26 08 10 - 10:48People generally run away from solutions to their problems, because solutions require you get to the cause of the matter, and then make structural changes. It's easier to make changes on the surface or demand a subsidy.
In the case of modern society, here in the industrialized West and anywhere else stupid enough to undertake this goal, we have a problem with lots of people in oblivion because they're justifying their fake solutions. They don't want to stop their lives to take on a real problem, especially an unglamorous one as deep-seated, far-reaching, entrenched problems always are.
They're rather have an easy problem, like another war or recession. These are single factors they can deal with and when they've beaten back the enemy, the problem goes away. But what about problems where the enemy doesn't exist, unless we consider "disorganization","entropy" or "solipsism" our enemy?
They're not so good at tackling those, mainly because not everyone in a cross-section of society can see these problems. In fact, at first it's limited to a few really exceptional thinkers, and only later does it trickle down to people of a normal intelligence range. For those below one standard deviation from the average, it's unlikely that they'll see the problem at all until it explodes in their faces.
Iâve got my own theories about the high rate of suicide in New Zealand (and most of the western world). To my mind we need to address the alienation, the atomisation and the anomie of modern life if we want to get to the roots of the problem. In addition I find it hard to believe that at some level we donât all feel the ecocide rending the planet. We are part of the fabric of life, despite the illusion of separation, and cannot be mentally healthy while we continue to wreak destruction on ourselves. - 3news
"Firefighting" happens when you cannot address underlying causes, so you tackle surface manifestations. See the image of the enemy? Fire, and hope it's not in a mirror.
The four words that can save your life:
Our civilization is declining.
When your family members invent needless drama, your workplace is ruled by idiots, you can't drive across town because too many fools are causing obstructions, and your politicians are corrupt, don't kid yourself: your society is falling apart. It happens slowly, so people have been saying this for years, and it has been true but it has taken some time to happen. Of course, there are also idiots in any age who claim the sky is falling, but there are also idiots who claim that doing meth is good for you. The problem is idiots, not that their message automatically makes anyone who ever speaks it wrong.
All the people you know are under great stress because (a) they subconsciously know this civilization is falling apart and (b) they lack the guts to confront it, because that means they have to stop being selfish and start a fight involving real sacrifice; a fight that isn't immediately obvious to everyone, like a war or natural disaster. Oops.
In his latest research study, released today by the Center for a Stateless Society, Kevin Carson makes the case for progressives as the bitter-enders of a social project made obsolete by liberating technologies and the production and distribution methods those technologies make possible.
âThermidor of the Progressives: Managerialist Liberalismâs Hostility to Decentralized Organizationâ traces the development of managerialism in the political and economic realms, the history of progressive attachment to the managerial vision, and the siege mentality displayed by progressives as they confront what Carson calls the âNetwork Revolution.â
âFor liberals,â writes Carson, author of _The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto_, âthe American Golden Age was the âConsensus Capitalismâ of the New Deal and the first post-WWII generation. â¦ This general affinity for large-scale organization and hierarchy, more recently, has been reflected in hostility to the new forms of networked organization permitted by the emerging technologies of the late twentieth century.â - C4SS
How did hippies become consumerists, bohemians become bourgeois, progressives become establishmentarians? Their underlying goal was always the same: ignore decline, and to compensate, make good for self. When you're 18, you want free sex. When you're 28, legal drugs. When you're 38-58, you want to keep the stash of income you've made at the job you didn't want to go to but had to anyway, so you might as well get paid (well) for it.
It's a great runaround. No one believes their ideology -- well, except a few. If you remember a bell curve, you see that most people are in the center and very similar. At the edges are outliers, who are either geniuses or retards. The few who believe are the geniuses. Why do people not believe their own ideology? First, most of them are unsuited for having ideological thoughts at all -- they're just not competent at it. Second, their ideologies are usually justifications for their way of life. I love meth, therefore, drugs should be legal. Ta-da!
Among the future consequences of not fixing our national problems will likely be an increase in social unrest and an increase in crime.
Doing nothing is not an option for America. Much of poor America, especially in our major cities, has been Third World America for decades. Soon the urban middle classes and even upper classes will become better acquainted with that world.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/third-world-america-fast-tracking-to-anarchy-2010-8#ixzz0xjeDHOfZ
As we go further into the abyss, we're seeing what people have been denying for 2,000 years -- a long steady decline into irrelevance, narcissism, and negativity. We no longer have a goal, except ourselves as individuals and (a) people are selfish (b) most people are not bright enough to see the consequences of their actions.
We could either man up and face the problem, or keep blowing it off and hoping it detonates only after we die, leaving a disaster where once a near-paradise stood.