21st-century religious wars
Progressives are the direct decedents of Unitarian mainline Christianity. These people see certain others in society as sinful (using the terms "racism," "pollution," "sexism," etc) and wish to punish them in ways suspiciously like doctrines practised by the Puritans of the 13 Colonies in America. Puritans tend to desire purification. To them, this world is fallen and corrupted (by the "patriarchy," "Western Civilisation" or "white men") and the whole project should be put to the torch. Since progressives also believe in the universal brotherhood of humans, they have no problem supporting those people who have the opposite of the Western project (China, Africa, Mexico, etc) because these are closer to nature (following Rousseau) and thereby closer to God. Climate change is best seen as a new front in the multi-century conflict between the Papists and the Protestants (progressives) over control of the Christian empire. It has nothing to do with science. It is all about religious power.
Adjectives for distraction
Companies with programmes of diversity, social responsibility or environmentalism are suspicious. Progressives constantly search for anything that smells of tradition. They scrutinise every business, referring to their book of sins like racism, sexism and pollution. Social justice is imparted swiftly and without mercy to any recalcitrant company by forcing an unnatural market swing to break their revenue. But why do some companies survive this purge? They do so by signalling to the neo-inquisitors that they have converted and not to be “good.” But why don’t companies just lower the prices of their goods? Or choose not to manufacture yet another gadget or plastic piece of junk? They say it's just "supply and demand," yet the blame is always on "demand," while the supplier gets away free. Business says it's our fault, but we didn't need the plastic junk until we were told to want it by advertising.
When women talk about doing something because it's nice weather outside, the weather is dictating how she feels. If it's sunny, she's happy and wants to do something active. If it's rainy, she's moody and wants to stay inside. Guys aren't like that. Women live in a rarefied world of "that's inappropriate," "it ain't right," or "you shouldn't talk like that." It's a world of "you shouldn't." Men live in a world of "you should."
So, the sun will balloon into a Red Giant in the next billion years, wiping the memory of the memory of humans into cosmic blackness. After that, the universe itself supposedly will crush into heat death cancelling even that blackness. People hear this and gasp not at the awe of our limited state, but instead at the inherent unmeaning of their lives. Everything you strive for is ultimately meaningless if this whole project is for nothing in the end. Really? This is why you don't read books? This is why you don't bother learning a second language? This is why you don't develop a skill? This is why you choose to waste your life playing video games? The universe turning to black is the reason you don't fight for something to improve the lives of you and you loved ones? No. The reason YOU don't do anything is because, in the insane calculus of your mind, the universe must register YOUR existence and activities as meaningful for you to take this life seriously. That is the most narcissistic thing I have ever heard.
Adam had one rule to live by and it was too hard. One interpretation of the Fall is that *knowing* good and evil implied a mastery or at least partnership in the nature of morality. We decided we could apply our will over morality and could vote/decide what is good or not good. The opposite approach is that righteousness is a thing to be discovered and submitted to, beyond our power to decide. It is somewhat backed by the way Adam and Eve behaved – they hid because they were ashamed and knew they did wrong. But when confronted they created legal loopholes in the Law, or excuses. The first rule: don’t make excuses but seek to do good.
The point of measuring poverty by the amount of disposable income people have is dangerous. This keeps people in poverty under the guise of extracting them from poverty. Saying a isn’t poor because they can buy a movie ticket once a month is not removing poverty, it is exacerbating it. It encourages people to see their working life as a process of amassing income to spend in their lifetime only. Lifting people out of poverty requires encouraging them to treat their working life as an opportunity to amass wealth for future generations, to prioritise the wellbeing of their future family. The key to building wealth is that time=money, so the point of work is to buy time for your descendants so they can spend their time on the building human project, not at a job. Wouldn’t you have wanted you great-great-grandparents to do this for you?
Abolition of Germany
The attempted abolition of Germany has been in action for more than 200 years. International "rules" precluded other Europeans from attacking and crushing German culture first, so the trick has been to goad Germany into attacking first. The French have a saying: cet animal est tres mechant; quand on l’attaque, il ce defend. “This animal is very wicked; when you attack it, it defends itself.” That's precisely what other Europeans think about Germany. They want it gone, they always have. And now Europe is an American colony. The old prejudices against the Germans floated over to the 13 colonies on the Mayflower. Mass immigration is simply the latest in a long line of extermination attempts against the Germans. Nietzsche encouraged the narrative of the strong striving for greatness. Germany took up that call. But the mind virus of Christian worship of weakness infects Europe and America. Christians will expunge the Germans and the strong from this earth one way or another until there is nothing remaining but perfectly “fair and equal” grass huts.
We are no longer shunning people for having bad ideologies. We are shunning people for not shunning those with bad ideologies strongly enough. Our equilibrium, given the preferences of the most passionate individuals, seems to be for creating a block of unemployable individuals locked out of commercial relations forever. This block is thought to be highly violent and well-armed. They also believe that certain people are legitimately inferior to them and who are now causing them to be pariahs. This artificial equilibrium in favour of revenge and not order will result in more hate crimes, murder and general social costs. But at least Silicon Valley elites get to feel REALLY morally superior.
My goal is not to convince armies of supporters to go out and vote for me or my ideas. If you are willing to think for yourself, perhaps you'll get the same results I get. Perhaps you won't. But the Internet provides us with a truly unique opportunity to separate ourselves from historically-constructed groupthink. In a traditional publishing environment, you can only think or at least write thoughts which are similar enough to someone's conventional wisdom to attract a minimum audience. On the internet, all you have to be is interesting. If reality is as described by "the centre," or even "the margin," then pretty much everything I have to say is wrong. But if the centre is crazily, wildly wrong – if, oh, just for example, it remembers destruction and murder as "liberation" – then thinking outside the margin is rather useful, wouldn't you agree?
I can't help but notice that at the very moment productivity is historically low, we have historic highs of young energetic white men staying at home playing video games rather than building something because they are told they are terrible people and that women and minorities should replace them. Women who think the problem of too few girls in the workplace is due to a lack of encouragement are the same people who honestly think men are successful because they get encouragement. Women like this think that men think like women. Men don't need encouragement to act, we just act.
What makes women permanently anxious is the suspicion that all their gains were given to them by men, not taken by women. You can smell the anxiety when they ask men to "vacate" executive or general business positions. It's an unconscious acceptance that change requires men to act with agency or for laws to be enforced (by other men) so that women can participate. I can't imagine how mentally taxing it must be to live in constant anxiety fearing that at any moment what has been given can be taken away, and there's nothing any woman could do about it. I hope women are watching those GDP figures closely – they're the only thing standing between "female empowerment" and a return to the status quo of human history.
Scarlett Letter approaches only work if people still believe in ethics and decorum. But in a postmodern world, ethics are subjective and changeable at whim. Take the Shitty Men in Media list. Why should a man respect anyone by default? Why should a man believe female claims of abuse by default? In war, the law is silent. The upending of natural order among humans cannot partially work. Either the whole natural order goes, or the status quo is successful. The correct response for men under attack by women who know men will not strike back is to shrug their shoulders. Women cannot stop men from acting like barbarians. If women don't want men to sexually abuse them, women will have to conscript other men to their side. The #MeToo movement can only exist because men let it exist. The women rely on the brainwashing of men who just nod their heads and agree with women that men are bad, in the hope that they will receive a pat on the head from women (which they mistakenly believe could lead to sex).
We all let context be destroyed. Now no one can slip up because someone won't be able to understand the context in which I'm trying to speak. What do you mean you don't feel what I'm saying? This kind of thing sets people up to think that a guy like Alex Jones isn't qualified to have an opinion. Normal people are starting to say that opinions should be in the hands of those who are qualified. We let language become elite and now enemies don’t have to be de-platformed or blocked. Instead, normal people will just say “he’s not qualified.” But people should be allowed to be as ignorant and as fucked up as they want because I want to be able to communicate. And if I'm fucked up, let me be fucked up. Say what you want, just don’t rob or hit me. Hate speech is the quintessential narcissistic law. Why can't I hate you?
The dilemma I have in my head is this. Back in the 1910s, or whatever, 8-year-old kids worked in the coal mines. People thought it built character. A bit late and my parents hit us and we all think it built character too. So, maybe I'm antiquated. Maybe I'm thinking old. Because I don't think kids should work in coal mines, but I’m 50/50 on whether kids should be hit. Yet now you can't even tease kids in school. Bullying is the worst thing, apparently. But maybe that's correct and the way the world is going is right. If a kid is bullied in school my instinct is to tell her to ball up her fist and knock the other bitch in the teeth. But her mother goes to the school, tells the principal about it and sreeeeeech, no more bullying. Is it right or wrong for bullying to be gone? I don't know. Maybe being against it is the wrong thing. Maybe being anti-the-world-becoming-weak is wrong. But I was in the shops the other day and I saw a box with a toy kitchen. A boy was on the front. I wanted to scream at somebody: "there's a little sissy on the Easy-Bake Oven box?" But you can't even be angry or question any of this. Someone just decided that this is how the world works now.