Amerika

People from the first world get weirded out when they go to the third world (and its enclaves in the first world) and see people kill each other over even the mildest slight. If you disrespect someone, meaning do not acknowledge their relevance, you have basically ranked them as worthless.

It is easy to make fun of these incidents until you understand why two pieces of chicken are worth killing for:

The 57-year-old victim said he took two pieces of chicken from another resident and ate them. Akron police said the other man became upset, grabbing the victim by the throat and throwing him to the floor.

Keeping with the chicken theme:

In a Monday, June 27, Facebook statement an MPD spokesperson added: “Officers were advised by the staff that a customer was upset about $2 worth of change and chicken sandwiches.”

“The suspect made threats to do bodily harm to the female employees, and knocked the cash registers off their stands onto the floor, causing $10,000 worth of damage.”

Chicken is serious business. If you get in a dispute over it, you may end up getting shot:

Around 8:30 p.m., two men pulled into the drive-thru lane of the KFC at 6301 15th Street E. in Sarasota and got into an argument with the restaurant’s employees at the window about the food they ordered, the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release.

Minutes later, two employees left the restaurant and met the customers in the parking lot, where the argument escalated. During the dispute, one of the employees was shot, the sheriff’s office said.

These barbecue-related slayings seem to form a trope:

“He said the food was too cold and he just started getting a real bad attitude about it so we were like OK, OK, if you don’t want it, we will give your money back to you. So that’s what we did,” said Bautista.

“We started walking away and something told me to turn around. When I turned around he had gone inside the house and then comes back out and he had a gun,” said Bautista.

You want more chicken-related violence?

Bountiful Police say Suliafu’s father returned home with food for Suliafu. When he discovered the wings were not the variety he liked, Suliafu became upset and began arguing with his father. During the argument, police say Suliafu went into another room, retrieved a firearm from his father’s bag, and pointed the gun at his father.

The chicken-related carnage continues:

A female passenger in a car was reportedly involved in an altercation with employees over a spicy chicken sandwich.

After the altercation, the pair left then returned in the car, firing multiple shots from the road into the parking lot, the affidavit said.

And the stunner of chicken redrum:

That’s when police say Munn’s mother got into a heated argument over “guests getting too many pieces of chicken” with another family member, according to court documents.

The family continued the argument outside in the front yard, where police say Rogers pulled out two guns and shot Dandridge seven times.

If you are following the mainstream narrative, you should pretend to be shocked here. These are seemingly pointless crimes over things of low value, so a modern citizen sees them as laughably absurd risk of jail for almost no gain.

That is because modern societies do not understand our primitive origins as a human species.

In those egalitarian or communal hunter-gatherer societies that Leftists praise in the science magazines, in theory when there is a hunt or harvest the people who found the food bring it back and share it equally with everyone in the tribe.

But in reality, no food goes to those who are disrespected and irrelevant. At the very least, they stand in the back of the line because their social status is low. When food is scarce, they may simply die in the bush if they cannot snag some bush meat, pick fruit, or dig up edible roots.

Under ideal conditions, this process works to gradually exclude those who are incompetent. They are after all “useless eaters” who want part of the profits of the hunt or harvest, but are unable to provide anything of value on their own.

Some duck out of the process by being submissive. Homosexuals, for example, seem to exist in every society as a type of domestic help and source of labor for occupations shunned by aggressive males, like interior decorating and hair cutting.

Other males accept their low status and form a gang around someone more powerful. Their loyalty and henchman status buys them some of the food, although they are usually angling for more whenever their boss starts looking weak, old, or confused.

In this way the egalitarian tribe preserves hierarchy without formally doing so, which would offend its pretense of egalitarianism, which is how it keeps the tribe together. It is a soup line with a few added conditions, essentially, namely loyalty in time of attack.

But because this society handles redistribution, your public image matters more than reality. The reality is that you do not really care about chicken that much, but if someone disrespects you, your status will get lowered if you do not fight back right away.

Even if you lose and end up in the hospital, you retain your status as someone not to be messed with. If you walk away from a fight, everyone assumes that you were going to lose, and so they see you as a loser. Only those who enforce their status through pointless violence keep rising in the public eye.

In primitive hunter-gatherer societies and many tropical societies today, you become irrelevant unless you are willing to step up over even a mildly symbolic slight. Like superstition, symbolism manipulates human minds with the belief that the symbol can be a universal, absolute cause like magic or divinity.

In other words, you are the symbol. When your symbol ceases to mean a willingness to fight over trivial displays of status, you lose ground and are on your way toward irrelevance, starvation, and death. It was never about the fried chicken; it is about your standing in the community.

The third world manages image by violence generally because this is understandable by even lower-IQ populations like we see in the third world and underclasses of the first world. The top quarter of the Bell Curve in the first world uses a different quantum of measurement.

Where in the third world, individuals preserve status through violence, in the first world they manage their rank in the hierarchy by maintaining a group mental state of cooperation. When you make others feel hopeful about our ballistic trajectory, paranoid and superstitious egalitarianism, and inflated defensive sense of self-worth, then you gain status in the middle class West.

To do that is to be seen as relevant, where those who oppose the current System are seen as irrelevant because nothing that they say or do helps anyone get ahead in the current regime. If you instill good feelings in everyone, they quiet down and do the obvious necessary things, which makes you a hero of the Party or local equivalent.

When you exist in an egalitarian society, whether first world or third world, you have nothing permanent. Your role is subject to your obedience. Non-egalitarian societies do not have this problem because you exist in a niche and level of a hierarchy, so you always have a role and place.

Relevance in nature comes from structural overlap. Different species in an ecosystem are relevant to each other; ideas which form continuous thoughts addressing some aspect of reality show relevance. Ideas unrelated to reality connect to nothing enduring and are irrelevant.

When social pressures take over from thinking, a market for importance is created, as measured in popularity, media attention, wealth, and power, all of which combine to form a factor known as status. Unless you constantly generate status, you become irrelevant.

Egalitarian societies therefore tend to be narcissistic and shape people to be narcissists. Since everyone must manipulate others in order to have status, manipulation becomes the psychology of that society and everyone follows that lead because it succeeds in the System.

Eventually they become solipsists, or those who are entirely atomized and isolated from everything else. This makes them irrelevant, except in the eyes of others, so they become pathological manipulators who care nothing for those they manipulate or the results that are achieved.

In this way, society in its end stages divides into two groups. The solipsists want to avoid inner change, and they will demand any amount of power for others to give them meaning through external influences like politics, pop culture, ideology, and symbolic religions.

The other group, realists, want to escape all of the noise and get back to what is true and real in not just the world but their inner selves. Realism, since it forces thinking about consequences and end states, leads to an exploration of intuition to find what is good.

Most people simply want jobs. There they are told what to do, and if something goes wrong, no real consequences come their way, like starving on a farm because of a failure to produce food. They succeed by being narcissistic and manipulating others but this is easy and does not require inner change.

When enough people who simply want jobs appear in a society, which happens when it reaches success and also simultaneously loses sight of any objective because it has succeeded in its first objectives, it goes down the path to egalitarianism and narcissism.

At that point, relevance contradicts reality, and so you get this silly End of Rome type stuff where people stunt and try to be as outlandish as possible in order to draw attention to themselves. It is the same impulse as killing a man over fried chicken, just buried in layers of abstraction and neurosis.

Tags: fried chicken, late stage democracy, narcissism, relevance, solipsism, status