Editor’s note: Post was republished with further thoughts and an expansion upon of commentary upon the impact of history and culture on a people.
“Appalachia’s idea of a moderate drinker was the mountain man who limited himself to a single quart [of whiskey] at a sitting, explaining that more ‘might fly to my head’. Other beverages were regarded with contempt.”
Bold title huh? To some extent the answer is, yes. Governments ARE us. Blame can be thrown out for some issues, but it can’t alleviate our responsibility completely in how our nations, provinces, regions, etc form and operate.
Despite Mongolian domination and destruction for 300+ years, China is not a shithole while parts of Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, etc. are.
Well a people’s culture are actually VERY significant as are the traditions, heritage, language, and attitudes that shape them, their history, and set foundations for their future. Let’s get down to brass tax.
Recently me and my wife – who both really enjoy horror films went to see the Quiet Place. I won’t spoil much of it, but the premise of the movie was essentially that silence would guarantee the survival of a family on a rural farmstead amid a kind of post-apocalyptic world inhabited by creatures with no known weakness. This film makes the ultimate use of every sound.
We had heard some of the reviews and many of them were justified in celebrating how good this movie actually was. Leaving the theater and feeling like the cost of our tickets had been justified, we briefly chatted about what we enjoyed about it. In fact, I highly recommend seeing it.
One thing this movie is about is the concept of sacrifice in a world where much has to be sacrifice must be made. It drives home the questions of how far you would go as a parent for your family to survive.
Surprisingly, this film was given reasonably positive reviews by the critics and for good reason; it takes a concept we’ve seen before a bit and explores it in a way that make’s you lean in a bit closer, look at the non verbal language coming from their faces and bodies, and jump.
Foremost, this film made you think instead of just mindlessly vegetate waiting for action sequences or the usual jump-scares and cliches. It presented a world where there were no easy quick solutions, just the harsh reality of trying to survive.
Now of course, there is the usual brouhaha about how something in the movie was “regressive” by the New Yorkers standards – I’m still not exactly sure how, despite being well versed in grievance and identity politics.
The NYT had a more objective review regarding it, but of the several comments that were negative about the film because of muh 1950s culture and because the father apparently is bumbling, fumbling moron who can’t cope with the world like usual. That said, one comment struck me in particular by “Arthur” via April 8, 2018
“Am I the only one who wants this family to get eaten by the monsters? Why – because it’s anti-urban, they’re essentially a metaphor for upper middle class white suburbia’s desire to be free of the constraints of an urban multi-cultural society and all the inherent complications of seeing other people as equal and worthy of participating in their world. In this fantasy the ideal is presented without shame, the white cold war nuclear suburban family, quirkily upgraded, but with their paranoia made rational because MONSTERS, read drugs, sex, gender, the poor, foreigners, socialists, all the things they are irrationally afraid of can be forgotten and their irrationality celebrated here in an entertainment product. I’m not asking all sci-fi dystopias to have more inclusive values among the survivalists, but it would be nice to think that simply keeping your family safe in free standing home on a two acre wooded lot in suburbia isn’t the only option which will be left us when the real monsters get here.”
At first I thought it was a troll, but he does appear to be serious. Notice just how much was read into the movie. This guy is so entrenched in his progressive dogma, he can’t simply enjoy a movie for what it is. Instead it’s been interpreted as not reflecting a desired social commentary that adheres to a certain progressive worldview. Sad.
Most of us horrible bigots over here in the Dissident Right have been able to enjoy quite a few movies that depict people even remotely similar to us as ever kind of “ist”, “ism”, and “phobe” to be loathed and laughed at.
Despite the hopeless hapless doofus father that is enduring in just about every prominent sitcom, crime drama, TV series, and movie, I can still enjoy that media for what it is rather than what I want or think it should be. This isn’t a novel concept.
We don’t want to be like that commentator mentioned earlier – something that’s far easier then we realize. Life is short, and if you don’t enjoy it, you likely won’t have many friends and people to spend it with if everything and anything is seen through the lens of cultural critical analysis.
Sure, we don’t have to come out and pay for some of the “white christian cis straight males are terrible people” crap Hollywood keeps droning about, but letting loose with laughter with a movie like The Hangover without looking for how it fits with one’s worldview is good for the soul – especially in an age where even humor is under attack by newly arrived leftist combatants.
I can’t believe I’m saying this to our very numerous hedonistic narcissists that dominate our society, but live a little dammit. If you are going to pull a Conan on the front lines in the culture war, you’ll likely need to be able to take a break and disengage regardless of your creed.
Remember to relax and enjoy this film with an inquisitive mind.
Many progressive have obsessed over race to the point its turned them into bitter people who can’t take time off to enjoy life. For others they’ve become self-loathing “allies” too busy worrying about their privilege to realize there’s more lessons to be learned from history than just “oppression.”
So take a hint from the self-inflicted pain these people put them through and DONT DO THE SAME.
One things many of us on the Dissident Right should be aware of is history and how demographics across the world have adapted and changed through conquest, migration, colonization, and various other methods. They all overlap in various circles and variables.
Humans are tribal. We always have been and likely always will. Race, ethnicity, cities, families, regions, tribes, etc all represent various “circles” that overlap.
Think of the Google+ circle overlap of friends, acquaintances, etc. The internet, ease of travel, and technology have changed our “identities. Because you can travel 100 miles with a car in mere hours, you and a host of other people can show up at a metal concert, all look somewhat similar, mosh and partake in an event that builds an identity for all those there.
Yes, “Us vs them” is a natural human instinct and its effect up until the last 300 years can’t be understated when used to distract the populace from their real overseers. It doesn’t however mean everything should be “us”, whoever that might be, vs some other group. Not every aspect of life is not a zero sum game.
Now I’ll admit, I may have a bias. I don’t even know if I’m bi-racial. The Turks burned all of our damned records in the genocide, but considering how many different times Armenia was conquered and how many different Empires and other groups have gone through it, I probably have a whole host of Middle Eastern, Russian, and maybe even Asian blood in me. (I’m going to take an ancestry test). My European half is various mix of ethnicity.
I don’t live in Chicago, but even in the part of Illinois I live, I know ALOT of mixed, bi-racial people, not just including both sides of my family and my wives. It’s not deliberate persay, it just happened – probably because the Lake County area generates ALOT of jobs, just as nearby Kenosha County in Wisconsin is starting too. People move to where the jobs are. (Cook County is dead to me.)
Stop seeing the extremes and loud voices from external groups as the complete representation. Most black people don’t care about Black Lives Matter, social justice, or intersectional nonsense. Sure, they might have some agreement with the overall thrust behind BLM, but they’d much rather just go about living life than obsessing over the white man.
Again you will have the malcontent trust fund types who have too much time on their hands and a luxury of funds to major in African studies, but most black people dont. They aren’t wasting their time studying about “oppression”. They are working, trying to survive like everyone else, and enjoy the time they have.
Most Hispanics don’t care about La Raza. The most disagreeable position they might have with you is immigration, and even then, it’s not uniform. They don’t hate “whites” anymore than any other group. Sure, they have they radicals, but if you aren’t at a college campus in a VERY urban city, they won’t care.
Interracial sex and in some cases marriage is inevitable. Hell, in 50 years, it will be harder to tell who is mixing with who. Just because it’s been weaponized by progressive race obsessed miserable fanatics doesn’t mean it’s somehow wrong, bad, or negative.
What’s inevitable about it? Simply history shows that groups will intermingle given migration, conquest, or in today’s day the ability to simply pack up and move. Sure, there are some rather nasty statistics that have been mentioned ad nauseum already that we shouldn’t overlook. (Particularly that most black men regardless of the race of the women they have children with often don’t just refrain from marrying the mother, but often leave her as well. Granted I have a strong sympathy for black men – not because of racism/opression, but that’s for another time.)
Those of us in the “manosphere” should be very familiar with the numerous reasons why black and white men in particular might choose to date and marry outside of their race and I can’t fault them for it either.
While the DailyStormCucks are obsessing about white purity and how it looks via ghetto trash representatives and the occasional armchair philosphers, they keep overlooking that what it means to be “white” has changed drastically in the last 100 years alone.
Zimmerman was a “White Hispanic”. Italians, Greek, and various Balkanites weren’t white 100 years ago. Just two hundred years ago the Irish were looked at as mongrels. We can’t even tell if people from North Africa are White, Arab, or “African” or some mixture of all or how different they are from each other in the two thousand years of constant warfare between each other, invasions, conquests, and migrations.
Even Hispanics originating from Hispania – that’s Spain and Northwest Africa – are part white and whatever else after mixing with the local natives – another example of “interracial” inevitability. Look at other parts of the world.
How many people from Asia and the Middle East have Mongolian, Seljuk Turk, or Mughal in them? How many people alone are descended from Genghis Khan today? How many people in Western Europe, Russia, etc have Scandinavian Viking in them? Yes, the Japanese and Han Chinese might be their own exceptions.
Racial purity isn’t necessarily good or bad, but it’s unlikely somewhere like the US where you’ve had various waves of immigration. Yes, people do stick to their own groups, but plenty will look for love elsewhere and where it’s most easily available. (Not to exclude opportunity, work, education, etc.)
Acknowledging racial, ethnic, gender, etc differences is important. Ignoring them doesn’t make any of it go away. James Damore was fired for daring to talk about it.
If we don’t, we will never be able to improve our lot, or those around us. Dave Rubin did an interview with Stefan Molyneux on the subject, and while I’m not sure I place the same stake in “IQ” tests that he does, it’s worth watching to see how it affects how we live. (Criticism from a left-leaning source here.)
Acknowledging racial and ethnic differences doesn’t mean we need to sterilize “low IQ” people or thrust some crazy eugenic influence into law like the early social progressives tried to do with their social Darwinism.
It simply means that we need to address what we know. Now there’s plenty of insanity in this category with lots of supposed “pseudo-science” being clung around, but regardless the more we talk about it, the better it can be vetted.
There’s this idea that high IQ people have no flaws and are always ideal to a countries prosperity and success. Sure, they are important, but their penchant to do evil with their brilliance is also a possibility. Low IQ types may resort to crime, but many don’t and won’t.
Africa might have some of the lower IQ averages, but it’s more of an indication of constant and complete population displacement and a lack of exposure and well traveled trade routes that facilitate the exchange of knowledge and eventual academic undertaking.
Give some place like Uganda relative peace, 500 years of generations being exposed to a consistent 8th grade level education, majority of the populace being literate and watch what happens. Europe, the Middle East, or Asia didn’t magically build universities, hospitals, ect in 100 years.
It’s going to take time for the 3rd world to get to a 2nd world level. Unfortunately for Africa, the corruption that is so innate to MANY of the cultures of African countries – and the governments there -will test to see if it’s possible. Perhaps the worldview shift taking place in parts of Africa – the rise of Christianity – will start to have an effect on the corrupt culture.
Don’t forget the kind of effect Christianity had on the culture and peoples of the Germanic tribes, Gauls, Franks, Danes, and even the Vikings. Look at what Sweden became – or virtually all of Europe for that matter. It didn’t happen overnight.
Ideas have consequences, regardless of the culture they are from. If there’s anything history tells us, it’s that certain ideas – often many of those in the Anglosphere, some in Asia, and others in Europe and the Americas can uplift a society.
The Middleast is stuck where it is for a reason, despite dominance up to the mid 17th century. An industrial revolution and the ideas necessary for it never took old. The same can be said for most of Africa.
With the introduction of the internet and incredible easy accessible means to learn, share, and obtain information, that may change. However, it will take at least several generations for those changes to start to take root and have results.
You can’t have a cohesive stable functional identity based on race. You can have one based on commonalities, but race doesn’t quite fit the bill here. Brazilians don’t have much in common with the Venezuelans, the Poles with the English, the Japanese with the Vietnamese, the Nigerians with the Somali, etc.
Even similar ethnicities like the Belgian Walloons and Flemmings don’t have much in common, despite sharing the same country. Old ties die hard.
A “white” ethnostate is not just a stupid idea – considering what alt right whites like Spencer and ultra liberal whites like Michael Moore have in common, but an impractical one. It’s just as dumb as any other racial ethnostate. The modern world and means of travel make it an impossible one.
Also the constant melding of people over time means one wont know who is necessarily white, black, brown, asian ect over time if the Hispanics – who are partially white just from their spanish roots – are already demonstrating. The “mutt” of various European blood which intermixed will soon happen here on an even bi-racial scale here.
Sure, you might be able to form an identity based on who you are comfortable living next to, but spend some time in urban, rural, and everywhere in between and you’ll find out how different the world is.
Yes, we are tribal. I feel loyalty to men in the manosphere, as well as some of those in the dissident right, but my familial obligations and loyalty come first – even more so than I thought.
Right there is where you form your identity. Family isn’t necessarily biological and blood related – it’s the close friends, often in similar circles, you make over your lifetime that become like blood. This is where we must start.
A lady on the morning news is a few streets down from me showing everyone the prevalent and widespread flooding from recent vicious storms. She talks to a few people nearby I’ve never met before. Two of the girls want to drive through a newly created pond to grab breakfast. Another guy is closely watching his half submerged house for flooding in critical areas. I don’t know any of these people, yet they are my neighbors.
Another day, another Trump headline. Some shootings in Chicago again. Crazy stories and revelations on the Drudge Report about a Russian lawyer no one’s ever heard of. CNN with shady coverage. Cringeworthy topless feminists trying to break up a Woody Allen concert.
Virtually every story I come across that I give attention to has no effect on my daily life. I “know” so much about what’s going on all over the world and nation, but just until today, I had no idea how bad the flooding damage was in my neighborhood and in nearby towns. In fact, I barely know what’s going on in people’s lives. Yes, I am busy creature with my wife and kids, but it’s far easier to share a Facebook status or meme than it is to get involved locally.
Plus I get to virtue signal to my own group that I’m woke. I’ve done my duty for the day and can avoid paying any more attention to the depressing hitsquad media circus in the current year. Of course, I’m able to do this because my life isn’t terribly hard at the moment.
I used to think that the majority of Americans are apathetic to the “important” stuff happening in the world and nation – and to some extent I still think that’s true – but how much can you care about riots in Berkeley when your basement is flooded and everything you had down there is trashed?
We often ask why all these sheeple don’t care about all the important stuff we know is important, but why should they? When I worked third shift, it was a second job for most of my co-workers. They were working 16 hours a day and sleeping maybe 5 if they were lucky. They didn’t have time, and anything they did wasn’t going to be spent worrying needlessly about things they couldn’t affect. Is it really apathy when they barely have time to sleep?
Time is the ultimate resource, and for all the time I and others bitch about nonsense happening on College campuses to celebrities lecturing us, none of it matters to someone who is spending all their time trying to pump water out of their basement.
I and many of us in this dissident right sphere have ignored our neighbors for national issues. We’ve ignored the struggles, trials, and chaos that plagues those around us to formulate musings, observations, and rants about feminism, social justice blatherings, and vacuous journalism. Say what you want about guys like Jack Donovan, but at least he’s creating his own tribe with which to live his life.
I’m back in Illinois – and looking at moving to Wisconsin the future, and I can’t help but notice that people don’t have time to care when shitholes like Waukegan, Zion, and North Chicago are filled with the hopeless who can’t find jobs, drug pushers on the street, and people begging you for money and cigarettes on every corner. Regardless of whether you loathe or hate Trump, he has no idea who you are and isn’t going to bail you out of your shitty life situation. Neither obviously will his critics.
We keep looking for political saviors to improve our lives, but we find none because the national is never focused or concerned on the local – even more so for your smaller towns. Washington DC doesn’t care about you. Chicago doesn’t care about the small towns in the rest of the state. (There’s a reason urban and rural concerns and voting is so different. )
If we want to convince people to care about the problems that face our future, we have to make their future one that is worth living for. The friends you make are the ones that will hear you out because they know you, care about you, know the investment you have in their lives, and they know you are going through the same crap they are thus forming a mutual identity. No one REALLY cares about those that aren’t like them or in the same plight.
Mark my words, this is what will drive a new cultural class identity – not race or ethnicity. Anyone with brains already knows that there’s little worth preserving in France, that Japan disdains foreigners, and that Europe’s problem’s didn’t come from refugees, but from the terrible bitter fruit of the cursed French Revolution and Enlightenment. But no, let’s blame the Jews and blacks.
Yea we can be woke with our statistics about true crime, but until communities are rebuilt, it’s pointless virtue signaling to our own crowd and arguing with people online who have never met us and consider us loathsome deplorable chem drooling hicks from the Appalachians who apparently deserve to die.
Online persuasion with irritable keyboard happy strangers is a fool’s errand. Until they meet us face-to-face, their hatred will always blind them to the fact that the suffering of people who aren’t a “minority” or marginalized group actually matters.
Stop going to fight AntiFa in Berkeley or some other peaceful, prosperous, and devoid of poverty liberal city. Focus on your neighbors instead. If AntiFa tries to show up to where you live, then fight them there – hopefully with locals and neighbors who don’t care about politics, but see AntiFa as invading scum who are the Fascists they claim to fight.
We want to be on the frontlines “making a difference”, but the frontlines are our OWN communities. That’s where the war has to be “fought”, where it’s always been fought, and it for sure as hell isn’t for those who troll mercilessly on twitter with no attachments to a communities people in real life. It’s for those who are willing to strain their backs, babysit their neighbors kids, and actually get off their damn smartphone and learn that actual face-to-face conversation is what builds trust, community, and stability for the foundations of the future.
Online Movements Are Nothing Without Local Community
Ask yourself, how much do you have in common with those in online communities besides overlapping parts of your worldview? If you perished tomorrow, would you be missed? Would articles be written? By no means should any relationships and friendships formed online be denigrated, but are your forming quality relationships with your neighbors? If a Ferguson erupted in your town, your and your frantic neighbors would share the same terrifying situation.
What’s left of the Alt-right is already proving to be narcissistic feuding degenerates all wanting a piece for themselves and to rule it from their arm chairs, while throwing each other under the bus. The online presence is often just that; online trolls to personalities either spamming books, asking for patreon donations, or meming from sun up to sun down. (I won’t denigrate the meme aspect of the culture war.)
Just as most of us pessimistic types realized, online movements are often corrupted into some warped version of themselves – as the white nationalists among us make clear daily as they obsess about race, race, and more race. Often, I’m wondering if they are just as bitter as the BLM types and what the hell is worth preserving of “white” culture – whatever that means these days besides materialism and perpetually shopping till you drop.
What the alt-right originally undertook – the forming of an identity that could rebuild the crumbling foundations of Western culture – has instead been subverted into a shallow identity of “opposition” to the left. Rather than offer up real solutions – with the exception of Vox Day – it’s been reduced down to infighting, blaming, “big government is great if it helps whites”, and ramblings about IQ.
“Take a group of people – any group of people – and if they lack an explicit purpose for associating, as well as a command and control system to make sure that purpose doesn’t waver, their identity will eventually boil down to the lowest common denominator. And the lowest common denominator for any group is usually the fact that they’re not that other group. Their identity will become something reactionary and negative; by defining themselves as the opposite of that which they oppose, they will eventually allow that other group to define who they are. Often enough, their opposition will do the same thing. Soon enough, you have two groups who are mirror images of one another, fighting one another, and whatever principles or goals that might have started the two groups, are quickly reduced to nothing but slogans, and their former leaders are vilified for holding them back from the fray.”
Even the proposals that do come forth such as Spencer’s white only ethno state aren’t just bad ideas, but will never happen. That of course assumes “white” will mean the same thing in the future as it does today – which means it won’t. What are you left with?
A local community from which you and your neighbors will build an identity. Take everything you learn online and apply it. Avoid repeating the mistakes of your “blue pill” self. History is a great teacher and one that we must constantly come back to for lessons that have stood the test of time.
Our focus must be local. You can’t address your neighbors worldview when his house is falling apart and he doesn’t know where the money is going to come from for his next mortgage payment. Desperation is all around us, but often we are blissfully unaware of it. We forget that the most eager “converts” are those whose lives were previously in shambles, yet now are starting to emerge from the slime and grind of daily life.
No reformation, societal overhaul, or prevention of the fall of what’s left of Western culture will take place until it transforms local communities. Online movements are constantly prone to decay, and ours is no exception. The Neo-Reactionists in our sphere may write as obtuse and high church like manner to keep out entryists and subversion, but they likely will be left behind in their own bubble never pushing the Overton window.
To believe in anything, you must see it impact you and those around you. It is far better to live in happiness with your neighbors then to write in malice toward strangers on either coast. The former will always be with you, while the latter you will never meet. Perhaps we can make the “change” Obama disingenuously never intended.
Another day, another stumble upon a new educational “field” that most of us don’t want to pay 40,000$ to impress our family with. Today’s discovery is that of an older post concerning that social justice culture blog, Vox Populi and “psychopolitics”. (No not Vox Day’s Vox Popol) It starts off rather innocently and ends in an interesting and unintended rabbit hole
In particular the about me “resume” of one of the co-founders, Nisha Gupta, is probably one of the most ironic I’ve ever seen.
“She explores the use of art and social media as interventions to foster societal empathy and bridge differences.”
I’m almost flabbergasted in this could be mistaken for veiled sarcasm, but assuming she isn’t a usurper troll of vast privilege, this is again some rather real irony.
Since when has social media ever been used as a means to foster social empathy on targeted heretics? Memories Pizza anyone? Donglegate? The call-out culture social justice warriors use doesn’t bridge differences, it exacerbates them. It eliminates the “civilians” and turns everyone into front-line soldiers that are essentially cannon fodder with no training. They never expect the war, but it doesn’t stop their lives from being turned into WW1 no-man land’s shell shocked moonscapes.
Maybe I’m reading into this, but “interventions” on social media are more like inquisition racks. Someone is called out, and everyone shames them for at least a 48 hour period. Perhaps, that is the entire point. Now the interventions she desires are far more devious in nature and not just limited to those on social media. To understand this, you have to enter the underground manifesto like world of “Psychopolitics.”
What In The Hell Is Pyschopolitics?
“Psychopolitics“ is an apt description for “Clinical Psychology” that deals with the impact of social justice in that it’s often rather psycho in the treatment of the supposed bad privileged people perpetuating those worldwide social injustices.
I didn’t exaggerate the psycho nature of “psychopolitics.”
Most of us who live and interact in the non safe-space real world probably have never of this term. I sure as hell hadn’t. A necessary google search turned up a rather nasty and blunt summary of “Psychopolitics.” on the first page.
“Asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses…”
Well, at least it’s honest.
Here’s a fun summary from Pyschopolitics on the subject with the same name, of which is some kind of communist manual on conquering populations.
“A psycho politician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of “mental healing.” He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of “mental healing.” He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of “mental healing” until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.”
Substitute “communist” for Social Justice Warrior, even though alot of SJWs would embrace the principles of communism if not the label outright. Mental healing can be substituted for fostering social empathy. Try doing some more substitutions below:
“A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of ‘mental healing.’ He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of ‘mental healing.’ He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of ‘mental healing’ until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.
To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every ‘home-grown’ variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented ‘healing’ remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of ‘psychology.’ You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.”
“The interdisciplinary nature of psychopolitical validity lends itself to empowerment studies and social change  and could potentially be a useful construct in other critical disciplines within the academy. Prilleltensky and Fox suggest that psychopolitical validity should be institutionalized as a method of preventing wellness and justice from being discussed in isolation. This type of validity brings the two concepts together and politicizes the concept of wellness promotion.”
Anyone else seeing that mutual connection or should I say synonym-like exchange between “mental healing” and “wellness promotion?” But why focus on the mental wellness fields for interdisciplinary reasons?
The definition which I assume comes from Prilleltensky is rather telling:
“Psychopolitical validity refers to the extent to which studies and interventions in the community integrate (a) knowledge with respect to multidisciplinary and multilevel sources, experiences, and consequences of oppression, and (b) effective strategies for promoting psychological and political liberation in the personal, relational, and collective domains…”
The use of this word and what it means to Social Justice advocates is telling. It’s just yet another example of how important the war over words in our culture and the connotation of who uses them is so important.
That cushy and noble concept of “liberation” in social justice speak is yet another code for the chaos and resulting domination mentioned from the Pyschopolitics website. By liberating the “mental health” and wellness fields, they seek to destroy it and then rebuild it in their own god-like image with their own definitions, experts, and influence . Note, this is the exact same thing that’s happened to much of higher academia since the last 1840s and Horace Mann and John Dewey didn’t even try to hide the social conditioning element to the education they had planned for the country’s malleable youth.
A rise in what psychologists could consider “disorders” these days might be more political in nature then we realize. If you are deemed to have any kind of mental disorder – a list that is expanding exponentially every year – there are alot of fields, jobs, and other lifestyle choices you would be excluded from as well as numerous amounts of medication you would constantly need to swallow.
You of course can’t run for political office because you aren’t mentally “well” in the social justice definition of psychology. For one, you most certainly can’t own a firearm. (In fact, in states where I live like Illinois, just 1 out of 10 doctors declaring you mentally unstable or “mentally retarded” is enough to ensure that you can never legally own a firearm.) You also might be excluded from certain public places, buildings, and jobs because of the “risk” you might present.
Any dissenting opinions could be considered a disorder of some kind and those of course are expensive and MUST be treated. The pills, clinics, therapy, and health services would ensure financial profitability. On the trendy side, at least the new normal will be to not be normal – which would include a large segment of the population.
If you think about about it, this is exactly what social justice advocates are trying to in every sphere of life today. Diversity of opinion isn’t for those who have “privilege” and individuals who step out of line and they would need to be subjected to accepted thoughtspeak and wellness promotion to get them back to mental health.
A New Impending Attack
Look at who controls much of mental health institutions and it probably only a matter of time before the concept of “mental healing” takes on a very ideological underside. Maria Konnikova made the case about how dominant those of liberal persuasion have become in the higher academia departments of Psychology point in her article, “Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans?” for TheNewYorker They of course hold that field of “study” with an iron fist. (Again an example that absolute power corrupts absolutely.)
“Explain to students that psychology is not always value free. Modern psychology is often framed as a science that uses empirical methods to advance knowledge about the mind, the brain, and behavior in an objective manner. However, students also should understand that psychologists’ worldviews shape the questions we pose in research, the strategies we use to answer those questions, and how we understand phenomena.
For example, most psychological research uses quantitative methods. Students learn to conduct quantitative studies in research methods courses; instructors most often rely on quantitative findings to inform their lectures. Psychology instructors can teach about qualitative research that models greater power-sharing between researchers and participants through its open-ended questioning and community immersion (Kidder & Fine, 1997). Moreover, qualitative research can advance social justice by amplifying the voices of research participants, particularly people who have been mischaracterized by psychology and broader society, such as women, people of color, and sexual minorities.”
Whenever SJWs talk about “amplifying” marginalized voices, they really mean is that you would give far more emphasis, validity, and credibility to those specific voices and the research they produce – often of very dubious scientific nature. Alot of the early “privilege” theory comes from what is known as “Standpoint Theory” along with “Muted-Group Theory” which is basically the idea that because marginalized minority voices haven’t gotten enough voice in history – a mistaken and false conclusion – researchers, teachers, and society overall must give much more attention to said voices then any other ones. Essentially, those minority marginalized voices must be given 70% or more of the attention and the scraps will be distributed among the rest until society is “balanced” Note, no SJW knows or has even formulated a position as to when that actually will occur so luckily for them, that horse can always be beaten for eternity.
For those of you who don’t know, I was raised as a Christian. In fact, I still retain many elements of a Christian worldview. However, it would be disingenuous to call myself one considering I am not practicing nor embracing key parts of the faith. I am still highly sympathetic to the overall Christian community
To be honest, I’m not completely sure what I believe. Most of those who leave the faith usually do for reasons of outright rebellion. It is fair to say that I am in a rebellion of sorts, but I still don’t see it as a enough of a reason to completely throw out my worldview.
My “deviation” from the faith has taken place within the last year or so and has been for mostly carnal reasons – engaging in pre-marital sex and a kind of enjoyable narcissism – yet I remain very conflicted. I enjoy my current life of sinful pleasure, to the point of willful rebellion, but I am fully aware of it.
My father raised me with a Christian worldview, specifically one that deals. heavily with presuppositional thinking – something that I filter every idea through. It has caused me to become somewhat of a philosopher at heart. I’ve looked for alternatives to the faith, but I have not found any viable ones. I know I am not alone in this predicament.
Most of my friends who became Atheists, Agnostics, or whatever else did so for the reason as to be absolved of responsibility to a specific moral authority. They are essentially advocates of a moral relativism that allows them to do whatever they wish at this particular time. I see why they do this and it is an easy route. I however feel that is shallow.
At my core, I am desperate for a worldview that isn’t dependent on human reason for it’s moral standards, its tenants, and its suggested purpose of life. Because of this, I find the concept of appealing to human reason through human reason to be circular logic and foolish.
The problem for me is that if I ditch religion, science can’t actually provide me with answers to the major questions of reality, not to mention that science is totally useless on moral questions. One person pointed this idea out on a comment thread:
“Science, properly defined and understood, explicitly refuses to even get involved in the most important questions. Life, the Universe, Everything. Science stops with a firm thud at the Big Bang, saying nothing at all about what came before or even if that question is even a meaningful one. Science can’t come to grips with Why.“
Currently I am at this odd crossroads of depressing philosophical thought: If there is no absolute truth of any kind – might makes right. Influence, power, and money make right. The implication is too scary for me to accept. Instead I suggest like the X-Files says, “The Truth Is Out There.” I really hope it is.
I have come to ponder upon the idea that life is short. I could die tomorrow. Any of us could.
I am not daft however.
What To Do?
I don’t want to live as a hedonistic narcissist because of this acknowledgment, but I also want to enjoy every last second I have – while still planning and anticipating the future. Yes, I feel as if I am consumed by cognitive dissonance.
In the Bible, the first chapter of Ecclesiastes covers the concept of vanity, something that has created in me a philosophical mood and outlook that is seriously and worryingly quite pessimistic.
16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.
18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Hate the Bible or not, this is a valid and important point. The more “knowledge” we acquire, the more despondent and pessimistic we become. Getting that college degree, large house with a white picket fence, a family and children, ect seems almost useless and vain. What’s the point? Shouldn’t I just become a complete hedonist and live every moment like it’s my last?
We all die at some point. Nothing can go with us, and we have no idea if there is any kind of afterlife or not.
This disturbs me because the idea of an afterlife is often the only thing that inspires people to be “good” – and I shudder at how relative the idea of what is “good” has become in modern society. In the modern world, “good” is simply determined by who has the biggest megaphone on social media and who is driving the current accepted cultural narrative of “good.” That is comforting, and yes, anyone with a brain can see that the assertion I just made is correct.
People mention we are progressing in concern to humanity and what is “good”, but no one seems to have a destination in mind as to exactly where we are progressing. I.E. -” Like in art when a work is described as ‘significant’ – Significant of what?”
If good is as relative as everyone these days insist it is – because absolute truth is such a dangerous concept – then what is there to stop us from evil besides the threat of punishment from a government for whatever is accepted as “evil” in our current time?
Quintus Curtius from the manosphere brings up an important point about this:
Man cannot be exhorted to do good by words alone; he must be held in the grip of terror by a religion that promises damnation if he misbehaves. Religion provides the backing to a moral code that rises above man; the myths, fables , and stories of religion are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to impart a moral code that can keep man’s baser instincts in check.
“He also needs myths to sustain him, to console him in his bereavements, to provide a code to anchor his life, and to impart a sense of meaning to this mortal existence. Snatch away his mythos, rob him of his ideal, and you banish his spirit to a rudderless drifting in life’s drama.It is a cruel fate, and one that is far too common. But for some men, the myth is strong. And it is the last thing to die.”
As the great Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer would say, “How then should we live?” Like Shaeffer, I desire an absolute of some kind – in his case the Bible – as to which I can conduct my life and evaluate society. There is an interesting point about Schaeffer’s interpretation of the moral quandary impacting modern society in his, “How Then Should We Live” series:
“When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”, all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism. Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.“
I am feeling this despair. I don’t know honestly know how to solve it, but I fear that the longer I go without an answer, the more worried I become about my future. I want to retain the Christian faith that I had, but the “faith” part is lacking.
I am eagerly exploring “alternatives”, but there seems to be no worldview out there which doesn’t require a fundamental leap of faith at its core to begin it’s particular journey. Yes, science can give us facts, but it can’t answer metaphysical issues nor these two questions which pop into my head every day:
What is my purpose in this life? How should I live my life knowing that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed?
In fact, where do I go from here? What do I do? How should I live? Is there any conclusion whatsoever that isn’t fallible and based on the assumption of humanity? I have become stuck in a circular spacial vacuum of uncertainty and I don’t like it.
Abortions. You as conservatives like those. In fact, if you see someone you know has a very opposing ideology – Demand Abortion! Yea, I said that. Note everything I just said and what I’m about to say is deliberately facetious. In fact, I feel kind of bad, but making the prior statement is important because of ideological spectrum. This is of course coming from a libertarian who is just pointing out basic demographics.
Have any of us considered the population demographics that occur when a particular group of people have children and and another don’t? Look at Europe. In fact look at the U.S. and the current Hispanic population. If your a conservative, the best way to win the abortion debate “politically” is to simply have less ideological opponents (neo-progressive liberals.) that are actually alive and thus able to vote.
Usually parents are the most influential factor in shaping the worldview of their offspring. Shocking right? Now in order for that to happen, they actually have to keep those children, not kill them a few months into pregnancy. Oh, and they need to actually invest in their education and not send them off to the public schools where they will become good little progressives instead of being infused with a worldview their parents would rather prefer.
So, who usually tends to have abortions? People who vote liberal. (Or don’t vote at all.) Who doesn’t? Usually anyone who is a self-described conservative. Well, what does this mean?!?! It means that in a few generations, there won’t be any liberals left, or at least no-one who espouses their particular ideology that focuses so heavily on abortion and all the other “stuff” that conservatives so vehemently disagree with. So here’s a rather nasty thought; encourage all of your liberal friends to have abortions. Tons of em. Just emphasize the “no kids” part and remember to keep your own kids out of the public school system.
Eventually there won’t be any liberals left. It might take a while, but the game is always won in the long-run right? I’m sure liberals must have already realized this to some degree if Europe is any indication. Perhaps not.