We know democracy is an illusion for two reasons: first, most people are not capable of making the decisions necessary for leadership; second, in groups people — even smart people — behave like ninnies by picking what is socially convenient instead of what is true.
In fact, we might view the election of Donald J. Trump not as a triumph of democracy, but as a vigorous slamming of the barn door after the horse is long gone. Democracy has destroyed the United States as it was, replaced its people and buried them in mountains of nonsense laws. No one in power seems committed to changing anything at a fundamental level, and in fact, we see they oppose it. One election cannot fix the vandalism of hundreds of elections.
Luckily, democracy has begun its death spiral worldwide, starting with the fact that people no longer trust it. Worldwide, distrust of governments is at an epic height; even more, people have lost faith in institutions in general because these have become corrupted:
The government’s trust problem certainly predates Donald Trump: trust has been falling for decades. Apart from a short-lived spike in support after the terror attacks on New York in September, 2001, the last time a majority of Americans suggested that the government in Washington, DC could be trusted to do what is right was in 1972, according to the Pew Research Centre. By 2015, less than one in five Americans held that view. And the trust problem spreads beyond government: survey evidence suggests that answers to the question “do you think most people can be trusted?” are also at a historical low in America, with only about a third of people answering in the affirmative.
That suggests that deep-seated, long-term factors might be at play. “Ongoing globalisation and technological change are now further weakening people’s trust” suggests Richard Edelman, creator of an eponymous “trust barometer,” who notes that it isn’t just America and it isn’t just government; trust in chief executives and markets is also down around the world. Bill Bishop, commentator and author of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart,” argues that much of modern life works against community and trust. He suggests that low trust in government is linked with the decline of social capital (blame television), globalisation and the cult of the individual.
Decline in social capital comes about because under democracy, anything that people do not share is viewed with suspicion, which means that difficult and complex ideas are discarded and replaced with moronic lies. Globalism is a tempting target, but is relatively recent. The cult of the individual (called “individualism” on this site) related directly to the mentality of the crowd, which is a group of people who want to remove social restraints to their acting as is individually convenient. That allows them to externalize cost to society at large and have few restrictions on their own behavior or moral activity, although over time the crumbling of their society results from this and eventually disadvantages them.
People are fundamentally exhausted with the political process. We have constant elections, television, speeches and other drama, but none of it seems to fix longstanding problems, and people are getting the impression — correctly — that no matter what they do, those who work in government, business, non-profits and religion will simply twist popular opinion to support whatever works best at destroying the public so it remains a helpless, quivering, and paralytic mass ripe for the plunder. We are lost in the hands of parasites.
Undoing democracy is surprisingly easy. We need to appoint a regent to rule in the interim, then select aristocrats, and have them select a king. To find aristocrats, we look at people who are the natural leaders — about five percent of the population — and from them, select those who are simultaneously both of penetrating intelligence and morally good. Those then rise in the hierarchy and from those we select leaders, and then encourage those to breed with the like-minded to produce a permanent aristocracy.
No system is perfect, but the best system is informal and emphasizes strong power with high accountability, or “skin in the game” as those wacky Neoreaction kids say. We either die with democracy, based on our pretense that we are so cool as individuals that our votes will make magic results, or grow up and choose actual leadership, and with it get rid of the idea of government and its Nanny State ways that inevitably make it more powerful to our loss.
Oh look; we’re busting people for posting things to internet forums now. America has inverted its original purpose of “freedom” to mean “many different groups demand obedience from one another,” and predictably, this has led to an absurd game of lies:
The 50-year-old was arrested in July following an investigation that linked him to messages posted that spring and summer on the Metalthrone.net website.
“I will slaughter them and burn their Synagogue to the ground . . . kids, goldfish, old folks. Shove money down their throats,” Sullivan wrote under the screen name KS43. “These Jews of 2016. They think they are safe.”
Investigators searched Sullivan’s Stamford home and found more than two dozen firearms, gun parts, high-capacity magazines and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
So, he wrote something about a group, and also possessed weapons. In the old America, this would have merited an unkind comment from his betters or a discussion on whether his view has merit. While anti-Semitism goes too far, recognizing that different groups need different spaces is a type of sanity that our ideological government fears. We could at least hash it out and end the issue.
Instead, we have this sad pretense of a society. Our purpose long ago departed, we now act “for others” because this makes us feel momentary flickers of meaning to life, and therefore we crave it like a drug. In doing that, we refuse to admit that most people cannot get along and that homogeneity lessens this to the benefit of all.
Our pretense commands us to deny this, and so we smother small problems today, letting them grow so that at some point in the future, we will have an outbreak of violence and anger which will shock us all until we realize that, all along, we were living in denial and refused to see the obvious pattern forming before our eyes.
Liberal democracy won — during the past era of history — because of fear. People feared being excluded, or rejected for their bad decisions, or even being persecuted for political trends. Instead of option for cooperation, they attempted to control compulsion by making it “good” or universally accepting.
That created a cascade of other bad decisions culminating in, as Francis Fukuyama noted, an end-stage of liberal democracy paired with the welfare state and capitalism, basically a compilation of all of the previous attempts to make a working modern society. It borrowed as much from Communism and Fascism as it did classical liberalism.
With Brexit, we are seeing the cresting of a wave against not just the EU, but the idea of government itself. The average normal functional person does not need government; we are happiest during government shutdowns. In fact, our lives are mostly centered around local events, and we want national government to just run itself moderately well without our interference.
The libertarian boom of the 90s and 00s was doomed but also prescient. It wanted to use the law to defend against the herd taking whatever its members had accumulated; while this was doomed, it also introduced a new idea, which was that for ordinary life, government is irrelevant and in fact nothing more than a bother. People need stability not “progress.”
Libertarianism by itself means nothing other than a defense of the ability to retain what one has worked for. Throughout history, this has been a failing position, because the parasites merely vote themselves a “right” to whatever you have. But, through its criticism, libertarianism introduced the idea that government is a proxy of the parasitic crowd.
We want no government. We need leaders — like kings — and we need a social hierarchy such as occurs through a caste system, and some kind of guidance through culture. Beyond that, all of what government does is unnecessary and merely a pretext for taking what we have. We would rather it just went away. Government shutdown? Forever, if possible.
The future belongs to a new type of society. It will be organic, informal and decentralized. And yet, unlike our failure of a society, it will have order: strong hierarchy and caste. Brexit and Trump are the first steps toward the recognition of what we actually want, and they start with removing the idea of government as necessary and a good guy, because it is neither. It is merely another parasite.
One fairly odd privilege of living in Alabama is the ability to observe Birmingham. It is the opportunity to see Amerika at its worst.
Everything the Cathedral can do to screw with people out of bigotry, pity and contempt has been done to the African-American majority city.* Recently, Business Insider.com listed the ten worst cities for the ratio of student loan debts to starting salaries and guess which municipality won the flippin’ Iron Bowl?
1. Birmingham, Alabama
Average student loan balance per person: $60,184
Median salary for graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree: $39,868
Debt-to-income ratio: 151%
But student loans are a good thing. We give power to the people. We extend the ladder of hope down into the abyss of the knee-grow ghetto out of our love for the strength of diversity! Imagine there’s no countries. It’s easy if you try. Peace and love will prevail in the end.
OK, let’s put down the bong, Sparky. Student Loans are the evil business end of the Cathedral’s system of societal control. They are like The Outer Party in 1984. You get that degree on credit and then owe everything you ever make to the Feds who can call it in on you anytime you piss them off.
What would you think of a lender that has holds more than one $1 trillion in loans outstanding, targets low income and minority borrowers, has a payment delinquency and default rate in excess of 25 percent, and has postponed repayment on 14 percent of its loans, but is still accruing interest on them?
I would think that lender eventually intends to send Mackie “Knuckles” O’Bannon out to collect once the vigorish runs long enough to make it profitable. Does this sound paranoid? If so, then talk me through the following.
Why these borrowers can’t declare bankruptcy.
Why uncreditworthy borrowers are getting $60K in loans. Didn’t we learn anything from The Great NINJA Loan Sh!tshow of 2007-2008?
Shouldn’t the 13th Amendment make it illegal for the Federal Government of the US of A to make any debt owed to it undischargable and collectable through wage garnishments?
I bring up the 13th Amendment because Guaranteed Federal Student Loans are essentially a company financial services store owned by the Federal Government. At least it remains such as long as a Bachelors Degree from Podunk State is the symbol of respectable and trustworthy Middle Class adulthood in Modern Amerika.
And who do these people have to be trained and indoctrinated to be respectable by the Cathedral in order to manage? Obviously themselves. Like The Outer Party in 1984, the educational control measure isn’t designed to do anything but control the students themselves. That’s the sad, sad truth: the dirty lowdown…
* — And that doesn’t even get into what happened before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed and enacted.
Across the digital banner around the Quicken Loans Arena at the Republican National Convention, a tweet from the racist VDARE.com displayed during the night’s proceedings.
…This isn’t the first time the campaign of Donald Trump has made controversial connections with its white nationalist supporters throughout the 2016 race, of course.
…VDARE.com often hosts anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and white nationalist viewpoints and columns.
“America was defined — almost explicitly, sometimes very explicitly — as a white nation, for white people, and what that means is that there is virtually no figure, no law, no policy, no event in the history of the old, white America that can survive the transition to the new and non-white version. Whether we will want to call the new updated version ‘America’ at all is another question entirely,” white nationalist writer Sam Francis wrote on VDARE in 2003.
The highlighted terms reflect the dog whistling. In typical Leftist fashion, he is signaling that something unacceptable was said and that the tribe needs to rally for the attack.
Except that in 2016, nothing has happened. The Left is already in full fight-or-flight mode over Trump, so they cannot turn it up to eleven. And the constant outrage drowns out specific incidents.
The real shocker is what has happened on the right and in the center. To wit: “meh.” No one has joined the chorus of mea culpas and self-flagellation that normally happens whenever a white person indulges in the same freedoms granted to every other race on earth, such as self-interest and self-pride.
Trump has already won. He has cucked the media and beaten them down, never to again achieve their former prestige. They have been revealed as echo chambers and propaganda outlets. He has shown us that you can defy the Politically Correct public standard and win, because that standard is in the hands of a small group of self-appointed elites who are not particularly competent or useful. We do not need them!
As a result, they are in full retreat. They bet the farm on Americans being unable to pull themselves away from the amplified voices telling us what to think, but those voices have failed us, and now their power has evaporated as a result. They are just talking heads, not the voice of the nation, morality, order or history. Everything they say or do is fake, just like Hollywood.
Look toward more of this roiling America and Europe over the next few years as academia, media, government and the arts continue to render themselves obsolete by supporting the old order, namely Leftism and its thought-control method of political correctness. They are no longer needed, and now stand recognized as the threat they are.
Our elites seem baffled at why they are hated, and yet, because all of their actions are reactions to human ideas and human trends, they are unable to keep doing what it is that makes them hated. Witness this mental retardation from Finland, of all places:
In April, a 35-year-old man from Hyvinkää, a town just 50km north of the Finnish capital, Helsinki, heard a knock on the front door of his suburban house and rushed to open it. As soon as he unlocked it, three strangers rushed in and launched at him, toting baseball bats and a gun. The man retreated to the kitchen, where he found a knife and with it was able to overpower the intruders, two men and one woman.
The homeowner has been convicted of “excessive self-defense and attempted manslaughter,” Helsinki news reports. He will serve an unconditional sentence for four years and two months, which he has to spend in prison. The man also has to pay damages to his attackers, with the fine totaling €21,000 (US$23,000). The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.
The attackers were also convicted for felony home invasion and assault, yet [they] received one-year-and-two-month conditional sentences, which is similar to probation or house arrest in Finland, depending on the case…The trio was also ordered to pay the homeowner damages, but their combined fine was ruled to be €3,000 (US$3,300).
Witness egalitarianism in action! If a poorer/dumber/uglier/fatter person robs a wealthier/smarter/attractive/thinner person, the latter must subsidize the former. When you think about it, such “Robin Hood” schemes are necessary for equality, because if some rise above the rest, they must be penalized in order to keep the vastly numerically superior population content.
We may see it as “virtue signaling,” but to the type of people who succeed in this system, it is essential to be neurotic and schmaltzy in this way, because that is how they show they are here for the individual. That pleases all individuals, and forms a better symbol-product that voters, consumers and social group members are flattered by, leading them to support the person who did it, even if it is obvious that this is just sick conformity.
German police in a coordinated effort conducted a series of raids targeting hate speech online. Federal police (BKA) performed operations in 14 of Germany’s 16 states, reportedly investigating roughly 60 suspects. No arrests were made but computer equipment, cameras and smartphones were seized in the first-ever mass raids targeting online hate speech.
The operation focused in particular on the German state of Bavaria, where according to police sources, a secret Facebook group had posted messages glamorizing National Socialism, which is illegal in Germany. The police said that this group and others spread xenophobic, anti-Semitic and other radical far-right content.
…Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere meanwhile said that “violence, including verbal violence, in any form and in any context” was “unacceptable.”
The individual fears any standard higher than himself. This causes a “race to the bottom” so that everyone feels included, which requires standards so low they do not exist. In order to achieve this, governments and courts attack anyone who is not actively repeating the zombie-like mantra of equality.
The West wonders why it has a dying population; here is why. We live in Hell. We are ruled by idiots and lies. Life has become a task of tolerating all the incompetence, stupidity and dysfunction around us — a privilege we pay with our time, money, and energy — so that we can claim that our standards are so low that everyone is included.
In the spirit of being politically correct, it might be kindest to stop referring to actions as “failures.” They did not fail; they merely inverted triumph. That is, they achieved its opposite, but that too is an equal choice and should be tolerated in the spirit of inclusion.
On April 7, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt took the first step toward ending Prohibition and signed a law that allowed people to brew and sell beer, in the United States, as long as it remained below 4.0% alcohol by volume (ABV). Beer drinkers celebrated and were happy to be able to purchase beer again for the first time in thirteen years.
Our research found this day was created as National Beer Day by Justin Smith, a Richmond, Virginia Craft Beer Examiner, and his friend Mike Connolly from Liverpool, England. April 7th was chosen because the Cullen-Harrison Act was signed into law and became effective on this day.
Past history suggests that government would be less destructive if its workers drank so much beer that they were incapacitated, at which point the few functional humans would resume directing the others toward productive activity instead of fighting eternal human weaknesses with even weaker laws.
“We need to stop these elderly voters from living alone, starving by eating cat food, and unable to get around!” bellowed the Senator triumphantly, hoping this desperate gambit would save his career. Otherwise, he’d be the one eating cat food alone in a one-room apartment, waiting for visits from the products of his terrible parenting who would never arrive.
In the way of democracy, the other politicians in the room panicked. To approve this measure opened a can of financial and regulatory worms, but to deny it was to appear to hate the elderly, which meant that they would all be voted out of office. Retired people have nothing to look forward to but (1) “early bird” specials at Luby’s and (2) going to the voting booth with fire and vengeance in their bleary eyes. Politicians offend this demographic at their peril.
So the law hit the books: government would provide health insurance and benefits for the retired who needed them. Like rewards for minorities, the poor and wayward immigrants, this new form of welfare would cost a huge amount of money at first, and a lot more later. But there were ripple effects too.
First was its hidden cost to government. Introduce a new program like that, and you have to hire many thousands to administer it. Then there are many lawyers who now become expert in it, and many more lawsuits. Everybody gets rich. But then, every government agency and every company out there has to hire its own bureaucrats and lawyers to deal with this new program. If you have workers, you are part of the program now… or if you deal with workers, or rent to workers, or sell to workers… because at some point, they will be retired. That’s legalistic thinking for you.
Employers reacted too. If Uncle Sam is paying retirement benefits, the company benefits are no longer achieving their goal, which is as a bargaining chip to bring talented labor into the company. So those go. And then, because of raised costs, other things go too. They need to streamline to hire all those lawyers and bureaucrats.
But now the real fight begins. Everyone wants to be qualified under the new program. But because the law has to be limited, some are not. In come the lawyers, and the media with sob stories, and the outside consultants. Soon the program is many times its original size. So the politicians come up with a “good” idea, which is to make lots of rules. They put out a rulebook with 30,000 pages of regulations on every conceivable topic.
Of course, they forgot that rules are like coral reefs to lawyers and bureaucrats. The more lines in that rulebook, the more exceptions there are and the more ways there are to make money off the system. This means more court cases and lawsuits, and more going back to the negotiating table for politicians. It’s money for everyone, they think.
Down in the “Anteroom to Heaven,” otherwise known as retirement paradise Florida, a guy and his nephew — who is a lawyer — look over the new rules. The rules list twenty conditions under which people can purchase motorized scooters. But these guys zoom in on just two: they must have “mobility issues” and be “under medical care.”
The lawyer shrugs. “Sounds to me like anyone who has any trouble getting around, and who gets a note from their doctor, can get one of these. We’d better incorporate that scooter business now.”
They do that, and then they go around to all the retirement homes. They hand out fliers. They do free consultations. They sign up two million people for motorized scooters within a decade, make a fortune, and sell the business so they can retire. About this time someone in Washington, D.C. finally notices the vast hemorrhaging of money, which has happened because Uncle Sam pays first, then asks for the money back if you did it wrong.
Members of Congress say the ads lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary spending by Medicare, which is only supposed to pay for scooters when seniors are unable to use a cane, walker or regular wheelchair. Government inspectors say up to 80 percent of the scooters and power wheelchairs Medicare buys go to people who don’t meet the requirements. And doctors say more than money is at stake: Seniors who use scooters unnecessarily can become sedentary, which can exacerbate obesity and other disorders.
Nobody wins. And yet nobody is going to criticize this process, because to do so is to implicate democracy itself. At every step of the process, the logic of democracy was present: pandering to the victim group, writing the vague law, creating a labyrinth of byzantine regulations that ended up favoring the bad guys. This is not an exceptional case; it’s business as usual, and they did it on your dime.
This reminds us that not only are government officials just following orders and applying standard procedure, they feel no need for any of it to make sense. This is appropriate for a society that expects senseless actions and employs no tolerance policies mandating rigid responses that remove reason and judgment from determining appropriate handling for any situation.
In a reason-based society, you should be able to interrupt an official performing a mandated task and receive a satisfactory answer when asking them what they expect that task will accomplish. If they don’t know, or don’t think it will accomplish anything, they should not mindlessly perform their duty.
Some Luddites have warned us that the technology that promised to make our lives easier has instead enslaved us to an avalanche of email, texts, and links we need to check for and click on. Just as we have turned humans into procedural robots that work for the needs of computers that should function on our behalf, we have likewise inverted our relationship with rules by creating binding directives at odds with our goals.
Our system of rules is in constant expansion and is assumed sensible and benign only because this was previously the case. With reason increasingly banished from society and rational scrutiny considered offensive and antisocial, we may have reached the limits our of ability to design governing systems.
Surveying the chain of derailment shows us we got lost with successive waves of revolution against reality, accelerated most recently from 1950-1970 with waves of beatniks, hippies, and feminists who proposed compelling fantasies of flower-power, equality, trigger warnings and peace through surrender, despite significant conflict necessitating actual resolution.
This set the stage for political correctness, which ushered in microaggressions, pretending to feel threatened because alternative ideas are communicated, and identifying as whatever characteristics one wished themselves to possess. Surely future methods of crafting fantasies will continue to disconnect further from the real world.
We should consider simplifying all this by returning to a world that makes sense.
Our coddled First World Problems students at the universities, like all leftists, are children of privilege.
We did not have leftists in the West until the French made life so much better for the poor that those r-strategists outbred their superiors so greatly that revolution was sure to follow as soon as a crisis occurred that could be blamed on leadership and not merely overpopulation. Leftists follow this model: superior forces create and stabilize, leftists breed like yeast, then blame their superiors and take over. Classic rebellious child with too much free time scenario.
Humans do not like to face reality. That is in fact the primary challenge of life itself: learn reality. Deal with what is actually there, instead of your thoughts about it, your interpretive dance, your blogs or excuses. Politics falls mostly into the latter camp of “excuses.” Excuses for the lower echelons of society and their low performance. Excuses for those who act in criminal ways. This disguises the fundamental psychology of the leftist, which is excuses for himself.
Leftism demands equality but what it actually wants is state-sponsored individualism. Or: I don’t have to discipline my inner monkey. I can be as useless as I want to be, so long as I tip-toe around the rules and don’t get caught, but I do not have to participate in any kind of plan, social standards or even measures of competence. I am perfect, just the way I am, and no one can tell me “no” — in fact, the rest of you should get out of my way because I am the original Precious Snowflake.
If you want to know why Leftism is eternally popular, it is this attitude. Like Mr. Rogers, it tells people they are OK just as they are. There is no need to discipline themselves to stop their inner monkey from raging, or to shape their minds to understand reality outside of them, or even to worry about the consequences of their actions and be accountable through them, which occurs before those actions through a mental process we call “morality.” They just need to be. They’re beautiful just for being humans and doing the monkeyshines that humans all can do because they’re lowest common denominator: dancing, making “art,” copulating, chatting, getting drunk, eating and posting to Tumblr.
This is what conservatism is up against: inertia. Liberalism validates human behaviors that are useless by declaring them “equal” — just as important as — heroic acts, essential acts and exceptional acts. Liberalism is the anti-Darwin. It argues that people do not need to improve themselves at all, but most be easy on themselves. It is anaesthesia for a dying species. It says don’t worry about the obvious failure that we are undergoing, just bend over and think of England.
The conservative impulse toward religiosity comes from this realization. We see life as a moral battle for mental clarity. We recognize that most people are still monkeys, and by most we mean 98.6% or so. They live through their impulses, are in denial about realities, and their agenda is wholly based in a fascination with their own appetites, lusts, shopping and desires. As a result, they have abdicated the higher mental functions that allow planning and creation, including of civilization itself.
Zen Buddhism bases much of its approach on the same idea. To a Zen Buddhist, the problem of life is that most people are mentally undisciplined monkeys who are destructive by the very nature of their careless, solipsistic, self-obsessed and oblivious behavior. This is the essence of the Zen master slap: “Wake up! Reality is out here, not in there, inside your head! Your life is illusion and you have no idea what you’re doing!”
In the West we refer to this tradition as esotericism. An initiate, usually a teenage boy, is put to a quest as part of his study. On that quest, he has to snap out of the umbilical sac of solipsism and start looking at life not just as real, but through a critical eye. What are the actual motivations of others, despite what they say? What are the strategic positions people take and what are they protecting? What does this tell us about them? You may notice that the same questions arise in the analysis of religious texts, or in a good literature degree, which you can still get in some rare places. They call it critical thinking there.
The point of this is that the appeal of liberalism is entirely a lie. It justifies ignoring the essential task of life and replacing it with an easier task. This appeals to idiots, lower castes, and neurotics, and these types will never stop pushing this agenda. In sensible societies, those in power are aware of this and constantly exile such people. You cannot do that with the rule of law; you need the rule of exceptional and far-sighted men. If you stop, the insane people build up and then they overthrow you with superior numbers, since oblivious people think they are immortal — after all, they’re solipsists — anyway and so are prone to attack in thoughtless groups.
With this in mind, the last thing we want on a college campus or anywhere else is a “safe space.” Safe spaces are solipsism bubble zones where people can go if they fear someone might mention reality. In safe spaces, people can bloviate on about their ideological ideas without being contradicted by someone who has noticed flaws in their narrative, i.e. reality peeking through the carefully-constructed artifice. Safe spaces are designed to blot our reality and replace it with a giant neurotic and morally flatulent human mind. They are the triumph of narcissism, fear and intolerance (of reality!) over common sense, logic and survival. They are suicide cults.
Bashing college kids for this is like swatting a piñata or shooting fish in a barrel. We all know they are delusional; they’re kids with no experience of the world. They are simply acting out the stuff their professors taught them, and in this case, their professors are neurotic Generation X-ers re-enacting what their neurotic Me Generation parents taught them happened in 1968. But looking past this easy game, we should think about safe spaces in general, and the tendency of societies to make them.
The first people to found a society are conquerors, which means both warriors and nerds. The warriors clear away the other monkeys who will steal, sabotage and subvert — they call this genocide sometimes, but it’s the same reason that American settlers killed Indians and Israelis blew away Palestinians — and the nerds start putting together irrigation, sanitation, libraries and other essential things for civilization. At some point they both look at each other and shrug. The basics are done. Now all that is left is to improve what is there. And here is where the problem enters.
When a society is first minted, it has a goal: push back against that which holds it back, including nature and ignorance. This is a forward moving task. After it loses that simplicity, it needs a new task. The most obvious is to try to protect its people from the dangers of life. This is a backward moving mentality, and it always takes the form of looking at who is hurt or gets hurt and trying to “fix” situations that are the consequence of these people’s inabilities or solipsism. This is the start of the idea of safe spaces; society itself is the safe space.
I say we undo all of it. Abolish the FDA; take whatever drugs you want and if you die, we throw you in a ditch. Remove the warning tags from mattresses. Get rid of speed limits, DUI laws, handicapped parking, movie ratings, the lot of it. Those things create a mentality that destroys civilizations because they create an intermediary in place of reality. People no longer worry about the consequences of their actions, but whether those actions are legal. Get rid of all of it. 99% of our laws need to go into the dumpster with the rest of the “think of the children!”-style neurotic rule-making.
We need a society where for every action, the person making it is thinking, “What will happen when I do this?” Not lost in a fog of assurances about how the government would ban it if it weren’t safe, or how he has guaranteed health care, or how his friends think and that might make him a YouTube star. Have him thinking solely about the results of his actions. Don’t give him a forest of laws and nagging nanny moral codes so he can attempt to justify what he is doing. Measure it all by the outcome. If you try to shoot Hitler and you blow a hole in an orphan instead, it really is not different from killing that orphan any other way. Reality matters. Consequences matter. And in the end, you either helped a situation or hurt it — but helping can be hurting, if it enables weakness, stupidity and solipsism to thrive.
I remember the rise of the administrative state back in the 1980s. Suddenly there were warning labels on everything. As a result, people stopped thinking about the consequences of their activities. They just looked for the warning label and, if they didn’t see one, went ahead. If things went wrong, they blamed the government: “There should have been a warning label!” Government gladly paid the fines from these lawsuits because it saw an unstoppable, infinite way to justify increases in its power. All they had to do was find some poor idiot who couldn’t figure out that pulling the pin on a hand grenade and inserting it in his rectum was a bad idea, and boom! another 400 bureaucrats and cops were hired, another 10,000 lines of regulations and twenty federal laws were added, and the great leech-off-society parasitic jobs program called Government could continue.
What encouraged them further was the fact that people — who are basically monkeys — liked this condition. It meant there was always someone else to blame for their own stupid acts, and they could “save face” by blaming the government or some poor manufacturer for whatever stupid thing they did with a product. If the mattress does not tell you not to light it on fire and ride it into a pool of gasoline, your life-changing injuries are certainly not your fault, Mr. Plaintiff!
I’m sure the original intent behind these laws was to protect the poor and stupid from destroying their lives, but like any true evil, the laws took on a life of their own (like a cancer, come to think of it). The dumbing-down of our society really began at that moment. No one was any longer accountable for understanding reality and making the moral decision to ensure their actions did not end in bad results. Nope: there was a warning to read, and someone to blame if it went badly, and because Government was now running the show, there was always some kind of benefit to apply for when you maimed yourself and could no longer work.
No consequences for anyone. That’s what a safe space is, and that’s why all of them should be abolished.