There’s something I like to think of as the “Fish Tank Effect.” The “Fish Tank Effect” includes our assumptions that are so baked into the cake that we don’t even question why it’s like that anymore, just as the fish in the aquarium don’t question why there’s a castle in the sand, how their water gets cleaned, or why there are barriers all around the area they live in.
Great essay, but it's tough to read it and maintain a healthy blood pressure. All these things you say are so true, and they drive me crazy because there is no good f'ing reason why we should tolerate- not to mention foster- any of this horse doodie. It seems so satanic to me; so nihilistic. About the only "um, did you mean this" moment is when you wrote "why do we want to import radical muslims?" History/ current events have shown that there are no "safe" muslims to import. Second generation muslims are extremely dangerous, for example the young guys who threw the home made IED's in NYC a couple of weeks ago. They become radicalized, even when they have a peaceful, affluent upbringing. Like a g.d. lit fuse; we just don't know when they'll go boom. Read Gaad Saad's story about what happened in Lebanon as proof. Or, look at every country in Europe, save Hungary and Poland. A total ban on Islamic immigration is the only sane and rational thing to do, or we can just flush America down the toilet. Even the ones that aren't violent- how about organized, systemic corruption, like Minneapolis? With the side effect of putting geniuses like Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar in the federal government!
I believe it was in "The Way Things Ought To Be" that Rush Limbaugh pointed out that there were maybe about half a million actual "homeless" in the whole of America, and that was back in 1988.
Let's be generous and assume that number has quadrupled since then. So, two million people. Out of a population of a little less than a third of a billion. And I'm just counting U. S. citizens, because illegal aliens should never be considered when discussing official population numbers.
So 2,000,000 out of 320,000,000. 1 in 160. What is that, about two-thirds of one percent? And we're supposed to bend over backwards to shower these people with handouts and sympathy?
It is The Great Feminization. Remember the kids selected last on the playground teams? They finally got together and decided they needed a socioeconomic transformation to an upside down world where they are in charge of all team member selection.
It was the real men responsible for the change. We did not really support equality, because we wanted sex and kept treating her like a princess while she got more aggressive and destructive instead of punching her in the face as she deserved, like we would a male in equal response. Females have always leveraged this weakness in males, but they have taken it to full cosmic nuclear social destruction.
I hate that I am warming to parts of Sharia Law. The female entity is too much of a hazard in control of our institutions.
I disagree with a lot of things Muslim do, but when it comes to how they view women, I have to wonder if they're smarter than we are. I guess time will tell.
The Egyptians had secular governmental records of Moses. The Romans had secular governmental records of Jesus. Has there ever been a tax receipt or a herding permit with Mohammed's name on it?
Well, well. How muslims prosper in strict Shariah law muslim countries shows that the remedy is just as deadly to their flourishing as the disease. In more secular muslim countries, women pull off the same nonsense.
That isn't the issue. Men allow females to dominate them because men cannot stop thinking about being allowed to penetrate her. I know this because I was like this before I woke up, and when the table of chicks humiliated a guy friend, I went to the table to tell them there were all ugly, stinky bitches that I wouldn't allow my dog to fuck. Being an appealing male, so I was told, I could have played them and slept with one or more. Thus reinforcing their vulnerable narcissistic behavior. That is what males have done and they have made their own bed.
I agree with you. Women need control, because they can’t control themselves if given free rein. They need a strong unintimidated man to control them, especially the feminists. They won’t, can’t respect a man who won’t control them, or who won’t simply walk away when physical violence might be the only option left. Placating, white knighting, giving in leads nowhere but to misery.
HI Guys! Woman here. CONSERVATIVE WOMAN HERE. An official INTJ woman here. A thinking woman, not a feeling one. Most women are feelers, most men are thinkers. (MBPI) Important why? Because you boys are spot on about ditsy, embeciles with purple hair and nose rings, men flashing their junk in locker rooms to titilate the ladies into what, reaching under its dress? So, agree, first. Agree too, that giving women the vote was a domino that started the whole line of (N word) feminists and of DEI bs. They cannot think. They only titter, the feminine ones, or caterwaul, the butches. I am not a bull dyke, either. Why might I think myself a valuable contributor to this obviously virile thread? Because perhaps I can fill in some blanks. I was a comely lass who never marketed my goods to gain favor. Many of my kind exist. The Iron ladies whose brains are where they belong and not between the sheets trying to persuade their daddy to buy them a new car, honey. Muslim men control their women. They also mutilate them. How does that work in bed when many a man I knew appreciated an appropriate response? The table of shrews whose behavior turned after a show of masculine control? Yeah. Know why? Because, while each was supporting the other, when a show of real masculine energy stands up and out, it's a basic thing: Attraction. "Honey, would you keep me safe?" Johnl's article is EXCELLENT, spot on, clear, no effort to sugar coat his sense of right and, oh shit, wrong. You guys are stellar examples of American (I think/hope) male energy. You are what this nation, any nation, REQUIRES to exist and continue exisitng. Sheesh. I'd gladly surrender my place in the voting booth to trip Agnes over there, the guy in the dress--or wait, no. She's not a she, but some thang in a thong. I mean that harridan in the Biden shirt and the Kamallala sunglasses, the stupid ring in her nose, the one sucking on her tongue stud. Gladly.
Hm, I am probably outing myself as a woman. I find men who think in simplified terms about women being controlled as the solution, and women needing to get f*cked, needing to get cucked (take your pick), to be acting like male shrews.
Just because men are more "analytical" on average, doesn't mean they aren't equally in denial when it is convenient - a human temptation. For example, FGM (sexual cutting of women) in Muslim cultures in some Islamic countries, is because men are insecure about their ability to control or satisfy their wives sexually. Older women also support this practice in matchmaking because they assume a sexually scarred girl is more "pure". So if they make sex a pain instead of a pleasure, she'll never cheat. To men, she can't feel pleasure, she can't demand he perform better so that she has an orgasm. Yes. Really. Men "over there" are actually more insecure and have less self control, and it shows up in the bedroom. So those Muslim men in Sharia-dependent societies who are "Strong" and "Control" their wives, culturally are actually less masters of the self than western men. Or at least, I think that's been true til recent porn culture exploded 20 years ago.
I'd like it if some Muslim men and women would comment on this. I know sexual cutting of women is not practiced everywhere in the Muslim world, and alot of modern Muslims don't want it. But it is something everyone knows about.
I am disappointed, yet hopeful that for the quality of discourse in this thread. Especially because the article itself was, shall we say - more grown up.
Hi SJ ! Test here to see if I can reply. I am not a SS subscriber. I am trying to pare down subscriptions. I wrote a long reply and think it simply got eaten, one bite! Thanks for your reply, btw. I does generate considerations for discussions, or something. Test
OK. Trying again. Your discussion re: Noah and Mamdam the man, suggests a wresting match between logic and the realm of soul. Not once was "soul" mentioned. I believe I am quoting you correctly when you concluded with, "I honestly don't know." That's a powerful statement, the way I see things. Not once either was "humility" included in that discussion. Those considerations are what motivated my response. I have untangled some of those global concerns. First, humility is that quality that says "my ego is not the most powerful force." That is a recognition of a Higher Power. Second, to communicate with that holy mystery requires an ability to speak the language of symbols, dreams, mythology, visions It's there. Your dreams have what you seek. Learn them! Mythology is to humans what dreams are to an individual. As far as why Muslims mutilate their tiny daughters: they are stoneaged savages. I don't think they are capable or willing to explore what woman feel. They only know how they respond to porn, which frequently involves women. They fire exclusively on ego. So saith Susan, for whatever value one might find.
If you loathed your country, its history, western civilization at its core, and wanted to destroy it, would you do anything differently than what you describe? Nope, you’d do the exact same thing all under the guise of “rights” so you can shroud your destruction of the country under the cloak of the constitution. Destroy the creators, innovators, and producers, and elevate the leeches and looters. See Atlas Shrugged.
The end of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce speaks to the essence of this outstanding essay. Lewis speaks of "pity". The pity of action vs the pity of passion. Satan is and will always use the pity of action to perpetuate the lie; that knows that what is blue is blue, but the jaundiced individual will demand that the pity of action call it yellow. They will take the garden of the world and demand it to become a dung heap just because they fail to appreciate the smell of roses.
There's a lot to agree with in the article, and plenty of room for nuance, as well.
To understand the "why," follow the money. Pandering is a profitable industry.
On the issue of "homelessness," do likewise; follow the money.
Throw out your preconceptions, however, when you do follow the money, because the door swings both ways. The sidewalk tents, the mental illness et al, are the tip of an iceberg. The mass of that berg, is increasingly composed of working poor and elderly, living below the radar.
The additional laws and the sweeps, catch the law-abiding, dignified poor up in the same net.
The one right that everyone has, is the right to property and being left alone to use it, with a few guardrails to prevent public health and safety hazards.
Keep following the money, all the way through the wallets of liars, cheats and thieves that tip members of the precariat into utterly devastating economic dissolution.
We may agree about foreign illegal immigration, and following the money will reveal that a nontrivial amount of the illegality, represents the reason many green card holders are living and working in the US.
Follow the money and understand that citizen intra-migration raises marginal costs of penurious-but-stable citizens, tipping them, too, over the edge and inducing further migration. Relative advantage is by definition, international, but the definition is flawed; incomplete.
Various inventories, housing among them, would balance according to market demand and the normal business cycle, but there's another form of migration that distorts those markets to a degree that there is no rebalancing, without major civic upheaval.
That form of migration, can be referred to as "unfettered capital migration." Capital unbound to productive regional microeconomies, will concentrate at an accelerated rate when compared to the normal and expected concentration. It's all about the commodities.
Look around you, if you live in an area with any undeveloped land whatsoever. If you own where you live, do you jealously guard your resale value by actively or tacitly preventing someone who bought that lot next door, from placing a structure they can afford to pay for, on their land, provided they don't dump sewage or create a non-fictitiously hyperbolic public nuisance?
If so, you are contributing to the array of market distortions that exacerbate the problems described in the essay. It's a good essay with many solid points. The identity-mongers have the right to live out their self-comforting fantasies, as long as they do not try to use the state's monopoly on violence to force the majority into subsidizing their pretense, by means of compelled speech or taxation.
Follow the money. Everything quantifiable exists on a distribution curve. Money travels by means of velocity, and the "turns" of monetary velocity take place within a distribution curve. During that journey of discovery, virtue and vice will be found in places where they are least expected, and never forget that
where wealth and influence concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
This us the entire moral framework of the left. To defeat it, you have to kill two millennia of Christian guilt and replace it with something more functional.
The “worst people among us" are being used by farmers, hotel owners, tech firms, and hotel owners to bust unions and drive down wages. They're also being used by the democrat party to bolster their voter base.
All of this has a use that is based in political metabolism. They just put up a thin smokescreen to justify it as “being nice”.
Big reason why this has happened is because of every group—the homeless, illegals, etc—being turned into yet another reincarnation of antebellum slaves and weaponizing the crippling guilt implanted in people by the education system (where it’s portrayed as a uniquely American “original sin.”)
Great insightful post. Agree with everything. You end it mildly though: "That doesn’t mean those other groups have zero importance or shouldn’t have rights"
Not that "That doesn’t mean those other groups have zero importance", their importance is negative.
Or "or shouldn’t have rights" - how about they have responsibility to be productive members of society in order to deserve rights?
Of course, the response to my statements from the fish tank is "Why are you so mean?" Why, indeed?
Seems like a false dilemma to point this way and not that way - we can dislike the bottom 5%(20% is too high) and the top 1%. Marxists - at least the originals - did both.
Great essay, but it's tough to read it and maintain a healthy blood pressure. All these things you say are so true, and they drive me crazy because there is no good f'ing reason why we should tolerate- not to mention foster- any of this horse doodie. It seems so satanic to me; so nihilistic. About the only "um, did you mean this" moment is when you wrote "why do we want to import radical muslims?" History/ current events have shown that there are no "safe" muslims to import. Second generation muslims are extremely dangerous, for example the young guys who threw the home made IED's in NYC a couple of weeks ago. They become radicalized, even when they have a peaceful, affluent upbringing. Like a g.d. lit fuse; we just don't know when they'll go boom. Read Gaad Saad's story about what happened in Lebanon as proof. Or, look at every country in Europe, save Hungary and Poland. A total ban on Islamic immigration is the only sane and rational thing to do, or we can just flush America down the toilet. Even the ones that aren't violent- how about organized, systemic corruption, like Minneapolis? With the side effect of putting geniuses like Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar in the federal government!
I believe it was in "The Way Things Ought To Be" that Rush Limbaugh pointed out that there were maybe about half a million actual "homeless" in the whole of America, and that was back in 1988.
Let's be generous and assume that number has quadrupled since then. So, two million people. Out of a population of a little less than a third of a billion. And I'm just counting U. S. citizens, because illegal aliens should never be considered when discussing official population numbers.
So 2,000,000 out of 320,000,000. 1 in 160. What is that, about two-thirds of one percent? And we're supposed to bend over backwards to shower these people with handouts and sympathy?
Too much common sense John.
It is The Great Feminization. Remember the kids selected last on the playground teams? They finally got together and decided they needed a socioeconomic transformation to an upside down world where they are in charge of all team member selection.
It was the real men responsible for the change. We did not really support equality, because we wanted sex and kept treating her like a princess while she got more aggressive and destructive instead of punching her in the face as she deserved, like we would a male in equal response. Females have always leveraged this weakness in males, but they have taken it to full cosmic nuclear social destruction.
I hate that I am warming to parts of Sharia Law. The female entity is too much of a hazard in control of our institutions.
I disagree with a lot of things Muslim do, but when it comes to how they view women, I have to wonder if they're smarter than we are. I guess time will tell.
They're like a broken clock. Mohammed ripped off enough of the old testament to get a few things right, but Islam is satanic at its core.
Assuming Mohammed even existed at all...
The Egyptians had secular governmental records of Moses. The Romans had secular governmental records of Jesus. Has there ever been a tax receipt or a herding permit with Mohammed's name on it?
If you have to ask...
Ouch
Well, well. How muslims prosper in strict Shariah law muslim countries shows that the remedy is just as deadly to their flourishing as the disease. In more secular muslim countries, women pull off the same nonsense.
Men invented civilization because women didn't like being cold or hungry.
All we ask in return is sex, love and faithfulness. That's hardly entitlement.
That isn't the issue. Men allow females to dominate them because men cannot stop thinking about being allowed to penetrate her. I know this because I was like this before I woke up, and when the table of chicks humiliated a guy friend, I went to the table to tell them there were all ugly, stinky bitches that I wouldn't allow my dog to fuck. Being an appealing male, so I was told, I could have played them and slept with one or more. Thus reinforcing their vulnerable narcissistic behavior. That is what males have done and they have made their own bed.
I agree with you. Women need control, because they can’t control themselves if given free rein. They need a strong unintimidated man to control them, especially the feminists. They won’t, can’t respect a man who won’t control them, or who won’t simply walk away when physical violence might be the only option left. Placating, white knighting, giving in leads nowhere but to misery.
Wow
HI Guys! Woman here. CONSERVATIVE WOMAN HERE. An official INTJ woman here. A thinking woman, not a feeling one. Most women are feelers, most men are thinkers. (MBPI) Important why? Because you boys are spot on about ditsy, embeciles with purple hair and nose rings, men flashing their junk in locker rooms to titilate the ladies into what, reaching under its dress? So, agree, first. Agree too, that giving women the vote was a domino that started the whole line of (N word) feminists and of DEI bs. They cannot think. They only titter, the feminine ones, or caterwaul, the butches. I am not a bull dyke, either. Why might I think myself a valuable contributor to this obviously virile thread? Because perhaps I can fill in some blanks. I was a comely lass who never marketed my goods to gain favor. Many of my kind exist. The Iron ladies whose brains are where they belong and not between the sheets trying to persuade their daddy to buy them a new car, honey. Muslim men control their women. They also mutilate them. How does that work in bed when many a man I knew appreciated an appropriate response? The table of shrews whose behavior turned after a show of masculine control? Yeah. Know why? Because, while each was supporting the other, when a show of real masculine energy stands up and out, it's a basic thing: Attraction. "Honey, would you keep me safe?" Johnl's article is EXCELLENT, spot on, clear, no effort to sugar coat his sense of right and, oh shit, wrong. You guys are stellar examples of American (I think/hope) male energy. You are what this nation, any nation, REQUIRES to exist and continue exisitng. Sheesh. I'd gladly surrender my place in the voting booth to trip Agnes over there, the guy in the dress--or wait, no. She's not a she, but some thang in a thong. I mean that harridan in the Biden shirt and the Kamallala sunglasses, the stupid ring in her nose, the one sucking on her tongue stud. Gladly.
Hm, I am probably outing myself as a woman. I find men who think in simplified terms about women being controlled as the solution, and women needing to get f*cked, needing to get cucked (take your pick), to be acting like male shrews.
Just because men are more "analytical" on average, doesn't mean they aren't equally in denial when it is convenient - a human temptation. For example, FGM (sexual cutting of women) in Muslim cultures in some Islamic countries, is because men are insecure about their ability to control or satisfy their wives sexually. Older women also support this practice in matchmaking because they assume a sexually scarred girl is more "pure". So if they make sex a pain instead of a pleasure, she'll never cheat. To men, she can't feel pleasure, she can't demand he perform better so that she has an orgasm. Yes. Really. Men "over there" are actually more insecure and have less self control, and it shows up in the bedroom. So those Muslim men in Sharia-dependent societies who are "Strong" and "Control" their wives, culturally are actually less masters of the self than western men. Or at least, I think that's been true til recent porn culture exploded 20 years ago.
I'd like it if some Muslim men and women would comment on this. I know sexual cutting of women is not practiced everywhere in the Muslim world, and alot of modern Muslims don't want it. But it is something everyone knows about.
I am disappointed, yet hopeful that for the quality of discourse in this thread. Especially because the article itself was, shall we say - more grown up.
Hi SJ ! Test here to see if I can reply. I am not a SS subscriber. I am trying to pare down subscriptions. I wrote a long reply and think it simply got eaten, one bite! Thanks for your reply, btw. I does generate considerations for discussions, or something. Test
OK. Trying again. Your discussion re: Noah and Mamdam the man, suggests a wresting match between logic and the realm of soul. Not once was "soul" mentioned. I believe I am quoting you correctly when you concluded with, "I honestly don't know." That's a powerful statement, the way I see things. Not once either was "humility" included in that discussion. Those considerations are what motivated my response. I have untangled some of those global concerns. First, humility is that quality that says "my ego is not the most powerful force." That is a recognition of a Higher Power. Second, to communicate with that holy mystery requires an ability to speak the language of symbols, dreams, mythology, visions It's there. Your dreams have what you seek. Learn them! Mythology is to humans what dreams are to an individual. As far as why Muslims mutilate their tiny daughters: they are stoneaged savages. I don't think they are capable or willing to explore what woman feel. They only know how they respond to porn, which frequently involves women. They fire exclusively on ego. So saith Susan, for whatever value one might find.
Hi, Susan :) Your reply WAS here. I think it's gone again. I only got to read a piece of it (Today was busy, I got distracted, etc)
Why don't you Chat to me a Message, to continue back and forth? I will reply here, and then expect your Message.
SJ
Excellent point, John.
If you loathed your country, its history, western civilization at its core, and wanted to destroy it, would you do anything differently than what you describe? Nope, you’d do the exact same thing all under the guise of “rights” so you can shroud your destruction of the country under the cloak of the constitution. Destroy the creators, innovators, and producers, and elevate the leeches and looters. See Atlas Shrugged.
The end of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce speaks to the essence of this outstanding essay. Lewis speaks of "pity". The pity of action vs the pity of passion. Satan is and will always use the pity of action to perpetuate the lie; that knows that what is blue is blue, but the jaundiced individual will demand that the pity of action call it yellow. They will take the garden of the world and demand it to become a dung heap just because they fail to appreciate the smell of roses.
There's a lot to agree with in the article, and plenty of room for nuance, as well.
To understand the "why," follow the money. Pandering is a profitable industry.
On the issue of "homelessness," do likewise; follow the money.
Throw out your preconceptions, however, when you do follow the money, because the door swings both ways. The sidewalk tents, the mental illness et al, are the tip of an iceberg. The mass of that berg, is increasingly composed of working poor and elderly, living below the radar.
The additional laws and the sweeps, catch the law-abiding, dignified poor up in the same net.
The one right that everyone has, is the right to property and being left alone to use it, with a few guardrails to prevent public health and safety hazards.
Keep following the money, all the way through the wallets of liars, cheats and thieves that tip members of the precariat into utterly devastating economic dissolution.
We may agree about foreign illegal immigration, and following the money will reveal that a nontrivial amount of the illegality, represents the reason many green card holders are living and working in the US.
Follow the money and understand that citizen intra-migration raises marginal costs of penurious-but-stable citizens, tipping them, too, over the edge and inducing further migration. Relative advantage is by definition, international, but the definition is flawed; incomplete.
Various inventories, housing among them, would balance according to market demand and the normal business cycle, but there's another form of migration that distorts those markets to a degree that there is no rebalancing, without major civic upheaval.
That form of migration, can be referred to as "unfettered capital migration." Capital unbound to productive regional microeconomies, will concentrate at an accelerated rate when compared to the normal and expected concentration. It's all about the commodities.
Look around you, if you live in an area with any undeveloped land whatsoever. If you own where you live, do you jealously guard your resale value by actively or tacitly preventing someone who bought that lot next door, from placing a structure they can afford to pay for, on their land, provided they don't dump sewage or create a non-fictitiously hyperbolic public nuisance?
If so, you are contributing to the array of market distortions that exacerbate the problems described in the essay. It's a good essay with many solid points. The identity-mongers have the right to live out their self-comforting fantasies, as long as they do not try to use the state's monopoly on violence to force the majority into subsidizing their pretense, by means of compelled speech or taxation.
Follow the money. Everything quantifiable exists on a distribution curve. Money travels by means of velocity, and the "turns" of monetary velocity take place within a distribution curve. During that journey of discovery, virtue and vice will be found in places where they are least expected, and never forget that
where wealth and influence concentrate, predators and parasites congregate.
Well described. I suggest your last paragraph be refined slightly.
“Where wealth…. GRIFTERS and CON ARTISTS…”
Or
“where Healthy organisms prosper, parasites and leeches migrate”
This us the entire moral framework of the left. To defeat it, you have to kill two millennia of Christian guilt and replace it with something more functional.
Please, do it.
The “worst people among us" are being used by farmers, hotel owners, tech firms, and hotel owners to bust unions and drive down wages. They're also being used by the democrat party to bolster their voter base.
All of this has a use that is based in political metabolism. They just put up a thin smokescreen to justify it as “being nice”.
Big reason why this has happened is because of every group—the homeless, illegals, etc—being turned into yet another reincarnation of antebellum slaves and weaponizing the crippling guilt implanted in people by the education system (where it’s portrayed as a uniquely American “original sin.”)
The bottom 20% serve as proxies and human shields for the top 1%. Biological Leninism in action.
Exactly.
Great insightful post. Agree with everything. You end it mildly though: "That doesn’t mean those other groups have zero importance or shouldn’t have rights"
Not that "That doesn’t mean those other groups have zero importance", their importance is negative.
Or "or shouldn’t have rights" - how about they have responsibility to be productive members of society in order to deserve rights?
Of course, the response to my statements from the fish tank is "Why are you so mean?" Why, indeed?
None of this is by accident. That’s why it’s seems so insane.
So much truth in what you say common sense is out the window and we now cater to the craziness
Seems like a false dilemma to point this way and not that way - we can dislike the bottom 5%(20% is too high) and the top 1%. Marxists - at least the originals - did both.