[2Wycked]

"The Obsolete Man" was an episode of the Twilight Zone that first aired in June 1961.

You can watch it here: http://vimeo.com/15365268

In the episode, we see an authoritarian government that has absolute rule over its citizenry. A complete suppression of free speech, free thought and a complete devaluation of literature, arts and religion. A dystopian atheistic regime purportedly based on logic and reason, but is based on coercion of thought backed up by the crushing power of the state.



In this world, a librarian is brought before a tribunal that determines the value of its citizens. The librarian, Romney Wordsworth, engages in a heated debate with the Chancellor. The Chancellor determines that since the state has banned books, a librarian is inherently obsolete. The librarian reveals he believes in God, a belief that has been banned by the state.

The arrogant Chancellor, in his smug self-possession, agrees to have Romney appointed a personal assassin who will not divulge Romney's preferred way to die. Further, the Chancellor agrees to have Romney's "liquidation" televised for the nation to watch. Romney knew he had gotten under the Chancellor's skin, so he invites the Chancellor to come to his room an hour before his liquidation.



In his authoritarian bluster, the Chancellor sweeps in and lectures Romney about the supreme importance of the state and how people's value is determined by authority figures in government, not from the value that people bring to their fellow man. The Chancellor falls for Romney's plot, as the room is locked, so when the Chancellor tries to leave after asserting the state's superiority over a lowly librarian, he finds he will die with the low-status librarian.

The Chancellor is immediately distraught, not just at his imminent demise, but also because he will die with a low-status person because the state fundamentally values nobody - not even a high-ranking Chancellor. The Chancellor eventually breaks, exclaiming "Oh, God!" and starts beating on the door right before the explosion. Romney looks at him calmly as he reads from his Bible as the Chancellor escapes at the last second before Romney himself is killed by the blast.

The Chancellor, having survived, realizes the horrible truth that the state values you only has long as you bring value to the state. Since he devalued and made a mockery of the state by begging for his life on live television, he is deemed obsolete by a new chancellor.

In his trademark brilliance, Serling orates:

Quote:

The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He *was* obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete

A potential interpretation of this episode is that the state has no business in determining what people should be able to engage in their professions. In a free market, if people find a librarian provides a valuable service they will pay for, then it is legitimate. The state should not be calling the shots on who gets to be deemed to be relevant and those who would executed as obsolete.



Imagine protesters agitating against a policy or law being considered in Congress.

Abortion rights activists: Hands off my body you sexist males!
Gun rights supporters: Let us have our guns back!
Gay marriage advocates: Please let have equality with heterosexuals and have our marriages subsidized and recognized by you!

As TLP pointed out, see the problem developing here? The problem isn't whether the government should do X, Y or Z, it is that we inherently accede to the framework the state is all-powerful and we need to petition the government for rights. Instead of wondering, "Why does the government decide who is or isn't married?," we demand equality in the sense that all of our relationships are judged by the state. It is a victory if you are a fan of narcissistic authoritarianism.

Since we focus on what doesn't truly matter: what the government gets wrong, we ignore everything it does that we agree with. In "The Obsolete Man," would you have been upset if the Chancellor deemed a doctor relevant because he was an expert at heart surgery? You wouldn't even blink an eye probably. That is the problem, we have been taught to ignore authoritarianism when we agree with or if it suits our needs. We only get angry and agitate for superficial change we it does not.

The episode is purportedly about the failures and dangers of a totalitarian state, seemingly with no ideology but an incredibly strong dose of moral puritanism. Moral puritanism is a personality disorder that was initially embodied by the aptly named Puritans who settled in colonial New England after the Glorious Revolution. Their untoward psychology reverberates to this day still, most clearly embodied by mainstream political correctness and feminism.

As always, the AV Club isn't one to disappoint their liberal readership and I knew they would not like this episode, pretending to be put off by the religiosity of Romney. The reviewer gives the episode a B+, mostly for Burgress Meredith's masterful portrayal of Romney. The comments are interesting and revealing, as they so the discomfit with an atheist state being against logic and reason - betraying their narcissistic authoritanrism.

While a few commenters get the message that any ideology has the ability to fall in the depths of rank authoritarianism, many commenters are uneasy about that sentiment. Many are quick to nail Republicans, Christians and Mitt Romney to the wall as far more likely to enact an oppressive Christian theocracy. Apparently, they took "The Handmaiden's Tale" as plausible in modern America.

Anyway, this comment captures the narcissism:

Quote:

Totalitarian theocracies are much more plausible than a government of atheist "anti-free-thinkers."

Notice how atheist authoritarians are put in quotes, while theocracies are not. The commenter has a real difficult time handling that atheistic regimes are capable of suppressing thought. Plentiful historical examples aside, just in America, political atheists are a lock-step group. Conservative atheists, such as SE Cupp, are shunned in greater atheistic circles. What this commenter fails to realize is that authoritarian impulses may arise from religion, their root is in untoward psychology. You can't just will away religion and suddenly free-thought will reign supreme.

That is the sleigh of hand, though. This commenter would agree with that and then start talking about hegemonic modes of oppression based on the dominant group's desire to cleave the in's and the out's neatly. More dialogue about the real and invidious nature of hatred in society, as embodied by racism, misogyny and homophobia. In this entirely predictable approach, it would be revealed that they weren't against religion - or moral puritanism - they just wanted an approach that reflected their indoctrination.



One of the greatest delusions somebody can have is that they are free-thinker when they are not. Many people mindlessly tune into MSNBC, Fox News, Daily Kos, The Blaze and are told that by tuning in, they are becoming free, becoming educated and empowering themselves. No, said person or people are just doing what they are taught in society - to conform to the authority figures, in whatever form they come in.

That is the liberal agitation here that is tellingly revealed by mainstream liberals absolute hatred of Fox News. They don't hate Fox News per se, they hate what it represents - the wrong authority figure. The anger is not over ignorance, it is not over hatred - it is the fact that one news outlet has broken from the lockstep of other media outlets and peddles lukewarm right-wing liberal fare.

Before I go on, understand I am not critiquing liberalism as an ideology (even though I often do), I am critiquing how liberalism is expressed in society and why the underpinnings are so rotten.

Back on point, Fox News represents what authority figures should not be - not liberal. The intense anger over the Bush administration, Fox News, conservatives on the Supreme Court - it isn't about the actual policies so much as it is about the fact that authoritarianism has one fatal flaw: that the mask may be lifted off and it is revealed there is no God. As TLP says, there is nothing worse than an unreliable God.

You could think, "Well, I don't believe in God, so I am cool." Supremely doubtful. Everybody has faith in something and, in America, there is a great change you value it in a puritanical way. Reconsider Fox News. The consternation over the alleged false reporting, distortion of facts may or may not be true. What is relevant is the fact so many people do. The reason is it causes great consternation among those who need to believe there will always be a reliable authority figure out there.

Unemployed? Turn on the TV, hear about the green shoots in the economy.
Gay and suicidal? Turn on the "It Gets Better" project.
Upset over pro-life advocates? Turn on Rachel Maddow and hear how it is all about misogyny and male ignorance.

As usual, I am not so interested in the intent of the people engaging the acts, but why people pay attention. Remember, if you are watching it, it is for you.

The existence of Fox News suggests that liberal authority figures could wrong. It simply isn't just the fact that Fox News is doing what they shouldn't be doing as an authority figure, it is that they are undermining liberal authority figures. If MSNBC is unreliable because Fox News reveals serious inconsistencies in MSNBC's reporting, that isn't a problem, it will become the problem. Fox News will have to be discredited, as holding up MSNBC as the gold standard for worship takes precedence over all else.



You could fairly wonder why some liberals would get so mad over one news outlet producing allegedly bad, ideological news. That is a fair point, but it is dead wrong about moral puritanism. One key facet about puritanism is that they desperately seek converts to their psychology. Recall puritanism is about repressing anti-social impulses, so any deviation has the potential to cause great exasperation in the afflicted puritan. Fox News represents that. Many liberal desperately want to openly censor, distort and engage in outright hatred. Their narcissistic self-image prevents them understanding they already engage in that. I recall a liberal columnist waxing about how Republicans win elections because they will do whatever it takes to win, unlike the honorable Democrats who have values about honesty, integrity and commitment to truth.

A bunch of hogwash. Liberals engage in great levels of censorship and distortion of the truth, as their puritanism necessitates that. Their narcissism prevents them from seeing themselves as being what they are supposedly against. Sure, Republicans do that as well, but Democrats & Republicans are often two sides of the same coin.

Considering "The Obsolete Man," in this context, it shows why some liberals are uncomfortable with the episode. Expansive, muscular government is vigorously trumpeted by them, so when they see a work that depicts that any ideology, when given enough power, will slip in jack-booted authoritarianism it can be disconcerting. When the all-powerful worshiped entity is shown to be inherently fallible, there has to be a greater entity to fall back on.

I can imagine the reactions: "Oh, the Supreme Court will save us!" or "The voters will toss those bums next election!," or, "Even if all those fail us, the arc of human history is toward justice and human rights, so we will always progress."

These are all excuses invented in order to not face the fact that "God," or all-powerful authority figures, cannot save you from yourself.

Legalizing gay marriage won't solve your own inability to come to terms with your homosexuality or adding more regulations on X industry won't solve the fact that Americans are narcissistic or the fact you mindlessly trust the system so much you don't do a little research on product X you are trying out. The system doesn't want you thinking for yourself, going your own way, much less asking questions that cut to the heart of the issues that America faces. The system wants your fattening ass parked in the front TV at night and firmly in your cubicle in your mindless corporate job during the day. You exist to consume and produce for the state. If you do not do that, you have no value - you are obsolete. You don't exist for yourself, you exist to maintain the state.

The fact we have to petition for rights is the wrong question, the right question is why does the government limit our actions in the first place? I am not advancing a libertarian argument, but fundamentally questioning why we accept authoritarianism so willingly.

Serling was only partly correct in his final oration - what he failed to note is that the state is already obsolete.

[kinjutsu]

That episode of the Twilight Zone is pretty damn good.
The fact it's still relevant after all this time is...well a bit unsettling.

[Tex Pro]

Good point, 2Wycked.

The only problem is what is the solution? Anarcho-capitalism is a dream. No countries on Earth currently practice it, and only a few societies ever even approached it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-ca...capitalism

I think the best we can do is admit our biases and not try to use authority to "punish the other guy" when our "team" wins.

This at least would temper the ill effects of our puritanical and narcissistic ways.

[Wadsworth]

I mentioned this in the thread on RoK's excellent piece "liberals are not the enemy." http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-20926-...pid383107.

The problem isn't that the human condition is flawed (although in many ways it certainly is flawed), it's that nobody has a clear picture of what the endgame of their political affiliation is. The central current of liberalism is social opportunity. Liberals want to ensure everyone can live their lives to the fullest potential. This is why liberals promote things like gay rights, and "women's rights." It's why liberals generally are in favor of gun control. They see mass gun ownership as a threat to people's opportunity to live in a safe society. Liberals believe liberty is maximized through social opportunity.

The central current of conservatism is personal responsibility. Conservatives want to ensure everyone takes personal responsibility for themselves. This implies both a burden and a freedom. You're burdened with responsibility to support and maintain yourself, but you're also free to keep what you earn. Conservatives are generally more laissez-faire. They don't believe the state should have any say in marriage, or gun control etc. Conservatives believe liberty is maximized through personal responsibility.

When liberals and conservatives meet, they tend to hate each other because they see each other as being opposed to liberty. In reality, both represent one half of the "liberty" picture.

And by the way, the reason politics seems so broken right now is because of a gynocentric curve on our political spectrum. Liberalism becomes social opportunity for women, and conservatism becomes personal responsibility for men. Neither represents liberty for men.

The only meaningful endgame I can see will be when we 1) force women to accept equality, and 2) integrate both of these political currents. The conservatives are absolutely right, and so are the liberals. We need to limit the size of the state, and we need to insist people (particularly women) take personal responsibility for themselves. But we also need to make sure that people have access to a high standard of public education. In my opinion, we need to ensure people have access to healthcare that doesn't result in financial ruin. We need a system where people are given every opportunity to succeed, and where they aren't crippled by minor mistakes or happenstance.

Almost every political discussion now taking place is basically an attempt to find a healthy balance between personal responsibility and social opportunity.

So, in my opinion, the state certainly isn't obsolete, quite the opposite, it's a work in progress.

[2Wycked]

@Texas Prophet:

I agree there is no simple solution simply because we are talking about psychological issues that are thoroughly embedded in American society that it is incredibly difficult to pin down what exactly we are confronting or not confronting.

That being said, you make a good point that it we, as individuals, become mindful of what we do, how we judge others, etc.

This forum is a great example of that. We have liberals, conservatives, an incredible mix of races, nationalities, etc. The forum has its moments, but by and large, we manage to work past it. Part of the reason that happens is there are clear hierarchies here. Roosh and Tuth are the top dogs and high-repped members are afforded more respect. New guys have to learn how to comport themselves, respect the management and pay their dues before truly becoming a member of the community.

I really don't know exactly where I am going with this, but I feel a potential solution actively involving men more in child-rearing in society. I feel we could cure some of the poor psychology in both men and women if strong, confident men had more involvement in the raising of the young.

For example, I forget her name, but there was an Asian woman tasked with reforming DC schools by Obama. She came up with an idea to make the profession more competitive and was seeking to drastically increase wages, with some teachers making over 100K. From the perspective of involving men in teaching, that is spot-on. Break down the female-centric approach of security, bring in more competition and make wages attractive to men.

I wish I had something more substantive, but I need to think about the issue some before.

@Wadsworth: Interesting comment.

I don't if I agree with all it, but you make an excellent point both ideologies are geared to favor women over men. Conservatives, in particular, and their emphasis on personal responsibility is disgusting when it comes to child support, alimony, all that shit. "Family values" my ass.

Still, the problem is the system doesn't want us to be free or liberated. They want us to be consumers and producers. I don't think the system sees liberation as furthering their agendas, so I think in some ways, this discussion is necessarily a dead-end because we are biting off more than we can chew.

[TheBulldozer]

(07-30-2013 05:40 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

For example, I forget her name, but there was an Asian woman tasked with reforming DC schools by Obama. She came up with an idea to make the profession more competitive and was seeking to drastically increase wages, with some teachers making over 100K. From the perspective of involving men in teaching, that is spot-on. Break down the female-centric approach of security, bring in more competition and make wages attractive to men.

Michelle Rhee is her name. She was pre-Obama, 2007. Salary was incentivized based off of standardized test scores. That alone brings up a whole can of worms. As a teacher myself, if you want me to have skin in the game, link my retirement funds to the income my students produce in adulthood. Easier said than done of course, but infinitely better than basing it on a standardized test score that measures nothing substantial on a year to year basis, not even accounting for the fact that standardized test scores measure nothing more than how well you can sit your ass in a seat for 90 minutes at a time.

But Wycked, I see your overarching points nonetheless.

[aphelion]

Well-done article, as always.

Please don't get married or anything I guess tho.

[2Wycked]

(07-30-2013 07:58 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 05:40 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

For example, I forget her name, but there was an Asian woman tasked with reforming DC schools by Obama. She came up with an idea to make the profession more competitive and was seeking to drastically increase wages, with some teachers making over 100K. From the perspective of involving men in teaching, that is spot-on. Break down the female-centric approach of security, bring in more competition and make wages attractive to men.

Michelle Rhee is her name. She was pre-Obama, 2007. Salary was incentivized based off of standardized test scores. That alone brings up a whole can of worms. As a teacher myself, if you want me to have skin in the game, link my retirement funds to the income my students produce in adulthood. Easier said than done of course, but infinitely better than basing it on a standardized test score that measures nothing substantial on a year to year basis, not even accounting for the fact that standardized test scores measure nothing more than how well you can sit your ass in a seat for 90 minutes at a time.

But Wycked, I see your overarching points nonetheless.

That is a fascinating proposal MaleDefined. I like how you are thinking outside the box on this issue. Good sh*t.

I have many teacher friends, but they are all women and when I try to get info out of them, their answers are vapid and leave me dissatisfied. I have only one female teacher friend that I have invigorating discussions about education with.

I have a great interest in education. Have you started a thread on your experiences a teacher? I think it is great that you a man working in education. I am sure you a good role model for your male students.

[TheBulldozer]

Wycked, I'll throw some insights into a PM in the coming days about education. I tend not to post much here regarding that half of my life to keep anonymous.

[2Wycked]

(07-31-2013 02:10 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

Wycked, I'll throw some insights into a PM in the coming days about education. I tend not to post much here regarding that half of my life to keep anonymous.

I appreciate wanting to be anonymous. Frankly, I should be more guarded about my personal information on the forum.

Still, my dad is a college professor. So, in that sense, I have gained some personal insight into teaching. Maybe that affects your message...or not. Just letting you know I have a baseline level of understanding of the profession.