20 05 12 - 09:49First, the interesting concept that fiction influences us more than we think:
I think it is likely that the stories available in our mass media do have a left-leaning bias, which one may or may not see as a bias toward a desirable morality. But my guess is that this bias has to do primarily with the fact that the people most likely to opt into creative careers are unusually high in âopenness to experience,â a personality trait highly correlated with liberal political sympathies. - "Fiction Isn't Good For You," by Will Wilkinson
The whole piece is worth reading. In essence, we position ourselves between past and future by telling ourselves stories. We are influenced by other stories. Normally, we pick stories for only a few traits, such as being minimally interesting. We thus program our brains with a range of propaganda.
The biggest story of our time is the social revolution, which rests in the equality of all people and the deposition of hierarchy including monarchy:
The opposite of genetic determinism is social determinism, or âblank slateâ theory, according to which every trait of the finished human personality is molded by parenting, schooling, or life experiences. Tweak those molding forcesâon the assumption that you are wise and learned enough to do the tweaking correctlyâand you can end up with any kind of human being you like. Social determinism is naturally popular with social engineers, careerist bureaucrats, and every kind of busybody who wants to tell us how to live. Such people include âprogressiveâ economist Glenn Loury:
I rejected then, and still do, Murray and Herrnsteinâs claim that profound social disparities are due mainly to variation in innate individual traits that cannot be remedied via social policy.
People sometimes tell me that my own genetic determinism is a darkly fatalistic recipe for despair. I donât see it, and people who know me testify that I am quite cheerful and busy in person. As a poet said: âTo enter in these bonds, is to be free.â Social determinism, by contrast, is for commissars, bullies, and slaves. So it seems to me. - "Itâs My Column and Iâll Write What I Want To," by John Derbyshire, Taki's Magazine
It's socially correct to reject the idea that genetic traits determine who we are. Yet all of the evidence points in the other direction.
Why social determinism? Because proclaiming equality means that we live in a human world, and not the natural, objective world.
I've got to go with the traditional means/ends analysis. Conservatives focus on ends, where liberals focus on means. This does not mean conservatives are ignorant of means, but only that they consider ends more important. The goal of equality itself is a means and not an end, unless we consider equality a utopia complete in and of itself. For conservatism to be ends-focused however it must be focused on human actions as they translate to reality, which means it must be realistic in attitude. Liberalism focuses on how its actions look to others, what John Derbyshire calls "social determinism." It seems to me that from this division all others spring. - Brett Stevens comment at Orthosphere
(Note: I will never be a Christian. However, there is an eternal truth called adualism which manifests itself in many spiritual disciplines. Those Christians who can follow along will be welcome. However, I will never condone the pacifism and Crowdist sympathies of Jesus Christ, and would probably shoot him on sight and spell out FUCK EQUALITY with his entrails, preferably on the side of a diversity center, holocaust museum (including the Armenian holocaust), women's studies building, multicultural enforcement bureau, gay rights embassy, or the nearest subsidized Section 8 housing.)
How did we get to this stage?
Doesnât civilization always advertize itself as concerned with the betterment of humanity and progress? Isnât there something fundamentally dishonest about a system that repeatedly delivers the opposite of what it promises?
In my opinion, highly organized and long-lived civilizations are the worst offenders in this regard. What did greco-roman civilization really deliver to its unwitting followers? What has Chinese civilization really done for its followers? How has Indian civilization made the life of the average Indian better? Didnât western civilization only start delivering in the aftermath of WW1 and WW2?
The unpleasant truth is that civilization, as we know it, is incapable of making the life of an average person better. It is, if anything, a hindrance to making the life of such people better as most of what you call civilization is essentially a series of endless zero sum games involving continual strife, conflict, lies and bullshit. Nobody wins in the end, as even the so-called âwinnersâ pay a much higher cost for their lifestyle than they otherwise would have.
Civilization, as we know it, is a disease. - "Highly Organized Civilizations Lack a Purpose for Continued Existence," by Advocatus Diaboli, Playing the Devil's Advocate
I think he's got it entirely backward. Civilization rewards everyone, but at some point, it penalizes the productive by subsidizing the unproductive. It does this because it loses sight of purpose (ends) and replaces those with upkeeping-the-status-quo (means), which includes buying off its citizens with benefits including equality (means) to keep the peace, stability, etc. Civilization only works when it's a manic warlike drive toward a goal, and then it gets fat and lazy and tolerant, and allows the idiots take over. The idiots promptly import more idiots from third world countries (poorer = by definition dumber, and third world nations have lower average IQs than first world nations; no one disputes these facts, but many people try to explain them away).
This is how nations die. In addition to the death-grip of diversity, there's also a rise in promiscuity, cluelessness, bureaucracy, etc. all stemming from the breakdown of a common goal and agreed-upon values system, or consensus.
2.7 metres square with 1.4m high walls. The âUniverseâ was surrounded by 16 tunnels leading to food, water and burrows. No predators, no scarcity, the mice would have to be blind to not see the utopia around them. At least it began as Utopia. Four breeding pairs of mice were introduced into Universe 1. After 104 days they adjusted to the new world and the population began to grow, doubling every 55 days. By day 315 the population reached 620. Then is stopped. The population grew much more slowly as the mice came against the limit of space, their only limiting frontier.
Society broke. Young were expelled before they had been properly weaned and were arbitrarily attacked by excessive aggressive male mice. Females became more aggressive, non-dominant males became passive, not retaliating to attacks. The last healthy birth came on the 600th day. Then there were no new mice. Then there were none. - "Death by Utopia," by Alexandre Coates, Mostly Odd
The message of this is simple: society needs a goal other than itself.
This goal must be ongoing and transcendent, or it relapses into having its means be its ends.
Liberalism is a symptom of this decline and afflicts the weak-willed first. Like a zombie movie. You can shoot a lot of them, but ultimately you need to get The Remnant who aren't insane to a place of safety. Because like zombies, liberals seek to consume all that's happier than they.
It starts with stories. Our story right now is that our society is the BEST EVAR because it takes care of us all equally and we have freedom.
A new story: a society always needs a struggle and imperfection, or it becomes entropy. Allahu ackbar!