence, dishonesty, evasiveness and deceptiveness of most people on earth. In fact, as my retired father said recently, “Now that I’m retired, I can see that 90% of the people on earth do nothing but create messes for the rest, and we just keep cleaning it up.” (This is from a man who is a life-long social liberal with conservative tendencies in economics only.)

How are We The People screwing up?

“Our problem basically is that we have a very distorted economy, in the sense that there has been a significant recovery in our limited area of the economy amongst high-income individuals…

“Large banks, who are doing much better and large corporations, whom you point out and everyone is pointing out, are in excellent shape. The rest of the economy, small business, small banks, and a very significant amount of the labour force, which is in tragic unemployment, long-term unemployment – that is pulling the economy apart. The average of those two is what we are looking at – that they are fundamentally two separate types of economies.”

Mr Greenspan is right, of course, and not just about the US. Over the past three decades, the world economy has been reshaped by two mega-trends.

One is a surge in the size and connectedness of international markets.

This winner-take-all phenomenon has been particularly stark in the US, where, between 2002 and 2007, 65% of all income growth went to the top 1% of the population.

Many of today’s plutocrats are the beneficiaries of globalisation. And even those who made their money at home have figured out that to make more they need to embrace the global economy.

As a result, they are becoming a trans-global community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. – BBC

We The People were sure that Globalization was liberation. Our national borders limited us; we were not free. Surely erasing these borders (tools of oppressors and fascists) would save us. Even more, we were limited by the old way. We wanted more connectivity, more of an idea-based economy, more feelings and more entertainment! And to spread the wealth around. And what happened?

“The end of history” caused Chinese communists and Indian socialists to join the winning side and to open their economies to First World capital. For the first time, American corporations had access to massive supplies of unemployed low-wage labor. The huge excess supply of labor in India and China meant that workers could be hired at wages far below their productivity, and the difference would flow in profits to executives, shareholders, and Wall Street.

The offshoring of American manufacturing separated Americans’ incomes from the production of the goods and services that they consumed. The advent of the high speed Internet made it possible to offshore professional service jobs, such as software engineering, which drove down the returns to a college education and the employment prospects of graduates. In an offshored economy, the profits of corporations are not a measure of the economic welfare of the population.

As American incomes stagnated—except for the rich, there has been no real increase in 20 years—the economy was kept going by the growth of consumer debt to take the place of the missing growth in take-home pay. – American Conservative

When the Baby Boomers finally got control in the 1990s, their agenda was one of multiculturalism: improve race relations at home through an entitlement agenda, and pacify ourselves abroad through a policy of appeasement and globalization. We would spread our democracy/consumerism/liberalism hybrid to the rest of the world, make them like us, and then a new Utopia would reign.

Instead, we committed suicide by gutting our economy, destroying any sense of shared values, culture or even common purpose to our citizens, and finally polarizing the right and left so much that now compromise or even working together is impossible. Globalization in turn produced an elite of super-rich, most of whom profit from taking third-world raw materials and making them into first-world luxury products or entertainment, and they now rule us, but with less of an informed and steady hand than the older money.

We lose on every front. But who to blame? No fascist did this to us, unless you mean the fascism of our individual desires. No oppressor made us what we are; we did it to ourselves. We oppressed ourselves? That’s too heavy, man. Blame the corporations. But they merely make the products we want and when we can’t stop ourselves from buying them in droves, make a tidy profit. If tomorrow it was proved that iPads and BMWs cause world destruction, could humanity stop itself from buying them? Of course not.

Thousands of people across the country took to the streets to protest against student fee increases, public-sector job cuts and the proposed sell-off of the Royal Mail.

The TUC, UCU and NUS mobilised workers and students in Manchester, while various student groups took the fight against cuts to the capital.

Speakers in Manchester highlighted Britain’s one million under-25s who are unemployed and called for mass mobilisations for the TUC’s national demonstration in London on March 26.

Over 6,000 people rallied in Manchester, where Unison Young Members Forum chairman Graham Smith told the crowd: “The last time we saw this many young people out of work was in 1992 – under the Tories again. – Morning Star

And yet, the calls for more entitlements increase. Where does the money come from? They don’t know — print some, or steal some, or have a bake sale, who cares. All they know is that their college degrees are more expensive, and even though they lack the intellectual ability or inclination to benefit from college, they want that high-paying easy job where they sit in a heated office and preside over paperwork. Fixing things with your hands? Taking risk or initiative? Screw that. Hook me up on the system’s fat IV of lazy cash. No one is thinking about the consequences of many if not most of us doing that, or how we’ll bleed ourselves dry. They think the money will keep its value no matter what because they have the attention span of gnats.

So we bleed ourselves out, and in the meantime, our politicians rig up a dog and pony show based on The Revolutionary Narrative. There must be a bad guy or we’ll see that we are the bad guy. So we invent them, and in doing so, create an environment where anyone who has more than the rest of us is a target to be destroyed:

We create the atmosphere of a lynch mob, urging the crowd on to destroy the privileged or those in power. Yet as mentioned above this doesn’t solve our problems, but requires more of the same, which in turn eats away our social stability and replaces it with an environment of thinly-disguised hatred:

A number of years ago, I was the victim of a brutal street crime. Although I was left with a broken nose and two black eyes, I learned soon thereafter that I wasn’t a “good victim.”

A progressive friend, Fran, clued me in. When I told her what happened, she said, “What you went through wasn’t half as bad as what he has suffered.” Fran was referring to the fact that I am white and the assailant was black. In other words, my suffering didn’t matter.

Fran’s reaction is not at all unique in these parts; here, there are good and bad victims. For instance, a couple of years ago, a middle school teacher was stoned and beaten in her classroom by a vicious mob of students. And yet, because of the racial makeup of the victim and the assailants, the media had little to say, except to imply that the teacher may have been a racist.

When I mentioned my horror about this heinous crime to yet another leftist friend, she responded in the prescribed, politically correct way. Without showing an ounce of compassion toward the battered teacher, my friend blamed “white privilege.”

With Obama and the hard left in charge, we see nationwide what I’ve witnessed up close and personal here in Berkeley. Thus, when a young white couple were beaten unconscious after leaving a GOP fundraiser, the mainstream media did not find their plight worthy of reportage. Similarly, when a conservative had his finger bitten off, or when a frail, diabetic conservative was beaten, the silence was deafening. Sarah Palin’s church being torched with children in it didn’t deserve even a blip on the evening news.

When thirteen U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, including a pregnant woman, were mowed down (and thirty more wounded) in cold blood, President Obama didn’t interrupt a Native American shout-out to renounce the horror. When Obama finally did speak, he urged us not to jump to conclusions. Since then, next to nothing has been said about the slaughter. The fact that the murderer was a Muslim automatically disqualifies the soldiers from being “good victims.” – American Thinker

I disagree with the writer above on one crucial point: the media does not pander to the lynch mob because they are leftists. The media are leftists in order to pander to the lynch mob. The media is selling newspapers, which works best if they whip us all into a feeding frenzy and then point us to a target and say: “See that? That there is the bad guy. All of the horrible animal instincts you’ve been suppressing — rape, subjugation, murder, mutilation, sodomy and immolation — you can unleash those against this socially-acceptable scapegoat and vent all that anger from within you. Use these guys as a punching bag.”

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on the commission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work. – Washington Post

Let me give you a hint, middle class America: the lynch mob is not going to attack the super-rich. Heck, no. Attack the powerful and you lose.

They’re going to attack you, middle class America, for having risen above prole status. When we’re all equal and we all go to the same jobs, we are “happy.” But if some rise above, if not even to the height of our moneyed overlords, those people need to be pulled down to the level of the rest. They must be equalized.

If you’re white, you’re privileged. If you’re middle class, you’re an oppressor. If you have employees, you’re a fascist. If you give orders, you’re a Hitler. If you aren’t working at the same level of everyone else, you’re a parasite — even if having a lot of people who are barely working, at interchangeable jobs that don’t accomplish much, is the biggest parasite and the elephant in the room.

They’re attacking you, middle class America. They will first attack you for being white, then for having money, then for having education, and finally, just for knowing things they do not. They will achieve equality by forced means, namely by destroying anything that rises above the lowest common denominator.

Don’t believe? Read some history on the Revolutions in Russia and France; read about the actions of Communists in Southeast Asia and Africa. Watch what’s about to happen in Egypt. When the lynch mob gets control, they destroy those who have more or have more abilities than the mob’s members do. They tear down those who rose above equal. History repeats itself and they’re going to do it again.