People react to threats with manias. They create a symbol to drive away the blood-god, and then they cling to that symbol in a pathological and obsessive manner.
It is such with the incoming economic collapse of the West. We are facing the results of centuries of bad policy all crashing down together, and our political establishment will do nothing to admit or counter this.
Our talisman against economic failure is “jobs,” and as a subset of that, the religion of STEM was born. Instead of noting that the liberal arts, when not infested with Leftism, are necessary for learning critical thinking, the herd has decided that we should all be computer programmers.
There is only one problem: they have not looked at how computer programming has changed since the 1990s.
During that time, the internet was a wild west. There were new demands, namely learning how to make many servers work together as one. People had to develop the big apps like search engines, blog software, email clients and application frameworks.
But now, all the semi-difficult thinking has been done, itself mostly derived from the work done to make the operating systems and networking protocols invented back in the 1950s and 1960s. We are at best flies feeding on the carrion of the past, converting something functional into another form of television or newsmagazine.
Applications have standardized in other fields as well. The other development from the early 1990s was the gradual stabilization of an industry standard operating system, Windows, and although it has a couple tag-alongs, it basically still rules the day thanks to its momentum caused by that standardization. (Windows itself was based on the theory behind another 1960s-era operating system.)
What won the day? Time. Time and many people working on iterations of existing technology, gradually improving it until functional versions were available. If we have a problem now, it is that people need to justify their jobs, and so keep “improving” applications in ways that make them less functional. In many ways, we are simply re-learning the past as we roll back these “improvements.”
However, all the big opportunities have gone. Over the past decade, we have seen a gradual decline of programming from a Wild West to a type of blue-collar clerkship:
U.S. tech talent shortage discussions tend to focus on getting more young people to go to college to become CS grads. Nothing wrong with that, writes Anil Dash, but let’s not forget about education which teaches mid-level programming as a skilled trade, suitable for apprenticeship and advancement in a way that parallels traditional trade skills like HVAC or welding. Dash encourages less of a focus on ‘the next Zuckerberg’ in favor of encouraging solid middle-class tech jobs that are primarily focused on creating and maintaining tech infrastructure in non-tech companies. Dash also suggests ‘changing the conversation about recruiting technologists from the existing narrow priesthood of highly-skilled experts constantly chasing new technologies to productive workers getting the most out of widely-deployed platforms and frameworks.
As with all things in the post-collapse West, the technology industry is trading on the image of the past. Maybe in the 1950s, and as late as the early 1990s, there was room for radical innovation that required a nerd priesthood to demystify the machine. Now, however, this technology has been integrated into everyday life, and has shown little actual utility beyond what we were doing with it in the early 1990s: office applications, email and online ordering.
This means that the market will collapse inward and be distributed outward at the same time. The new programmer does not work for a fancy technology company, but labors away at a regular business, in charge of multiple functions that involve more configuring existing software than developing new, groundbreaking work.
Programming itself has changed as well. The roll-your-own days are gone, replaced by extensive libraries that one ties together with little more than object oriented scripting in order to produce apps for mobile devices or the web. All but a few applications of this require skills that are now taught as rote by programming boot camps.
Consequently the big money is gone, too, although the market is still catching up to that fact. The radical technologies of one decade, returning high margins, are the expected parts of reality with low margins in the next decade. The best bubble comparison for the internet is long-distance calling. When the phone system was new, long distance was expensive and a lucrative market; as soon as the technology matured, however, the prices came down and the industry mostly went away.
The same is true of the internet. What will be left will be like the shopping malls of the 1980s: you go to Google and for any search, see a list of approved sites. You can then shop at any of those, including non-profits in which content has been denatured for your safety. The former Wild West will be a managed experience entirely driven by consumer demand.
Accordingly, programming will calm down as well. Most offices will have a guy who codes up the web site, maintains the network, and answers help calls from people having trouble with their computers. It will be well-paid, but not beyond what a good plumber makes. The gold rush is over, and the boom in needing engineers and programmers is also fading.
There never was a STEM gap, after all. We had enough people here to do the jobs, and the jobs were going away and losing their shine anyway. Even those who flocked to Silicon Valley to earn a quarter million a year soon found that expenses ate away most of that. Every time the herd stampedes, it destroys what it stampedes toward.
In the meantime, politicians are hyping free college and a STEM boom because it is easy. Industry wanted more workers so it could take the best and pay everyone else peanuts. Most people have ended up with jobs they dislike, doing rote tasks they have come to hate, in a predatory environment. This is what always happens when the herd fascinates itself with a gold rush.
This is the nature of markets, and if your politicians promise you a future based on STEM, they are lying. The real future lies elsewhere: in finding jobs that match capabilities of our co-ethnic citizens, and sending everyone else home, because the great wealth boom is not only over, but was always a scam.
This came up on our most recent and yet still unreleased podcast: many of, if not the majority of, the superstars in information technology are not people who went through the educational system to get STEM degrees.
A new report from Spiceworks, entitled A Portrait of IT Workers, says 41 per cent of IT pros in the UK consider themselves “accidental” — and that they ended up in their career via a “non-traditional” route. The report, which covers areas including the career plans and education levels of IT professionals, found that a third (33 per cent) of the UK’s IT job force don’t have a college or a university degree.
This follows what we know of modern education, which is that it rewards people who are good at school — memorization and reconfiguring that information in a test environment — and not those who are good at applying the knowledge, which consists of innate ability for logical analysis partnered with real-world wisdom.
The average voter does not understand cause and effect. For this reason, crises seem to them to pop up out of thin air, and solutions involve making rules about what is acceptable. Naturally this fails and the problem begins again, with no diagnosis ever of the actual causes.
Since graduating last year, McCrave has applied for 250 engineering jobs, but he’s only had four interviews and no job offer.
McCrave isn’t alone. More than 12 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed and more than a quarter are underemployed, meaning they have degrees but end up in jobs that don’t require them.
Once upon a time, a college education meant something because a high school education meant something. The problem is that good education is the opposite of egalitarian; it produces some winners, lots of people who do just okay, and some losers. This offends our democratic sensibilities, so we democratized education starting in high school.
The hard tests that required thinking? Out, replaced by rote memorization and regurgitation. Reading complex books and understanding depth of thought? Out, replaced by political thinking. Classes that pushed kids beyond their comfort zones? Out, replaced by safely pre-chewed bits of information. Thinking was replaced by conformity.
These sound like clichés because people have been complaining about this tendency of modern “education” for some time. However, stereotypes are often true as are many clichés because they reveal something that our society seems unable to change that nonetheless irks. It just took a few decades to collapse.
First, since high school kids declined in ability, colleges converted the first two years of their coursework into being mostly remedial. This probably happened in the 1970s, and so it became necessary to have an advanced degree to get anywhere. However, a college degree still seemed to hold weight, until Political Correctness hit in the late 1980s.
At that point, the remaining collegiate part of education was dumbed down to include all those new protected groups. Not everyone can think, so thinking was out… tasks became rote, more memorization and research than thinking. Grades became inflated, especially if politically important topics were mentioned. And so, a college degree became worthless for Generation X.
This meant that higher degrees were required, and that in turn increased the number of people willing to do anything to get an advanced degree. As a result, schools expanded to hand out more of these degrees, resulting in a need to democratize post-collegiate education. Graduate school got a lot easier, but only a few kids — at the top of the class — came out on top.
Now industry has caught up with the full democratization of college. A high school diploma meant little more than that the recipient was an obedient memorizer; now a college degree meant the same. As a result, doors started to open with post-collegiate degrees, but then treated the first few years of work (“entry-level”) as an apprenticeship.
This means that students are getting a start in life at age thirty as opposed to age twenty-two, and because so many people are over-qualified, jobs are hiring five people to do the work of one, paying everyone less, and promoting very few people to a decent wage. This means that most kids Gen X and beyond could expect to struggle for peanuts until they were forty.
Not surprisingly, many of them have dropped out and accepted do-nothing mediocre jobs instead because that way, they can avoid spending years of their lives on time-consuming but unproductive behavior. The intelligent are the most penalized, since for them the ersatz coursework is the most tedious and pointless.
Democratization of education has now reached all levels of our “education” system, such that there is high pressure to force success on low-IQ and low-motivation students, resulting in scandals as teachers cheat the standardized tests:
Prosecutors alleged that Hall had run a “corrupt” organization that used test scores to financially reward and punish teachers. The extent of the test-cheating scandals around the country remains unknown because they are hard to find and prove.
…No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush’s chief education initiative, and then Race to the Top, President Obama’s central education program, placed increasingly high stakes on standardized test scores. They had to go up, or else there would be negative consequences not just for students but schools and teachers and principals. Such testing mandates were coupled with a “no excuse” management push by school reformers who said teachers had, well, no excuse not to raise their students’ test scores. Not sick or hungry students, not a lack of materials, not overcrowded classrooms. Obama’s Race to the Top initiative — which pit states against each other in competing for federal funds in exchange for implementing specific school reforms — linked student test scores to teacher evaluations and pay.
At some point, some schools began reporting test scores jumping high in just a year, though later, these “miracles” did not stand up to scrutiny.
Why are standardized tests popular? They are meritocratic, meaning that everyone is given an equal opportunity to memorize enough stuff to do really well on them. No one is rewarded for intelligence or the ability to think deeply, but anyone can become a superstar by devoting all of their time to memorization and gaming the test.
In this way, the politicians can turn to the dumb voters — who demand equality at every turn — and claim that the problem is being solved. Even if Johnny is dumb as bricks and perceptive as a mushroom, he can succeed by just spending those extra hours… weeknights, weekends and other free time he might need to mature like a normal person… on memorizing and conforming.
New York education officials are poised to scrap a test designed to measure the reading and writing skills of people trying to become teachers, in part because an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing it.
…The literacy test was among four assessments introduced in the 2013-2014 school year as part of an effort to raise the level of elementary and secondary school teaching in the state.
…But the literacy test raised alarms from the beginning because just 46 percent of Hispanic test takers and 41 percent of black test takers passed it on the first try, compared with 64 percent of white candidates.
In typical democratic inversion, the test designed to raise quality is instead made to certify low quality, which means that teachers who can barely read and write are instructing children in the same, which does nothing but damage those who could learn so that those who cannot can feel equal too.
New Transport for London rules include a requirement that drivers complete a £180 written essay and speaking test to gain a licence to work in the capital from September.
…But opponents have claimed it would lead to indirect racial discrimination as many drivers were immigrants, as well as putting around 30,000 jobs at risk.
Democratic thinking always prioritizes universal inclusion, or egalitarianism, over competence. As a result, standards decline and institutions fail. This is a form of soft corruption that then spreads like a wave through the rest of civilization, punishing the competent and defending the incompetent.
The markets react by being skeptical about new hires and paying them less, then keeping only the most devoted. The end result is that you must give much more of your time in order to just rise above the minimum, and this in turn alienates people by keeping them immature as they never have time to develop intellectually, morally and socially until later in life.
Once upon a time, STEM education was a safe bet. The idea was that becoming competent as necessary skills guaranteed employment. Instead, through the democratization process, it has now become a way to join a mass herd in which only a few will be winners, and the rest will merely be profit centers for those selling education by the pound.
On the Right, the temptation is to realize that the all of the assumptions that form the basis of our current society are lies, and therefore to go the exact opposite direction.
This is a strategic error.
The opposite of what we have now is the same mental state with a different starting direction. Because it is the same mental state, whatever direction you take will lead to the same cycle, and opposite extremes will connect. That will re-create the same problems we have now, but also create the ultimate crypto-disaster scenario: we will think we have solved the problem, but in fact, will have made it more entrenched.
What this means is that we cannot avoid the crisis by attempting to be its opposite. We must find a different direction instead, and reach toward that instead of merely pushing away from what we know.
Nowhere is this dilemma clearer than in the Red Pill attitude toward women. Sure, you reject the modern view that women are special snowflakes who are entitled to be whores whenever is convenient, and who in a political sense serve as usual idiots obsessed with womanhood. Your average woman may be that; the smarter ones, obviously, resist it and many break free. But you need another view of women that is not entrenched in the modern illusion.
Arising from the Rightist view that most human behaviors are deterministic, and the introspective without experience nature of the solitary male, the tendency of Red Pilled males — especially those from STEM backgrounds — is to treat women like some kind of alien life form, or even a mysterious machine. Press the right buttons, and you are in control, and can direct the machine as you see fit.
Explain the roles of a man in a marriage, and tell me some of the things you would do in order to help your man to achieve those roles. What groups would oppose your husband from fulfilling those roles, and what have you done in your life to prepare yourself to help your husband in his roles? What are some of the most important things that a man needs from a woman, and what specific things should a wife do to provide them?
SAMPLE ANSWER: Men are supposed to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. In order to help men to be protectors, women have to give them time to study to discern truth from lie, and support their ability to be physically strong, and to own firearms. It is also a good idea for women to have a positive view of good men who use force to restrain evil, as with the American military. Women should support the use of force against radical Islam and terrorists, as well. In order to help men to be providers, women have to advocate for fiscal conservatism in the public square. That would mean advocating for lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government. It would also mean being frugal in the home and helping the man to move ahead at work. If the children are up and out of the house, it could mean going back to work or starting a business to help make ends meet – or monitoring investments. For a man to be a moral and spiritual leader, a woman has to be supporting of him making moral judgments in the home, disciplining the children, holding her accountable for moral errors, and for making exclusive truth claims when it comes to spiritual things. She should not censor him when he gets into debates about spiritual things, even if other people who disagree feel bad – so long as he is not being a jerk. Her goal is not to be popular or liked, but to support her husband in his roles. The most important thing a man needs is respect, and that means treating him as important and significant, being grateful for his contributions, soliciting his opinion on things, being mindful of his male nature, which is more visual and sexual.
These are sample answers he wants from any wife candidate to show that she is oriented in the right direction. It is both test and contract, not just killing the romance, but introducing a misery and tedium that should kill the relationship quickly.
His plan treats women as some kind of coin-operated machine. Put in your coin, select the right button, and take her home like you would any other product. This is not only unrealistic, but entirely contrary to the nature of traditional attitudes toward family. However, it is exactly the type of thinking that one can expect from STEM people who have not reached beyond their comfort zones.
The West understood romantic love once, and you can see it in classics like Pride and Prejudice, but this notion has been washed away under the onslaught of prole notions of sex=love and commercial ideas of how to sell people on perpetual childhood so they can be perfect domesticated product-buyers, fundamentally miserable and thus always in need.
But the scary fact is that people are individuals, and romantic love was not about sexual attraction, but finding someone comparable to oneself with whom one could spend a lifetime. The romantics bonded their ideals intensely to death in order to achieve this time scale, and the vision of love they found was about what everyone hopes for: someone to grow old with and never feel out of place. This is compatible with genetic determinism because people are looking at inner traits of others, which starts with general race, ethnic, caste, class and social compatibility on a genetic level.
In this way, romantic love was utterly opposed to the idea of universalism, or that all people were essentially the same. Instead, it sought the union of individuals matched in ability, inclination and aesthetics. This formed the basis for a lifelong friendship and partnership which could result in family and have that family be content because the parents just made sense together.
STEM-addicts/MRAs and others are caught in the utilitarian idea that all people are the same, and this perverts the ancient knowledge of biological determinism. Under the egalitarian ideal, people are basically the same and can be manipulated by the same incentives and punishments. Under the romantic ideal, in contrast, it is the exceptional and unique nature of people that allows two to match up as a couple and then a family. Biological determinism supports the latter — unique traits — over the former, which emphasizes uniform traits in denial of nature and reality.
In reality, what we can observe matches the romantic notion more than the STEM mechanistic one. People differ widely. Some match up because they are similar in position in the hierarchy of humanity, and matched by temperament. This creates a solid basis for lifetime interaction that brings about the most pleasurable result of all possibilities, including remaining single or a less committed marriage.
This cannot be forced with the industrial-style, control-based and mechanistic view of women that sees them as objects to be manipulated. Relationships and marriage are partnerships based on the moral choices of individuals and their aptitudes, not forcing people into manipulative frameworks which treat them as little more than robots.
Traditional roles exist for a reason, and if we become separated from that reason, we are nothing more than repeaters of the methods of the past without understanding the purpose. Every household needs a leader, or each decision will become a debate, so we choose the person optimized for leadership style decisions, which is the male. Balancing that, women provide a counterpoint: an understanding of detail, depth and sensation that allows for the configuration of a happy home. The two balance one another, and the leadership role of the male does not entail the loss of autonomy and authority by the female. To act otherwise is to defile the traditional institution of marriage, and replace it with a thoroughly modern notion of control.
Under control, each person is seen as a means to an end, and this is fulfilled by having the all use exactly the same methods to agitate for an ideological purpose. Even reality becomes a means to an end under this mentality, which filters what is compatible with the ideology and rejects the rest of the data. Control makes people into idiots, but it is required for egalitarianism to exist as has been creeping into the West for the past thousand years.
In addition, with these extreme doctrinaire STEM-Christian types of thinker, we see that religion serves as a proxy for culture/race:
My purpose in marrying is to make the marriage promote the things that God likes, and oppose the things that God doesn’t like.
In my case that means:
impacting the university with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the church with apologetics and conservatism
impacting the public square to promote policies that enable Christian living
producing as many effective, influential children as I can afford to raise
In particular, with this writer, we can see that his adherence to Christianity is in part an attempt to staunch the blatant cultural confusion:
My mother is a Muslim-raised agnostic. My father is a Catholic-raised agnostic. Half of my father’s family is mostly Hindu, and some Catholic. My mother’s family is mostly Muslim and some atheist.
Christianity is a part of the singular healthy civilization design for the West, but it is not the whole of it, nor the core of it. The core of it is a desire to do good and be excellent, to aspire to more than our domesticated livestock lives of jobs, credit cards and shopping. We need to want to be great again. If we do that, we will have Christianity, as part of our sensible society but not attempting to lead it, because we need kings to do that and history shows us it will be disastrous if we let priests compete with kings for power. What that means is that Christian fanaticism is not “the” answer even if it is part of the answer.
Unfortunately, modern people are inculcated in the mentality of a one-size-fits-all solution that can be implemented immediately by either overwhelming force (government) or mass conformity (control). The STEM mentality plays into this because STEM fields specialize in knowing how to do things without ever knowing how to assess the goal and why it is important.
When this mentality is applied to women, it produces a robotic pre-emptive knee-jerk view that guarantees misery. Most of these guys will end up with fetal alcohol syndrome wives or other complacent, somewhat stupid women; this is why the great White Nationalist dream is either to run off to Eastern Europe or Asia for a bride. It is not that they believe these places are better, as they loudly say, but that they want a little robot to apply their robotic thinking to so that they do not need to interrupt their own solipsistic, narcissistic or egotistic narrative.
In this way, they are identical to Leftists.
As with most things in life, the question of relationships is nuanced. Here are a few very general thoughts:
Find someone like you. People are happiest with other people who are like them in terms of not only race and ethnic group, but caste/class and general outlook (extravert/intravert, right/left, outdoor/indoor and others). Not only is communication much easier, but you are headed in the same direction morally and existentially, which means there is less to negotiate over. You want someone from roughly the same background, ability level and moral outlook. This part is genetic determinism: the woman who is most like you will be the one you appreciate the most. This does not mean she will not challenge you.
Roles are not properties. Men and women serve complementary roles; the contemporary church (idiots all) interpret this as equal roles because in the modern time, you never get in trouble for saying that equality is the principle of everything since the dawn of time. However, it actually means entirely different and unequal roles that balance one another, such that each sex has a domain of its own. This principle exists for efficiency: when quick action must be taken, the person in charge of that domain just does it, instead of being boring modern bovines who like to stand around “discussing” every issue until boredom and failure set in. You do not “own” each other or have absolute “rights.” Instead, you are working together by surrendering your identity to the family, and beyond that, God and the nation.
Love is not linear. When you love someone, you may be mad at them but you will never hate them. You are not there to force them to do anything, but to nurture them so that they may rise to their greatest possible heights. It does not resemble a lab experiment nor a right. Instead, you must cooperate, this requires each person to understand the goal and principles and work toward them in their own way. These contributions will not be the same, or necessarily comprehensible to one another. That is fine too.
If you are not finding women, change your life. “All the good girls are gone!” they say, throwing up their hands. This is self-pity and it will ruin your life. Go somewhere else, and think about what women like to do, not what you do. Be prepared to treat this as a long-term project, meaning that you do a little bit every day. Volunteer at your church, go back to school, work at an animal shelter, take cooking classes, spend time jogging or just walking in public parks, and — most importantly — explore the people your people knew back when you were kids. You will find the most likely candidates in people with backgrounds like yours, from neighborhoods like yours, whose genetics are similar to those of their parents, who probably befriended yours because they are similar.
Get rid of the disposable mentality. You will meet many women. You will court a few who are special. Among those, if you stop courting them, it will be for a solid reason: you found something no-fly zone about them, or they did about you. This means fundamental incompatibility, not inconvenience. Knowing the difference between those two is vital. When you find someone compatible, be aware that there will be rough edges. She may have a semi-unfortunate sexual history, have a kid from a failed marriage, or have once been a Democrat. If she has figured her way out of the pitfall, then she is still worth pursuing and not disposable. This means you accept some bad with the good so long as the bad does not overwhelm the good. If you go looking for a Hollywood vision, you will find nothing, because Hollywood has always been illusion in every area.
Humans suffer from one essential evil, and that is self-centeredness. We do what is mentally convenient and ignore what we have an obligation to notice. This, unlike Hollywood evil — where the evil intends to be evil — is the source of all of our downfalls, and is manifested in behaviors like solipsism, individualism, egotism and narcissism. Treating other people like machines, or as categories instead of individuals, is one manifestation of this behavior.
Again, we cannot defeat modernity by attempting its opposite. We can however have a different goal, and if that is tradition and health, we will naturally curve away from the insane behaviors of modernity and find ourselves in a new place. But with women, as with many other areas, this requires a nuanced, detailed and balanced look instead of a robotic STEM-tard rigidity.
It’s 1954, when an angry mob of hundreds of people storm a cemetery, armed with knives, stones and hand-crafted spears. A vampire is said to reside there, who has killed and eaten two children. The vampire is said to be seven feet tall and according to the rumors has iron teeth. What country are we talking about? Lily white England. Plot twist: The mob consisted of children.
In contrast to what you might have heard from the alt-right, different cultures can in fact co-exist in peace for generations. I am talking here, of course, about the culture of children and the culture of adults. For centuries, children have maintained their own cultures separate from adults, passed on from older children to younger children. That culture has been lost, but it can be revived.
All that was necessary for these culture to be preserved, was for adults to leave their children unsupervised for sufficient amounts of time. These cultures emerged spontaneously and passed on legends and practices from older children to younger ones. They declined as we increasingly began to supervise our children, restricted their right to roam outside and gave them access at first to television and later on, computers, tablets and smartphones.
We might say that we wish to protect our children from harm, but more primitive cultures seem to have had less concern when it comes to such harm. Certain primitive African cultures have children with hands covered by scars, because the children are left for themselves to find out that fire is hot. As we isolate ourselves from the natural world and become anxious and risk averse, we impose our mentality on our children as well.
The problem is that we have placed excessively high expectations on our children. In addition, we have embraced the wrong values as a culture. We aim to make our children successful, that is, capable of holding onto some full-time white collar job that will allow them to provide for a family. In addition, in our meritocratic culture, we all expect that our child will inevitably rise in socio-economic status, rather than dropping down. When nepotism and inherited privilege ensure that social status is determined at birth, people have less reason to place high expectations on their children.
Children naturally learn new valuable skills. Their method of learning is called play, it teaches them all the skills that were necessary for most of human history. Leave a bunch of (tom)boys by themselves and they will build huts, rafts, slingshots and carts. If children’s natural method of learning doesn’t prepare them for adult life anymore, the solution is not to force children to play less and to do more homework. Rather, the solution is to change adult life to be more in tune with humans natural inclinations.
In many places, people are beginning to understand this. In Denmark, traditionally far ahead of the rest of Western civilization, we see an explosion in the number of nature based elementary schools and childcare facilities. Young children are given knives and taught to make spears from branches, or how to recognize and where to find wild plants and animals. Caregivers take the children outside and let them dig through the mud.
Of course at the same time, from the higher echelons of society we see an attempt to keep their disastrous project from falling apart. All developed nations are currently struggling with a shortage of STEM-nerds. To prepare children for the mediocre lives that adults have planned for them, as future objected-oriented PHP programmers and C# developers, a growing number of elementary schools are teaching children how to code, through the use of games on tablets.
The thought never seems to occur to our central planners that perhaps technology’s natural inclination is not to create a paradise on Earth, but rather to force lifestyles onto human beings that are increasingly at odds with our natural instincts and make us miserable. Perhaps there is no degree of indoctrination that could ever get women to look forward to spending their lives as PHP programmers. As much as people might fail to admit it, to work in IT is a choice of last resort, for people who need the money and have no real idea where else to get hired.
Another taboo to break through is as following: No matter how good looking they might be, the average engineer or computer programmer is an awful guy that women struggle to maintain relationships with. Silicon Valley is known to have an epidemic of singles, the main reason being that the high-earning white collar males who work there are awful people to interact with.
Intelligent, non-autistic women who had to work with successful IT nerds tend to have a variety of nightmare stories to share. Interacting with other people takes effort, those who spend their days interacting with computers and learning their logic inevitably struggle to develop this skill. If anything, the covert subtle language of human communication is diametrically opposed to the overt concrete language of computers. Thus, to learn one is to lose our understanding of the other.
When we educate our children, we give birth to the cultures that are to follow us. If we drown them with busywork to give them a chance in the rat-race for the shrinking pool of high-status white-collar jobs, we prepare a society that is as hellish as the one we find ourselves in today. They become like us, drones who expect to receive fat pension checks after they turn 65 that allow them to spend the last years of their lives as modern day leisurely aristocrats, to make up for the miserable decades before retirement spent in cubicles.
If on the other hand, we teach our children to love, enjoy and admire the living world that they inherited, they stand a chance of growing up to become adults with lives worth living. Our children deserve something better than we received.
The hardest task of maturation is learning to resist the manipulation of others. With friends, this is persuasion about how cool something is or is not; we called it peer pressure once upon a time. It is no different with media. Whether the spreading of “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” (FUD) or relentless hype, the media distorts reality to all but the wary, cynical, realistic and reactionary person.
Its background hum for some time has been that our Silicon Valley STEM wizards are the geniuses who will save us and our economy. This has only one flaw: the products they are making are not remarkably complex, nor do they work well, and the audience they bring in — much like that of our immigration policy — is not high-end but low-end. The internet has been daytime television for about a decade now, belonging mostly to aimless children, retirees, people on disability and addicts of various substances.
Look at our vaunted inventions. Drones are remote-control helicopters upgraded with better batteries. Twitter is IRC. Google is Lexis/Nexis for the proles. iPads are flat computers. Computers now are simply faster versions of what we had in the 1980s. Operating systems are slightly fancier versions of the same. Everything works “better,” but it takes the same amount of time to do anything. All of our software types were invented in the 70s. As were the visions for things like tablets. If they could predict it in the past, it was because it was merely a shinier version of what they were shipping then.
The biggest inventions seem to be re-learning how to make old ones. We had electric cars in the 1890s and 1970s, too, but they never took off. Now, using our improved but not radically improved batteries, Tesla has sold the public on a new type of car. Or is it? Is Google’s self-driving car really anything more than 1970s military technology applied using our new, faster chips?
In fact, the main purpose of our new technology appears to be social control. Social media is an echo chamber for attention whores, which always produces virtue signaling and thus, is Leftist-dominated and incubates new Leftists. Drones let hobbyists feel edgy for buying a product and using it to do, well, no one is really sure what drones (or the web) are good for yet.
Like non-governmental organizations (NGOs), these dot-com wunderkind are political actors on the both the world stage and domestically. Amazon is a gatekeeper of “culture”; Google is a revolution-fostering political agency. This is in addition to the fact that by their size, these companies are gatekeepers of what is acceptable on the internet. Google’s changes to its search ranking have driven out of public consciousness the layer of sites that ten years ago were the go-to resources for most people, and replaced it with its own projects and allies.
At this point, the endgame emerges: the technology industry will be used as a way to instill norms in us all and to filter out deviant thought. It will provide the basis of our Potemkin economy so that the bennies and freebies get mailed out at the right time. And when it goes down, we all go down with it, and we have something to blame other than the failure of our system of government. We can blame the economy.
The right wing tends to fear the “softer” side of academia such as the liberal arts for two reasons. First, that part of academia has been dominated by leftist radicals pretending to be normal since the 1960s; second, as a field without clear answers — in disciplines like literature, philosophy, psychology, and art — it seems to be the antithesis of conservatism, which is based on conserving utility by looking at past success and failure. Conservatism resembles the scientific method.
On the other hand, liberal arts seem from a distance to simply be a form of learning to use language and appearance to weasel out of hard answers. This appearance occurs because until one understands the methods of, say, philosophy, the use of argument seems arbitrary much like a foreign language may appear to be random sounds. This mistaken notion rapidly changes when one looks into the liberal arts and sees both how deeply conservative it is and how it is not prone to stumble into many of the pitfalls of populist politics.
After all, literature and philosophy and art teach a meta-science to the scientific method, which is observing cause->effect logic through the acts of characters and their consequences. Art does not — as liberal professors insist — belong to the whims of the perceiver, but to the intention of the artist. In keeping with the classical tradition, art and literature from the 1970s and before tackled “big topics” instead of personal details. Philosophy similarly takes on the big issues that STEM, being isolated to details by its need for linear comparison, cannot tackle. These are the master sciences which are needed to guide science, technology, political science and psychology.
Literature in particular offers a strong conservative bias because it shows characters struggling with decisions in awareness of how they will end up. In the same way, philosophy argues ideas to their logical extensions, such as how they would manifest in reality. Even visual art portrays the conflict between human inner worlds and the outside, showing our tendency toward solipsism versus our need for realism. Many of the greats in these fields expressed solidly conservative ideas like defense of monarchy, responsibility, self-reliance, nationalism, eugenic breeding and a deep connection to the transcendental.
STEM provides a false god in that it, like modern science, claims to answer questions far beyond its scope. Science verifies details and makes theories, but never proclaims an ultimate truth; that requires the type of inter-disciplinary study that only a more abstract approach can provide. Like law and some forms of economics, STEM tries to reduce humanity to leaderless invisible hand systems in the pattern of the Revolution. It surmises that knowledge, rather than interpretation and application, along can rule us better than those who see from above in the abstract approach of the liberal arts. This fallacious viewpoint leaves us with scientists who master a detail and make broad conjectures about it far beyond its reasonable context. This is the basis of the “social engineering” that has failed so spectacularly in liberal societies; instead of being based in knowledge of the past and logic, which converts abstractions into concrete details, it is based in concrete details turned into abstractions.
Applying science beyond its correct discipline — interpreting materials science and inventing technology — imposes a type of categorical thinking on reality which is as blocky and knee-jerk as every satire of nerds. The magic word “therefore” warns that someone has used categories to magically draw equivalence or separation in order to simplify a complex issue, and by cutting out that complexity, has totally missed the point. Much like democracy itself, rule by science creates an illusory world in which the only “solutions” are to re-apply the theory. And yet the theory has no basis in reality because it has reduced reality to several factors out of millions, run an experiment upon them, and based on a tiny result — a detail out of the big picture — has allowed human egos to claim that what they desire is objective fact.
The result of conservative support for STEM has been that conservatives have abandoned the gateway to culture that literature, philosophy and art provide. In addition, we have thrown ourselves into the same type of thinking that produced the Revolution, but now it wears a new name tag that validates it as conservative. This in effect lets the enemy in the gates. We have Trojan horsed ourselves. A more sensible policy would be to relegate science to what it does well, and recapture and renovate the fields of critical thinking and art so that they can express reality instead of the ersatz Potemkin vision that liberals have imposed upon them.