From:
intraphase@gmail.com
On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:33:15 PM UTC-4, Jeremy H. Denisovan wrote:
Some people might as well flip a coin...
for all the real insight that goes into anything they do.
Heck, at least a coin flip is nice and SIMPLE. :)
Then again, I suppose you can parlay one flip into a million?
Sure you can.
And then pretend all outcomes were 'meant to be'.
("Oooh, sick burn, bro.")
Let's call this one 'future death of the Trump supporter': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn1adoNaJcA
.
"No Country For Old Men" is a unique piece of cinema.
Each of the three characters carries a distinct set of internal "rules."
When they violate the structure of their own internal system they pay a price.
I posit that all conflict in this world is generated by those who despise conflict as a way of keeping the "outrage addicts" trapped in "flash mobs." There are very few grey hats that truly understand the white & black hats
need to engage in predator verses prey behavior. A need to self intoxicate
on emotion, and moral calculus equations of money, power, status and position, instead of cold abstract acceptance of this worlds brutal violent toll on every
being that passes through it. A sense of the common plagues of existence.
The movie hits the above paragraphs themes hammer to nail.
Just before the accident scene, that character broke his own system's rules.
He gave his word to kill, but then went back on it, by introducing an element of chance, an "act of mercy" compared to the inevitability of following his system of rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-iQldPiH64
Earlier he confronts another bounty hunter on that theme.
https://youtu.be/GKiuC_p16ps?t=1m47s
I'm in league with the gist of this article.
Summarized: the real battle is between the 130-160 IQ's as refereed by AI.
This world and its inhabitants unknowingly falling into the trap of conflicting rules systems that exploit the flaws or unbalanced contradictions of their own internalized models of reality. The only way to win is not to play, and avoid emotional intoxication that derails the reality of birth life and death being
a brutal, violent struggle for everyone trapped in this world. The USA founders
understood only a consensus based and ratified rules system could keep man's darker nature from prevailing. Our civilization is close to foreclosing on its own sanity in
favor of death by science fiction and emotional fantasia.
The final scene from "No Country For Old Men"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNfxK5Q2Qg
Great portrait of the conflict of existence in dreams.
[]
The Genocidal Elite, Part III: The Trail of ‘White Tears’
Sarah Jeong and her defenders in the media truly have given America a gift. Where once it was only dark speculation that media elites, at best, are ambivalent toward openly genocidal and bigoted statements about white Americans, now we are certain that
these sentiments exist.
We know, too, that the most common defense of these sentiments—that they cannot possibly lead to any sort of bad situation, because the privilege of whites is simply too impregnable for attacks on them to land—is deeply flawed. Anti-white rhetorical
excesses can and do lead to terrible human rights abuses, and are often used to
justify them, particularly in countries with weaker economies and non-white majorities such as South Africa.
For the New York Times, a paper with a global reach, to normalize such rhetoric
by placing someone who spews it on their editorial board at the same time they blacklist people for much tamer statements about other races is cavalier and uninformed at best.
Further, it suggests that our elite are already prepared to make excuses in case of third world style interracial violence against white citizens. As I noted at the end of my last piece in this series:
[W]hat South Africa shows us is something grimmer: namely, a society where elite status is such a blinder on the wealthiest people of one race that they willingly ignore policies and behaviors that approach genocidal character against what Dickens
would have called “their hungry brothers in the dust.” A society where an arrogant elite assumes that its status is so impregnable that they can tolerate
hate speech, violence, and persecutory policies explicitly directed at all people like them,
just because they assume their own privilege is so great that tolerating that behavior is magnanimous. In other words, a society where Hannah Arendt’s notion of the “banality of evil” is inflicted not by one race against outsiders, but by one race
against others like themselves out of sheer indifference, contempt, or desire to reinforce their own status.
This is not only an attitude that we have to fear here, but an attitude I believe already exists among today’s elite. In this piece, I will attempt to establish the existence of this attitude, to explain it, and to provide a warning about how it could
become increasingly problematic in the face of future American demographic trends.
Anti-White Sentiment is Real
Let’s start with establishing this worldview’s existence. In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, a #NeverTrump acquaintance of mine made the following complaint about President Trump’s successful in-roads with the white working class,
particularly in the Second Congressional District of Maine:
The thing that saddens me about this is that I’d rather these people vote
Democrat so that they don’t get a say in the Republican party. Better yet, that they had no home at all.
He continued, “They’re like the Palestinians in Gaza. Neither Egypt nor Israel wants them or benefits from having them. Likewise, ‘white working class’ Trump voters and both major parties. It would be better for everyone if they were ghettoized
into their own little insignificant faction.”
Normally, I’d have dismissed this as the out of touch ranting of one bitter crank. Surely, not even #NeverTrump could be this tone deaf, right?
Wrong. In the time that followed, no less an entity than Bill Kristol ranted that the “lazy” white working class should be replaced by immigrants who weren’t “spoiled” by American standards of living. Leftists, meanwhile, have been even more
cruel, claiming that any sort of care for the white working class is “racist,” and that those who voted for Trump were motivated solely by xenophobia and bigotry, not by any form of economic anxiety that might deserve empathy, and that akshually, the
white working class were more likely to vote for Clinton so neener neener neener.
Perhaps MTV was the most blatant in its contempt, blaming Trump’s rise on “white tears”—a far Left mocking phrase meant to imply that the sorrows and concerns of white voters should be treated not only as irrelevant, but are also contemptible,
particularly when compared to the concerns of nonwhites. Meanwhile, Melinda Byerley, founder of the Silicon Valley-based company Timeshare CMO, described middle America as “a shithole with stupid people,” and accused the people living there of being
violent and racist.
This level of elite contempt for a struggling group of their fellow citizens is
not normal, and it is not remotely healthy. Elites are meant to set an example in society: that’s the point of having elites in the first place. When the population at
large no longer sees elites as legitimate, and has a pretty damn good point, that’s a problem. When the elites respond by treating the population at large
as if they’re the ones who are illegitimate, that is catastrophic.
What Are the Origins of Anti-White Sentiment?
So how, exactly, did we get here? To understand this, we must look to that most
controversial piece of social science, The Bell Curve, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Many dismiss the book as a piece of racist, pseudo-scientific crankery, but
for our purposes, the section of The Bell Curve that we have to look at has nothing to do with race.
At the end of the book, Herrnstein and Murray warn of the following tendencies that are likely to accrue from the way America educates and socializes its “cognitive elite”:
1. An increasingly isolated cognitive elite
2. A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent
3. A deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive ability distribution
“Unchecked,” Herrnstein and Murray warn, “these trends will lead the U.S.
toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the
rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. Among the other casualties of this process would be American civil society as we have
known it.”
In other words, that impregnable social privilege that Jeong’s defenders are talking about may not be whiteness at all, but intelligence.
What are the the ways in which this might manifest? Murray and Herrnstein warn:
“We fear that a new kind of conservatism is becoming the dominant ideology of
the affluent—not in the social tradition of an Edmund Burke or the economic tradition of an
Adam Smith, but ‘conservatism’ along Latin American lines, where to be conservative has often meant doing whatever is necessary to preserve the mansion on the hills from the menace of the slums below…The new coalition is already afraid of the
underclass.” Especially those that live in “shitholes full of stupid people.”
Who in particular will suffer from this? The white underclass. Herrnstein and Murray again: “Much of white resentment and fear of the black underclass has been softened by the complicated mix of white guilt and paternalism that has often led white
elites to excuse behavior in blacks that they would not excuse in whites. This does not mean that white elites will abandon the white underclass, but it does suggest that the means of dealing with their needs are likely to be brusque.”
Brusque, as in, get out of Garbutt, you stupid hick.
Where all of this ends up is with the creation of what Herrnstein and Murray call the “custodial state,” which they describe this way: “a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority
of the nation’s
population, while the rest of America tries to go about its business…It is difficult to imagine the United States preserving its heritage of individualism, equal rights before the law, free people running their own lives, once it is accepted that a
significant part of the population must be made permanent wards of the state.”
And the main reason why we may be headed toward this? Elite education, but not of the kind you may be imagining. Rather, the problem is how elites are educated before they reach those few institutions that act as incubators for elite students.
One of Herrnstein and Murray’s recommendations, for example, is that gifted children should still mingle with their average peers socially, but educationally should be in classes that are designed to challenge them as much as regular school challenges
an average student. This would teach intellectual humility, whereas the current
educational approach leaves gifted students in classrooms with people who, to them, must look incomprehensibly stupid, thus breeding a sense of contempt in the gifted portion
of the population from a very young age.
That contempt likely deepens given the resentment that this same treatment engenders among the average or below average. The advocacy group Supporting Emotional Needs for the Gifted (SENG) reports that gifted children are often the victims of bullying or
teasing, and are sometimes chastised for their gifts even by teachers. Imagine the future leaders of America becoming hardened by this kind of treatment for 18 years, only to be thrust into globalist, multicultural elite schools, where for the first time
they feel safe and appreciated by people like them. Why would they have anything but contempt for the people they grew up with, and by extension, the vast majority of their fellow citizens?
Moreover, how desperate would they be to retain membership in this new, elite clique that, unlike so many others, suddenly wants and nurtures them? Particularly among immigrants or minority students, the drive would be especially strong, hence why even
ostensible conservatives like Reihan Salam can write conflicted pieces about why “white bashing” is really a tool of assimilation for gifted minority students, who are perceived as more edgy and interesting by their presumptively
white peers for
doing it.
How desperate must all but the most socially secure among them be to maintain this status above the people who they learned to despise: those bullying, stupid, racist, violent hick normals, by any means necessary, no matter how cruel and cavalier? After
all, on some level, it grates on them that they are not just accomplished, but also lucky: in all likelihood, their gifted brains were nurtured by healthy food rather than lead filled water, they were born to parents who chose to have
them, and they were
thus raised by parents with the resources and maturity to love and nurture their own gifts.
And with that anxious realization of their luck comes the guilt that privilege theory offers. And so, they think, why not bash “white privilege” if you’re one of the chosen few? If all white people have it, even the stupid ones, then surely it can�
�t be worth having?
The cognitive elite surely don’t need it. Unlike whiteness, intelligence really does confer an impregnable, inarguable privilege among its holders, and it’s a much more exclusive one than simple whiteness. If someone needs privilege based on nothing
but their skin color, doesn’t that suggest they’re inherently worthless?
Yes, the logic of white privilege is inseparable from the logic of white pride—after all, if all whites are guilty for the sins of their ancestors, then all white people are also responsible for the greatness of Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi,
Locke, Hobbes, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Mill, Wollstonecraft, de Pizan, and indeed, for all the ideas that drive the struggle against injustices like those of the past.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
