America is in Decay -- How We Fix It

[Ender]

It doesn't matter what arrangements they make with vendors, suppliers and manufacturers (secretly or otherwise). If they manage to drive competitors out of business by undercutting those erstwhile competitors' prices, and subsequently try to jack prices up over market clearing prices, then they'll just be greasing the skids for more of the very competition they've just gone to such pains to eliminate. (And if they don't jack their prices up above market clearing prices ... well, then, there's not really anything to complain about in the first place.)

This is why attempts at monopolization will always fail (and always have failed) unless the wannabe monopolizers get a little help from their friends in government.

Walmart may be able to cut some sweet deals with other business entities, but it can't cut any deals at all with the laws of economics - no matter how creamy its negotiators are.



So should every profit-seeking business. There is nothing wrong with that.

The only question to be concerned about is whether they have used force to quash their competition.

Making clever deals (secretly or otherwise) with vendors, suppliers & manufacturers does not violate this standard.



I haven't assumed that markets are being allowed to clear, which is precisely why I offered the parenthetical.

Before building new stores, big retailers like Walmart, Target, etc. will often seek and acquire special anti-competitive accomodations from local municipal governments - such as agreements that other big retailers will not be permitted to erect new stores in the area (this is typically done by the city fathers refusing zoning easements to newcomers, or other such tactics). These kinds of shenanigans are perfectly legitimate causes to denounce and condemn Walmart et al.

But none of these things were mentioned by BV2, to whom I was replying. BV2 made reference only to price competition - and whatever Walmart's sins may be, offering cheaper prices is NOT one of them.

On. The. Nose.

The reason Walmart gets continued bad press is because it refuses to unionize.

Sounds good to me.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm kind of hoping for a supervirus or Bubonic plague, something of that nature. Somehow only libertarians survive.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Behold, the Collapse:

(hat tip to Rand Paul)

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...helmuth, what's even more hideous is that we'd all be better off if MANY MANY of the 'employed' stayed home, smoked dope and watched cartoons all day long rather than 'doing their stinking, contrived, tax-sucking 'job'!...

...paying for the illions of minions and their 30-year retirements at the villages in florida gonna be fun helmuth!!..

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Localist, personal traditionalism is a fine thing for an individual to pursue, but it won't save any civilization. The cultural power the media has is always more powerful than, say, the family culture. I live in Progressistan, USA and I can't tell you how many pink-haired ultra-progs came here from conservative parts of the country, with traditional upbringings.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Localist, personal traditionalism is a fine thing for an individual to pursue, but it won't save any civilization. The cultural power the media has is always more powerful than, say, the family culture. I live in Progressistan, USA and I can't tell you how many pink-haired ultra-progs came here from conservative parts of the country, with traditional upbringings.

Not as traditional an upbringing as you think, maybe. Well, actually probably just as traditional as you think, I'm sure you have a realistic picture of how people generally live, but not as traditional as what I'm thinking of and proposing. Just a little bit traditional is too little, too late. Strong medicine is needed.

The culture in your home is what you make it. His much influence does MTV exert upon the Amish? It's *my* home, not theirs! I'm going to live the way *I* think optimal.

And that's the nice thing about this proposal: unilateral implementation. I am not only thinking about and proposing this, like so many policy proposals that that's as far as they can go. I'm also doing my best to *live* it! Right now! And no one can stop me! Mwa ha ha! Even if civilization is not saved, I'm saving my own line. *We're* gonna survive! (or at least die harder than 90-99% of the masses).

As for saving civilization, I am thinking all you need is maybe 1% of people -- certainly 5% would be enough -- joining up with the Throw-Back Revival Program. In three generations they will be the elite of society running everything and everyone else will be sort of irrelevant.

A little kick from science wouldn't hurt either. Come on, pheromone therapy! You, are our only hope.

 

[osan]

Why on earth would anyone want to save civilization? That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

helmuth pines for norman rockwell andy opie and goober: "As for saving civilization, I am thinking all you need is maybe 1% of people -- certainly 5% would be enough -- joining up with the Throw-Back Revival Program. In three generations they will be the elite of society running everything and everyone else will be sort of irrelevant..."



...[psssst...helmuth doesn't listen to me, so could one of his fellow conservative republicrats ask him which era he'd like for everyone to be throw-back...the genocide of the native american era?...the chattel slavery era?...the civil war era?...the corporate tru$t era?...the world war 1 era?...the pre-women's suffrage era?...the great depression era?...the world war 2 era?...the korean war era?...the vietnam war era?....

...a little specificity would help, helmuth...

 

[Superfluous Man]

helmuth pines for norman rockwell andy opie and goober: "As for saving civilization, I am thinking all you need is maybe 1% of people -- certainly 5% would be enough -- joining up with the Throw-Back Revival Program. In three generations they will be the elite of society running everything and everyone else will be sort of irrelevant..."



...[psssst...helmuth doesn't listen to me, so could one of his fellow conservative republicrats ask him which era he'd like for everyone to be throw-back...the genocide of the native american era?...the chattel slavery era?...the civil war era?...the corporate tru$t era?...the world war 1 era?...the pre-women's suffrage era?...the great depression era?...the world war 2 era?...the korean war era?...the vietnam war era?....

...a little specificity would help, helmuth...

Actually, if anybody tries to answer any of those questions, they risk getting banned for questioning Helmuth's motives. And I fear that you yourself might be at risk just for asking them.

I just got back from a lengthy ban, where I have no idea what I posted that prompted it, but that's all they told me was the cause.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I just got back from a lengthy ban, where I have no idea what I posted that prompted it, but that's all they told me was the cause.

Well I wondered where you had been. Welcome back!

I don't know why you were banned either, but it was not due to any actions or complaints on my part.

As for Hank, and you if you have this question: I would say the Victorian Era would be a good goal to shoot for, for optimal adult lifestyle, and possibly one or two generations previous for optimal child-rearing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Why on earth would anyone want to save civilization?

An interesting perspective. Care to elaborate? I'd like to hear your thoughts and any ideas you may have. Particularly, I enjoy actionable ideas.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Localist, personal traditionalism is a fine thing for an individual to pursue, but it won't save any civilization.

For you too, I would be very interested to know what ideas you have that you think would work, ThePaleoLibertarian.

This thread isn't just supposed to be about my ideas. Let's hear everybody out, put our brains together and save American civilization!

 

[osan]

An interesting perspective. Care to elaborate? I'd like to hear your thoughts and any ideas you may have. Particularly, I enjoy actionable ideas.

What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.

It is so very easy to dismiss my claim, what with so many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but competently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable. Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts and our thoughts form our reality. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed as a blessing, a curse, or any combination of the two.

But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. But let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of.

We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.

Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is a lie because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it becomes a very real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. In point of practice, it may in fact be less likely for reasons I hope will become apparent shortly. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.

The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his life in he manner of an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.

In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference lies in what happens next. In either case of savage and civilian, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear.

But if as assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation: the classic vendetta, perhaps at Tommy's hands. Whether Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may in either event face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on his behalf.

There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise. The savage society is honest about how such things work, whereas the civil society lies endlessly about justice and, <CoughHackWheezeGagChokeSputter> impartiality. What a sad and obscene joke it all is.

I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiotic of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often felonious disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies. And they rely upon the machinations of men in suits to pass edicts that guarantee the ability to get away even with literal murder in more than the rare and passing case. The list of ways in which this has been made manifest could take us weeks or even months of dedicated discourse here in order to name them all.

The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like being alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone think a savage society would last if being savage meant endless killing and destruction? It would be over in matters of days; weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? Africa? Middle-east? The lists are pretty long.

Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?

So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture, technology, and the hideous idolatry thereby raised in so many forms. Truly, where civilization has been concerned, the medium has always been the message: pure power - don't mess with us. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a nauseatingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by these girly-men. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of miserable examples as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.

The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to suck another man's penis, but that everyone praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth. Can't suck another man's weenie, but can carry a gun. And damn it if most of them want "muh gummint" to provide them with the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how shitty someone else's quality of life may turn out for them due directly because of said applications of force.

And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed this EO and that; and that; and that. Now the Trump says he's a gwyne undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization"; back and forth like a lethal yoyo moving in whichever direction those currently in power decide it shall swing. It is pure whim, and as often as not, caprice. Few give a true damn about your rights. Most don't even care about their own rights, save to the paltry extents their limited and frightened little selves auto-circumscribe and build their own prison walls at the sadly narrow delimiters dictated by their willful ignorance, cowardice, avarice, and indolence.

Similarly, some people attempt to justify our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb in his thoughts. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the determination to squelch all risk from life. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull, ill-bred children, rather than proper adults.

It would be instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death is a wonderful advisor, by and large.

A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans, or even just happenstance, as the result of one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows, as well as the cold and hard realities that surround him. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis-à-vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:

deference to a right...or someone...[recognized] to have certain rights...; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

There are so many intertwining layers of the various aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and sucking each other's weenies. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.

There really is no space to say all I could say on the matter in a single post, lest I receive the dreaded "TLDR".

Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would have come to what they are today, even if we had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?

And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and laws, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thoughts so poisonous, yet so deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves, preferring to stand before that full-length mirror as we watch ourselves masturbate. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.

And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than sane in any aspect, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.

I have absolutely no mental/emotional need for civilization. I have a physical one because it is nearly impossible to survive as a savage in a civilized world. But would that I could trade all this for the simpler and healthier life - and make no error in deeming be some ignorant dilettante who pines for something of which he knows nothing. I know well enough the totality of what would be required in order to have my preference and be happy with it. I would gladly relinquish all knowledge as it stands in favor of that which the lifestyle in question would require. That is how much I prefer freedom to even the most lavish of gilt cages. I am a wild animal living in the civilized world and have been miserable for it, much like the most pathetic sight of my life when driving through the zoo in Bridgeton NJ and seeing that black panther in a small cage, pacing back and forth all day long, its life reduced to mere existence. It broke my heart to small shards to bear witness to that unholy sight and it took me years to squelch the urge to go there at night and free them all, which would not have helped them.

In a word, civilization sucks.

The minority of one has written.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

helmuth offers: "I would say the Victorian Era would be a good goal to shoot for, for optimal adult lifestyle,"




...yes, i believe the white folk at the top of the pyramid did well in the land of "the city of london"...but come on...ever read any dickens, will durant?...

[i take it helmuth isn't a 'darkie']

 

[helmuth_hubener]

helmuth offers: "I would say the Victorian Era would be a good goal to shoot for, for optimal adult lifestyle,"




...yes, i believe the white folk at the top of the pyramid did well in the land of "the city of london"...but come on...ever read any dickens, will durant?...

[i take it helmuth isn't a 'darkie']

Everyone's political opinions, and indeed to a fair extent their opinions on everything, are determined by what they think they know about history.

And not only does the history need not be true, it need not even claim to be true! Fictional accounts can be just as persuasive, indeed are almost invariably more persuasive! Even though the author is totally upfront about the work being fictional, and the consumer supposedly "knows" it's fictional (in some irrelevant, higher-reasoning corner of his brain), nevertheless it is stored as reality.

Because the author need not let historical reality get in the way of his agenda, he is free to exaggerate, fabricate, and craft his story with the Platonic ideals of the concepts he's trying to bring out. No need for subtlety, ambiguity, countervailing facts, nor alternative explanations and ways of looking at the facts. No facts at all! Nothing to mudle up the picture or get in the way of the advancement of his hypothesis.

It's not hard to see why fiction is so much more powerful and persuasive a conveyor of history. Nor why it is that Charles Dickens, a novelist, is today the top historical authority on the 19th century for the vast majority of the English-speaking world.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.

It is so very easy to dismiss my claim, what with so many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but competently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable. Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts and our thoughts form our reality. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed as a blessing, a curse, or any combination of the two.

But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. But let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of.

We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.

Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is a lie because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it becomes a very real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. In point of practice, it may in fact be less likely for reasons I hope will become apparent shortly. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.

The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his life in he manner of an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.

In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference lies in what happens next. In either case of savage and civilian, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear.

But if as assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation: the classic vendetta, perhaps at Tommy's hands. Whether Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may in either event face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on his behalf.

There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise. The savage society is honest about how such things work, whereas the civil society lies endlessly about justice and, <CoughHackWheezeGagChokeSputter> impartiality. What a sad and obscene joke it all is.

I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiotic of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often felonious disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies. And they rely upon the machinations of men in suits to pass edicts that guarantee the ability to get away even with literal murder in more than the rare and passing case. The list of ways in which this has been made manifest could take us weeks or even months of dedicated discourse here in order to name them all.

The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like being alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone think a savage society would last if being savage meant endless killing and destruction? It would be over in matters of days; weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? Africa? Middle-east? The lists are pretty long.

Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?

So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture, technology, and the hideous idolatry thereby raised in so many forms. Truly, where civilization has been concerned, the medium has always been the message: pure power - don't mess with us. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a nauseatingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by these girly-men. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of miserable examples as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.

The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to suck another man's penis, but that everyone praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth. Can't suck another man's weenie, but can carry a gun. And damn it if most of them want "muh gummint" to provide them with the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how $#@!ty someone else's quality of life may turn out for them due directly because of said applications of force.

And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed this EO and that; and that; and that. Now the Trump says he's a gwyne undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization"; back and forth like a lethal yoyo moving in whichever direction those currently in power decide it shall swing. It is pure whim, and as often as not, caprice. Few give a true damn about your rights. Most don't even care about their own rights, save to the paltry extents their limited and frightened little selves auto-circumscribe and build their own prison walls at the sadly narrow delimiters dictated by their willful ignorance, cowardice, avarice, and indolence.

Similarly, some people attempt to justify our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb in his thoughts. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the determination to squelch all risk from life. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull, ill-bred children, rather than proper adults.

It would be instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death is a wonderful advisor, by and large.

A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans, or even just happenstance, as the result of one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows, as well as the cold and hard realities that surround him. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis-à-vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:



There are so many intertwining layers of the various aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and sucking each other's weenies. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.

There really is no space to say all I could say on the matter in a single post, lest I receive the dreaded "TLDR".

Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would have come to what they are today, even if we had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?

And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and laws, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thoughts so poisonous, yet so deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves, preferring to stand before that full-length mirror as we watch ourselves masturbate. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.

And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than sane in any aspect, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.

I have absolutely no mental/emotional need for civilization. I have a physical one because it is nearly impossible to survive as a savage in a civilized world. But would that I could trade all this for the simpler and healthier life - and make no error in deeming be some ignorant dilettante who pines for something of which he knows nothing. I know well enough the totality of what would be required in order to have my preference and be happy with it. I would gladly relinquish all knowledge as it stands in favor of that which the lifestyle in question would require. That is how much I prefer freedom to even the most lavish of gilt cages. I am a wild animal living in the civilized world and have been miserable for it, much like the most pathetic sight of my life when driving through the zoo in Bridgeton NJ and seeing that black panther in a small cage, pacing back and forth all day long, its life reduced to mere existence. It broke my heart to small shards to bear witness to that unholy sight and it took me years to squelch the urge to go there at night and free them all, which would not have helped them.

In a word, civilization sucks.

The minority of one has written.

I don't necessarily agree, but for those of you who didn't read this whole thing, here is a summary:

Rousseau, the noble savage. Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That was quite the epic post, osan.

You and Julius Evola have a lot in common. Have you ever read him?

 

[Ender]

Everyone's political opinions, and indeed to a fair extent their opinions on everything, are determined by what they think they know about history.

And not only does the history need not be true, it need not even claim to be true! Fictional accounts can be just as persuasive, indeed are almost invariably more persuasive! Even though the author is totally upfront about the work being fictional, and the consumer supposedly "knows" it's fictional (in some irrelevant, higher-reasoning corner of his brain), nevertheless it is stored as reality.

Because the author need not let historical reality get in the way of his agenda, he is free to exaggerate, fabricate, and craft his story with the Platonic ideals of the concepts he's trying to bring out. No need for subtlety, ambiguity, countervailing facts, nor alternative explanations and ways of looking at the facts. No facts at all! Nothing to mudle up the picture or get in the way of the advancement of his hypothesis.

It's not hard to see why fiction is so much more powerful and persuasive a conveyor of history. Nor why it is that Charles Dickens, a novelist, is today the top historical authority on the 19th century for the vast majority of the English-speaking world.

Don't dismiss Dickens; he wrote the truth of his times and he knew them very well.

He spent his childhood in debtors prison with his father, who had been sent there. Dickens was let out daily to go out and work and then came home to prison on a nightly basis. Oliver Twist is a parable of the life of the poor in Dickens' day. A Tale of Two Cities, besides being an amazing piece of literature, shows real life for the English & French, during the French Revolution.

 

[osan]

That was quite the epic post, osan.

You and Julius Evola have a lot in common. Have you ever read him?

Never even heard of him.

I am shamefully ill-read.