For those of you who sat in history class wondering what it was like to witness the fall of Rome or Angkor Wat, we now have an answer as to how they fell: everyone went crazy.
Often the simplest explanations are the best. We know that humans pick up ideas and behaviors from others, and that we imitate those who are successful, so it is no stretch to see that if people succeed while doing crazy things, others will imitate them. They will then get self-righteous about their insanity, and call others ignorant or crazy for not following them down the path to insanity.
This collective insanity is a type of prolonged trend, but its biological counterpart is the stampede. A stampede is both a response to a threat, and a fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) psychology that creates a tragedy of the commons: open space is needed to escape the threat, but each animal is afraid that another will get there first, so they all attempt to get there before the others.
Stampedes contain a certain irony in that in many cases, if they were simply pointed toward the predator, the threat would quickly be over. Instead, they show the effects of mass panic. Each individual is afraid less of the predators than of being trampled, and that others will escape and leave them behind to be eaten. And so, a race to consume space occurs, and this overwhelms every other impulse.
In the case of human stampedes, people respond to opportunity that is too good to be true, as is the case in most human scams. The civilization scam involves the fact that those who act emotionally and appeal to the herd will get ahead, like Justin Trudeau or Barack Obama, and so everyone imitates that model in the hope that they can rise above their level of competence.
Our current stampede began shortly after our civilization became materially successful owing to the rise of cities. Then came the middle class, who chafed at rules designed to preserve culture and civilization since these made commerce inefficient. Instead of asking whether commerce alone could be the center of civilization, the middle class organized to overthrow these rules.
First they made it trendy for “intellectuals” to worship the human form instead of the abstract ideals of the past through a cultural movement, paralleling 1968, called The Renaissance.™ Next they legitimized the idea of equality and the goal of society being to facilitate the dreams of the individual human with The Enlightenment,™ and followed that up with Romanticism in which the idea of the eternal won out to be fleeting sensations of significance found in human emotion.
After that, democracy came and — parallel to Athens in the days of its downfall — quickly began to dismantle culture, religion, heritage, caste, hierarchy, sex roles, family, and even sanity. It became a prole-driven world, where those with the simplest possible opinions and thus the most popular ones won out over any kind of history, logic, common sense or realistic practicality.
Now, most people resemble demons. They greedily endorse the crazy ideas of egalitarianism, and take delight in tearing down anything which is above the level of the average person. Every speech and writing must be made simplistic, music has to be a beat and a random melody line, politics has become a game of giving free things, and in everyday life, “me first” has replaced any kind of civility.
The behavior of the average person in the West is shocking and saddening, and they like that. In a crowd of equals, no one is important until they stand out by doing stunts or otherwise drawing attention to themselves, and so people like to be outrageous if they can. More importantly, they are cruel. They treat their children like possessions, and live for the temporary, because the less they care about and invest in anything outside of themselves, the more personal power they feel.
It seems as if the stampede to overthrow the kings has turned every person into a tyrant.
A few hold out. There is a remnant of people who are Western European in blood, chaste by nature, reflective of mind and who act toward what is good and beautiful instead of what is short term personal gain. But they are few, and the crowd gleefully shouts them down and dismantles whatever they do, once it finds it.
Even more, the herd behavior destroys things that the crowd loves. Any new patch of land becomes a neighborhood with good schools as the pioneers move in, but then everyone wants their share, and they elbow their way in or demand it from their politicians. But they have not changed their own internal traits, and thus their behaviors, so they continue to behave as they have, and quickly make it into the same ruin that everything else is. When the crowd arrives, whatever was new becomes old and mediocre, so that everyone can participate.
This is real end times stuff. Humanity is like a person in a leaky boat who spends most of his time bailing out the water coming in. That represents the constant infighting, corruption, unnecessary drama and incompetence of our society. He looks out in the water and just fifty yards away is a brand new boat. But there is risk in crossing the open water, so he stays and bails.
Our only hope is to kick a hole in the boat big enough that it sinks, so that we can then realize we have no other choice but to swim to the other boat if we want to live. That other boat will not be opposite of our present time, but represent the saner path we were on before we went down this path, and we will pick up where we left off and then improve that, instead of trying to patch the irreparable present.
Most conservative writers will not accept the fact that European decline is the product of modernity; that is, the modern lifestyle and the future it offers us turn people into self-destructive, sadistic, controlling, passive, deferential and retributively oblivious agents of destruction.
This finding, part of a survey of 540,000 15-year-olds in 72 countries, indicates a worrying pattern throughout the world: Advanced economies have lower levels of well-being than might be expected from their material prosperity and freedoms — particularly among young people.
…Related to this, it was also clear that the top countries for well-being tended to be emerging economies. It may be that perceived opportunities for expansion has a positive impact on well-being. Meanwhile, in advanced economies like Japan’s, there may be a dimly discernible sense that the economy has “peaked” and that there is little room to advance.
…Japanese teens reported that “working hard/helping myself get on in life” was their most important value — and more chose this than in any other country except South Korea (also low in the well-being stakes).
Japanese teens were also the least likely of all 20 countries to think that making a contribution to wider society was important. It is easy to see how these beliefs, in combination with a lack of opportunity, could produce a pessimistic state about one’s chances of leading a successful or meaningful life.
In other words, what makes teens miserable is (1) being in the current first world (2) believing that they must join the system and (3) having Leftist beliefs.
The most interesting point is that despite its material wealth, the first world crushes people by forcing them into a lifestyle with several crushing problems:
Jobs are jails. Workplaces are showrooms for bad human behavior; competition is based on appearance not competence or efficiency; self-important sociopaths get ahead while the competent and decent are left behind; all but a few jobs are non-essential and because of individuals competing for attention and to justify themselves, composed of make-work and pro forma activity.
People are insane. Under intense pressure, with none of the social order that nurtured them in the past, and suffering through a time that is existentially miserable but physically comfortable and therefore cannot be criticized, people have become ugly in the spirit and mean in their treatment of one another.
Sexual degeneracy. People are whores because egalitarian sexual practices encourage having few standards. This means that the chances of a life-long bond are greatly diminished, and that people can expect sexual competition and one-upmanship to be the rule. Those who are not having sex all the time are written off as losers.
Consumerism. Low-quality, low cost, high margin disposable products fill our shelves and litter our streets. Very little lasts, and the constant mania to have new stuff and pursue entertainment or other consumption makes people into hollow zombies with nothing to talk about who deny any deeper connection to life itself.
Ugliness. Our architecture consists of boxes, our homes are filled with plastic, modern art and pop culture are reductionist garbage, graffiti and vandalism and advertising cover every surface, filth is ever-present, public messages are snarky and cruel, and even people themselves are being twisted into bloated, greedy, snarling, beige race mutts who look like nothing from the past.
These add to a society that no one with an IQ of above about 115 wants to live in, and yet because the vast majority of people are oblivious to these things, those of higher taste and intelligence are voted out.
High-IQ groups are the most susceptible to both Leftism and existential misery because they are the most prone to self-doubt, for the simple reason that they are aware of more ways in which they could be wrong, have longer memories and tend to be more aware and better at self-criticism.
In pursuit of the ultimate lifestyle, while our leaders drool over power and obsess themselves with death, the people of the first world have doomed themselves through a utilitarian approach to existence — arising from democracy — that favors the crassest and most simplistic of our tastes, creating a repellent and alien world in which we are miserable in our souls.
The root of modernity is individualism. The individual wants to be included by mechanistic action like equality, as this guarantees he cannot lose but also allows him to continue to agitate for more. In groups, individuals agree that this is best, and so they create collectivized individualism, or mob rule called crowdism. Like a gang or cult, this infests society and subverts it by reversing thinking from principle to results (cause to effect) to thinking that argues from what is, and tries to find a way to justify it as socially good or bad so that it advances the crowdist narrative. To do this, it creates the mythos of itself as a victim so that its taking of wealth and power from society can be justified as positive. This creates a one-dimensional world where whatever makes everyone feel included is good, and everything else is a source of victimhood and bad, so this must be fought instead of the real-world problems that civilization faces. From that thinking one gets the type of smug, entitled and witless thinking demonstrated by this poster for the women’s anti-Trump protests today.
As Wikileaks releases even greater numbers of Podesta emails, people are finding more disturbing information about the activities of the Clinton Clan and their entourage and handlers.
However, these are often misinterpreted. For example, the recent outrage over “spirit cooking” mistakenly identifies something merely bad as what is in fact far worse.
“Spirit Cooking with Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes” was released by Ms. Abramovic in 1996, but the “ingredients” call for “fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk” to be consumed “on earthquake nights.”
New York’s Museum of Modern Art called it a “cookbook” for “evocative instructions for actions or thoughts.” Another recipe calls for “fresh morning urine.”
This is not worship of Satan, but something much worse: it is worship of the human self. If life has beauty, we will make an alternate beauty which reflects our own fascinations which in turn show our avoidance of the beautiful so that nothing competes with our egos and social pretenses.
In other words, this is typical “Fall of Rome” activity. People are pursuing the fetishistic and novelty-based in defiance and denial of reality, showing how completely out-of-touch they are with anything that is part of the natural world or human world outside of their artificial, delusional social circle.
When your elites are obsessed with the preciousness of deviance and find themselves chasing after this type of trivial nonsense, it means that they have become powerful enough to completely disconnect from anything but the world of their own egos and those who flatter them.
This has been going on for some time. Modern art has always been an abomination; “spirit cooking” is just one more extension of the fixation on ugliness, bodily functions and existential uncertainty that is all that modern art expresses. When you see this, expect not a Satanic conspiracy, but a dead civilization.
“You work for a foreign agency, show the world. Please don’t let this pass unseen. We want the colonial powers to come to rule over us again, at least we would have institutions and wouldn’t be drowning in garbage.” 1
Natural selection shapes genetics. Genetics shapes culture. Culture shapes society. That leaves us with elitism or egalitarianism as our two — and only two — choices.
No one worries about the collapse of lower-IQ societies. Such societies exist at a subsistence level, so that catastrophes are actually not much of a threat to the society as a whole, and successes are so mild that they destabilize nothing.
These societies are the most individualistic on earth. The individual is encumbered by obedience to nothing but himself. He has his hut, his bush meat and back garden, and he eats, sleeps and fornicates when he wants. Any rules are simple and worked around with bribes or gifts that perform like bribes.
With higher IQ societies, there is the possibility of failure because the network of ideas and institutions upon which they rest is more developed and thus more fragile.
In fact, higher IQ societies seem to be prone to collapse, following a quick rise and extensive development. They burn out quickly because they are unstable, like a chemical reaction of an explosive nature. As if suffering from the same malady as their people, they become neurotic, or unable to ascertain the cause of any result they see, and so they venture into the nonsense secular mysticism of misunderstanding the reasons why things are as they are.
What kills them is the loss of direction. They start to focus on who is already there, and make all things a means to the end of those people, instead of realizing that all material things are the means to an end of ideas. Such as the transcendentals: the good, the excellent, and the true.
Now, the zombie Leftists in the audience ask, why could this not apply to an idea like Leftism? The answer is that Leftism is not an idea in the sense of a goal, but an anti-goal: it is based in equality, or using all things as a means to the end of those people, rewarding them with equality so that no individual — and these seemingly collectivist movements are individualistic at heart — is challenged to achieve something, or behave according to social standards, before he or she is accepted by society.
Ah, and there is the rub. The idea that is not an idea; the goal that is not a goal. Instead of having a goal, we just sit down at the table and serve ourselves a heaping helping of the seed corn, instead of planting for next season, or as sane people do, the season ten thousand years hence, because if life is good you want it to last that way forever, or as close as it can get.
Implicit in that is fatalism, or the belief that there can be no hope. This arises whenever there are too many fools to get anything done. When there are enough fools, they all gather up into a group, and freak out whenever someone proposes something realistic, and only shut up when the usual illusions are brought out to great applause. At that point, civilization cannot be saved, nor can anything realistic get done, so realistic/intelligent people become marginalized.
If anything, this suggests a Darwinistic nature to civilization: it either exterminates its fools, or it is exterminated by them.
Civilizations die when they lose purpose and it is replaced by a panoply of conflicting directions. This creates a type of background hum where the managerial overhead of thinking becomes awash in many different options, like a type of mental entropy.
When that background hum takes over, it means that the lowest common denominator — an intersectionality of convenience — will always prevail: this rewards the behavior typical to committees, corporations, mobs and the democracy brain fug that always rewards the most timorous solutions.
“Timorous” means both lowercase-c conservative, or the least deviation from the norm at that moment, and politically bold egalitarian solutions, because they flatter every individual in the crowd and therefore are non-controversial.
Smart societies fail because they expand the franchise of power beyond those who can create civilization to those who arrive afterwards and exist in a quasi-contributor, quasi-parasitic status. These people are not bad, but they are static in the transmission, confusing the mission and replacing it with their own neurosis.
Neurosis leads to policies which destroy people because those who are already quasi-parasitic want camouflage which can hide their own lack of self-discipline, self-esteem and clarity of moral and logical purpose. Those who fear they are wrong like nothing more than a cloud of chaos to obscure their own uselessness.
My takeaway from Revolution is that socialism corrupts White people as assuredly as it corrupts everyone else. Five decades of a cradle-to-grave welfare state made New Zealanders lazy and complacent. As r/K selection theory shows us, free resources inevitably breed a nation of sexually deviant layabouts. A society where success is determined not by your intelligence or ingenuity but by how well you can game the bureaucracy is one that will inevitably fall apart, regardless of its racial composition.
Anything the herd advocates is designed to destroy good people and replace them with more herd, or undifferentiated people. Here is the great William S. Burroughs on the nature of the undifferentiated, or viral and parasite:
After that he began waking up in the morning with a transparent jelly like a tadpole’s tail all over his mouth. This jelly was what the scientists call un-D.T., Undifferentiated Tissue, which can grow into any kind of flesh on the human body. He would tear it off his mouth and the pieces would stick to his hands like burning gasoline jelly and grow there, grow anywhere on him a glob of it fell. So finally his mouth sealed over, and the whole head would have have amputated spontaneous — (did you know there is a condition occurs in parts of Africa and only among Negroes where the little toe amputates spontaneously?) — except for the eyes you dig. That’s one thing the [parasite] couldn’t do was see. It needed the eyes. But nerve connections were blocked and infiltrated and atrophied so the brain couldn’t give orders any more. It was trapped in the skull, sealed off. For a while you could see the silent, helpless suffering of the brain behind the eyes, then finally the brain must have died, because the eyes went out, and there was no more feeling in them than a crab’s eyes on the end of a stalk.
There are people with purpose, and those who have no purpose. Those who have no purpose seek to destroy those with purpose. Fools, by the nature of their foolishness, have no purpose. They are also the most numerous type of human. Civilization thrives when fools are removed; it dies when they are tolerated.
In the question of civilization, survival is not hard. As in school, one can get a large number of questions wrong and still survive. This subsistence existence is the default state of humanity; maybe they get it 60% right and 40% wrong, but they still persist. So what destroys civilization?
If the mediocre can survive, and the excellent thrives, this means that the threat to civilization is that which is bad. The civilizations that endure are those which aggressively remove the bad. This is why the civilizations that thrive often have extensive taboos, social codes, cryptic standards and challenging rituals. This is their replacement for Darwinistic natural selection; they weed out those who need to be told what to do in order to succeed, and instead present their people with a general idea and see who can adapt that to a particular task and thrive.
Some policies destroy people: socialism, welfare, speech codes, regulations, managerial solutions, public education, etc. All are bad not just in real-world results, because these programs fail as well, but in the damage they do to the psychology of the people subjected to them.
Civilization makes itself neurotic, then makes its people neurotic, by pursuing these “ideal” solutions which are designed around the people as an ends and not a means. The goal is culture, greatness, excellence, biological health of the whole, and other intangibles; the means are the people. When the people become the goal, it destroys them in addition to destroying the civilization. This is the paradox of human civilization.
In the long-term view, one must view civilization through a biological filter. You either:
Reward good behavior.
Reward bad behavior (which includes: equalizing bad and good behavior).
The hidden trap here is that by saying all people and thus in effect that all behaviors are equal, one rewards the bad, because bad and good are rewarded the same and bad is always easier/more convenient than good.
There is no middle ground. One cannot duck the question of good/bad any more than one can duck the question of survival. Decisions must be made. They will reward one — good/higher evolution or bad/lower evolution — or the other, but not both.
This is heresy in social terms, because people universally want to believe that they can accept everyone and everything, and still be just fine. This avoids conflict, which upsets women and children, and makes it easier to manage the herd. Just tell them they are accepted, and then what to do in order to be good, which makes them into identical cogs of the system, since if you are telling everyone what to do, the goal must be universal or invariant between individuals despite the great variation between individuals, even if it appears that they are mostly the same.
Convincing people that there is a middle ground makes them neurotic, because they can no longer distinguish between the goal and distraction. The irrelevant and the relevant converge. This creates a mistaken association between false causes and effects.
For example, an article came out the other day that suggested that eating more fruits and vegetables made you smarter. Was that what the data said? No: it said that smarter people tended to eat more fruits or vegetables. Eating those will not make you smarter; those who are smarter do it, and so the result is false.
This is a classic example of Leftist inversion. Because they assume the equality of all people, anything that smart people do is not a result of their intelligence, but of the act itself. It is a cargo cult of methods in a field where the design of the human being — its biology and genetics — is what determines the result.
In turn, that leads us to an ugly realization. A society is only as good as its smartest people, if they are put in charge. This conflicts with the liberal idea that we can make everyone smart, and then by polling the crowd, have a better result than if we had a smart person in charge. But that notion has failed.
The reality is that the inverted society cannot survive. It becomes neurotic, and self destructs, because it is unrealistic. It is socially popular, so there are many smiling faces out there, but they neither know what is realistic nor care. They care only about convenient warm mental feelings of safety and security.
If a high-IQ society is to survive, it will do so by carefully separating its people. Those who are capable of leadership go in one silo, and those who are not go in another, where their opinions are scrupulously ignored and they are constantly reminded that they know nothing. The best must rise. Otherwise, the worst do.
This is the challenge to the west. In the smaller cycle, postwar Leftism — globalism, diversity, pluralism — has failed. In the bigger cycle, we are snapping out of the sleepwalk to oblivion that has gripped Western Civilization since at least The Enlightenment.™ It was wrong, and everything that springs from it is also wrong.
Instead, we are looking toward a non-neurotic future. We must be realists, and that starts with disenfranchising those among us who are incapable of making leadership decisions. We need purpose, hierarchy, realism; we do not need more pleasant human feelings that are convenient but lead to neurosis and with that, doom.
We live in an age of massive inversion. All of the original values held by our civilization were deemed offensive, so they were replaced with inoffensive versions, effectively reversing the original meaning.
An example can be found in the notion of tolerance. Tolerance originally meant accepting different viewpoints, but that required us to tolerate opinions that did not flatter the ego, so it was redefined to mean accepting all people who avoid unflattering opinions.
This has been going on for centuries, millennia even. It is the fatal disease of civilization itself: as soon as a society thrives, those who are unrealistic benefit from the inventions and social order imposed by the realistic. Since the realistic reproduce at a lower rate, soon the unrealistic outnumber them and shift policy to insanity.
At that point, the insanity of groups take over. Votes and mob participation do not involve individual responsibility, allowing the Crowd to participate and then blame itself without attaching guilt to any persons in particular. Groups tend to favor what keeps the group together, and that is almost always illusion.
The insanity has begun to melt however. For the first time in ages, we are having a conversation about civilizational health: how well our society works and what its prospects are, including whether it allows people to enjoy life and therefore try to do well by it.
That in turn leads to an inversion of the inverted. The mind recognizes that all social order is more social than order, and that each definition — like an official Soviet or Newspeak label — hides its actual meaning. With that comes a realization that the traditional ways and the ways of nature were effects, not causes in themselves, with the causes being an understanding of reality itself.
In this way, realism returns. Humans naturally fear nature because with it comes the risk of being personally destroyed by a natural selection like process. As a result, they rebel against realism, and create rules designed to insulate the unrealistic from the consequences of their actions.
And yet, all of those rules turn out to be wrong because they treat cause and effect as the same. Laws for example prohibit behaviors instead of looking at why those occur. Management of people relies on enforcing uniformity, not looking at the differences between people that cause some to do good, and some bad.
With the inversion of our adulterated values, which is the “re-evaluation of all values” that Nietzsche proposed, civilization can return to its function: adaptation to nature, which is not a binary process but a spectrum. That thrusts on us the choice of what type of future we would prefer.
Europeans rose above other groups by creating a civilization in which individuals had both an intense desire to do right, and a strong motivation to bond with life and experience a transcendental appreciation of its beauty, intensity and excellence. All of that has been gradually obscured by the unrealistic, who want safety more than existential joy and purpose.
As all of the plans of the unrealistic come to fruition, as began to happen in the 1990s in earnest, we are seeing the future that unrealism makes for us: endless rules, constant tedium, and a lack of mental silence and time in which to get to know ourselves and existence.
With that, we abandon the control-oriented human schemes, and return to the subtler and more flexible designs of nature. The backlash is still in its early stages, but one might visualize it as the functional people seeking a way to separate from the inverted people. We do not need them. And we cannot make them happy.
Years of inverted living have brainwashed people into accepting what seem like the best options from what is available. But when even those lead to destruction, it is time to think outside of what is accepted, and open our frame of reference up to the eternal instead. This leads to an entirely different viewpoint, one in which the inverted are no longer necessary or desired.
At first, this backlash may appear in political forms. But in parallel, it is occurring through cultural and artistic change as well. We have reached the endpoint of inversion, and seen that it is death, and now people are thinking of life again — and are determined to escape the inverted values that put us on the path to death.
Notice the subtlety of this category-based attack (found in The Guardian):
In response, Yiannopoulos told Breitbart:
With the cowardly suspension of my account, Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives. This is the end for Twitter. Anyone who cares about free speech has been sent a clear message: you’re not welcome on Twitter.
Of course, this is nonsense. Freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to abuse or incite racial hatred. And in such tantrums about the right to offend – tantamount to a bully throwing his toys out of the pram – we hear nothing about the silenced free speech of those who, like Jones, are driven off social media platforms because the sheer level of vitriol is just too much to bear.
They are always beating that tin drum:
Category X is unacceptable, so anything we dislike is Category X.
Do they ever define “abuse” or “incite racial hatred”? Not with any specificity, definitely, which allows them to association any non-Leftist speech under these banners. It has nothing to do with the words, and everything to do with the signal. Only Leftist thought is acceptable.
That seems harsh, until you observe people like this in action. Someone who wants to get to the truth starts with describing Yiannopoulos’ behavior as closely as can be done, then explains why it was abusive in effect, and points out that a sane solution might be for Jones to stop replying to him.
The insane person creates categories of behaviors whose sin is being personally offensive to them. This allows them to call principled disagreement “abuse,” and to claim that there is “incitement” behind refusing the Leftist narrative on race, when incitement would actually be something like, “Come on everybody, let’s kill all the Irish!”
We see this time and again. Leftists agree on categories that are unacceptable, and then use those as swords of guilt to force everyone else to comply or to face guilt by association. At first it was “classist” and “sexist,” but then “racist” and “homophobic” came into use, and now “ableist” has joined the mix. Next, it may be “IQist” or even “competencist” which are for now nonsense terms, but you get the point. These are not useful words; they are red and green at a stoplight which determines whether Leftists attack or not.
In the meantime, the point is entirely lost: that for us to have an open society, we need to be able to discuss anything without people getting banned, fired, blacklisted, or arrested. How it is that grown adults think people should be jailed or ostracized for any speech escapes me, but as the late editor Andrew Breitbart said about Leftists, “they destroy people.”
“I find on a balance of probabilities that at the time he caused their deaths, Matthew de Grood was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating or knowing that his actions were wrong,” Macklin said.
…The trial heard de Grood became withdrawn about a month before the attack and started posting about the end of the world, religion, vampires and Darth Vader on Facebook.
De Grood reported hearing voices telling him to kill before he grabbed a knife from a kitchen in the northwest Calgary home and stabbed the victims.
In the modern West, we are drowning in a wave of mental incompetence that has us asking the wrong questions entirely and coming up with nonsense answers as a result. In a sane world, the point of criminal trials is to remove threats to the good people out there, not protect the broken. In a sane world, five people at a party could at least put up a decent fight — by working together — when someone has a psychotic break.
Past societies would have hung this guy and ignored any questions of culpability because what matters is the victims, not the aggressor. Who cares if he was mentally competent at the time? If you allow people to go crazy, kill five people and then walk away with their lives, there is no responsibility at all. It encourages others to have a looser standard.
If instead you have a simple ironclad rule — kill unjustly, and you will be killed — people have an incentive to treat their family members who are going through psychotic breaks. They have reason to take their psychiatric meds. They also have a clear standard for when it is acceptable to kill in self-defense, since that is clarified as part of determining what is “unjust” in a killing.
Instead, the great equality lie has replaced their brains. They worry about whether he was fully culpable instead of how to protect ordinary decent people against the raging craziness out there. They do not look at the parents and ask what went wrong there. They do not point out that if this guy obviously went nutty a month before the stabbing, plenty of people had a chance to intervene before the disaster.
Instead, it is feel-good time. Feel good because we are compassionate. Deny that the cause of most human misery is delusional or crazy actions. Gather around to talk about how civilized we are, not like those brutish louts with their inhumane death penalty. And then for kicks, go dump a bucket of AIDS blood on the graves of these five victims in a futile attempt to desecrate them further.
I think that the recent protests at The University of Missouri were quite informative. We have learned that their journalism faculty will throw journalists out of the protests if they start filming what the morons are up to. We have learned that their fellow students consider them positively atrocious as human beings and a threat to what honest people are attempting to accomplish in four years of college. Finally, we have learned exactly what we can do to stop SJW Entryism. We simple cease and desist with our support of these institutions.
This has happened with The University of Missouri. Now some other enjoyable things are happening as well.
The fallout from the fake Mizzou protests continues to destablize the University of Missouri. Today the interim chancellor of the university emailed students that the university will enroll 1500 less students than projected and faces a budget shortfall of $32 million this year. While the 1500 fewer students aren’t broken out by year, the vast majority of them will come from the entering freshman class.
The University of Missouri demonstrated its commitment to the Manna of Dollar Sign from legislative heaven. You see about 100 of the legislators who vote on funding for Mizzou have demanded the firing of Journalism Professor Melissa Click. The University has opted to fire her from a cannon as rapidly as they can light the fuse. This Professor Click tells us, cannot stand.
“In their decision to terminate my employment, the curators bowed to conservative voices that seek to tarnish my stellar 12-year record at MU,” Click wrote. “Instead of disciplining me for conduct that does not ‘meet expectations for a university faculty member,’ the curators are punishing me for standing with students who have drawn attention to the issue of overt racism at the University of Missouri.”
Personally, I agree with Dr. Click. Melissa Click represents the true mindset and beliefs of professional academia. If you disagree with them, you are a pseudo-sapient, troglodytic moron. You could even harbor nefarious secret intentions to vote for Donald Trump! Melissa Click is the face of the Post-modern Amerikan pseudo-erudite bullsh!t industry. She is who should represent what our universities have truly become. Let’s have some truth in advertising here.
So put Melissa Click in charge of The University of Missouri. Let her design the entire curriculum. Then, let’s see who in their right mind would actually apply for admission to this institution. If the 20% reduction in admissions for this Fall are any indication, showing the public the real face of Leftism makes them recoil in condign disgust.
But wouldn’t this reward this SJW Gropenfuhrer for being her precious snowflake self? No. It would be revealing her subterfuge. The last thing an SJW Entryist ever wants is to have to run the organizations they feed off of as parasites. It would be the equivalent of making Anita Sarkeesian actually have to crank 50K lines of programming to hit a developmental deadline at a coding shop.
But wouldn’t this destroy Mizzou as a useful institution? Only partially. It would destroy it as a viable institution, but just how useful is Mizzou if they hired Melissa Click to begin with? Plus, there needs to be a clear and undeniable example. We need to make an SJW show the world exactly how useless they are on any practical level.
Let Mizzou be consigned to irrelevance. Let it burn. They hire the likes of Melissa Click. The foundation is already hopelessly rotten. Let what happens to Mizzou be a lesson. I think we need more than just a mere $32M reasons to get rid of our SJW infestation in Amerika.