Quote: (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.