Patheticism

Towgunner

Kingfisher
I've been mulling over an idea in my head in the context of all the recent events in our country. Riots, insurrection, BLM etc. I'm wrestling with how to describe this era where everything that is good is bad and everything that is bad is good. The death of George Floyd was unfortunate and a tragedy, but, George was a convicted felon, a drug addict and someone that once pointed a loaded gun at a pregnant lady's belly. And now he's a national martyr and highly regarded. Then I look at the rank and file of antifa and the other active activists out there burning down cities and creating mayhem.

The "revolution" we're witnessing is being done by society's dregs. As "professor" naimi lowe proudly boasted in one of her outbursts (speeches) at Evergreen State College "it is the inter-venous drug users, the street people, the sex workers, the lgddkjhsdksh and P people that are fighting this battle". Her observations are spot-on. Street people, drug addicts, sex workers, prostitutes, oh and I like how she included the homosexual "community" with these types too, are the street "fighters" in this insurrection. I have to ask, who in their right mind would ever want to be a drug addicted street person? No one, the aforementioned people are all losers.

Bell curve distributions are the tell all here. These "revolutionaries" are all left side of the bell curve people. Recent mug shots of assorted antifa terrorists show us the faces of these people and its literally not a pretty picture. antifa are comprised of these kinds of people. These are the people that were unable to play a sport in high school. They are so dumb they failed art class. These are the people that washed-out of Navy boot camp. These people have NOTHING going for them. The progressive stack validates my theory. What is the progressive stack other than an imposed caste hierarchical system that takes the losers and puts them all on top while taking the winners and putting them at the absolute bottom.

These people hate themselves more than anything. They hate their life and God for just being born. And so they'll never be satisfied no matter how steep and rewarding the progressive stack becomes. As such, they will never stop demanding more and more and more. And they are willing to risk everything to lash out and watch the world burn. Because catching a 10 year sentence to prison is an improvement. Behind all of the mayhem is jealousy and envy. Its manifestation of Cain on a grand scale. And when you add up all their actions, their ridiculous demands, their attitudes, their behaviors, their character etc...you get a big bowl of pathetic.

That's why I'm calling all of this - Patheticism.
 
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
@kel is correct.

b4fa919cfc8761500fdcc315ad5b364d.jpg


The hand is really the focus of the story. The who/why of the sockpuppet is disposable
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

This is excellent.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Patheticism par excellence...


As Douglas Murray said a couple of months ago, "people are wearing their mental illness as though its a badge of honor".

This is a peculiar form of patheticism in that the subject at hand is not a loser. That being said, I think this speaks volumes to the unfortunate influence patheticism has on our culture. When you hear about truly accomplished individuals looking for pity and asking for your adulation over, of all things, a condition that they should otherwise keep private and feel ashamed about, you know something is terribly wrong with our civilization.
 

Towgunner

Kingfisher
Bioleninism - basically an alliance of the various not-quite-rights of society who are fiercely loyal to the cause because without it they have to face the fact of their true nature.

The term's creator on Twitter

Yes, this is what we're dealing with. Bioleninism is spot on. I've looked into this more. I get the idea behind it and, as evidence of our current unfortunate situation, we can see that this works. But, I take issue with the idea that this can be sustained into perpetuity. Its obvious to me that bioleninism is an instrument for gaining power, but, I can't see any practical application beyond that. The reason is simple, under such conditions things will rapidly deteriorate. Planes will fall out of the sky and the trains won't run anymore or on any tracks (because they've been stolen). I think we're rapidly heading to that kind of endstate here in the US and the West.

On one hand, we can look at how quickly this thing has grown in recent years and be depressed, but, on the other hand, can we not also assume that as quickly as this thing has unfolded shouldn't it bring about entropy or, worse still, catastrophe? This is what I see occurring. Already, radical demands are being made of corporations and industry associations like the AMA.

You can't keep promoting the wrong people for the job without consequences. When the AMA issues a press release embracing "equity" you have to wonder. Do we really want the lessor person as a doctor? Who wouldn't want the most qualified?

SFO, New York, Chicago...etc. All run by progressives and all in terrible condition. That is the future for the rest of the country, which is terrifying as well as sad, but, that also means mass dysfunction is right around the corner.

You simply cannot get very far in life, or anything, under such conditions. People aren't going to want this for very long in the same way they won't want a diversity hire to operate on them.

Both Maoist China and Soviet Russia dispensed with Bioleninism once the party achieved full power. China, for instance, does not hire for diversity, they hire for competency. Indeed, they're apparently communist, but, I think we can all agree they're more capitalistic today, which accounts for their remarkable success. Who's to say that America by contrast is any different? China, politically may be communist in name but they're moving in the opposite direction economically than the US, which is progressively becoming more socialistic. This also includes social issues too. China is objectively against things like homosexualism.

Both China and Russia endured this. How will things unfold here? We are different in culture, tradition, and in our laws. Something tells me America's flirtation with socialism will not last. Why? Or, how could you say such a thing? Well, because giving unqualified people positions they didn't earn results in failure. This is 100% certain to happen.

Conservatives as battered and demoralized as we may be at the moment, have never had it so good. We've made passionate and rational arguments utterly destroying our leftist opponents. Apropos, in this context, such arguments fell on deaf ears because there wasn't proof that these moonbat ideas don't work. And many times, the results were swept under the rug. Today that is not the case and, better yet, due to leftism's power "they" can't sweep their failures under the rug. Ergo, they become evidence for us to use.

The way to defeat leftism is to show where it leads. All you have to do today is say this "reference SFO, Chicago, New York etc".
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Good observation OP. It's clear that these people will never be satisfied, for power/change is as endless as money/sex and other material gains. Sadly these people are weaponized against the truth and those pursuing the truth. As is said, they are indeed disposable. We even see that with Gill Bates who may be discarded publicly after his service, as online stories of his weird fetish lifestyle came out publicly, and nothing comes out in the MSM without approval from the top. In some sense we have to feel sorry for these people, I do believe some of them do have the genuine expression that they're pursuing a better world for climate change, racism etc. At the end of the day these are people grown up like us in a society that is out there to destroy us and they are desperately looking for an identity. Some find that in the Church, some in football, some in SJW. The sad part is that society even allows - better said stimulates - all these developments of confusion, so we're all crawling around in darkness not being able to find the light until we see the truth of the red pill/Christ.
 

Bamboozler

Pigeon
Patheticism is a nice way to put it. I like it.

It's almost impossible to pinpoint the one and only reason why the world and modern societies are as they are now, because of the multitude
of factors. However, recently I've been thinking about the swollen/overgrown and overpaid educational department, escpecially universities.
Is it the cause or effect of patheticism ? Food for thought

You have a whole mass of people simply unable and/or unwilling to intellectualy cope with any standards of higher education. Yet, they're pushed by peer pressure, ambition, parent's expectations (or a lack of it) to graduate. Of course, implications are manifold - financial (student's debt) being one of the most important ones, but let's focus on the mindset of an average university student.

The most obvious effects of holding a university diploma are higher expectations and higher self-esteem. Due to the fact that graduating from a university may not ,or even doesn't come with any real skills or even sound basic knowledge about the reality sorrounding us, the two traits combined make a toxic mixture. There's simply nothing to back up the qualifications. University diplomas are nowadays completely useless, but they do enforce the sense of entitlement.

My point is that the worst kind of stupid, is the confident stupid.

Just think about it. Thousands of people with no prospects for any reasonable employment, entitled, filled with pride and dysfunctional ideas, unable to think on their own, actually discouraged from thinking on their own since they entered the educational system, and yet looking down on everybody.

No wonder they're so eager to follow basically ALL the trends from mainstream media, no matter how ridiculous. They've been simply trained to obey, because obeying the mainstream media and the academia is the main characteristic of a moral, intelligent and independently thinking person. Don't you know that thinking people always come to the same conclusion, huh ?

I haven't even mentioned the laziness and lack of integrity of these people. Oh boy, it's a topic to dwell upon, for sure.
 

Edek

Robin
Orthodox Catechumen
You have a whole mass of people simply unable and/or unwilling to intellectualy cope with any standards of higher education. Yet, they're pushed by peer pressure, ambition, parent's expectations (or a lack of it) to graduate.
If I had a pound for every time I heard a farmer say something like "I wish my kid hadn't gone to university to study humanities in the city when there is a perfectly good agricultural college down the road. What are they going to do now with their anthropology degree, work in a call centre?"

I would have exactly three pounds.
 

Bamboozler

Pigeon
If I had a pound for every time I heard a farmer say something like "I wish my kid hadn't gone to university to study humanities in the city when there is a perfectly good agricultural college down the road. What are they going to do now with their anthropology degree, work in a call centre?"

I would have exactly three pounds.

That's exactly where they're going to work. Or in some HR department, or any other easily replaceable, pen-pushing desk job. No perks included.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
I penned something to someone recently on this topic. The core of it was essentially Bioleninism (patheticism) and it's highly suppressed opposite - the red pill. This was sent to an agnostic, so I have not included direct links to religion.



**************************************


These ideas (political nihilist red pill) are just a variant of late-modern ideas that were floating around from the late-19th to mid-20th century. Something like these ideas has already been tried. They are not a viable basis for society. As communism and socialism are failed and not a basis for society.



At some point he says something like – if you are on the left it is because you realise that there is a distribution of value in society; and you think that it is unfair and should be changed. While if you are on the right you see the same unequal distribution and don't think anything should be done about it.



Neither of these are a basis for society. But the former is the basis of virtually every Western society and there is not much else in conjunction with it. Pretty much everything in Western society is now viewed through the lens of whether it is equal (which is, does it serve the left constituency and its owners). This is a wholly 100% materialist viewpoint, which will lead to destruction. If the basis of your society is materialism, then you will remove anything that is not and reduce people to animalistic behaviour, which has and is continuing to happen.



But I think this premise that is put forward is too low resolution. If you live in a (primarily) materialist society, then you are an animal. Though I think its manifestation has been contorted from genetic imperative, to one of pleasure. In the materialist society the primary interest of men is sex for pleasure. The vast majority of men will not be able to come close to pursuing this. It is extremely destructive and has aggressively chipped away at one the the cornerstone of a viable inter-generational society that can perpetuate itself into the future; which is – a man and a woman who refrain from following their pleasures, bound themselves to each other until death, orientating their lives not around material pleasure, but material sacrifice for their children. There has been no, and will be no civilisation without this. There is plenty of evidence to show just how destructive the modern replacement of this is. While for women, the primary interest is to be worshipped (or attached to someone they think is better than them). Fornication obsessed men and women who want to be worshipped are about as fundamentally opposite as those who always want more redistribution and those who don't want any. This is a split and broken society.



The deeper intent of leftists is not to redistribute wealth, but to redistribute sex, to themselves. Like anything the left does, it does not work, because the ideology is fundamentally anti-biology (that is, anti-reality) leading to more input for less output until it collapses. While in Western society, institutions and corporations have been infused with increasingly more radical left ideology (particularly in America, but increasingly everywhere), those with left-wing temperament who have increased their wealth and hierarchical status via left-wing politics have not really increased their sexual access. In fact, sexual access and general interest in relationships of any kind has plummeted and gone down in the exact period social left-wing power has dramatically increased. Materialist women will demand relationships that are materially rewarding, which is to say, with a small number of men with a narrow band of traits. That is why we see an increasing number of left-wing men who serve as a woman's emotional support dog, while they are out fornicating with plumbers and grouters, if that is the best they can get.



Of these two:

- there is inequality that should be modified
- there is inequality and nothing should be done about it

The latter is biology and the former is ideology. All of the materialistic value in society naturally accrues in the latter camp – those who are biologically gifted. No materialist wants to be in the former camp of thinking inequality should be modified. You get many people like former revolutionary communist Mr. Princess Tony Blair, who got an opportunity to join “the big club” and did so. Most will never come close to this, so will remain Marxists or socialists; until some set of favourable circumstances convince them otherwise. You do not get anyone going in the opposite direction. No one is a member of “the big club” and ends up a Marxist. Likewise if every Antifa was given a yacht full of models, you would never hear from them again. The left is the most materialist section of society as it is absolutely rapturously obsessed with material concerns – not because inequality is unfair, but because they want more material gain then they have gotten. This is something that can never be sated and destroys any basis for a contiguous society.

The increasing obviously anti-reality statements from the left, such as:

Anyone can have children
Anyone can have a womb
Anyone can be a woman
Anyone is beautiful
Everyone gets a medal
There is no such thing as biological sex
Maths and science is raycis
Grades are raycis
Discipline in school is raycis

have more than one motive, but the numerically dominant one is some people trying to override biology with nonsense in an effort to make themselves more materially valuable. They come from people who want an equal amount of reward without an equal amount of responsibility and material value. Virtually any claim of the left is an invention to pretend that biology is not real and the lie that all inequality is purely a social phenomena perpetuated by the right (which is virtually non-existent in institutions). Two brothers can have radically different life outcomes; but we are told just a few more left wing policies and we will all be equal. As soon as the force of left-wing policy and coercion goes, then all of these illusions go.



As for the term “red pill”. This has different meanings to different people. I feel the most appropriate use of the term is for the modern, essentially underground movement of material self-improvement. It is to realise that not just the claims of the left, but also the centre of normies are not true and are holding you back; and that you can obtain considerably more material reward in life by following certain paths. This consists of making yourself more physically attractive with weights, exercise and clothes; making yourself richer, usually via some sort of entrepreneurship rather than being an employee; and approaching many women with the aim of quick fornication in large volume and improving your league. The world of the red pill contains a vast amount of knowledge, which I would say is virtually all 100% correct. But there isn't really anything outside of calculating the gains they can extract.



The fundamental basis of this mentality is again 100% materialist and has the same aim as the dominant left-wing model – that is obtaining sex for pleasure. The difference is the left does not want to improve. It wants to sit around and create sprawling false narratives and fear to blockade all of those with opposing temperament from society. The fundamental aim of the male feminist is to protect women from alphas, so they can fornicate with them. It seems that most female feminists have come to the realisation of the latter, but not the former. But as mentioned, it has had the opposite effect. The squeezing of masculine men from a materialist of society and replacing them with damp rags has made them rarer and more valuable. Women are inherently attracted to such men – more materialist ones far more so. Conversely the red pill man wants to improve himself to offer transnational value to women. Two different modes of trying to get to the same ends – sex for pleasure. The left-wing model broadly doesn't work, while the right-wing model does work, for a time, until its exploits also gut the basis for society.



You can't have a society which is based on ever increasing lies to obscure reality for the benefits of an every decreasing constituency; and you can't have a society where the basis is biology. Which is to say, ultimately, you cannot have a modern society. If you look at civilisations across time and geography, you will find they all shared certain facets. These are facets that reward behaviours that lend to the propagation of the society into the future. These are things that reduce divisions (not celebrate diversity), reward deferral of gratification (rather than celebrate pleasure), are based in biology (but do not worship it or pretend it doesn't exist), do not encourage resentment (rather than encourage it); that some of the most important concerns are not material (rather than only material) and that material poverty is not the only poverty (rather than the only concern and the only measure – the left)... The downsides of a material living are very obvious to those who want to see them. All material concerns are never ending and can never be sated. This is true individually and socially. It leaves one in a constant agitated state relating to fulfilment, maintenance and lack. Your image of yourself will forever be constructed from things outside of yourself that are more likely to decline than grow, particularly as you age. As an example, one enraptured with pride due to their great fame will be forever alone, as they form an almost physical barrier around themselves, locking anyone out who does not interact with them via the interface of their pride. Conversely, one who becomes jealous and angry about the charismatic celebrity, simply because they do not posses that value, creates a barrier around themselves. Interacting with them requires you interface with their jealousy and anger, and not them. Such things used to be at least somewhat well known. Now – not.

All of these things are in the process of being removed from society – a society that is failing. Continue the trends of post-modern society and the termination is always its end.




But, I take issue with the idea that this can be sustained into perpetuity. Its obvious to me that bioleninism is an instrument for gaining power, but, I can't see any practical application beyond that. The reason is simple, under such conditions things will rapidly deteriorate. Planes will fall out of the sky and the trains won't run anymore or on any tracks (because they've been stolen). I think we're rapidly heading to that kind of endstate here in the US and the West.

As noted by Spandrell, far-left societies (America has many aspects of which that are far-left) eventually end up going quite diametrically the other way. China is officially Maoist. However, the most Maoist (destruction of tradition) country is probably Sweden or The US. China seems to be (in some form) banning feminism, banning LGBT, banning soy boys, banning excessive computer games. These are all hallmarks policies of the dissident right.

As I have noted before, there are 100 (3 generation) cycles between more conservative and more liberal societies. We entered a period where we should be going more conservative in 2015. However, the flip back to more conservative has about a 15 year delay in mainstream society as it develops underground. People don't want to stop their anti-reality, self-indulgent lifestyles until they can't. Only then do you really start going more conservative.

The driver of conservative cycles is a squeeze on resources. When people have to behave conservatively, they do or suffer greatly. We have very obviously been in that cycle cycle since 2008. Even before that this liberal bubble economy and society has been propped up. Around the time of the dot com bubble a lot of cheap money was offered to corps. This created artificial growth, which was the real issue in 2008. Since 2008 we have seen the government take on much more debt and central banks engage in schemes undreamed of to keep us in the liberal cycle. I don't think this can continue much beyond 2030. But we will see.

Regarding The Great Reset and The Great Patheticisation of society; the interesting thing about them is they will both make people poorer. This is an aspect I can't really see how it could play well for the left and globalists. If they can't keep us relatively fat and happy, they will loose much if not all political control.

Another big question is what part could technology play in keeping people in a poor and insane left-wing society.

The organised left certainly seem to be a gollum made for destruction for the globalists. The left agree with the globalists on pretty much everything bar corporatism. I can only see them wanting to move to a right-wing system after a huge reduction in global population.

My main feeling is that The Great Reset is so ridiculous (and should have at least a few considerable countries not going along with it) that the globalists will end up destroying themselves. In that case I would expect a fascist order to emerge. But since the coronahoax, I any long-term predictions are very tenuous.
 
Top