[Sonsowey]

Frequently here, in reaction to a sudden cultural lurch to the left, I read people expressing the thought that "wow, this has to be the last straw before people realize our society is going insane". Whether it's trannies, women making themselves ugly and being praised for it, people saying obesity is healthy, it seems like a common thought that at some point, people will realize "enough is enough" and put the breaks on the whole thing.

I don't think that is likely to happen, and in fact the history of the United States shows that things basically only move in one direction: further and further left.

This piece from Unqualified Reservations helps explain and define this process. The blog itself is where the term "The Cathedral" came from, shorthand for the consensus that exists between our media, education system, and government that helps push us from a place where in the 1990s DOMA was considered perfectly fine, and today it is considered practically primitive.

He argues that basically that there is an alliance of government, education and the media that serves to control public opinion, and effectively does. Government money flows to public universities, and their regulations shape how those universities develop. Universities produce knowledge and the experts that shape our public opinion. The press disseminates the knowledge generated by universities, and shapes our public opinions. And then we vote for people who follow those same dictates.

Anyway, let's get into this post:

Quote:

in post-1945 America, the source of all new ideas is the university. Ideas check out of the university, but they hardly ever check in. Thence, they flow outward to the other arms of the educational system as a whole: the mainstream media and the public schools. Eventually they become our old friend, "public opinion." This process is slow, happening on a generational scale...

Thus whatever coordinates the university system coordinates the state, through the transmission device of "public opinion." Naturally, since this is 100% effective, the state does not have to wait for the transmission to complete. It can act in advance of a complete response...

This relationship, whose widespread practice in the United States dates to 1933, is known as public policy. Essentially, for everything your government does, there is a university department full of professors who can, and do, tell it what to do. Civil servants and Congressional staffers follow the technical lead of the universities. The residual democratic branch of Washington, the White House, can sometimes push back feebly, but only with great difficulty.

(What's neat is that because of our armies' great success in the early 1940s, the governments of other countries respond to American public policy as well. The synchronization is international. Some of America's little friends overseas, such as Britain, have universities in the second rank. But there is only one global postwar academic system, the American one, and all top-tier universities are in the United States. The con by which policies devised by this system are passed off as global, transcending mere nationality, is sometimes called transnationalism. But I digress.)

The triangle of professors, bureaucrats, and public opinion is stable, because the professors teach as well as advise. Of course, there is a time lag. The system experiences some strain. But it will stay together, so long as the polarity does not randomly reverse - ie, because Cthulhu decides to suddenly swim right rather than left...

The leftward direction is, itself, the principle of organization. In a two-party democratic system, with Whigs and Tories, Democrats and Republicans, etc, the intelligentsia is always Whig. Their party is simply the party of those who want to get ahead. It is the party of celebrities, the ultra-rich, the great and good, the flexible of conscience. Tories are always misfits, losers, or just plain stupid - sometimes all three.

And the left is the party of the educational organs, at whose head is the press and universities. This is our 20th-century version of the established church. Here at UR, we sometimes call it the Cathedral - although it is essential to note that, unlike an ordinary organization, it has no central administrator. No, this will not make it easier to deal with.

This strange chiral asymmetry implies some fundamental difference between right and left. What is that difference? What does it even mean to be left rather than right? How can an entire system of independent thinkers and institutions, without any central coordinating agency, recognize that everyone should go left rather than right?

First, we need to define left and right. In my opinion, obviously a controversial one, the explanation for this mysterious asymmetric dimension is easy: it is political entropy. Right represents peace, order and security; left represents war, anarchy and crime...

One of the key reasons that intellectuals are fascinated by disorder, in my opinion, is the fact that disorder is an extreme case of complexity And as you make the structure of authority in an organization more complex, more informal, or both - as you fragment it, eliminating hierarchical execution structures under which one individual decides and is responsible for the result, and replacing them with highly fragmented, highly consensual, and highly process-oriented structures in which ten, twenty or a hundred people can truthfully claim to have contributed to the outcome, you increase the amount of power, status, patronage, and employment produced.

Of course, you also make the organization less efficient and effective, and you make working in it a lot less fun for everyone - you have gone from startup to Dilbert. This is Brezhnevian sclerosis, the fatal disease of organizations in a highly regulated environment. All work is guided by some systematic process, in which each rule was contributed by someone whose importance was a function of how many rules he added. In the future, we will all work for the government. Individually, this is the last thing your average intellectual wants to do, but it is the direction in which his collective acts are pushing us.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...ified.html

The post is itself quite long, but made sense to me in the way it pieced together lots of stray ideas. We've all thought that SJWs seem like old Church Ladies, and that liberals seem like devotees to a religious faith. We've all noticed that schools and the media are always pushing us to the left, even if you vote for Republicans. This helps put that in a bit more historical context, showing that this isn't new, this is indeed a continuation of processes long in the making.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Essentially it goes left, because the money elite decided to concentrate power via communism. They experimented with actual communism, but found it somehow lacking.

The US and the West is going the marxist route on purpose - but this will likely be done in a smarter way probably targeting a system similar to China.

Quote:

Alan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves."

Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on to say, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is, that we use our grant-making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Here also well researched books by former Stanford professor Antony Sutton:





The financial elite have a long history of financing Marxism.

As it stands now it can be almost seen as SJWs are effectively cultural marxists. When most small businesses will become rare, then it might actually resemble communism in real life only with by far more effective big businesses.

But - we will see if it works out for them.

[Samseau]

Moldbug is too wordy, and I think his Cathedral metaphor isn't a very good one.

But, I agree with him that the Left represents crime for a very simple reason. Crime means power to satisfy any and all desires. The rich, the top %.001 of society want the following things:

- Harems of young girls and boys
- Unlimited drugs
- The nicest properties (central park and orange county)
- Zero challengers
- Zero need to work a day in their life, i.e. slave labor

Basically, unlimited power to satisfy their hedonistic desires. The reason we are seeing the Left make such sweeping victories in America today is because after 2008 bailouts, they were given trillions of dollars for free. They should have gone bankrupt but instead they have all of the nation's money supply. With this power they have rigged the elections to put in frauds like Obama as well as buy out the major media stations.

Now, nothing can stop the Left short of civil war. They will continue to print money and increase the national debt until the dollar collapses and they will push every degeneracy imaginable upon the people as long as the money holds value.

The next steps of the Left are to increase indoctrination of children by banning homeschooling and increasing immigration for more slave labor while keeping criminals separated into their ghettos so their crime can be contained away from where the Left in power live. The Left is also making sure housing prices stay inflated and property taxes remain high so that it is impossible for common folk to start families out in the countryside away from government control, if they start families at all.

With the coming normalization of pedophillia, children will be pimped out at will in most communities around the country. Parents will sign "consent contracts," just like they do for transgender children to receive hormone treatments, that will allow their children to be used for sexual purposes in exchange for cash and power. Anyone who disagrees with this practice will be arrested for hate speech. Guns will eventually be banned but this will be much more difficult than banning free speech due to many Americans rising up in revolt if the Second Amendment is touched. The Left will probably try to win a war of attrition rather than brute force, and they may never touch the Second Amendment but the people will have lost all ability to form militias by the time they realize they are fucked.

Meanwhile jobs are purposely given out to the least qualified people, which means women, so things work poorly and birthrates remain low. Males are disenfranchised at every opportunity in order to make sure no one can pose a threat to the ruling elite while they bleed the country dry.

If everything goes to plan, most men today will be childless old men standing in the ruins of once great cities. Packs of youths will roam the ruins in search of victims to rob while the Left will have abandoned these shores in search of greener pastures in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

[Sonsowey]

(06-10-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Now, nothing can stop the Left short of civil war.

Funny, we had one, and obviously, the leftist side won.

Even before 2008, what did Bush/Republicans do to keep liberalism in check?

Illegal immigration continued apace, and Bush even proposed a similar program to what Obama has decreed.

Bush cut taxes, that's about it.

Gay marriage started under Bush and while he mentioned a constitutional amendment against it, nothing came of that.

Certainly it does seem like things are moving along much quicker now, perhaps all Republicans can do is cause the left to advance slightly less quickly due to a tiny bit less funding to their pet causes.

[samsamsam]

(06-10-2015 04:19 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Now, nothing can stop the Left short of civil war.

Funny, we had one, and obviously, the leftist side won.

Even before 2008, what did Bush/Republicans do to keep liberalism in check?

Illegal immigration continued apace, and Bush even proposed a similar program to what Obama has decreed.

Bush cut taxes, that's about it.

Gay marriage started under Bush and while he mentioned a constitutional amendment against it, nothing came of that.

Certainly it does seem like things are moving along much quicker now, perhaps all Republicans can do is cause the left to advance slightly less quickly due to a tiny bit less funding to their pet causes.

Don't forget the costly, unjustified war. I agree with all that is said but let us not forget Iraq was a money grab for big business oil and government contracts. I think that sidetracked tons of resources and attention for more useful projects. Now everyone who was involved seems to be backtracking from their comments to justify the war. Rumsfield has been doing quite a bit of dancing lately.

[Sonsowey]

^And indeed Bush is often criticized by "paleo-conservatives" or whatever as being too much of a liberal internationalist, using humanitarian intervention as a post-hoc justification for war like he was Woodrow Wilson.

The very old-school conservative principle of non-interventionism, respecting the sovereignty of other countries, is completely gone, as we see with the willy-nilly bombings and dronings of whoever we please.

[lskdfjldsf]

All things considered, 2015 is not a bad time to be alive. We've been moving left since the Stone Age.

We have food, water, comfortable housing, entertainment, technology, sex, freedom. What point in history is better than this? What system is better than this? Why stress over Bruce Jenner or the wealthy when our ancestors would castrate themselves for a fraction of the comfort we enjoy?

Feminists blame the "patriarchy" while others blame the "financial elite". Faceless shadow groups nobody can even be sure exist. Perhaps putting a face on society's ills (both real and perceived) is an intrinsic part of the human experience.

We're on the earth but a brief moment, and then none of it matters. Cultivate the mind and spirit, seek contentment in the things you have, and life can be pretty damn enjoyable.

[Samseau]

(06-10-2015 04:19 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 01:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Now, nothing can stop the Left short of civil war.

Funny, we had one, and obviously, the leftist side won.

Even before 2008, what did Bush/Republicans do to keep liberalism in check?

Illegal immigration continued apace, and Bush even proposed a similar program to what Obama has decreed.

Bush cut taxes, that's about it.

Gay marriage started under Bush and while he mentioned a constitutional amendment against it, nothing came of that.

Certainly it does seem like things are moving along much quicker now, perhaps all Republicans can do is cause the left to advance slightly less quickly due to a tiny bit less funding to their pet causes.

The bailouts happened under Bush. Bush handed over the keys to the Left, he was totally complicit. I'm sure he got a nice reward for being an obedient little traitor.

[Samseau]

Somewhat related: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-48214.html

[heavy]

Tiny cost to all, huge benefit to few.

[SlickyBoy]

(06-10-2015 10:00 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Essentially it goes left, because the money elite decided to concentrate power via communism. They experimented with actual communism, but found it somehow lacking.

What they found was that communism was too obvious and unnatural. Trotsky wrote about this in his last book, Revolution Betrayed. One of their biggest mistakes, he lamented, was attempting to eliminate the family unit. Instead of eliminating the family, they needed to replace it. One only needs to look at modern trends in government involvement in family life to see that he was right - the government is doing its level best to insert itself into the role of daddy and replace the family.

Communism was an artificial construct that did not create guilt in the masses if they chose not to participate. Instead it tried to rule by paranoia and fear via the use of commissars and secret police, but that kind of control can only be so effective since there is no inherent guilt on the part of the citizen if he chooses not to participate or only fakes it. As Trotsky reasoned, there must be something the masses will eagerly accept and embrace as a replacement.

Fast forward and communism itself has been replaced with social trends and mantras that effectively push the same agenda albeit in a different set of clothes. Environmentalism is the most obvious example - green is the new red. Every "solution" to the environmental cause du jour inevitably involves more and bigger government with higher taxes to boot. Guilt is cast upon you for not willingly participating: "What have you done to reduce your carbon footprint today?!" to the point where there is truly no need for a secret police to enforce the doctrine. Throw in the fact that most cultural trends like this start with women and, as Eve before her, Adam will follow. He who controls the pussy controls the country.

There is no point to using actual communism if the same goals can be accomplished, over time, through manipulation and guilt. Any surprise the women fall for this approach first?

[Sherman]

(06-10-2015 05:45 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

We have food, water, comfortable housing, entertainment, technology, sex, freedom. What point in history is better than this? What system is better than this?

That's what cattle say before they are slaughtered.

[lskdfjldsf]

There's no slaughter coming. You would think the sky is already falling down by reading some posts here!

This is what happens when people live in unprecedented levels of prosperity, with no challenges or threats to keep them grounded. It's almost a spitting image of feminist paranoia, just on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

I'm not suggesting people should bury their heads in the sand, just to keep some perspective. Many of these problems are not really problems.

[Sonsowey]

(06-11-2015 09:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

There's no slaughter coming. You would think the sky is already falling down by reading some posts here!

I look to Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, and I see many American cities in a clear period of decline.

I look around and see everyone is fat and obese.

Our country consumes more anti-psychotic medicine than any other place in the world because so many people are terribly unwell.

And I do not think we're doing so well.

[lskdfjldsf]

Quote:

I look to Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, and I see many American cities in a clear period of decline.

I look around and see everyone is fat and obese.

We're in agreement they are contributing to a period of decline, but consider this:

Riots, until very recently in world history, consisted of armed mobs killing indiscriminately, storming government buildings, and executing any leader in sight. Mass cavalry charges and pillaging over family disputes. "Peaceful protest" consisted of forming militias over new taxes, with George Washington sending the Federal Army to sack your ass. Cultural issues? Germany lost half of it's entire population when Protestants and Catholics argued.

Smallpox, the plague, even common illnesses like the cold or flu wiped out entire families and villages. Imagine seeing a sibling shitting blood until death, or starving because bad weather destroyed the crops you toiled 16 hours a day planting. And if that's not enough, your "wealthy elite" land lord, himself starving or dying of stomach cancer at the "old" age of 35, will execute your family for not handing over 95% of what you grow. This was life for the majority of the population.

Yet we complain about some random guy getting a sex change, or Jezebel posting a funny article, as if it's the apocalypse. They're worthy things to be angry about (otherwise I wouldn't be here) but I don't think people today have a clear understanding of what life was like for the average human beyond our grandparents' generation.

[KTK]

IMHO

Privatizing Profits And Socializing Losses ...

+

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal

[N°6]

The constant move to the (social) Left is what is called 'progressive'. Nota bene that there is also a constant shift to the economic Right. BOTH elements constitute liberalism regardless whether US conservatives admit it or not.

If you live in a 'progressive' society it most likely is a very financialised one.

In a progressive society, if you hold fast to the values of your forefathers, your religion, even your own honest observations on human behavior, you will progressively become an 'extremist' sooner or later.

Let that sink in for a moment. In the West you can become an extremist for simply not altering your values and not reacting to change agents.

[SunW]

The US is not a capitalist system and hasn't been for at least twenty years. What you're seeing with it moving left is the slow recognition of how the system has been working and you're starting to wake up. Under capitalism, consumers have the power; business owners simply meet consumers need and when consumers don't like a product or service, business owners go bankrupt. Consider the banking crisis and real estate crisis of 08-09 - consumers essentially told the real estate industry that they weren't buying houses at those prices and many businesses went under.

And along came the Federal Reserve. The Fed exists as a socialistic institution that intentionally redistributes wealth. The reason that the rich tend to get richer is that only the rich understand how the Federal Reserve works and the unintended consequence of their policies.

I'll first address the 1% and get back to the Fed because even in this thread, we see myths about the 1%.

The 1% work. Very few of them do not and if they do not work, it is because they are older and retired. While some people love to complain about inequality all the time on these forums, none of you are even remotely correct when we're talking about the US (in the 80s, it was lower - meaning more unequal than today). What many of you don't realize is that you're talking about people at different ages of their life: many of you in your 20s won't have millions. But you might in your 50s and 60s (or even later). Look at any stock on the exchanges and count how many board members you see in their 20s. Those are the exceptions - the majority are older. When you look at top wealth brackets, we generally see older median ages. This is one of the Left's favorite lies to all of you (which many of you have bought): they categorize people, but leave out important details of these categories. For instance, the top 20% category has a high median age vs. the botton 20% category.

For those of us who market products, how much did you know about marketing when you first started? Assuming you've been doing it five years now, how much marketing do you know now? We all recognize the n00b because he'll say ignorant statements like, "You won'tlearn that much more" yet many of us, after 5 years of marketing, have seen increases in sales of our products by 2000-10000%. Very few people are able to hit gold their first year; these are the exceptional cases and exceptions by definition are rare. In addition, after 5 years, we may have 15 products instead of 2. By being diligent, year over year, we slowly increase the number of products we sell, as well as gain better understanding of how to do so. This does not come overnight and by the time some of us are 50, we may be making several million a year just from all the products we've been creating since we were 20. This is accumulated wealth over a lifetime and it happens even outside of money: we benefit from our accumulated wealth of knowledge in dating, health, etc. Those of us who diligently apply ourselves will reap riches others don't over the entire course of our lifetime and this can never be stopped or redistributed like leftists like to think.

Getting back to the 1%: they are seldom the same people, and those who stay in the 1% for a few years, hustle like crazy. For the people who read this full post (not pieces of it), about one third of you will be in the 1% - either in terms of income or wealth - in at least one year of your life. You may make it two or three years, but that's unlikely. You'll also find that it's hard to sustain being there because you've landed in a category of very competitive people. The way the leftists talk - they love to imply that this is the same category of people always, but it's not. People come into this group and fall out of this group; as a mentor of mine once said, "The people that you meet on the way up are sometimes the exact same people on the way down."

For that 1%, very few of this constantly changing groups doesn't work, like the Walton kids, but when you compare their wealth to their parents (inflation adjusted), you see that it's declined. This is why we see fewer Rockefellers who are wealthy; in the past, our capitalistic society created a three generation turnover for the rich, which is far superior to the oppressive aristocracies of the past where families reigned for several hundred years. Among people who've tapped the 1% - whether in income or wealth - all agree that it takes a lot of work and it becomes hard to sustain it. For instance, suppose that you're a single man and you make $600,000 this year - you're above the 1% in terms of income. But the amount of work it takes to sustain that may make you realize next year that you'll gladly only do $125,000 worth of work; you cut some clients and pick the few you want, opening those opportunities to others. I've seen this a lot with ideas where someone will start a successful idea, later sell it for $150 million (or more), putting them very high up in the percentages of wealth, but they rarely create another idea because they have "a lot." Also, most of the people I know who sold ideas for millions had sold at least fifty other products before, so it was a matter of trying until that one idea.

Knowing these things, we can discuss the point of how to create faster turnover and the answer is not wealth distribution or taxation, like some of you might buy from the leftists because these create aristocracies (these make it harder for the poor to climb up). The answer is capitalistic: competition. When it's easy to start a business, create an idea, or compete against an existing idea, consumers always win. Where is Montgomery Ward? Yet the founder made a ton of money! How popular is Sears? Yet the founder made a ton of money! These ideas have been replaced by better ideas; Walmart will eventually be replaced by a better idea. We all win when the better idea comes along, so we all should want it to be easier it is for an individual or group to start an idea because we all win.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a competitive society any more - we live in a world where we're trying to create equality. The very discussion of wealth inequality is the leftist's game: they want you to think inequality is bad. In reality, inequality becomes irrelevant in a competitive society because while someone can become rich today, a better idea can make them poor tomorrow. Also, inequality serves as an incentivizer: you don't want to be poor, so you compete. In a world where you take from the rich and give to the poor, the incentive for the poor is to be dependent. As John D. Rockefeller warned about charity - it becomes detrimental to the person receiving it if the charity creates dependency.

Finally, we get back to the Federal Reserve. The Fed prevents bankruptcies - a healthy part of capitalism - by lowering interest rates during crises, like in past cases, or in the recent case, lowering the discount window. The claim that they serve the banking interests is only partially true; insiders on Wall Street know how socialistic Janet Yellen is, and their belief is that banks spread wealth around through lending. The very purpose of QE was to help borrowers and punish savers, as the Fed see the savers as rich and the borrowers as poor. Read any pro-QE economist and you'll see this is what they're advocating: blatant socialism. Only the people who understand it (and that's a very few people), realize the underlying problems with it - that this is free money for the rich because the rich will understand what's happening. The Fed, and their clueless academics, don't get this because they earned their position by the right credentials, not results (big problem).

The problem? As I mentioned earlier (and now you see why), people who are rich aren't rich because they're lazy, they're rich because they're diligent. And those who apply proactive thinking will see what the effects of QE will be, which the lazy won't. The result is that those who see what's coming will get even richer, and those who don't will become even poorer. The Fed unintentionally creates even more wealth inequality. How do you punish the lazy? Not by making them dependent on the diligent - that's a reward. You punish the lazy by incentivizing work. As the lazy work and save, they have more to lose (skin in the game), and their mindset changes. If you reward lazy behavior, you'll get more of it, and that's what we're doing. Right now the lazy know that they can complain about the rich and possibly receive free money (disability, unemployment, etc). This happened a lot in 08-09 when I knew guys who were collecting $5K unemployment each month when there were plenty of jobs paying $3-$4K a month. Their attitude was $5K with no work is better than a lower paying job (unemployment benefits extended to 99 weeks - two years), yet they failed to realize that they were losing skills every day. When you work, like it or not, you are mentally forced to apply yourself, learn and grow. The result of those dudes collecting free money is that when they finally had to get a job, they didn't get paid very much and most of them got fired because their skills had atrophied. We, as a society, rewarded laziness.

If you want to successfully compete against anyone, you know that your best tool is complacency of your enemy (Sun Tzu also defended this). The guy who thinks he can just get the girl is easy to beat; and this is the advantage of not overreacting to crises, like the Fed does, because those who have money think, "I'm safe and fine" and don't worry about how they'll make more money with a feckless policy like QE, while those building wealth have to listen to the market's feedback. As they listen to the market's feedback, what we've seen historically is that they de-throne many of the existing ideas and businesses. In the case of 08-09, housing prices would have depressed and stayed depressed, helping many families afford homes at a fraction of the cost. The people who over borrowed (many of whom were wealthy and wanting to expand their wealth) would have eaten the cost of either a long way to borrow or bankruptcy.

But with QE and the housing incentives, the diligent knew that the Fed was saying, "We're backing up all home-ownership" and they seized the opportunity by buying many homes for less than $50K and flipping them later for half a million. The Fed became the consumer and said overtly - here is what we want and the poor simply didn't have the resources to compete. The same is true with the inherent nature of QE: what is QE if not for raising the prices of bonds and lowering the yields. There are numerous ways to play that and people like Bill Gross did (all while saying that the Fed was making it easier and easier to get even richer - and he's right).

Over the next twenty years, you will all witness how QE - which is a fundamentally socialistic policy (as is lowering interest rates during bubble bursts) - will make Americans poorer and poorer. You are all living in a socialistic country, but many of you don't realize it, as you have an institution that is simply misdirecting resources - if people can't buy homes, then the prices have to fall and the market is saying, "Housing prices are too high." The Fed is simply saying (incorrectly), "The market is wrong and we are going to control it."

That is why socialism and communism failed because reality creates signals and both ignore them and try to control them. The Fed has been doing that for years and many don't realize the world this is leading to (ie: where are the cures to cancer and why don't we have them, when you can just get rich quick selling real estate! But what does the market want?).

[Samseau]

Quote:

Getting back to the 1%: they are seldom the same people, and those who stay in the 1% for a few years, hustle like crazy. For the people who read this full post (not pieces of it), about one third of you will be in the 1% - either in terms of income or wealth - in at least one year of your life. You may make it two or three years, but that's unlikely. You'll also find that it's hard to sustain being there because you've landed in a category of very competitive people. The way the leftists talk - they love to imply that this is the same category of people always, but it's not. People come into this group and fall out of this group; as a mentor of mine once said, "The people that you meet on the way up are sometimes the exact same people on the way down."

This is only true in a capitalistic system. The millennial generation will not see anything close to 1/3 cycle through. They'll be lucky if even 1/20th does.

Other than that, you are incorrect in blaming the lazy - the people who coasted in unemployment were merely acting rationally according to price theory as these same people were used to a much more capitalistic system where prices previously meant something. Today prices are fake but most people cannot understand that.

[Phoenix]

This is because of what the Left is: social degeneration. It is not an external group 'doing leftism' to society, nor is it something 'playing a role in social problems' or 'caused by social problems', it is social degeneration itself. It is just a shorthand word for it.

This is the very reason we can actually divide between Left and Right. Why are all the seemingly unrelated topics and specific issues always so easily grouped under Left or Right? How do we know 'pro abortion' and 'pro minimum wage' are both Left? How do we know 'pro death penalty' and 'pro low taxes' are both Right? Why can politics be grouped in this binary way, instead of needing 3 or 8 or 15 different groups?

It is binary because it is a true/false question. Is the tree alive or is it dead? Is the house on fire or is it not? Is it raining or is it not?

The Right is simply mankind operating at its peak, and the Left is degeneration away from that peak.

How well mankind is operating is a function of its internal arrangement (constitution) and the mental state of its constituents (philosophy), and those two factors affect each other, and carry through, over time. There is also a third factor, the biological makeup of mankind (genetics), which is primarily affected through time by the constitution.

So to address the title's theory, that "we are always moving left and won't stop", that would depend on who "we" is. Leftism is ultimately unstable because it causes defeat when faced by an opponent that is less Leftist.

A society which embraces "gays and trannies are normal; women should serve in the military; the government should redistribute wealth and regulate; and women should focus on career, be sluts, and have the most power in families" cannot survive a challenge from one which embraces "sexual abnormality is shunned; the government merely maintains a free market; the man is the head of the house; women should marry as virgins; and welfare is disgraceful". The latter can out-breed, out-fight, and out-sustain the former.

A good example of this is going to be Europe. Europe as it stands now, in its highly Leftist state, cannot survive in the long run. It will continue to decay. Either the neighboring external Right, (specifically ----, being one of the most conservative cultures currently in existence, and with its high birth rates and nationalism), or the internal Right takes control (which would repel the external Right).

I doubt there is such a thing as 'Left forever'. The further Left, the faster it decays. The Khmer Rouge would be a good example of extreme Left, as would Mao's rule (replaced by "to get rich is glorious" Xiaoping), followed by the less Left USSR (other than the 'war communism' period, which was brutal), and then the lesser "social democratic" states such as in the modern West.

[RawGod]

(06-13-2015 07:45 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

A society which embraces "gays and trannies are normal; women should serve in the military; the government should redistribute wealth and regulate; and women should focus on career, be sluts, and have the most power in families" cannot survive a challenge from one which embraces "sexual abnormality is shunned; the government merely maintains a free market; the man is the head of the house; women should marry as virgins; and welfare is disgraceful". The latter can out-breed, out-fight, and out-sustain the former.

I think technology has changed this equation. What we are going through is not merely a cyclical rise and fall of an civilisation. It's an unprecedented shift in the balance of life in this planet.

A decadent, technologically superior nation can nuke the healthy, conservative culture. This is merely one example - I'm not saying that the N-bomb is the important factor here. But with our new technology and capacity to produce abundance, we don't need a society of healthy, sturdily independent households. This is in fact detrimental to the ownership class, and is why the informed, unruly citizens are being undermined. The 1% will rule, another 9% can service them, and then the 90% can disappear, the hard way or the easy, self-inflicted way.

If you have an IQ less than 110, in the future you will not be necessary. There may eventually be a reckoning with other parts of the globe, and then we will see whether Allah and biology wins, or whether technocracy does. I'm betting on technocracy.

I realise that this may seem a pessimistic view. But that's how it seems to me. We are like the free hunters and gatherers watching the men with iron and chariots fence off the savannah, hoping the past might somehow return. But the game has changed - the kings will amass women and gold, build cities and tax and enslave their subjects, and only enclaves of the old ways will remain.

[Parlay44]

We move left because we've plateaued culturally. More so ....We're on the decline. We have nothing to work up towards. All we can do is try to elevate all the scumbags to a privileged status. Can you say Charity Mafia?

You guys should watch Fight Club once in a while. Here's my favorite scene.

[Spectrumwalker]

Short anwer: the baby boomer mentally manipulated Marxist morons became university professors and have successfully brainwashed, what, three generations of impressionable young minds now?

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest of their murdering, bank robbing, fake named cohorts still the rule the world from their graves. These men knew exactly what they were doing, and what they were striving for. When you read their words, what they wanted was not only for their own nations, but for the world. World revolution. World revolution against all that was good and honorable. World revolution against the law of man, and no revolution will change the iron laws of our nature as humans. The attempts that are made to reverse humanity only results in chaos and disorder. Anarchy. The anarcho-capitalists are just as delusional in their utopian thinking as Marxists. In order for society to prosper there must be law and order.

Like Zelcorpion said, the Social Justice Warriors of today, whether they are fully aware of it or not, are cultural Marxists. They are Leninists. Communists. Modern day members of the Bolshevik Party. They are enemies of humanity. When Lenin and his criminal gang of Bolsheviks took over in Russia, they were against morality. They wanted homosexuality, abortions, use of women in the workforce and the military, the destruction of religion. All were encouraged. Lenin advocated murder of police officers just as there is this media campaign against cops today. They were against order, free enterprise, against the family, against private property. We see these similar traits constantly being thrown at us today.There is not a day that goes by, where I can't pull up my yahoo email account without being bombarded with degenerate headlines encouraging some form of social or sexual deviancy.

The Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism coined the 'culture of critique'. Where if you relentlessly critique,attack, mock, and ridicule the basic foundations of all that made western society what it was, it will eventually whither and erode away. And when you can infiltrate the minds of the masses through the education system and target the intellectuals of society who reside in the hallways of academic institutions, you can mentally enslave humanity by targeting peoples' desires to conform and belong. When the Frankfurters fled Germany, they came to the US and subverted our entire educational system. The forces of Marxism were already at play in the US, but this was the nail in the coffin.

The academians are like the modern day priests of antiquity.They consult the kings and bureaucrats about what they should do according to signs in the heavens or visions of what God is saying they should do. Politicians will bow to the forces of academia making intellectual thought policy and law. With an inflationary central bank that only serves to expand the State for its own shareholders interest, government only grows and grows making communist ideology only stronger and stronger. And a people of a nation will submit to the strongest ideology that brings reward and acceptance.

Even after all these years people are subscribing to Marxist ideology without knowing its origins. People jump on the bandwagon because it's cool, hip, trendy, whatever without the slightest knowledge of history and of what they are getting themselves into.

We live in interesting times for sure. One could argue that thanks to leftist ideology and destroying all that is important to men, we can have all the sex, money, fun, freedom, and material things we want. And fun it is at times, for sure. We as men have never had more freedom than at any other point in history than we do now. Women and family have become to much of a risk factor for us. So all we have left to work for and believe in is ourselves. But we're not gods. We're men. And at what cost does this all come? Where's the fulfillment? What do we have to believe in? What do we have to fight for and stand for? Only leading a life to work for money to put food on our own tables and fulfill our basic carnal desires only leads to emptiness. We're not even individual men anymore that serve a greater purpose. Our purpose seems only to work to be taxed to feed the political and societal leeches. Your average joe is just a debt laden, soulless, pill popping machine, only existing but not living and serving a purpose. For what incentive does he have? What incentive does he have to become the best man he can be? Fortunately for us here on the forum we're working towards that goal because the scales have fallen from our eyes. But I believe we are a very tiny minority.

In today's world even I would rather choose emptiness and loneliness than to have my dignity taken away. In this current world, with all the technology we have, if we as a people and men were allowed to flourish and prosper imagine the possibilities. We still can, but how many men are not reaching their full potential because they are beat down from a system that has overtaxed, overregulated, and mentally castrated them since childhood. The last thing the communists want is for intelligent men to rise up and say enough is enough. If that happens, they're game is up and their God-like egos will be shattered and they'll have to actually work again for a living and be accountable for their actions.

There's going to come a time where internet battles and campaigns against the current political forces just won't be enough. Political change at the top will have occur if we are to reverse the current trends. People are so fucking glued to their smartphones, TV's, and computer screens I just don't see people reaching critical mass and becoming conscience of the type of world they're living in. If we continue down this leftist path, it's going to lead to oblivion and quiet despair and misery for so many people as they get older. A part of me, says good, fuck them, they deserve what they get for being idiots and the most naïve of the naïve. I left the US to seek greener pastures, and to "enjoy the decline" and I'm glad I did. But I have a hard time accepting what I'm seeing done to our country and it's people. Is anyone else like this? We all talk about how things used to be, and how things should be in order for society to thrive, but does anyone see this ever becoming something more? As in political change? That's the only way it will be stopped.



This is who we are up against. Communist sympathizers who are absolute liars about history but know exactly what they are working towards. They live in a world where we keep telling them sky is blue, but they vehemently insist it's red. How can you argue against people like this? How can this be stopped?

[iknowexactly]

(06-09-2015 04:52 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

The blog itself is where the term "The Cathedral" came from, shorthand for the consensus that exists between our media, education system, and government that helps push us from a place where in the 1990s DOMA was considered perfectly fine, and today it is considered practically primitive.

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

"Reification (.... or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. [1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing"

Reification is important to keep people churning and manipulate their anger, and keep them divided and conquered.

In fact on a issue like immigration in the USA, neither partly can possibly address the real issue-- there's something like 10 million illegal immigrants here--- because they both need hispanic votes, and neither can afford to alienate the strongly anti-immigration vote. So the specific issue MUST be avoided for political careers.
Out come deflector words like "patriotism, the Cathedral, etc. ". WORDS can keep happening, but there's no real NEGOTIATION.

I don't take any clear position on what immigration laws should be, I don't know enough about it, but I think instead of tap-dancing around it they should decide what they're going to do and we should be following SOME set of laws, instead of selectively enforcing what exists.

Terms like liberal, conservative, and cathedral give no foundation on which to seriously negotiate and reach agreement on specific concrete issues such as gun control/gunrights, affirmative action, immigration, male/female rights etc.

[iknowexactly]

dupe