Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Liberals Were Smarter Faster: The Emotional Maturity Process

The longer view, the view of, dare I say, maturity, is to consider not whether or not Rome will fall, not whether or not America will demographically recover itself--recover itself to the stage of being initially predestined for collapse, as it were, we remind ourselves, but at least there are a couple thousand years of random markets to provide for materialistic wiggle room to the mercantilistally lucky--but instead, the processes whereby we're seeing this same story again.

Never mind. Focus on the mundane. No one cares about systems; they prefer minutiae and celebrity. Posit, instead, an American high school in 19X0. Jimmy the lineman loves the Packers, follows football avidly, follows baseball, is mildly interested in basketball, and is eligible to date the second- and third-most attractive cheerleaders at school. His archetypal contrast is Eugene, who doesn't know or care anything about football, was once in the science club before it got canceled for lack of funding, and is gently snubbed by the principal at the homecoming festival. Eugene can't run the 400 without getting winded to a walk, is too gawky to get a date from the overweight exchange student, and spends his spare time reading books about elf maidens or playing elf-based fantasy. By 20XX, the situation has apparently reversed itself: Jimmy lost his job at the docks, put on the bad kind of weight, and spends most of his time on the couch nursing a bad knee. He's still watching the Packers--still a big fan--he's a member of a couple of fantasy football groups on the internet (common comparison to Eugene's earlier habits), and all the women he's eligible to date are heavyset chain-smokers on disability after getting beat up by that black dude they met in the service. Eugene, who now goes by Gene, is, in the exaggerated world, head of a multi-billion-dollar software company and screwing a new supermodel every week--or, more realistically, is a mid-level software engineer in California, making a couple hundred K, traveling the world, and dating reasonably pretty Chinese women in their late twenties or early thirties.

We all get that comparison, right? School integration, the Hart-Celler Act, the Great Society, pedagogical brainwashing, the profusion of toxic movies, the deracinating of the West--whatever you want to call it--turned Jimmy and Gene into enemies, locked in a battle that Jimmy was always doomed to lose, but which always seemed, from within the insane asylum of America's inmate-run prison-schools, like a system designed for Jimmy's benefit.

The example teases out a lot of concepts, whether true or false. Jimmy is portrayed as an old-style male, a relic from a hypothetical caveman and/or warrior era, where his early prowess at being large and bumping into things was an evolutionary advantage (or so we think when we idealistically hypothesize about what "our" past was "like"). Emotion-driven women see Jimmy early on as an exciting mate, and are willing to screw him because of birth control, thereby destroying (through four or five or a hundred Jimmies) their ability to bond with a future provider-husband, meaning that by the time Jimmy is 40, those women are all fat and/or emotionally-destroyed. Gene is initially rejected by the outdated biology of old-world women, but when he comes into his own, his provider abilities prove themselves to be the new primary considerations, and he can date or marry better (ergo, theoretically, reproduce his traits) than Jimmy then can. Now, Jimmy is the nerd in a more complicated world. His lifestyle and spending power comparative to Gene's means that he's as irrelevant to Gene's circles as Gene once was to his, and Gene sneeringly ignores the Jimmies he encounters as bartenders and carwash-guys, though with more grace than Jimmy once ignored/harassed him as a nerd in school. While we're at it, maybe porn or birth control or the deracination of the West enables all of these things, by causing sex to lose its sacredness, thereby changing human mating patterns and social organization to wrongly favor Jimmy early, and also, by pitting Jimmy against Gene, when, in actuality, Jimmy and Gene should be acting as longstanding biological allies, with Jimmy physically carrying out Gene's mental schemes, triumphing against their physical and mental counterparts, Abdul and Mohammed, respectively, and therefore getting to share Sally and Cindy, rather than Sally and Cindy putting on burkas for Abdul and Mohammed while turning over their sons to be catamites/Janissaries for Alefantis and Blankfein.

Put that narrative aside for the moment. We're interested in Jimmy and Eugene (or "Gene," as he prefers to go by during his paycheck- and dating-years) not for the racial or sexual angle, but for their use as emotional maturity barometers. We employ their archetypes here to suss out the sense you have of people like them, and more importantly, the developmental processes of people like them.

In his early years, Jimmy was a disinterested Republican. He had a "Hulk smash" philosophy, better understood ergo preferred smaller vocabularies, and liked making fun of people to distract himself from the tautologies upon which he'd based his mental perspective. Gene was, by contrast, a disinterested Democrat, possessing a vague sense of different kinds of people (humans, elves, gnomes, dwarves) coming together to overcome problems with a single level of built-in deception (the royal adviser envies the throne and therefore helps the orcs breach the defenses).

As Jimmy grows older, passing his social peak in the fishbowl of youth prison ("school") and being released into the theoretically larger wild, his interests change. As bosses replace coaches, his presumed talents prove worthless under the rubric of modernity (boy, it would feel great to punch someone who wrote that sentence, wouldn't it?), and he develops something of a dissatisfaction with his earlier pastimes, Jimmy at some point graduates to the emotional maturity level of a young Gene. The growing Jimmy encounters taxes and politics with a more intense vicariosity--via electronic media, yet to him it appears personal because he's decided to care more than he did earlier. This reaffirms Jimmy's earlier beliefs, and he becomes more educated than he was before, partaking in lowest-brow consumer content and believing himself, thereby, as or more educated than Gene. Jimmy thinks that, because he now reads, and occasionally reads studies--maybe even studies that accurately critique whatever studies Gene reads--he is now more informed than Gene and those like Gene. He begins to celebrate knowledge, and what he imagines is the tradition of his people's knowledge, and believes that his more vicarious expression of what he believes to be a tradition is more real than Gene's. In 2017, maybe Jimmy even loses the weight and could, absent the police, kick Gene's ass.

Jimmy's later years see him a more interested "conservative," while Gene has a chance of becoming either a conservative intellectual or a liberal intellectual. Of perceived necessity, they both end up in roughly the same place, namely a congenital chronic stasis of the western mind, wherein world history is ideatically restructurable in a way that affirms the pragmatism of limited actionablism, e.g., holding opinions, commenting, and, to a lesser extent, voting, as expressions of exemplified philosophy. This is the perfect nadirous place for citizens of a democratic-republic to end up, inasmuch as it validates the status of the individual's own grappling with the concepts of free will and self actualization plus the perceived constraints of biology and society; more simply, both Jimmy and Gene must believe that certain things are right, certain things are wrong, certain things must be done and not done, and yet they both must disregard these beliefs in order to function as somewhat-rational genetic/economic actors inasmuch as they pursue self- and geno-beneficial policies, rather than the ones which their ideologies would otherwise command of them if actually believed in. A good modern example is their respective beliefs that evil elements are taking over their countries, yet their correspondingly respective behavioral sets of pursuing change via opinion-repeating, essentially conceding to whatever would've happened anyway, but placing themselves on the good side of whatever conflict they believe is playing out, whether or not the good side is the winning side.

The ultimate differences between conservatives and liberals, including ones who consider themselves extreme or radical, are, from due perspective, not so great as the subjects themselves would prefer to believe; they're essentially the same people with different marketing cues, willing to accept the passive powerlessness of ideatic self-positioning in an imagined epic struggle which fits into what they think of as history. Actual participants in the political process--specifically the tiny percentage of agenda-setters (which does not include, even in a small way, the character actors most broadly considered to be participants) and major-event-causers (false flag character-actors not included)--are unwanted, their existence carefully disbelieved in lest it shatter the illusion of the significance of the nothingness in which the pretending mass engages (to whit, this blog's drivel). The standard liberal or conservative, in the modally European West, hates and fears the more direct actor, who--for selfless or selfish or dutifully servile reasons--actively participates in affecting history. The proverbial Osama bin Laden, who theoretically gives up a life of proverbial wealth to be sacrificed for a cause; or, more literally, the Dylann Roof, the Mike Brown (he tried his best!), the Timothy McVeigh, the Mumia Abu Jamal, or other "money where your mouth is" types, who express through their narratives, whether physically expressed in actuality or concocted in the depths of Columbia and real only inasmuch as the tablet portrays them, the logical and necessary conclusions of whatever philosophies their onlookers theoretically support. The hollow empire, the rising tide of color, the mass incarceration state, the System, the rayciss cops: all theoretically advocated and believed in from various edges of the imaginary spectrum, and all necessarily demanding the actions taken by the proverbial media figures mentioned above; yet, somehow, the Charlie-Brownish wishy-washiness of the modern western onlooker, the modern western commentator, is to deplore the un-pragmatic taking of actual actions which they theoretically believe in, even in the face of an extreme system which they also theoretically believe in. Like global warming believers or abortion opponents who haven't already been disappeared or been given 20 to life for attacking power plants and/or infant slaughterhouses, the "these are the massacres, this is the end of the world" viewpoints are similarly shallow lies in the manner of the "Trump Nazi" and/or "Trump Savior" approaches to one's internet- and/or property-destruction-based activism. We deride Mike Brown and Dylann Roof for their more visceral approach to their beliefs, yet they are not the aberrations; we, for the nothingness of our supposed passions, are the twisted dead-ends of physical evolution, unable to breach the walls of complacency to act as Brown and Roof, and the majority of humans throughout perceived evolutionary history who felt occupied or threatened, have done.

Western liberals are, nonetheless, ahead of western conservatives in their consistencies. The conservatives now, the alt-right, like to trumpet the historicity of their viewpoints vis-à-vis liberals, e.g., "We're true to our heritage." Nonsense, of course: liberals are the true conservatives, in the sense that they have paid good attention to their elders and adapted well to the traditions of their tribe. Like successful reproducers in social species for tens of thousands of years, the "liberals" who absorbed the propaganda of the past generation(s) and riot in favor of it are more conservative than the "conservatives" who liberally appropriate the liberally-expressed baddies of history (segregationists, triangle-traders, colonists, crusaders, et cetera) as their paladins. "Liberally-expressed" because the usual suspects directed the crafting of the "Evil-West" history, and their fabrication of the straw-villains of that history was meant to be embraced by the managed rebellion we're seeing now, ergo that embrace by today's conservatives will prove as harmful and as incorrect as the embrace, by today's liberals, of the earlier straw-hero.

Back to ahead-ness. Back to Jimmy and Gene. Gene was the true conservative, adhering to what he falsely but rationally believed were his tribe's traditions. The pedagogical and media system, and the corrupted Boomer and Silent Generation parents who enabled and permitted it; their portrayal of history as it resulted in the birthing of Gene the Ethnic and Social Successor: those were Gene's teachers, and his earlier ability to pay attention and understand the subtle and overt messages of that worldview made him initially vulnerable to liberalism and intellectualism, while Jimmy's comparative inability made him identify with the radical outsider presented by that history, e.g., the dunce segregationist. Gene and Jimmy may later share recognition of the rational portions of the thinking process behind the segregationist-as-dunce; Gene, though, if he stays true to what he believes are his traditions in spite of the occupation by throwback segregationists, proves himself more conservative, by comparison, than Jimmy's pseudo-reactionist embrace of prior-stage subversion. Various forms of scientism or paganism are more traditional, also by comparison, to what Jimmy now believes in.

We reach there a curious contradiction, whereby, in general, those who are initially more intelligent are more vulnerable to cultural subversion, and those who are less intelligent are more immune. The lingering tradition of scientific objectivity causes some researchers to experience what they perceive as intra-traditional conflict, wherein the tradition of western humanities seems to be at odds with the tradition of western objectivity; in example, consider the true psychologist or geneticist forced to disagree with the gender-studies-ist on the basis of facts rather than feelings. This conflict aides the low-functioning in perceiving a problem with "the humanities," or with liberalism and openness itself. The Jimmy-ish masses see no problem, therefore, in lower-vocabulary chest-pounding, seeing it via enemy-of-my-enemy schema, which types of thinking encourage them to embrace the struggle against older traditional thought which made possible objectivity's onetime triumph over chest-pounding.

This contradiction, and the struggle to which it leads, reveals a greater triumph of evil over "the West" than merely the addition of a century or so of judicially-enforced black-on-white crime. Liberal poltroonism and idiocy, so wildly on display now, is by demonstration a strike at the western humanities themselves, which made possible the realness of STEM, and its tentative triumph over might making right. The liberals whom we now see embarrassing themselves are indeed shameful, echoing the public stupidities of the conservative dullards who fought on behalf of the Bank's inbred, tax-farming Dubyas in the "Enlightenment." Dīvide et īmpera indeed, played over the centuries.

Sadly, with the liberal scraps, goes actual "liberalism." Not in the tainted sense of the word as we know it now, but in the pre-invasion sense of gods and statues and aqueducts, farming progress, and investigations into the nature of reality; the transition from Big Man science to individual, and permission to consider. Jimmy does not realize that his football, so to speak, depends on the opposing team not stabbing him the night before. Just as Gene fails to recognize that Aztecs will not be taught to independently clean or save, Jimmy's own 2017 triumph is as empty, and retrospectively foolish, as Gene's Enlightenment.

4 comments:

  1. the transition from Big Man science to individual, and permission to consider.

    Color me baffled. Long version?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Big Man science" could refer to two things:

      1) A hypothetical premodern science whereby things were investigated only in order to make a hypothetical tribal leader look good, and unrelated or contrary ideas dismissed; or,

      2) An actual Christian science whereby things were investigated only or primarily in order to prove that and/or how the Nicean Torah/Gospels were correct.

      Under either model, the consideration of topics which make the Big Man (upstairs or otherwise) look wrong or bad is prohibited. In 2017 some of us laugh at the idea of premoderns and/or ancients who would've shied away from such inquiry, because centuries of the humanities have gradually (and tentatively) accustomed some of us to being willing to consider the idea that, occasionally, an off-the-bandwagon approach might be correct. This exploit allowed things like military-enforced tax-base-funding of nadirs to occur, which is causing simpletons to view inquiry itself as negative, missing the point that it is the exploitation of inquiry for laundering which is causing the real harm, not inquiry itself. Our ability to question ourselves, even on forbidden topics, has been bred out slowly but surely. We've reached a point where non-STEM departments and the laboring classes are both partly correct in their negative assessments of the other group, and neither with the emotional strength to do more than, at best, hop between bandwagons.

      (Really simplistically put, one is frightened of data showing Africans really are more violent regardless of all potential controlling factors, while another is frightened of data showing the Torah was plagiarized.)

      Delete
  2. That's good. Didn't get whether Big Man was the self or the other. Own ego directly vs own ego via affiliation/supplication/affirmation.

    "Permission to consider" because really an expert or authority of some type must give prior approval (editorial control)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't really disconsider self-editorialship from the answer to that question.

      Delete