[AnonymousBosch]

(09-14-2013 10:58 AM)j r Wrote:  

America probably isn't headed for any sort of catastrophic decline, at least not in any objective sense. Think about England. England used to have an empire that covered a quarter of the globe and now it's just a really rich country. And was life better for the average Englishman when they had that empire? Not really. Most of the gains went to the elites.

I'll try to simplify this as best as I can:

America and England have transitioned from Industrial to Post-Industrial Societies.

A post-industrial society is one that values knowledge, as the focus shifts from production of goods to the provision of services.

Despite the chin stroking that this is good for the poor as it eliminates dangerous and unpleasant jobs, the gains still go to the elites. Remember the riots a couple of years ago? Couple mass immigration with a post-industrialised society and you get lower class unrest and dissent, because their aren't jobs for them, and despite the Human Capital wankers who make living in retraining the lower classes, they simply lack the intellectual ability to be retrainined into work that requires intellect. They are now simply surplus to society's requirements.

America has also become a post-industrial society. The production of knowledge holds the highest value. The majority of things you guys loathe about modern America that you voice on this board and in the manosphere all follows on from this basic fact:

What this means:

- the universities becomes the Seat Of Power as they produce knowledgeable 'experts in thought' - young adults with tertiary educations - who are highly valued in the job market over the useless working class;

- the most economically-favoured group in society therefore becomes Young Urban Professionals;

- as such, Social Power shifts into their hands, hence the great spike in liberalism, feminism and social justice, as academia also favours leftist ideas.

I'm sure most of you have recognised this shift happening, without exactly knowing why. In short, the people we mock on here, are now the Social Elite, and possess the sort of true societal power, (including the ability to rampantly abuse said power), they always accused the Patriarchy of possessing.

That's all basic Economic Theory. A large chunk of Economists see this as a good thing, (particularly as they're products of said Seats Of Power), but there are dissenters who see this as a forerunner of societal decline and political unrest leading to regime change, since as the poor and mentally-unskilled are made redundant, they grow angry with the increased divide between the rich and poor. If you wonder why Gun Control has been on the political agenda lately, there's your answer.

Basically, men like us are a dying breed. We are powerless to change anything, short of complete societal upheaval, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Now before any liberal lurk trolls reading this start celebrating, this is where I'll bring psychological theory into thing.

- Our new Social Elite are from a priviliged class. They have only ever existed in a state of great economic affluence and having their basic material needs instantly-satisfied, so true hardship only exists as a theoretical-construct to them;

- They've been protected, excused, coddled and cocooned throughout their entire life, meaning they never were truly-challenged and had to cultivate Psychological Resilience: the ability to cope with stress and adversity whilst retaining normal function;

- due to this, they possess incredible emotional fragility - the smallest trigger, such as breaking a nail, can have an enormous and devastating emotional impact on them). They simply cannot tolerate any resistence to the fulfillment of their individual will, causing extreme frustration, anger and disappointment.

- Frustrated desires can also arise due to an inability to fulfill instinctual desires and needs, (on an instinctual level, sexual selection, partnership and reproduction), or the inability to realistically deal with perceived deficiencies, (being fat, being masculine, being sexually-unattractive).

- There's two less frequent coping skills that arise from this, the first being passive-aggressive behaviour. Every man can recognise this from women: "You should know why I'm angry!" etc.

- The second, which is particularly-important in a post-industrial society is Cognitive Dissonance ('Hamster Spinning'). The women have the instinctual animal drives to mate and reproduce, whilst having it drilled into them via the Seats Of Power that they should also be educated and career-driven. These are two conflicting psychological drives, which creates disordered thinking and denial responses, e.g. "I'm too intelligent", "Men who want skinny women are shallow"

- Unfortunately, the most frequent response to this kind of frustration is aggression. If you wonder why women are masculinised, competitive, promiscuous and argumentative, it's because they are unresilient human beings. They want their way, and NOW, and that is how they cope with not getting it. The spoilt rich daddy's girl, the social justice blogger, the 50 year old trying IVF, they're all want it their way, biology and human nature be damned.

When the emotionally-fragile hold true societal power, said society is fucked.

What I see happening is the increased normalisation of *unhealthy psychological thought*. Where the fragile and damaged hold the power, they will try to make their Coping Mechanisms Law.

This is why they'll constantly talk about Slut and Fat Shaming. This is why they've expanded the definition of rape far beyond the scope of the word. These tainted ideas are fed back into the Liberal Academic Seats Of Power and normalised with each generation of graduates, to be further polluted with each cycle. As more women go into psychology, abberant thought is 'understood' and 'accepted' to protect women from facing reality.

In 30 years, Rape will constitute whatever they say it is. A dislike for fat, slovenly women will be considered a mental illness. Transgender issues are right at the tipping point of no longer being considered a personal psychological issue but a public acceptance issue. It will happen, because these people are fucked up enough to always respond with aggression.

I also expect inter-Victim-fighting. I saw this recently at my last job, where a Gay Man was claiming sexual harrassment against a female nurse, who responded by claiming he was a 'workplace bully' and had created a 'toxic male culture' in the office, both of them thinking they should be taken more seriously than the other because of their Protected Status. Power will be given to whichever victim screams the loudest.

The other, very-real possibility, is that you end up with a nation of people who possess so little resilience that they are unable to defend themselves against being conquered from other nations, (say 6 billion Chinese manufacturing American Weapons with installed back doors to disarm them that the US in deeply into financial debt with); or highly-resilient poor and immigrant underclasses revolting from within; or natural disaster. What happens when the Gawker Office crew are put in a situation where their money or status can't guarantee survival? They curl up and die.

To sum up, in a post-industrial society, the emotionally-weak and low-resillient hold the power to make their defective coping mechanicsms law. Can you respect people holding authority over you who could very likely end up in tears or lash out in anger if facebook is down for a few hours? For those who end up in shellshocked hysteria when a couple of imaginary characters on Game Of Thrones die? Women produced by this system will be already weak due to affluence, and further weakened by not being able to admit personal responsibility for any action they take.

If you're getting out of the US, go to an Industrial Society.

[aphelion]

(09-14-2013 05:42 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

To sum up, in a post-industrial society, the emotionally-weak and low-resillient hold the power to make their defective coping mechanicsms law. Can you respect people holding authority over you who could very likely end up in tears or lash out in anger if facebook is down for a few hours? For those who end up in shellshocked hysteria when a couple of imaginary characters on Game Of Thrones die? Women produced by this system will be already weak due to affluence, and further weakened by not being able to admit personal responsibility for any action they take.

If you're getting out of the US, go to an Industrial Society.

[ms224]

(09-14-2013 05:57 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 05:42 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

To sum up, in a post-industrial society, the emotionally-weak and low-resillient hold the power to make their defective coping mechanicsms law. Can you respect people holding authority over you who could very likely end up in tears or lash out in anger if facebook is down for a few hours? For those who end up in shellshocked hysteria when a couple of imaginary characters on Game Of Thrones die? Women produced by this system will be already weak due to affluence, and further weakened by not being able to admit personal responsibility for any action they take.

If you're getting out of the US, go to an Industrial Society.

So should we just quit and not fight back?

[Veloce]

@AnonymousBosch

Great post man, +1. Excellent red-pill perspective

[Quintus Curtius]

(09-13-2013 09:13 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Come on guys. All this talk about everyone fleeing America, decline this and collapse that, the fall of Rome, yada yada yada, it's goofy stuff. Why all the melodramatic exaggeration?

Nothing wrong, of course, with traveling or even in some cases transplanting oneself to other parts of the world for better and more compliant pussy, that's nothing but a mitzvah as long as you're careful and don't find yourself thrown into jail in some nightmare shithole where a single thug is judge jury and executioner. But let's not lose sight of basic realities.

The US has been, is, and will remain the most amazing and greatest society the world has ever known, and no one else is close.
Americans don't really understand this because all they've ever known is paradise, so I can't even really blame y'all. But I look at Putin's KGB mug or at the sleazy fish faced executioners who run China or even at the uproarious laugh of the monstrous murderer Idi Amin chillin on the lake in my favorite RVF gif, and they tell me all I need to know.

Sure, we have some problems, mainly because we've bought into some terrible lies that go under the general name of feminism. This nonsense has done and will continue to do a lot of damage, but as disgusting as it may be it is not about to lead to the collapse of America, not even close.

Our economy is fundamentally strong and creative, our demographics are great and we are growing our population unlike other western societies that are trying to set themselves on a demographic death spiral (though I don't even believe that will last, either).

The difference in military strength between us and the rest of the world is so sick that I don't think people really comprehend it. It is a difference in kind and it has gone so far that there is essentially no bridging it, ever. Because we are an incredibly nice people we think ten times before using one millionth of our power for any reason, where any run of the mill scumbag empire would have long since enslaved the world, slaughtered their men and raped their women. But just because we are so nice doesn't mean we aren't more powerful than all the empires of the past put together.

Beyond all canting about "diversity" it is absolutely true that America wouldn't be as great as it is without all the different races and ethnicities that are part of the mix and give us the unsurpassed energy that the world can only try to imitate. That's why all the race nonsense in the comments going both ways just leaves me shaking my head. In a forum run by a half Persian half Armenian dude a large part of which is devoted to "game", a concept that exists basically because Iceberg Slim made it known outside of black culture in his masterpiece, and we're talking about race, really?

I think the reason for all this unnecessary drama, generally speaking, is that we've had a way too long and extended peacetime. When there is no war for too long, women get way too powerful and society stops making sense. The weaker men become effeminate manginas, and the stronger ones, like the ones who are drawn to this forum, get so restless and crazed from the lack of a real war that they try to start one with each other in threads like this

This feminism shit is bad but it will peak eventually and a real serious war will flush it out. Until then we just need to fight back the best we can, and also remember to kick back and enjoy our lives which are incidentally lives of comparable ease and privilege and to which this forum adds the pleasures of shared information, interest and camaraderie. No need to waste it on misguided bickering.

______________________
My response to this is:

I agree with some of what you said, but there is nothing wrong with talking about the trajectory of the American empire and where it will end. Make no mistake: the social decay we are seeing today, and the decline of American prestige and power in the world, is real. It may hold together in our lifetime, but we can't know how or when it will end.

You describe us as the "most amazing and greatest society the world has ever known"....I think this highly questionable.
I think you would be surprised to see every empire describe itself in this way. Every single one, from Assyria, to Persia, to Rome, to the Ottomans, etc. Take your pick. Yes, we have some amazing things at this point in history. The greatest level of material wealth, certainly. But I think we have paid for this with a trade off in other areas: spiritual poverty, lack of family cohesion, lack of meaning or purpose, and an increase in isolation, lonlieness, and atomization.

You describe American military power as "Essentially no bridging it, ever". I beg to differ on this one. Don't be so assured of American military supremacy in perpetuity. The graveyard of empires is littered with the bones of nations, empires and states who thought they were invincible. We are more vulnerable than you think. The mighty can be brought to their knees far, far more easily than people know.
The illusion of American military supremacy is just that, an illusion. We have not fought a real enemy who could really fight back since the second world war. There have been no unconditional victories since 1945, only stalemates and mixed outcomes.

And us being "incredibly nice people"? I don't agree with that. We are not unique, special, nice snowflakes. We are just as ruthless, bloodthirsty, and brutal as every other empire in history. No better, no worse. Let's not kid ourselves here.
This nation was founded on the extermination of the native Indians, the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of imported Africans, and the industrial servitude of millions of immigrants from Europe. America had the unique luxury of having no powerful enemies on its borders, unlike most countries in the world. And it had oceans on either side to protect it. America inherited a position as world leader after 1945 because all the other powers were destroyed. And it has been riding that wave ever since.

[cool guy]

The US dollar will collapse eventually if math has any meaning.
http://johntreed.com/thedaythedollardies.html
150% debt to GDP we'll be there in between 3-6 years. It happened in the Soviet Union, Argentina and Mexico hyperinflation is real and can happen anywhere. Femenism, socialism and deficit spending can't keep up much longer and we're at 107% debt to GDP now it can happen tomorrow if something like China dropping our bonds over bombing Syria happens.
http://johntreed.com/am-I-a-kook-for-war...ation.html
http://johntreed.com/hyperinflation-deniers.html
http://johntreed.com/the-day-the-hyperin...-dies.html
http://johntreed.com/Many-central-banks-...money.html

[TheBulldozer]

This thread is abundantly telling. I know who has traveled and lived and who had lived behind a keyboard.

[lskdfjldsf]

(09-14-2013 11:26 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Wald, I don't want to get into an extended political discussion since they tend to be a waste of everyone's time...

Briefly: as far as I'm concerned all the wars in which the US has been involved were amply justified. It's hard to remember now but Communism was no joke and unless we took a stand in Korea, Vietnam and other places the world would be a much darker place than it already is. The same goes for the Mideast on a smaller scale. Afghanistan harbored some grotesquely malicious fanatics who hit us hard on 9/11 and Iraq at various times was a dangerous player that was trying to take over other countries not to mention a nightmarish torture state under Saddam (look it up, there is some stuff about the Iraq torture state that's mind boggling even in comparison to what's gone elsewhere in the 20th century). One can argue about specifics of whether this or that policy was misguided at the time, and no doubt we've made mistakes here and there, but that's beside the point.

The real point is that that in all these cases we used a fraction of the power that was available to us. We could literally annihilate these countries at any time, and we wouldn't even need nukes to do it. As I said, a normal scumbag empire would use this kind of overwhelming power to enslave and dominate the rest of the world. Not so with nice earnest America. We are only "embroiled" in these seemingly endless conflicts because our self-restraint is so complete and taken for granted. This is something worth realizing.

When I speak of the extended peacetime since World War II I mean that we haven't had the kind of total war that changes the way an entire country has to live day to day. None of these other conflicts come close. Especially the most recent ones -- they are essentially invisible to a normal American just living his life. They change nothing.

A real, serious war, when -- not if -- it comes, will change a lot.

I agree with this comment. It's easy to point to our military efforts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and think that the power of the U.S. military is overestimated. But keep in mind, we have the third highest population on earth - at the drop of a hat, we have the capability to field tens of millions of men.

It's not only numbers that count, but training, education, and equipment. We were issued $500 Oakley sunglasses and Goretex boots before deploying to Iraq; when compared to any other government, the U.S. ensures we're outfitted with the absolute best, regardless of price.

The U.S. population is equally committed to it's military and believes in it's objective and purpose. Compare the U.S. mentality on the military with that of Germany, an economic powerhouse with some of the best tank and weapons manufacturers, yet they can barely field numbers for basic border defense despite decades of Wehrpflicht. Or on the other hand, China, which has incredible numbers yet can't properly equip, train, or manage it's forces.

And the most valuable thing - experience - is where U.S. strength truly lies. Say what you will about decades of half-assed wars, but U.S. troops know what they're doing.

Our WW2 generation was widely criticized before the war. Many authors, journalists, politicians, etc. thought the 1930's/40's generation was the laziest and least productive in history, and were all proven wrong. As someone mentioned above, we're suffering from the same problems and are viewed the same way - be it a result of feminism, sloth, etc. but when shit hits the fan, we're one of the few countries capable of stepping to the plate.

[BortimusPrime]

(09-15-2013 02:09 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

We were issued $500 Oakley sunglasses and Goretex boots before deploying to Iraq; when compared to any other government, the U.S. ensures we're outfitted with the absolute best, regardless of price.

So...is it easier to project military force with one pair of $500 sunglasses or 100 land mines?

[Andy_B]

Eh, I understand why the manosphere is supporting the guy, but honestly that "pack of niggers" tweet was too much. I don't think he would have been fired in a perfect world but the company can't have that kind of a loose canon on staff.

[Ocelot]

overdue +1 AnonymousBosch, that post was brilliant.

[Veloce]

Warning, clicking this will send traffic to Anil Dash. For the sake of not doing that, I'm going to quote his entire article:

Quote:

MY MEETING WITH PAX

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013


I'm sick to death of this whole stupid topic, and fighting off a brutal chest cold, so I'm going to ask your forbearance on this piece; It'll be a little less even-handed and detailed than I usually try to be, and if my language is ambiguous, I hope you'll take a charitable interpretation to what I say.

Earlier this week, people noticed that Pax Dickinson has been saying horrible things online for a while and then he was held accountable for them. Early on in the discussion, I pointed out that his attempts to act like an asshole had succeeded, and so I became a sort of tangential part of the story, mostly for this tweet and its replies:


People who know me know that my offer was sincere, because while I was not trying to get Pax fired (though I certainly am not sorry that he was, and everyone including Pax agrees it was the right decision), I was definitely trying to find some way to understand if a constructive form of accountability could be attached to this incredibly shitty circumstance. I would still like to see Business Insider's management explain how they're structurally addressing their failures that allow a toxic culture to thrive for years with no accountability.

Today, Pax and I finally sat down as planned. The first indications to me that this was going to follow a predictable pattern was that his initial email to me described his tweets as being the voice of a "persona", and that his final planning email mentioned that he wanted to change venue to a different place than I'd mentioned publicly out of deference to his wife's desire that he be ultra cautious.

I hope that Pax's friends in the pick up artist community take a few moments away from writing date rape manuals and sending me death threats to reflect on the fact that their new hero has at least some tiny bit of respect for the wife he's been married to for 15 years. How crushed they will be.

Pax showed up about 10 minutes late, having been busy with the latest stop on his press tour, and as I had agreed, I called him an asshole to his face and paid for his coffee. We talked for about 20 minutes. He offered up a pretty boringly conventional defense of male privilege, and when I described the role of actual satire and comedy in punching up instead of punching down, he revealed that he sees attacking feminists and equality activists as punching up. There was some pointless bickering from me about the inanity of that perspective, but overall things were fairly civil; I've met guys like this before and I didn't have any illusion that I was going to dissuade him from a perspective which his social group rewards with attention and the perverse impression that acting like an asshole is somehow being brave. There were the obligatory mentions of how his wife and some of his coworkers are women, so obviously he can't be sexist. And there was a philosophical underpinning to his provocation, that Pax is trying to broaden the definition of what constitutes acceptable debate or discussion. That left me a bit amused, as I can't think of a more self-defeating way to try to accomplish that goal.

There was also a pretty dogged pitch for his startup, which will get all kinds of warm huzzahs from the intersection of MRAs, Bitcoin fans, NSA critics and Redditors. I was pretty amazed that he went for it. He flat out said that he wants his startup to be funded and wasn't sure if it'd be possible after all of his, and I replied that it realistically wasn't going to happen without the say-so of someone like me, and I wasn't inclined to give some VC the nod on this. On reflection, I'll be explicit: If you're a venture capitalist, and you invest in Pax's startup without a profound, meaningful and years-long demonstration of responsibility from Pax beforehand, you're complicit in extending the tech industry's awful track record of exclusion, and it's unacceptable.

But I am an optimist, and always try to find some opportunity for at least a tiny positive outcome in a shitty situation, so I asked if there was anything productive that could come out of our talking. He seemed pretty skeptical, and the first idea I had was that some of his technical skills were valuable enough that documenting them in a way that could be useful to others might be worthwhile. At this he seemed to perk up, and I said if there were materials that people could use to learn skills at a conceptual level, that might at least yield some good. Pax agreed there was potential, and I told him if he made something like that, I could get it to the right people who could put it to good use.

Then, foolishly, I tweeted about the meeting, briefly mentioning this last part of the conversation. My wording was terse in obedience to Twitter's limits, and a few folks understandably misinterpreted my intentions.

So, to be clear: I have no interest in playing an agent of Pax Dickinson's redemption. I do not want him anywhere near kids of any sort, let alone teaching anyone. I am not concerned with creating opportunities for him or reopening the doors he's closed through his actions.

I do think Pax knows how to do some things that are valuable at a technical level. If he chooses to direct those abilities in a way that's useful to society, I think that'd be a good thing. I think it would help atone for the hurt Pax has caused.

More broadly, I am trying to live a life where I am as unreasonably kind as I can be. If that means having coffee with a guy who's been a supremacist asshole, I'm okay with that. In fact, some of the lessons that have stuck with me the most this year were imparted to me by a man who's done even worse, having served two decades in prison for killing someone. I don't forgive him that wrong; It wouldn't be my place to do so even if I had the power. But it's a good exercise for me to try to see the common humanity I share with even those who do the things our society defines as the worst things. I do not pretend it's the right choice for everyone, but it is for me.

My most lasting impression of this stupid half hour at a coffee shop was from right in the middle of the conversation about how we speak truth to power. I pointed out that his words were bullying because he was aiming at those who have less power than Pax does, and he said, with great animation:

"But you guys are winning! The progressives and feminists are winning in everything, in politics and media!"

So yes, we did find some common ground during our conversation.

If you do decide to click, the responses are sickeningly self-congratulatory, even more so than his post. Guys, it's important to know what the enemy looks and sounds like, and this is it.

http://dashes.com/anil/2013/09/my-meeting-with-pax.html

[The Lizard of Oz]

(09-14-2013 10:54 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

______________________
My response to this is:

I agree with some of what you said, but there is nothing wrong with talking about the trajectory of the American empire and where it will end. Make no mistake: the social decay we are seeing today, and the decline of American prestige and power in the world, is real. It may hold together in our lifetime, but we can't know how or when it will end.

You describe us as the "most amazing and greatest society the world has ever known"....I think this highly questionable.
I think you would be surprised to see every empire describe itself in this way. Every single one, from Assyria, to Persia, to Rome, to the Ottomans, etc. Take your pick. Yes, we have some amazing things at this point in history. The greatest level of material wealth, certainly. But I think we have paid for this with a trade off in other areas: spiritual poverty, lack of family cohesion, lack of meaning or purpose, and an increase in isolation, lonlieness, and atomization.

You describe American military power as "Essentially no bridging it, ever". I beg to differ on this one. Don't be so assured of American military supremacy in perpetuity. The graveyard of empires is littered with the bones of nations, empires and states who thought they were invincible. We are more vulnerable than you think. The mighty can be brought to their knees far, far more easily than people know.
The illusion of American military supremacy is just that, an illusion. We have not fought a real enemy who could really fight back since the second world war. There have been no unconditional victories since 1945, only stalemates and mixed outcomes.

And us being "incredibly nice people"? I don't agree with that. We are not unique, special, nice snowflakes. We are just as ruthless, bloodthirsty, and brutal as every other empire in history. No better, no worse. Let's not kid ourselves here.
This nation was founded on the extermination of the native Indians, the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of imported Africans, and the industrial servitude of millions of immigrants from Europe. America had the unique luxury of having no powerful enemies on its borders, unlike most countries in the world. And it had oceans on either side to protect it. America inherited a position as world leader after 1945 because all the other powers were destroyed. And it has been riding that wave ever since.

QC,

It's interesting that you scruple to note about America's destiny that "we can't know how or when it will end", yet everywhere else you speak of America's decline and fall as a certainty that is, somehow, more certain than any other. You speak of American supremacy not as something that might merely be in doubt but as an "illusion", a mere appearance that you've seen through and been disabused of. "Let's not kid ourselves here". It's as if the scales have fallen away from your eyes and you can see things as they really are. You know, somehow, that "The mighty can be brought to their knees far, far more easily than people know". Where does this knowledge, which is somehow the most unquestionable knowledge there is, come from? Why is it that you're more certain of the coming ruination of America and the West than of anything else?

Here is something else that is interesting. By an odd coincidence, the people that you probably regard as your exact ideological opposites, the progressive, feminist, Frankfurt-schooled left, share your certainty of totalized collapse and decline as completely as possible. They place the blame elsewhere -- we will be ruined because we have destroyed the planet, like the greedy pigs that we are we kept extracting more and more and more fossil fuels so we can keep our disgustingly large houses unforgivably chilled in the 100 degree summer heat of Houston, and now Gaia, who always bats last, will exact a terrible price. They, too, know -- much like you know -- that "technology won't save us this time". They, too, know that the rot has set too deep, that we have gone too far, that the day of judgment is near. In one case it's the "culture" that goes under, in another, the "environment". Either way, we're doomed. Some curious similarities, wouldn't you say?

There is a simple reason for this: the convicted mythologies of decline shared by the would-be Gaia worshippers on the left and the would-be traditionalists on the right are two sides of the same terrible coin, with Nietzsche's moustached head engraved on either side. For you are both equally in thrall to Nietzschean despair; you both know what you know because like your teacher, you have seen through the illusions and into things as they really are. The right's affectations of traditional religious belief and the left's demented Gaia idolatry are both classic cases of protesting too much, because what both know above all else is the absolute reality of the "lack of meaning or purpose" to which you refer above.

Yet it is this supposed knowledge, this projection of a felt despair onto the helpless fear of an unknowable future, that is the true illusion. That is what must fall away from our eyes if we are to see what is right in front of us.

Because in reality, things change, and history does not repeat itself. Over time, certain changes amount to differences in kind. How much do we have to learn from societies that have not walked on the moon or held the library of Alexandria in their palms? Are their lessons, such as they are, really relevant to us? It is the differences in kind that so easily escape our minds. It is easy to recite the names of empires past, but take an Assyrian and transport him to our time, and he would know that he walks on a different planet. And he would be right.

As for America. Its differences in kind have this quality, that they are so immense, so overwhelming, that they get lost in plain sight. Again, I'll point out the unarguable fact that any other empire enjoying this kind of overwhelming superiority over all others would have enslaved and dominated the rest of the world. Do you understand what this means? For all the vaunted "red pill" talk that we all know and love, this forum, like almost all other discourse in this great and civilized country, is so imbued, all the way down the line, with Christian America's niceness -- and thank God for that -- that I think we sometimes forget the literal meaning of enslave and dominate. Let's just say that it doesn't involve having to get a foreign visa when you travel abroad.

You speak of "stalemates and mixed outcomes" in our skirmishes post World War II, but don't you see that the only reason for this is precisely our exceptional, unprecedented, and entirely taken for granted niceness, the unique self-restraint we exercise at all times? Because it is indisputable, as I have also pointed out, that we could have annihilated, say, Vietnam, or any of our other enemies, many times over, and we wouldn't even have needed nukes. All the "muddle" comes from the fact that we choose not to do so.

Nonetheless, it is also a technical blunder to lament our lack of preparation and the supposed erosion of military edge it entails. World wars don't come around willy-nilly, but in the meantime our limited military engagements have been plenty enough to test and advance our weaponry, and to keep our troops in excellent fighting trim. It was fascinating to read Chinese military boards, which do exist, around the time things were getting hairy in Falluja; they were envious as hell because they knew that the lessons we were learning there cannot be learned in any other way, and that they weren't in on them.

One day we will be tested, truly tested, and we will prevail. We are a decent people, but if we are really threatened in a serious way, and one day we will be, we will respond with overwhelming power and our enemies will be wiped out and we will be left standing. Did you know that Russian and Chinese nukes are so inferior to ours that it is doubtful they could even deliver them at all, much less deliver them decisively? Whereas no one doubts that we can effectively deliver ours and annihilate any country we choose many times over. None can stand against us.

The most realistic and disabused position of all is one of complete and unbridled optimism about our prospects. For those who doubt it, they should look into the real reason for their doubt (which is, indeed, no mere doubt but utmost certainty): they are controlled by a metaphysics of nihilism which, in the end, forces a vision of ultimate failure upon even as superb and unprecedented a society as the USA.

[Quintus Curtius]

Lizard:

I hear you, man. But the most I can say is this.

It's true that in some ways America is "exceptional". By the accident of geography and history, it has been blessed with vast oceans on either side, a native population that was eliminated, and no serious military threats on its borders. It also had the good fortune to have a relatively enlightened set of "founding fathers" who inherited the Enlightenment traditions of rationalism, anti-clericalism, separations of powers, and constitutional government. In other words, we're not inherently superior, we just got very, very lucky, by a special set of circumstances. We benefited from all these things, and were able to industrialize without all the historical baggage that afflicts Europe or Asia. This matters.

But when you read the accounts of empires past, patterns emerge. All of them think they're unique, special, superior, and everlasting. If you read Livy's account of the history of Rome, it's filled with patriotic asides and nationalistic propaganda that could have been taken out of a Fox News editorial, a statement from a 19th century British imperialist, or from an Assyrian satrap of the 8th century B.C. The cuneiform carvings on an old Assyrian bas-relief all talk about how wonderful and great the king and his people are, and how they brought wisdom and justice to the wretched conquered people, etc. etc. It's all the same. Just change the name of the country--America, Rome, Britain, Assyria--and you have the same thing. All empires come and go.

How long will our empire last? Who knows. It might endure for a long, long time, or it might fall apart suddenly, like the Soviet Union. There are definite signs of decay that we just can't ignore. What to me is off-putting about nationalism and chauvinism is that it's so smug and self-satisfied. It relieves us of the obligation to try to learn from others, to try to improve ourselves, and to see things from the other guy's perspective. You don't really get this until you travel. And I mean really travel, and live abroad, and see the world from the perspective of another.

[bachelor tax]

That write-up by Anil Dash about meeting Pax was the most disgustingly sanctimonious thing I have ever read.

[coolkid]

I'm seeing everything through a simple economic lens: No matter how much the PC brigade screws with America, America will still be #1 for people who want to emigrate from their home countries. Want proof? Go to India, China or any other "middle-income" country. Its citizens will be trying to get out. America is declining but its not a shit-hole. Heck, people were trying to leave Egypt before all hell broke lose. And Egypt's not that bad.

The Western world will fall eventually and you'd be an idiot to deny that. But its still the best place to live. American Universities may be leftist indoctrination camps but they still are the best in the world. The American Government may be spying on its citizens but nowadays, who doesn't?

What we will see is immigrants, especially from East and South Asia, taking up important public offices. Based on my experiences in America, about 10-15% of the non-immigrant population has the drive, dedication and discipline these immigrants do. American society will not fall, but will become dependant on immigration, much like Roman society in the ~300s and ~400s, when the military became composed primarily of barbarians (my dates may be a bit off).

But if you want to meet great women and live in a non-cancerous society, make your bank and leave ASAP. That's what I intend on doing.

[coolkid]

But yeah, America won't have half the hegemonic power it does now in 30-40 years.

[TheRookie]

You know, I think I recall this Anil Dash guy doing a cameo in a popular television show recently.

(09-15-2013 05:38 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

Warning, clicking this will send traffic to Anil Dash. For the sake of not doing that, I'm going to quote his entire article:

Quote:

MY MEETING WITH PAX

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013

If you do decide to click, the responses are sickeningly self-congratulatory, even more so than his post. Guys, it's important to know what the enemy looks and sounds like, and this is it.

http://dashes.com/anil/2013/09/my-meeting-with-pax.html

[Blaster]

From the Dash post

Quote:

He offered up a ... conventional defense of male privilege, and when I described the role of ... satire and comedy in punching up instead of punching down, he revealed that he sees attacking feminists and equality activists as punching up.

These people are constitutionally incapable of recognizing the question of who is punching up or down as a valid one. The hierarchy is an axiom disguised by fallacy-ridden theories conjured up by academics.

[Tex Pro]

(09-15-2013 07:18 PM)coolkid Wrote:  

But yeah, America won't have half the hegemonic power it does now in 30-40 years.

You are too optimistic.

America won't have half the hegemonic power it does now in a mere 20 years from now. By then, the BRIC countries will assert a hell of a lot more power than they do now.

[Therapsid]

Why does anyone, as an individual, care about America's hegemonic power?

People have confused two very separate issues, namely: the standard of living of a country and the geopolitical power of that country.

The Soviet Union was number 2 geopolitically from 1945 to 1991 at least, and yet many European countries and Japan had better standards of living. China today is probably number 2, but in terms of living standards is way down there and still well below Russia.

America may decline geopolitically, but Americans will still live off the fat of the land for the rest of this century easily.

[DeWitt]

Anil Dash Wrote:

My most lasting impression of this stupid half hour at a coffee shop was from right in the middle of the conversation about how we speak truth to power. I pointed out that his words were bullying because he was aiming at those who have less power than Pax does, and he said, with great animation:

"But you guys are winning! The progressives and feminists are winning in everything, in politics and media!"

So yes, we did find some common ground during our conversation.

Mencius Moldbug has commented this event.

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

Mencius Moldbug Wrote:

The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins' day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

We do not see Pax Dickinson and Paul Graham ganging up to destroy Gawker. We see them curling up into a fetal position and trying to survive. An America in which hackers could purge journalists for communist deviation, rather than journalists purging hackers for fascist deviation, would be a very different America. Ya think?

[Vicious]

Quote:

In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

This sums up feminism today beautifully. I have to make this my sig.

[Blaster]

(09-16-2013 05:09 AM)DeWitt Wrote:  

Mencius Moldbug has commented this event.

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

Mencius Moldbug Wrote:

The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins' day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary (Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).

Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

We do not see Pax Dickinson and Paul Graham ganging up to destroy Gawker. We see them curling up into a fetal position and trying to survive. An America in which hackers could purge journalists for communist deviation, rather than journalists purging hackers for fascist deviation, would be a very different America. Ya think?

Excellent commentary, the only minor thing I would note is one may want to use the word "coerce" instead of "harm and destroy". The word "harm" may cause philosophy nerds to derail into a discussion into redefining "harm" to mean pretty much anything they want it to mean. Coercion also focuses on the right definition of "power" with regards to the concept of speaking truth to it. There are many types of power and not all of them are relevant.

He also has a confusing tendency to use the term "fascist" as if he expects people understand what he means by it. I certainly don't, though I don't follow his blog so maybe it's a quirk of his.

PS Paul Graham wrote about this back in 2004: What You Can't Say

Quote:

What can't we say? One way to find these ideas is simply to look at things people do say, and get in trouble for. [2]

Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.

[worldwidetraveler]

(09-15-2013 01:05 AM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

This thread is abundantly telling. I know who has traveled and lived and who had lived behind a keyboard.

No you don't.