We can coalesce many ill thought out ideologies with little substance and stereotype them as Crowdism. Crowdism contains memes such as but not limited to; liberalism, egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, communism and greenism.

What unifies these revolting ideologies is that they do not benefit the individual although they claim to be doing so, they are a Brainslug that prefers its own survival over yours individually, because it manipulates you into believing passive lies.

Brainslug owns the population, the majority do not think for themselves and have this parasite wedged into their skull awaiting big daddy Technium to erupt from the Hivemind – or in terms the above average human should understand, ecocide and death, whatever prevails after that is not concerned with the ecology as we know it, if anything.

The rules of the game are simple;

• Do not think for yourself – be subservient toward the Brainslug, although it disables your self awareness and concern for sanity, it tells you that you’re innocent and nothing is your fault, therefore you can call people RACIST when they disagree with your altruistic, all loving Brainslug.
• If you attempt to think for yourself – that would mean removing of the Brainslug, therefore, if you dare touch it, it will call other infested individuals over to shout RACIST into intimidating you into keeping the Brainslug in control of your thoughts, perhaps not so altruistic?
• If you manage to think for yourself – this would be an indirect threat to other Brainslugs, therefore, the Hivemind of Brainslugs will synchronise with each other collectively, to crush you in Crowdism, making you unpopular through bias, they hate you with a vengeance.
• If you attempt to get others to think for themselves - that would mean removing of the Brainslugs from the source, the great media and entertainment Hivemind sending out memetic software to the antennaes of your Brainslug. Killing the parasite at the core would allow the Brainslugs to be picked off individually, so this is a direct threat to the Brainslugs collectively. Therefore, they will use whatever means, dirty tricks and immoral means into getting rid of you, despite their passive lies of altruistic moralism – as clearly the intellectuals form the greatest antibody resistance to this infection. The easiest, more short term route is to banish you from your native homeland, the toughest but more long term solution is to kill you, and kill you they will if it gets them what they want.
• If you manage to get others to think for themselves – you can slay the Brainslugs from specific territories whilst establishing antibody resistance to prevent future infections. However, in the mean time, thanks to hardwired genetics, many are prone to re-infection on first contact, as they’ve now become industrially farmed by their Brainslugs from over 300 years ago in the so called ‘Enlightenment era’, the stemming spores out of the hollow headed corpse of rotten cultures.

Now on a more serious note, for those who have removed their Brainslug, here is the introduction to a text which covers much ground on the psychology of Crowdism;

IN its ordinary sense the word “crowd” means a gathering of individuals of whatever nationality, profession, or sex, and whatever be the chances that have brought them together. From the psychological point of view the expression “crowd” assumes quite a different signification. Under certain given circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it. The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes. A collective mind is formed, doubtless transitory, but presenting very clearly defined characteristics. The gathering has thus become what, in the absence of a better expression, I will call an organised crowd, or, if the term is considered preferable, a psychological crowd. It forms a single being, and is subjected to the law of the mental unity of crowds.

Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Now, we’ve swung in a different direction. The more the executive branch of our government centralizes power (we can go all the way back to FDR’s New Deal programs if you like), the less distinct our fifty different cultures become. Heavy federal regulation has led to an expectation that each state will not live by its own values anymore, but roll up their portion of the federal tax pie to the IRS and wait patiently for handouts (read: distribution of funds). This is backward because it requires all states to obey certain rules in order to obtain funding for many state government functions. The federal government initially collected no income tax; it would tax certain items and otherwise borrow from the states for military purposes and a few other basic functions. In this, we can see that power centralization force-fits all of us into a lowest common denominator (LCD) – and that standard is usually set by loonies out in California.

We are currently seeing a direct example of the disconnect between state and federal government in Arizona:

The law, the nation’s toughest, seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants
and gives police broad powers to stop people on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they’d support requiring their own police to determine people’s U.S. status if there was “reasonable suspicion” the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn’t prove they were legally in the United States.

[+]

Despite the fact that most hard working, tax paying Americans want their government to do more to curb illegal immigration, we’re being blasted in the media with stories about how we can’t – that’s racial profiling; these people are just undocumented workers; “why you gotta be so mean to people who just want an opportunity?”

Never mind the fact that the logic of amnesty from these same people makes no sense. If 47% of people don’t pay federal taxes and you grant illegal immigrants amnesty, many of whom would fall into that bracket, all you’re doing is allowing them to demand higher, minimum wages and not pay any taxes anyway. That gives us more mouths to feed instead of a broader tax base, and does take minimum wage jobs from Americans who would clearly work at that rate.

When we start worrying about the problems of everyone else rather than the problems of our community and upholding our closely held set of values, simple rights outlined in our own founding documents – think gun ownership – seem draconian and old fashioned. Suddenly, rather than the federal government answering to its taxpayers, the taxpayers are answering to the government. When fifty distinct, smaller governments all try to force-fit the rules of one, centralized government into its culture, culture is eventually sacrificed, and with it standards and values rooted in tradition and history of that specific area.

Another argument we hear about from the LCD crowd is that we are “a nation of immigrants”. We’re actually a nation of European immigrants, and after the colonists revolted and created a sovereign nation, all of those immigrants were documented. The Irish left in droves due to famine and were simply documented upon arrival. The Italians had pretty much the same deal. But being documented, and having the threat of deportation looming if arrested, both groups of European immigrants assimilated – even through hardships [1,2] – and were still very proud to call this country their own. The Italians built a good swath of New York City; the Irish rose to political prominence in Boston and other cities.

I’ve had this argument with others, who feel that we can do better than how Italians and Irish were treated upon arrival. I tend to think of things the other way: I don’t think they would have been so quick to assimilate, adopt the English language or American values had they not gone through that hardship. As a result, I’m okay with the history – they weren’t in their homeland, and they didn’t expect people to hand them jobs and benefits. In fact, accepting that was considered shameful, and it’s another reason we see immigrants from Asia rising to prominence as well. They’d rather tough it out and assimilate than come here and expect a monthly check simply for being present.

One problem with illegal immigration and amnesty is that you don’t have to work for citizenship that way, and those old, draconian founding documents require our federal government to protect our borders (read: sovereignty) as well as the idea of American citizenship. If you don’t have to work for it, why respect it? That’s probably part of the reason we see people sneak in and then demand amnesty rather than asking nicely if they can get in line with others who wait years for the same privilege.

But the main problem Americans have with illegal immigration and what we don’t see from illegal immigrants from south of the border is the same pride other immigrant classes have shown upon arrival. We don’t see them rise up and create businesses, or become political activists for something other than Aztlan movements or handouts. We don’t see them act against gang violence and the drug trade that they bring with them into this country. And we certainly don’t see them going through much in the way of hardship, other than taking illegal jobs that pay cash under the table to work at a construction site or for a landscaper.

That lack of pride translates to a lack of culture. If you leave your culture at home and move to a new place with no clear cultural identity – at least, not one you care to assimilate – then there’s a disconnect between the wants of the illegal immigrant and the idea of citizenship. Rather than take the hard line and insist these people assimilate as other immigrant classes have done, we feel it’s far less burdensome to just allow them into our culture. Since we don’t have a real culture anymore, it seems we’ll take anyone with a warm body and hands that can work just hard enough to shuffle paper – or chop onions.

The reason why many people buy pets these days may be familiar to what Ted Kackzynski called the power process. In this it says every living organism needs to be in control of some niche of natural-reality for the feeling of happiness and fulfilment to ever accumulate in correlation with survival.

In modern society there is no intelligent response to our problems therefore this niche of a natural existence is taken away from us, and in response a feeling of emptiness within an isolated personal-reality consumes these simplistic consumers. Most individuals alive today are domestic-humans and most of us can barely comprehend the meaning of ‘community’ in a healthy traditional sense.

In this domestic ignorance and laziness toward real social satisfaction, the majority will immediately feel socially worthless and alienated from their own species. The most unintelligent of humans that are unable to form social consensus with other more intelligent beings will simply prefer to create domestic ‘clones’ from less powerful organisms and make them look all ‘cute’ and ‘cuddly’ – Like eating a social cake, full of saturated socialization and therefore, will make your ego obese, unhealthy, and almost certainly susceptible to social viruses and diseases.

It is the easiest solution that every moron can follow whilst increasing profit - Buy a pet to exhert your consumerist dominion over and feel like an all powerful deity amongst the crawling things upon the earth - all whilst major corporations race at the opportunity to pour over-socialized cummodities over the face of millions of fools, it also drains each individual of any actual wealth in a personal-reality orgy which is the core of consumer orientated business.

Our atrocious responsibility toward other life is simply because ‘all humans are equal’ apparently, and because ‘humans are not animals’ - animals are not human, therefore we are ‘superior’ to anything that is an ‘animal’ and can perform whatever we want on them regardless of how weird and perverted it may have become.. Freedom is tyranny against everything that is non-human and natural.

This power process shows a feeling of powerlessness against the domestic prison of urbanization and dystopic ‘progress’; it is a main driving force behind the vapid deforestation and increasing bulk of overpopulation, all drowning the landscape in a  flood of cultureless neon zombies. With this sharp growth of population, the number of domestic pets rises because many people’s lives are just useless and enslaving an animal to join them in an artificial prison is just one of the endless freedoms that make them ‘happy’ and supposedly ‘content’.

The domestication of animals allows humans to crudely breed some weird and embarassing little ‘loyal’ underlings. From the wild dog came so many undignified frankensteins of life – their very existence in life has no meaning, they do not have the freedom of natural selection or the freedom of a natural environment to evolve independently. Domestic animals lack the chance to ever evolve into something great, they are alienated and depressed from their ancestors exuberant ecosystems.

Just think - humanity continues to drag everything down with us in our freedom – we cage up everything we want. It’s our right to torture nature and no one can stop us. If I want to have ten thousand cats that end up drowning in the toilet then it’s my right!

But that’s not enough, lets have lots of pet fish aswell! Fish obviously have no brains, no soul and are pretty; therefore we can stick them in a little tank with a treasure trest and a disney castle with little bubbles coming out! OMG like, cool!

From observing other fish in their native environment, the trade off between a thriving stream stretching for miles swimming for dear life against the fascism of gravity into an ocean of near infinant expanse and constant physical and mental stimulation - is what they are capable of, even having the chance to evolve into great carnivorous predators, lords of seas.

But instead the monkeys got there first – monkey-people stole these fish and traded their challenging environment for a square box approximately 40cm cubed with a couple of mediocre consumer pieces of trash made to look all girly and pretty. 99% of domestication is simply cruel and treats these animals with no dignity or respect toward any present or potential future of independent evolution.

If we realise that life as a whole is sacred; not just little car driving monkeys - then we would have no need to needlessly consume other species. But if ever we need to capture other life – we also must realise that we are stealing its independence and therefore it loses all power over its own life. It is therefore stupid and completely selfish to ever restrict excessive amounts of life when it is solitary and independent towards us. There is absolutely no reason beyond survival to restrict life which is performing a natural niche in the ecosystem, living as its species should in the natural order of things in relation toward one another.

You don’t go on a masochist extermination for profit. Not for ‘exquisite cuisine’ for some calcified gluttons just so he can eat blubber meat and brag to his colleagues about how he can afford to eat at a top restaurant all to climb the social world of popularity.

Nevermind these animals needlessly killed – humans are special and they have rights, and now there are more than ever!

It’s just business for ‘exotic pets’ - for the clueless masses to go home everyday just to stare at goldilocks the suicidally depressed goldfish with their passively boring faces.

Nor to just wonder why a lonely parrot who plucks all its feathers out because it has been stolen from a vibrant jungle with its own thriving socialization and instead thrown in a cage with a little bell and a dusty mirror to stare and question the meaning of life for the rest of eternity.

With our ‘need’ of exotic pets from foreign continents, we inadvertently introduce alien species (yes humans can become foreign species too - immigration) and undermine ecosystems and social systems. If you research into hawaii and the conservation problem there, nearly all of the native species are endangered by iguanas, deer, rabbits and hundreds of other introduced animals that are not respective (in evolution) of the native ecosystem patterns and therefore destroy it, inadvertently. This situation happens anywhere when alien species coincide with one another after, perhaps, millions, even billions of years in isolation from one another.

Exact numbers are unknown, but scientists estimate that nationwide, cats kill hundreds of millions of birds, and more than a billion small mammals, such as rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks, each year. Cats kill common species such as Cardinal, Blue Jay, and House Wren, as well as rare and endangered species such as Piping Plover, Florida Scrub-Jay, and California Least Tern.

There are more than 77 million pet cats in the United States. A 1997 nationwide poll showed that only 35% are kept exclusively indoors, leaving the majority of owned cats free to kill birds and other wildlife at least some of the time. In addition, millions of stray and feral cats roam our cities, suburbs, farmlands and natural areas. Abandoned by their owners or lost (stray), or descendants of strays and living in the wild (feral), these cats are victims of human irresponsibility due to abandonment and failure to spay or neuter pets. No one knows how many homeless cats there are in the U.S., but estimates range from 60 to 100 million. These cats lead short, miserable lives. – American Bird Conservancy

Stupidity is simply cruel whatever way we look at it. Weak mental strength drones on for a taste of honey and so these pesty humans become so unsatisfied with their insecure little lives that they must be ‘all accepting’ and give every other moron the liberties to enslave and industriously kill or commodify every animal they please – regardless of the consequences (above).

To give what is called ‘people’ the right to domesticate any form of life whose noble attitude toward them is simply “I dunn fckin care u nob” who then kicks and beats his dog to death for consistently barking due to it being retardedly down-bred, is a pathetic attempt of reality-deniers to attain social satisfaction.

Liberals overlook these errors of man and label them simply as ‘human nature’ – Oh humans always do this, they say to themselves. But simply cannot join one and one together and generate an overal view of this situation. By giving them rights without responsibilities we are the very causes of this ‘human nature’ itself, a form of domestic ‘nature’ among humans.

Liberals; being socially defunct, seem to think we have no power over these things without realising they are the morons who released the peadophiles onto a world of naive children – because it’s their right! Other life cannot speak symbolically toward humans, therefore we assume nothing is wrong.

Even humans who are retarded get treated like this – If people wern’t such simplistic idiots then we would have the decency and wisdom to prevent them from suffering in the first place through a wise eugenics – and it’s called tradition.

What is the meaning of a life that is disabled, dysfunctional or progressive? A life which needs social ‘support’ just so it doesn’t choke to death on its own turd? It would be much better to give them some dignity, show them some respect - all living organisms need to face nature and all the challenges of life honestly without life-support cheat codes.

This is so that what they are made of can either survive the trials of the ancestors and live on in sanity and happiness, or be a retard eating its own turd and die thus leaving the land it occupies for something better, a karma to regenerate as something more powerful and dignified; that is the most compassionate in reflection to the whole of nature – anyone who opposes this has had too much social-cake and needs to get out and enjoy some exercise in natural-reality to observe how nature operates.

We are not to allow some mutated corpse of a living entity to live on social support by the discontents of society whose only use is to look after useless people. They then abuse them, rape them and drug them so they don’t unleash their retarded fist flinging poo frenzy on the clueless proles.

Life needs dignity, life needs power to follow its own destiny, to be challenged either to live or die. Not to have the potential of joy and empowerment prematurely stolen just so some fat ass can stick it in a corner of a house and ignore it for the rest of its impoverished life.

There is a clear change in the genetic and social characteristics between domestic species and wild species; and the same is with humans, those with minimal aggression and the tiniest ammount of alertness or perception – will predominate – a reason why chandala under-castes always explode in population numbers and demand more ‘rights’ regardless of essential responsibility.

There is a close correlation between brain changes and behavioral changes in domestic animals. It has been primarily gregarious wild species that have been domesticated. In captivity, social behavior patterns changed. Many social structures that have the effect of preserving the species in the wild lose their purpose in captivity. Indeed, in view of high-density living conditions, social structures are disadvantageous for contact of domestic animals among themselves and with humans. This can be demonstrated in wolves and domestic dogs. Wolves form packs and the behavior patterns of individual members vary widely. There are powerful, successful fighters whose alertness and powers of observation are quite poor. In other members, these capabilities are well-developed, but “fighting spirit,” power, and agility are lacking. The cooperation of the differently skilled animals is important for successful predation by the pack. In domestic dogs, animals with minimal aggressiveness and alertness predominate.
Domestic Mammals and Behavior

For human life to escape this stupidity and attain natural empowerment, it is best done through working together on the best of our strengths and not by the fake social ‘support’ through ‘equality and diversity’ of the insecure humanists.

By being reasonable we can achieve consensus and communities and then the majority of people left alive woulden’t need pets, equality and facebook to make us feel socially satisfied.

• We give extreme negative power to the wrong people in this society. We reward the voice who shouts an epithet from the crowd, maybe “Communist” or “racist” or “elitist,” but never demand accountability for him. As a result, we deprive people of the ability to build especially in the areas where we most need construction.
• Intelligence is relative. That means that people cannot understand an idea that requires more intelligence than they have in order to conceive of it. This is why we can “educate” people in behaviors, but unless they understand the cause/effect relationship about why those behaviors are superior, they are simply mimicking the original.
• Creating misery. In a situation where objections stop change, no real change occurs, and so it treats us to dress up the same old stuff as new and then put some icing on it so the proles don’t notice.
• We’re selling each other to death. Our culture has gone from a mode of “produce things” to “find ways to make other people like things.” We are now a culture of salesmen. The rest of the world moves on, produces things, knowing that at some point we’ll isolate ourselves and be selling each other the same stuff in a giant circle.

If you find yourself asking, “Why is modern life such a drag?” consider this:

• Appearance is more important than reality. But that appearance needs to be positive in the sense of “someone wants to buy it,” but it can be ugly. It can be cheap. It can be crass. And you’ll have to drive past it every day.
• When you assemble a large group of idiots, they buy idiot products — but no one except idiots from rich countries want to buy idiot products. The rest of the world needs function and if our wealth fades, we will have nothing to market.
• You must tolerate idiots. It is heretical to suggest that idiots are, indeed, idiots and therefore should be removed from any functional process. Instead, we need to include them so we all feel good. It’s good marketing. “Everyone here is happy,” says the salesman. “We’re a big happy family.”
• People who are not idiots get infected with the idiot virus brought on by having to sell things to idiots. They pre-chew every idea, break it down into tiny bits, and then tell you with bright pink faces how these tiny bits are more important than getting the whole thing right. Again with the salesman: “But it slices and dices!” Yes, but does it work? How long will it last? Is there a better way?
• The essence of guilt is the idea of equality: I’m just like you, how could you turn on me? Take that from a reaction to a forward action and you have passive aggression: I’m just like you, I demand you do what I want! Only a society of salesmen could come up with such a moronic idea.
• In a society where the greatest number of people must agree something is a good idea, and most of them are unaware of consequences past the next paycheck, you’re always going to get the short-sighted idea that hands everyone a bone while ignoring the real problem, which may take months or years to really stand up and slap us in the face.

Instead of going to either of the extremes — “I’ll do it their way” or “I’ll do it my way” at the expense of all else — just do it the reality way. That is the ultimate heresy. Idiots are idiots. Marketing does not improve products. Fast food restaurants, nail salons, record stores, head shops, convenience stores, cell phone places and charities are blight. So is producing nothing but repackaging the mediocre and numbing everyone’s brain by saturating them with marketing-speak. Do you want blight? No? Then exclude these from your life. Even if they tell you you’re a heretic. That’s just a sign you’re succeeding.

Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said Paul Langone, 33, of Reading, heard the screams of Dr. Astrid Desrosiers on the fifth floor of an MGH office building on Staniford Street. Langone entered the doctor’s office and saw 37-year-old Reading man Jay Carciero stabbing the doctor.

Langone took out his gun, for which he has a valid license, and told Carciero to drop the knife. Carciero did not comply, and Langone shot multiple times, hitting Carciero twice, Conley said.

[+|Fox News Boston]

Note the tone of the rest of the article, as people already look for excuses why Jay Carciero’s life should have somehow been spared, despite the object in his hand about to thrust into the neck of his own doctor once again:

Police investigated possible links between Langone and Carciero, since they both live in the same town…

…

Conley would not say why Langone was in the medical office to begin with, but said he was there for a legitimate reason.

…

Perullo said, as far as he knows, Carciero did not have a violent past.

To have a violent past, you first have to think about, and then commit, acts like this. Why not stop this person at the first incident, as Paul Langone did, rather than wait around for someone to die – or in this case, be stabbed?

Fact is, we can never know what is going on in the minds of the mentally ill, and with an overly burdened justice system, people who begin with lesser acts of violence or threats get off with a slap on the wrist because a judge simply doesn’t know what to do with them. This person didn’t have a violent past, but he showed what he was going to become if left without a leash.

The sad part about this story is not that one sick individual died before he was able to take the life of a doctor dedicated to helping people like him, but rather it will stink of circumstantial when the media is done with it.

If Paul Langone was carrying a weapon but, say, didn’t have a license to conceal it and it was only supposed to be in his car or house, the liberal media will talk about how Langone should hang by the balls in the town square. Sadder still, most people would eat it up. 

It’s important to stress there’s a reason we deputize qualified officers:  so they can jump in when needed, as occurred here.  Paul Langone served an important purpose but no doubt will be attacked for it.

And as sad as all of that is, therein lies the beauty for people who live in realityland: there’s no escape hatch here, no no magic trap door where we can vilify Mr. Langone.

And yet, no doubt the media and people who love its silly agenda will seek to re-examine the idea of deputizing off duty security guards.  I have no doubt the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have politicians seeking votes by bearing down on police departments with questions like:

• “How many of these off duty security guards are there?”
• “Do we have anything to fear?”
• “Can we have their names and addresses, please?”
• “They should be wearing badges displayed on their jackets if they are going to run around like cowboys, like that Langone kid did!”

Just give it time.

Common sense child safety should be promoted, but in a safe suburb with little in the way of violence, the simple freedom and fresh air a child feels when able to walk to school on his or her own – likely within earshot and eyesight of adults at all times during that walk – is ruined by overbearing parents and school boards who insist that children are to be surveilled at all times.

TO get to school, the child leaves home by herself, proudly walking down the boulevard in a suburb of a small city in upstate New York. The crossing guard helps her at the intersection. She lives only a block and a half from school. Yet she walks by older children waiting with parents for buses to the same school.

It has been 30 years since the May morning when Julie Patz, a Manhattan mother, finally allowed her 6-year-old son, Etan, to walk by himself to the school-bus stop, two blocks away. She watched till he crossed the street — and never saw him again. Since that haunting case, a generation of parents and administrators have created dense rituals of supervision around what used to be a mere afterthought of childhood: taking yourself to and from school.

In recent years, parents like Katie have begun to push back. They often encounter disapproval by other parents, scoldings by school administrators, even visits from local constabularies.

[+|NYTimes.com]

This suburb had a grand total of one (1) abduction in the past thirty years and thus has changed its entire morning routine. In fact, that one abduction occurred in Manhattan – one of the largest and most densely populated cities in the entire country – not in this quaint little suburb.  The threat of things like abduction is always one to consider, but it’s when a community takes these unlikely occurrences too seriously that we know there’s a problem.

As civilized folk living in suburbs, we like to think we can control everything by being present for anything that might go wrong…which, ironically, destroys the entire point of living in a quiet suburb next to neighbors you know well and grow with over time.

Things like outlet covers, cord wraps, and breathable crib borders make sense in some respects: eliminate the obvious threats and put the knives away. But once the child can walk and enjoy fresh air outside, and is then part of social constructs at school, the social environment around the child begins affecting him or her at an increasing rate – and passive aggressive, constant nannying doesn’t exactly help develop a healthy mindset.

These children are the ones who end up partying in high school and college the second they have time away from authority. They essentially live under totalitarian regimes, only they’re sly enough to know when they can get away with something, so they drink/party because they’ve never just been kids.

If one is given an agenda each day that includes hockey practice, piano lesson, 9 hours of boredom in the form of an educational facility you grow to resent more each passing day, maybe a half hour for television or video games – isn’t it common sense that the time away from all that will be overly valued, the activities during which time becoming more concentrated with action against such structure (drinking far too much, OD’ing, autoerotic asphyxiation – whatever)?

These are the same parents who will be wondering why their young adults are distant and want to live in another city after college, away from where they grew up, wasting their free time away from work with video games well into their 30s. They are the ones who end up in nursing homes as their kids are too busy to take care of them.  “Sorry Mom, I moved to another city to get away from you; I’m happy to pay for you to live in a place where minimum wage nursing assistants can give you sponge baths though.” 

We’re seeing the infantalism of adults already in our society; hipsters who live only for the next five seconds instead of worrying about the next five years, and it’s no wonder that these same people grew up in a time where parents decided to become a constant, overbearing force in their children’s lives.

I know how it affected me. I was over sensitive, terrified of making mistakes. I had no social skills and still have a hard time just talking to people in person or on the phone because I was never allowed to go to social functions/dances at school or go anywhere with friends. I had really no friends. Sometimes one for awhile but never managed to maintain a friendship for too long because I could never keep in contact with them, even if they just lived around the block. I was a paranoid, straight A student and ended up dropping out of school my senior year and running away from home.

[+|Experienceproject.com]

Many of the trends of the 1970s are to blame for a lot of this overinvolvement, so how do we fix it?

Communities that have a sense of either shared cultural heritage, or at least a grouping of people with similar goals, don’t needlessly resort to child surveillance, because they have more going on in their lives and live for things that benefit an entire group.  With this comes an idea of comfort with those around you; you know who the village idiot is and how to avoid him, but for the most part, you can trust your neighbors to watch out for each other. 

Families are first priority, of course, but it has to be in the context of something larger so everyone in the family can feel part of a community. This could be a church group, or just a town with healthy values that doesn’t resort to egotistical, moronic behavior.  The idea of shutting a family into a suburban home to watch TV and micromanage kid’s lives needs to end before we can move on – and replace fear with goals.

May 4, 2009:
I was so eager to do this last year. The big problem on my mind now is that my job will end soon. One project is being transistioned to another. The other one I am solely responsible, but is being fast tracked to production. I estimate maybe a month. I am not ready for the job market. I am ok what I do, a .NET software developer. Not at the top of the class, but I do a good job. I survived two general layoffs and other little layoffs they are having but keeping quiet about. I hear things.

The problem is I feel too good now to do this but too bad to enjoy life. I know I will never enjoy life. This is an over 30 year trend. Some people are happy, some are miserable. It is difficult to live almost continuously feeling an undercurrent of fear, worry, discontentment and helplessness. I can talk and joke around and sound happy but under it all is something different that seems unchangable and a permanent part of my being. I need to realize the details of what I never accomplished in life and to be convinced the future is merely a continuation of the past – WHICH IT ALWAYS has been. I am making a list of items that will provide motivation to do the exit plan, it won’t be published. I always had hope that maybe things will improve especially if I make big attempts to change my life. I made many big changes in the past two years but everything is still the same. Life is over. Even though I look good, dress well, well groomed – nails, teeth, hair, etc. Who knows.

His own words say to spread the word and that this can be re-published freely. And for those of you who don’t know, Sodini is the guy who gunned down a bunch of people at a Pittsburgh-area gym on August 4th, 2009.  Of course, the mainstream news sites won’t report much about this journal because they don’t want to bring attention to the fact that our society is sick, valueless, and cultureless; that we’re nothing more than oversocialized beasts who would sell our own mothers down the river for a little money, and that people like George Sodini may not do what they do if our values as a society were different.

July 20, 2009:
Been a long time since last write. Everything still sucks. But I got a promotion and a raise, even in this shitty Obama ecomomy. No more grunt programming. Go figure! New boss is great. He tactfully says when you did something wrong or complements on good things. Never confused with him. But that is NOT what I want in life. I guess some of us were simply meant to walk a lonely path. I have slept alone for over 20 years. Last time I slept all night with a girlfriend it was 1982. Proof I am a total malfunction. Girls and women don’t even give me a second look ANYWHERE. There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is. Every person just wants to be fucking nice and say nice things to me. Flattery. Oh yeah, I am sure you can get a date anytime. You look good, etc. Pussies.
Awwww, wait. I can just start being self-righteous and say I live a good, clean life. I am holy, that’s all Rick Knapp stuff. Hear that you mother fucker: I Am Just Good!

 
I wouldn’t want my wife in that gym, and I would have shot Sodini dead had I seen him.  Our values are also against this modern world; however, he makes some good points.  We live accordingly with an eye toward making the world a better place, and maybe even making our mark on civilization in the future such that it becomes better.  But even if we simply produce one or two children who aim to do the same thing, that’s fine with us.

December 29, 2008:
Just got back from tanning, been doing this for a while. No gym today, my elbow is sore again. I actually look good. I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne – yet 30 million women rejected me – over an 18 or 25-year period. That is how I see it. Thirty million is my rough guesstimate of how many desirable single women there are. A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everywhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded. Every other guy does this successfully to a degree. Flying solo for many years is a destroyer. Yet many people say I am easy to get along with, etc. Looking back, I owe nothing to desirable females who ask for anything, except for basic courtesy – usually. Looking back over everything, what bothers me most is the inability to work towards whatever change I choose.

Sodini was a confused creature, apparently believing that getting laid was going to solve the “problem” of being worth $250K with no one to share it with.  Had he entered into a relationship with a woman and been unhappy after a few months, maybe he wouldn’t have engaged in a massive rampage on an unsuspecting gym, but only become what he despised in the first place:  a guy with money but nothing of real value, in a dead end relationship, thinking falsely that someone to come home to every night – no matter who – was going to make him happy.

Miscellaneous:
1. Probably 99% of the people who know me well don’t even think I was this crazy. Told by at least 100 girls/women over the years I was a “nice guy”. Not kidding.

2. Lee Ann Valdiserri had my baby in early 1991. Haven’t seen her since she was about four months into it. I knew her sister, Chris, from high school.

3. Net worth slightly more than $250K, (after all debt) as of end of 2008.

4. Death Lives!

[+|Sodini's Diary]

Ultimately what conservatives are trying to argue toward is that the society as a whole is more important than the individual, and that the individual must adapt to common sense about how reality works. They think “freedom” is a vector to that because it sounds good.

As a result, they’ve invented this mythos that Big State government — think Hitler, Stalin and Democrats — wants to take away your ability to do whatever you can afford to do. After all, those who are born smarter and work diligently tend to have some cash ready to use.

In this view, you can buy that big SUV because global warming is an illusion, and no one should be able to tell you what to do so you can be a rugged individualist. This thinking is doomed for the following reasons:

• Given such freedom, people opt for the least obligation possible. They’re not going to uphold traditional values, but demand no values.
• You can’t out-”freedom” the Democrats. They offer no restrictions, no cultural norms, and a welfare state. Almost no obligation, even to go to work.
• If everyone acts on their freedom, we’re not going to pull together in the same direction, and we won’t be able to face big problems of resources limiting our ability to do whatever we want.

It’s that latter one — limited resources versus unlimited needs and desires — that we’re going to face. For a minute, assume that global warming is simply a power grab by third world countries who want the first world to turn off its industry so they can get ahead. Fine — but what about pollution, species depletion, limited farmland, low water supplies, and violent cities?

The libertarians and Republicans this week set up a great wail about a new face in Washington who they associate with Big State decisions. They will claim he is against their Holy Book, their values as individualists, and the sanctity of life.

And thanks to resourceful bloggers, you can read excerpts from a hard-to-find book co-authored by Holdren in the late 1970s, called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, online.

In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.

Reason

Oh no! Abortions and mass sterilizations — those might not be fair to the rugged individualist. But they also might be required by the demands of our situation here on earth.

After all, the world isn’t just humans — it’s an environment, too, and scarcity of resources including space which will regulate humanity. We can make decisions within the anthrosphere, but since we’re one part of a big world, we may not have the ability to make those decisions the way we want to. Sometimes, we must simply adapt.

It is now hard to think of a single major problem we face, here in Britain or elsewhere, which would not be solved, or at least ameliorated, by having fewer people.

Everything from hospital waiting lists, crowded trains, the looming energy crisis, water and sewer systems unable to cope, unaffordable housing and unavailable dentistry have, at their core, Britain’s burgeoning population.

Our roads will become even more congested, our trains more crowded and even slower, the waits for service longer and delays ever more a part of life.

Housing will become ever more unaffordable, we will have to spend billions on new schools and hospitals to cater for the equivalent of two new Londons – two vast metropolises somehow to be shoehorned into what is already a desperately crowded land.

We will, inevitably, lose great swathes of our countryside. The green belts will have to disappear. Ghastly and ill-conceived ‘new towns’ will spring up all over the South East and Midlands, the areas where new people want to live. London and its environs are already, effectively, full; but that will not stop them getting fuller still.

The Daily Mail

His point is refreshingly clear: even if we just look at numbers of people, what happens when we get more? We all live in cities, and the cities expand. The countryside is consumed. Whatever environmental problems exist get worse.

How do we reconcile the individual’s unlimited wants and desires with a finite amount of space before we wreck things we need or should keep sacred, like a healthy environment and unpolluted air and water, or just enough space so that earth is not a giant sardine can?

Here’s a short list of data points about how we’re wrecking this planet with overpopulation:

• Humans are using the Earth’s resources and dumping waste 23 per cent faster than nature is able to regenerate, according to the Global Footprint Network, a non-profit group in Oakland, Calif.
• We won’t make adequate progress on the most crucial environmental goals — reducing carbon emissions, preventing overfishing and decreasing deforestation, among them — unless we tackle growth and its ever increasing demands on the planet.
• Forest protection attracts people, people wreck forests
• But isn’t the problem solving itself, as people have fewer children and population growth rates slow? Yes, he says, if you discount immigration
• Human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during 20th century. During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold.
• Growing world population will cause a “perfect storm” of food, energy and water shortages by 2030, the UK government chief scientist has warned.
• Given our disproportionately large population to land mass ratio then, put simply, we are running out of space to dump our waste.
• A link between immigration and water shortages: the more people share the water, the less each one has.
• Easter Island is Earth writ small. Today, again, a rising population confronts shrinking resources.
• Water use is growing twice as fast as population, but there is no more water today than there ever has been.
• Seven Environmental Problems That Are Worse Than We Thought — courtesy of our booming human population.
• While the wildlife-conservation movement is valiantly attempting to save the world’s remaining diversity of life, this effort is overwhelmed by the demands of mounting numbers of people.
• Uganda’s rapid population growth — one of the highest in the world — means it will lose its entire forest cover in the next 50 years
• Consumption has grown so much in the last 30 years that demands on natural resources now exceed the planet’s capacity for renewal by a quarter each year
• All efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions may be for naught, however, if we ignore population growth.

You get the picture. Now on to the magic question: how is it that we have systematically failed to address these problems, and that they’re still elephants in the room today?

You’ll notice that a lot of our effort spent on this blog is devoted to smashing the idea of equality, or that each person has a “right” to do whatever they want. We also spent a lot of time pointing out that people have different abilities and hence values to a forward-moving civilization.

Our goal in this is to smash the sacred cow of the conservatives, which is individual autonomy as a promised right to all people. It is also a sacred taboo of the left through their dogma of “equality.”

Why would we do this? After all, we’ll be more popular if we promise you can buy that SUV, and that just buying green light bulbs will take care of the problem. The people who make those promises are far more popular than us.

However, dishonesty has a way of coming back to haunt people. When our writers go home at night, we have no guilt on our consciences because we did not lie — we faced the truth with a level gaze and if it didn’t blink first, we didn’t back down.

Our society is making people into small atoms that do not interact with others. People recede into themselves and do not face reality and mortality. They fear anything except what they intend to do, or in other words, their wants and desires.

Students are immature, they rely too heavily on Internet tools such as Wikipedia as research sources, they fail to learn independently and they expect success without putting in the effort, said respondents to the survey by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

“The McGuinty government is applauding itself for increased graduation rates from secondary school,” says the confederation’s report, which urges more funding for for classrooms.

“However, it appears that secondary students are not receiving the requisite skills that they need to be successful in university studies.”

Only 2.27 per cent thought students are better prepared.

Observers blame a number of factors, from inflated parental expectations to the self-esteem culture that leads young people to believe that failure is impossible and paying tuition means getting a good grade.

Ottawa Citizen

Look at what this article shows us: the end result of “freedom,” or agreeing to have no direction except personal directions, is that people recede into themselves and become less capable, and more solipsistic.

We’ve been so busy worrying about how to make everyone feel equal and wanted, we’ve forgotten about the world around us. Now as the free resources get tighter, we’re going to have to make hard decisions about the future.

Conservatives are making the biggest career screwup ever by not simply being honest. They could be like the government in the article above — promoting themselves for having made more people graduate, even if at a lower rate of quality, or in other words, hiding the truth behind one positive attribute of a bad situation — or they could be honest.

When you fail to tell the truth, you are de facto lying, because you are hiding things people need to act on behind a smokescreen of happy — like lying to them directly and telling them something or other is not a problem. Conservatives are attempting to embark on a big lie to try to beat the even bigger “freedom” dogma of the Democrats. It is not going to work.

If instead they got practical about facing this situation, starting with the hard parts we are afraid to face — that not everyone can fulfill all of their wants and desires, and that we’ll have to rank people by their usefulness — they will become known as honest people as the years go by. And people will thank them for that.

No obligation to others means we’re just fine pretending we’re solitary hunter-gatherers, even if we depend on society and will cry like infants if our grocery stores, hospitals, shopping malls, cars, running water, electricity and cars aren’t there for easy picking.

There’s about to be a bit of a ruckus now that the major nations have dropped their CO2 capping plan:

Major nations have failed to agree to set a goal halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to a draft document ahead of talks tomorrow – a setback to efforts to secure a new UN climate pact.

Neogotiations involving senior officials from the 17-nation Major Economies Forum broke down overnight after China and India opposed any mention of the target, a source familiar with negotiations told Reuters.

They first want to see rich nations commit to making deep cuts in their own emissions by 2020 and they want developed nations to work out plans to provide developing nations with short-term finance to help them cope with ever more floods, heatwaves, storms and rising sea levels, the source said.

The Independent

Translation: rich nations said let’s all work together now, and developing nations said “You first!”

Setting aside moral and legal issues, which seem to be a luxury of rich European and North Asian populations, we can see this is a problem: one group will emerge on top if any capping, limiting, etc. occurs.

In the developed world, this would mean asking our industry to cut itself in half, and our people to halve their lifestyles. The way of handling things in developed nations is to offer tax incentives, gear up industry to make the right products, etc., and stop what we can that way.

But as you can see from the energy use of different nations, most developed nations exist because they regulate climate and expend a lot of energy on infrastructure, including industry, hospitals, law enforcement, etc. The developing world has no such expenditure curve.

So we’re at an impasse because the developed world is unwilling to regulate its existing population and thus fall behind in competition, and the developing world is unwilling to limit its future capacity and thus remain under the developed world’s thumb. And in the meantime, we have six billion people, soon to be nine billion.

Each of those people is going to require at minimum a certain amount of water, electricity, gasoline, food and space; it’s not just the space to house them, but the space and energy required for the infrastructure. They will all want hospitals, schools, roads, stores, running water, etc.

And that brings us to the dilemma humanity is unwilling to solve:

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.

The scientists said dealing with the burgeoning human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world.

“It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about” Professor Guillebaud said. “Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation.”

The Independent

We cannot say no to anyone, because each voter fears it will be he or she that will hear the “no.”

So because of our political systems — democracy, consumerism, capitalism — the unpopular idea of population reduction goes unacted, even as it becomes vital.

It’s simply an unpopular truth.

Underneath this veneer of nice, the usual manipulations go on for personal profit — which is the underlying theme of humanity in every age: sacrifice the self for the whole, or sacrifice the whole for the self.

However, in order to keep the sheep and goats in line, we form pleasant fictions in order to compensate, and from this we get our inflated self-image. We did not start out overrated ourselves; we did it in response to one too many incidents of humans failing themselves.

Our society is also very fond of the idea that we have done away with superstition, and replaced it with modern science, including Darwin’s natural selection. But what if superstition just changed names, so that when we batted the old away, its falling reveals a new face on the same mentality?

To make this concrete, let me ask you what you think of this political party’s chances in the 2012 elections:

THE DARWIN PARTY OF AMERICA

Our platform:

* We feel no obligation to any other nations or the U.N.
* We will push aside and occupy the territory of any nation near us which is lower in average IQ or less organized, more corrupt or less militarily strong.
* Our state will have no welfare. Instead, there will be rigorous competition at all levels.
* Those who cannot pull their weight because they are deformed, retarded or disabled will be left to die.
* We will maintain a distinct plumage, and a high-degree of third cousin inbreeding, so we resemble each other and can defend each other as a group.
* Meritocracy will replace bureaucracy. The only criterion for someone’s choice for a position is how competent they are.
* We will not have prisons. Violators will either be killed by the public or exiled from our lands.

Darwinism, or natural selection, works because it always puts those with the best abilities ahead. This way, you don’t need an authoritarian “nanny state” making sure we all make it through. The Darwin Party is based on the idea that we should not all make it through — only the best should survive.

How well do you think this party would do in a democracy? Pretty poorly, indeed.

Our modern society is based on the idea of pity. It starts with self-pity, when we’re afraid we personally cannot compete or do not have a place. That extends to group pity, when we figure out that if we pity someone worse off than ourselves, we benefit because if their extreme situation becomes acceptable our less extreme situation does as well.

Charles Darwin, author of Natural Selection, is not amused.

It’s that old superstition — “the meek will inherit the earth” and “we are all equal in the eyes of God” — but with a new face, isn’t it?

Each time I see someone committing an act of murder against the environment, I think: there is someone who probably should not be alive, because this destructive act is the height of their competence.

Each time I see someone bungling a simple task — driving, home care, a logical argument — I realize that somewhere out there is a society where they haven’t made bungling politically correct, and they will eventually dominate us. Because they play by Darwin’s rules, even if our secular superstition has made Darwin taboo.

How do giant corporations, rapacious overlords and bad politicians gain power? They appeal to masses of people who fear for their own competence, reach out with pity, and then manipulate them just the same.

Some will say that I have not defined “competence” very well here. In a universal sense, it is a word like the Darwinian “adaptation” which is so vague yet has such concrete incarnations that it’s nearly impossible to define.

Competence is the process of understanding your world, understanding what you need to do it in to survive at your level of competence, and then staying organized and diligent to do it, including a level of raw ability.

We don’t see much of that these days. Get the credit card, the wide-screen TV, and the optional job, and you can just space out in your own little world — and attack anyone who tells you you’re being selfish. The overlords don’t care. Your dysfunction gives them problems which they gain power by fixing. Your incompetence keeps them in power.

It’s a curious little human world where, having come to our intelligence level by Darwinism, we have decided life is too frustrating to think outside of the herd, and so we create toys and social games, but never look too deeply into the human beast, because that’s where we’ll find the future date with reality that’s going to re-affirm Darwinian natural selection.