I have often written about bad faith, system implosion, civilizational stagnation and collapse etc. However these are merely manifestations of a few, but rarely mentioned, basic issues.
Foremost amongst them is the “winner” and “loser” problem. Any system that creates “winners” or “losers” based on either arbitrary or rational sounding criteria will always be unstable.
The reason comes down to group cohesion. A system in which there are “bigger winners” and “smaller winners” maintains cohesion because almost nobody has a ‘good enough’ reason to abandon the group or act in bad faith.
However a system with clearly defined “winners’ or “losers” will always create the perception of unfairness. Now this perception might not be too dangerous for a group of hunter gatherers or relatively primitive civilizations like the roman empire. The capacity for damage and mayhem that “losers” could inflict on primitive isolated systems was very limited, as was the ability to cause damage through neglect.
Higher levels of civilizations require people to act in good faith to merely keep the system from collapsing (over extended periods of time). Religion, nationalism, education along with meager occasional rewards etc can help brainwash some “losers” into accepting their place.
But what happens when most of your information and exposure to the world is lateral and uncurated rather than vertical and from “trusted sources and experts”. Combine that with the lack of occasional rewards for compliance or the need to do so.
How will that work out?
Every fucking busybody who wants to push his or her agenda invokes the welfare of kids.
Don’t care about the children.
Yes, you heard me right. In a more primitive society with geographical restrictions, kids were your social security and medicare plan. However, in the world we live in you will be lucky to see them once every few months. Why waste time, effort, money and sacrifice your lifestyle for someone who will dump you in a poorly run nursing home anyway.
Many people who take psychoactive drugs such as amphetamines, MDMA, THC and hallucinogens report alterations in perceptions.
So here is my question-
What or who is perceiving those changes?
Because to perceive any new sensation or experience- it has to be filtered, processed and compared to the memory of some previous experience by something or someone. In UNIX speak, it is equivalent to dynamically comparing old and new files.
It gets even more complicated because the brain can learn to perceive patterns which it previously ignored, which then allows it to further reinterpret past experiences.
So what or who perceives and interprets?
We live in a fiat-currency based world, inspite of the protestations by goldbugs. So here is a question..
If a government spends an extra 25 billion (or its equivalent) on a “weird” scientific project, which is not fraudulent, how does that extra money affect the economy?
While eCONomists might spin various yarns to justify different schools of thoughts- what is the reality?
The reality is that spending for the unknown creates well-paid jobs and advances technology, often in completely unexpected ways. The outcome is always good in the short term- well paid jobs that produce more tax revenue, consumption and the money multiplier effect. In the long term- many of the unexpected discoveries and advances in technology can produce even bigger benefits.
It is a win-win situation. But why do the austerity programs and budget cuts target such endeavors but keep on paying more to people from the “old boy/girl” network?
Why are most humans afraid of anything other than their pathetic “status quo”?
Many whites seem to long for the “good old days” when people could be killed or enslaved without consequences. CONservatives bemoan the loss of toughness and ability to kill those ‘swarthy subhumans’ on the rise of LIEbrals.
Very few understand that this is a consequence of technology, not LIEbral thinking. Let me explain..
I would be the first to admit that non-whites have equally bad records when it comes to genocide, cruelty and other CONservative behaviors. However the industrial revolution had a peculiar side effect- communication technology.
In previous eras the spread of reasonably accurate news was limited, and conquererors wrote history. Moreover, the extent of mass communication between cultures was limited by technology and language- nor could one culture attack another large one on another continent. Technology changed all that, and the ability to wage war (logistics) or develop better technology now goes hand-in-hand with better communication technology.
Communication technology allows for better quantification and recording of events, which by itself is necessary to wage war. However, it also creates data about the effect of such wars or events.
Events like the armenian genocide, ww1, ww2, holocaust, khmer rouge regimes, the vietnam war etc create public relation problems precisely because of the images and data of such events. The internet has also removed any vestige of an ability to censor events by the MSM.
Now some clever white morons might say- “we can shut down communication technology and return to the good old days”. The little problem is- our way of life, abilities, logistics and living standard are so tightly linked to the underlying communication technologies that removing them would cause an collapse of the type where the living would envy the dead.
But clever white morons will then say- “what about china? or a few other east-asian countries?”. First- if censorship was effective, they would not spend so much effort to keep on plugging newer holes. Second- people accept far more crap if they are getting a continuous increase in living standards. Ultimately it will plateau or collapse from lack of demand (asian economies are mercantile not consumption based).
The other effect of technological spread is- local events are no longer local. Let me give you an example..
During the vietnam war, many WASP morons suggested the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. Their suicidal advice was correctly trashed, and here is why.
The news that a country would use nukes on another which did not have them, would have made every single country with some capacity to make nukes or acquire them do it overnight. Even worse, any small conflict between the US and such a newly nuclear country would rapidly escalate into the smaller country using them before the US had a chance to exercise that option.
By that time, the technology and knowledge to make nukes was widespread enough for this to be ONLY possibility of such an action.
Technology is what it is.