Furthest Right

Social Risk

Social Risk refers to the costs and dangers of an unstable social order. In a deft sleight-of-hand as usual, the Left replaced the whole with a part, and converted social risk into a discussion of inequality.

Neurotics tend to do that. They bleat and wail on about something or other so much that people wait them out to address it, then move on to the real topic as quietly as possible. This is often why meetings often go an hour or more over schedule.

If we get back to what social risk actually means, it refers to instability and disorder. The more of those that you have in your life, the less functional you are and the more likely you are to compensate with self-destructive behaviors.

Most studies, influenced by the Left, look at social risk in racial and class terms instead of the broader issue:

Factors examined included economic hardship, food insecurity, unsafe neighborhood, racial discrimination, multiple Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) like substance abuse or domestic violence, poor caregiver mental health, and low levels of caregiver coping or high aggravation with their child.

It should surprise no one that poorer people tend to be dumber and therefore more violent, leading to more domestic violence, crime, poverty, insanity, and detachment among the people with whom they interact on a daily basis.

However, we can flip this around as well by looking at the broader picture. What decisions have we made as a society that create more instability, disorganization, and insanity that affect all citizens?

Sexual liberation wrecked the family. Consumerism destroyed quality. Entitlements rewarded the useless. Unions got our labor sent offshore. Diversity, starting with Irish diversity, replaced our culture with anti-culture and removed social trust as well as enjoyment of public spaces.

In the name of political equality, democracy sacrificed everything else, especially the organic institutions like culture and social hierarchy which kept our civilization running well. It even wrecked business, turning it into a jobs program for morons.

We can figure a way out of this mess by looking at social risk. Anything which makes society less organized, competent, honest, and sane is a destructive force. This means that if a popular program is destructive, it must be removed despite its popularity.

The illusion starts with the Big Lie, equality. This idea which never applies well to humans nonetheless seduces all humans because it says “do whatever you want, and there are no consequences.” This makes people put their brains on ice.

Conservatism offers us another option, extreme realism balanced with a desire to seek the transcendent good or that which accepts life as it is and sees the beauty of it instead of judging it, raging against it, or compensating with desire.

We might see conservatism as more of a psychological movement toward sanity and adaptation than a political movement, since its goals involve creation of low social risk living through clearer thought:

Plato and Aristotle were the founders of the science of politics. The Ancient Greek science of politics differs from the political science of our time by focusing on the big questions: What is the best form of government? What form best ensures the excellence (arete) and happiness (eudaimonia) of the citizens? What causes the corruption and decline of a political community? In contrast, today’s political science concerns itself with minutiae.

A more sensible translation of eudaimonia might be “spirit of goodness” or the inner urge, impulsion rather than external compulsion, to do good, as a deep dive into its meaning tells us:

from eu “good” (see eu-) + daimōn “guardian, genius” (see daimon)

“Genius” refers to an inner spirit, something which occurs of itself, and cannot be instilled or otherwise externally created. The only guardian of the good life is an inner will to be good, which requires looking at reality with clear sight, and this is what we lost in modern society when we transitioned from traditional order to an individualistic — the individual is the most important unit in society — view.

Our social risk comes from these substitutes for doing good, all of which are based in the replacement of the whole with a part, namely the idea of treating people fairly by treating them equally, which then replaces everything else. This is why it is called the Big Lie.

The Big Lie tells us that we do not have to be good; we must only adopt the superstitious talisman of “equality” and then we are considered good by the group, therefore need do nothing else to be socially “good.”

That excludes all other forms of goodness, and consequently, social risk goes up as we pursue the symbolic good instead of the actual good.

For centuries, we have relied on the assumption that more equality equals more good and therefore have ignored social risk as it has build up around us. With the Great Awakening, people are starting to look at actual good again and ignore the symbols.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn