Syrian Militants Behead Catholic Priest

The Presidents announcement that we will finally get involved, officially, with the Syrian rebels has caused internationalist to cheer. Despite the fact that our attempts to assist second rate cultures achieve a modern democratic society, internationalists can never avoid giving into the siren song of interventionism. While they superficially acknowledge the dangers of backing a rebellion whose rebels are fractious and not all inclined towards western ideals, they ignore the one fundamental truth about rebellions. It usually isn't the most popular, or truest groups that return to power, rather the groups who are most brutal usually end up in charge. Involving ourselves with backward cultures will only bring us misery.

The Manosphere Worldview Is Most Definitley Growing

The manosphere is replete with men sounding horns and standing atop pulpits crying out "We are growing! We are growing!" And it certainly looks that way. Today I visited a website that has little to do with the manosphere. It is a weightlifting website whose creator, very knowledgeable in the science of weightlifting, has broken down, scientifically, how a person should lift and what they can expect given their body types.  While lifting is part of the manosphere in so far as it belongs in the 'self improvement' category, this particular corner of the Internet is wholly independent of the sphere.

Because of this, I never really expected to encounter manosphere ideas, but today I did, and from the creator of the website no less. He railed against the discrimination caused by feminism and how it has devolved into an organization promoting the discrimination towards men as well of the ridiculous metamorphosis of equality under the law into equality under all things. Gentleman, I have been visiting this website for a very long time, far longer than I have been acquainted with the 'sphere, and I had no reason to ever suspect that I would see these ideas being articulated; yet I have.  The manosphere is indeed growing.

Investors Asking For Obamacare For 401ks Even If They Don't Realize It

The results from a Wells Fargo/Gallup pull, I see potential conflict of interests, a few months back that investors want governments to 'enhance' 401k accounts isn't surprising. Over sxity nine percent of those polls wanted the president and congress to find ways to every company to offer a 401k plan as well as encourage every American to invest into their company 401k. I can think of one way the government could 'encourage' 401k investment, and that would be to simply create laws and regulations requiring companies over a certain size to offer them.  Investors, businessmen and liberty minded individuals would balk at the suggesting of forcing companies to offer 401ks, however, considering what happened with health care, what else are we to expect?

Eventually the government is going to come after our 401k, I am fully convinced of this. In fact, when the government finally does I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were at the behest of the public.  The poll results simply illustrate that the trend has already started but it simply confirms that many investors don't think about the long term. So here is what I wonder.  How long until companies are effectively required to offer 401ks, or until the public is forced to contribute to retirement accounts, lest they incur fines and penalties à la Obamacare?

Handwringing When Man Tells It How He Sees It In Commencement Speech

A gentleman spoke at a graduation and his words have offended some.  Those words in question? Here they are, paraphrased by me of course:

That if they (girls) felt that their calling was to be pursue professional careers, god bless them, but that the world doesn't need more billion dollar women CEO as much as it needs that our culture currently scorns, mothers.

Those are strong words, words guaranteed to offend, and words that contain an element of truth to them. For the majority of women out there, their jobs will never come close to being as important as their role as a mothers. Take of it what you will.

Why School Should Study The Bible

Education in  the United States is pretty poor these days, and history fares no differently. I was thinking about my instruction in Western History and disturbingly realized  I could not recollect being taught certain historical events prior to  high school. I remember learning about the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, and the New Deal in seventh grade. I can recall my sixth grade teacher lecturing us about the ancient Egyptians. I distinctly remember my fifth grade class; instruction about early colonialism in North America descending into anarchy because instead of tending to crops, dealing with Indians or any of those other items, our 'colonies' spent their  time declaring war on each other. Our teacher finally put a kibosh to the whole thing after we made one of those perfect students cry because my group completely annihilated her groups colony. Finally, I remember that every February we had to study black history. I always elected to do my report on either George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglass because they were truly exceptional men, but what I can’t recall -and this does disturb me- is being instructed about the Greeks, Romans or Christendom and the Bible.

There is a pretty good chance  I did receive some tutoring about the Greeks and Romans but that it was so boring, compared to the awesome, illustrated history books my dad gave me every Christmas, that I nodded off for the entire lesson. It is hard to sit through a class that goes over the history in the most general of fashions while you were already reading the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, so I don't want to claim that my K-8 education completely failed me. But even so, I cannot say I received any instruction in Christianity or the Bible.

Now there will be some individuals who will immediately say 'well, of course, Cogitans. Separation of church and state and all.' But that would be missing the larger point. The point isn't that I think schools should teach Christianity as the one true religion but that they should teach about Christianity and the Bible and the effect it had shaping Western Civilization. Like it or not,  almost every person born in the West has Judeo-Christian values deeply embedded into their worldview. The reddittheist, reddit atheists, cry foul and generally froth at the mouth, but the thinking adults among atheists will concede that this is true. Christianity has deeply shaped and molded our worldview and because of that the Bible is essentially the book of Western Civilization. Liberalism, humanism, individualism and, yes, even progressives and militant feminism, have some connection to Christianity and the Bible. Being  this is the case, and considering its historical and cultural importance, schools should study the Bible the way we study the Constitution, Magna Carta or any other important cultural piece of work.

This doesn't require that we teach the Bible as true, which would certainly conflagrate the idea of separating church and state in government funded schools, but that we should study it, analyze it and ask ourselves what sort of message is being delivered. Each story, parable and passage in the Bible is an allegory, an illustrative device, that is trying to teach us something about ourselves, or instruct us on how to behave as a people. For example, why is it that harems were culturally acceptable in many parts of the world, but that they were unacceptable to Christian Rome and Christian Europe? The answer is in the Bible, specifically the New Testament, my friends

Why is it that the West has led the charge against capital punishment or cruel and unusual punishment for prisoners? It's in the Bible

And this goes for many other parts of Western Civilization. The Bible, coupled with other ideas from Pagan Rome, the rule of law, and Greece, democratic government, shaped and molded us into the society we have today. I know there will be individuals that will point to one specific example in  the Bible that illustrates a cruel punishment or point to the myriad of torture devices of Medieval Europe and use that as an example of why I am wrong, but they would be utterly missing the point. The point isn't that the Bible, or Christianity for that matter, is perfect since nothing written or organized by men is perfect. The point is that Christianity and the Bible influenced the direction our civilization took. If the West had remained pagan, and we continued worshiped Jupiter and the Pantheon of Gods, our civilization would be vastly different from what it looks like today.


If we want to understand our nation, our civilization and ourselves, then it behooves us to study the most fundamental parts of our society. And the Bible, the values and the worldview it imparts, is one of the building blocks of our society. This isn't to say we should teach the Bible as the 'truth', and I say that as a Catholic, but we should absolutely study it as a historical and cultural document.

Vamparism

Aurini has a video that ties into a few posts about evil and vampires that I think are pertinent. The twisting of the Christian maxim 'hate the sin and not the sinner' into something not even remotely close to what it was intended; as even Christianity admits that there are people who are unsaveable but that they are unsaveable due to their own choices. I have written about our culture of vamparism and I think our public media portrayal of them perfectly illustrates what is wrong with society. I've already written about what vampires represent in the Western Judeo-Christian mindset.  Let me point out specific instances in popular culture.

In the beginning of the 19th century a poem called the Vampyre, which introduces us to the modern conception of the vampire that had existed for millenia in one shape or form. The poem is written shortly after the turbulence of the French revolution and Napoleonic wars. The vampire in this era symbolized the abuse of the commoners by the effete and slothful aristocracy, who in violation of noblise oblige, abused their non-noble brethren.  This was an issue throughout Western Europe, though less so in Great Britain, and it was the abuses of the French nobility that led to the terrible wars on the continent as it paved the way for Napoleons rise.

Later, during the turbulent era of the 1840s, the Varney the Vampire serials are first produced. The 1840s were the first period when the affects of the industrial revolution were first felt, both the good effects, and the ill. The topic of the poems change, sometimes focusing on the greed and avarice of Varney, and other times his terrible acts done to others due to his self loathing.  This is the vampire as the narcissist, concerned only with his own gain, his own feelings, and oblivious, or simply uncaring, about his actions and their affects on others.

Then we have the penultimate novel, Dracula, written in the twilight years of the Victorian era. A lot of themes are present in this book, syphilis, the roles of women, selfless manliness, the growing schism between science and faith, and some claim that there are opinions on post colonialism. I have also heard that Dracula was a allusion to Britain's growing fears of the rise of Germany. What ever the cause, the novel best captures the horror of vampirism and one of items that most stand out to me is Dr. Van Helsing's speaking in reference to Lucy, who is slowing turning into the undead: I am paraphrasing

Where that she would simply pass unto death I would be content to let her die a peaceful death and enter into the peaceful arms of the almighty. But no, there are some things more terrible than death and if she dies now she risks damnation.

As I said, Bram Stocker captures the fears of vampires, and what they represent, perfectly. I would even argue that Dracula is the distillation of everything vampires have represented since we first conceptualized them. It is why his image of vampires has dominated our collective minds for over a century. But now we have vampires turned into the narcissistic sex fantasy completely devoid of any deeper meaning. Where once vampires articulate the very worst fears of the West, they have been turned into an article to swoon over, lust even. Vampires steal the life force of their victims much in the same way a rapist steals the dignity of a woman, yet popular media never draws that comparison.

 In twilight, or another god awful show called the vampire diaries, the main character is a girl who loves a vampire but never ever seriously thinks about how terrible her love interest is.  Countless of individuals have had their blood taken, their life force raped if you will, but the vampire is not considered an evil individual, he is an object of pity.  No time is spent on the victims, or their final moments of terror, instead we focus on the 'forbidden' love between the two. And let us not forget the absurdity in the idea that a creature who has murdered countless numbers of people is able to 'contain' his evil nature because of his love. This is articulation of narcissism right there, that you are so such special snowflake that a vampire, who had no compunction about killing numerous other individuals (most often women I have seen) but frets and agonizing over the risk that he might go 'too far' with you.

This is absurd as vampires don't do this, they are incapable of doing this. They have crossed the event horizon and have made a choice. We see these vampires as regretful for their past actions, but how can I buy that this regret is real? At least with Angel you saw a vampire who tried to atone for his crimes, but with the latest iteration of vampires you don't even see that. If someone is truly regretful for their actions they would seek atonement. And in the case of a vampire there is only one kind of atonement, DEATH. That only way to free your victims, who still live anyways, from their fate and the only way to truly show that you are remorseful for your crimes. Feeling bad about it doesn't cut it.

And that is the ultimate rub about vampires, what makes them so scary, because a vampire is incapable of feeling bad about their actions.  They are not simply sociopaths, they are slaves to their worst and most base instincts. They live to consume the life force of others, veritable parasites. This is something that should be revolting to every human being, we have an inherent drive to be useful to our friends, family and our society.  But all the while, we have this knowledge that sociopath rests in all our hearts. We are flawed creatures who can commit evil and it is only our faculties, or grace if you believe in God, that keeps us from the worst side of ourselves.

Vampires used to either represent the complete failure of our facilities, or the complete absence of grace. To be a vampire was a fate worse than death. So much so that the act of killing someone turned into a vampire was an act of kindness, and the people who did so, heroes. But that isn't recognized today. Vamparism isn't a fate worse than death, and there is a reason why most fiction portrays the victims of vampires as women, it is something that is desired, lusted after even.  While someone might claim that the protagonist of these awful shows simply want what every human being wants, to live forever with their loved one, how narcissistic, evil even, does a person have to be to desire immortality that can only be purchased through the blood of others?

 

Your Religious Values Are Not Superior to The Laws of The Republic

Says a French judge to a muslim man convicted for slugging a nurse because she removed his wife's burkah while she was givin birth. There has been increasing tension within Europe as more and more Europeans are being subject to militant muslims. I daresay their (Europe's) immigration issue is far more pressing than ours, for all our cultural differnces with illegal immigants from Mexico and latin America, the anchor of the moral values is the same as our own. Ultimately this could end very badly, for Muslim immigrants that is. I don't expect Europe to waste away, and as we have seen in Greece, militant nationalistic groups have been on the rise. In the Europe will only see more of these issues.

Boyfriend Renting

According to the Telegraph, boyfriend renting, is becoming more common in China. It's intriguing because this is happening despite the fact that China's ill-conceived one child policy has led to there being a glut of men, and a shortage of women, shouldn't it be the other way around?

But the writer theorizes that the boyfriend rental trend is indicative of Chinese women choosing an urban lifestyle. Why then would they need to rent boyfriends if they can just 'sex and the city' it up? Well we need to also remember that China is not like the west, their elders are still anchored towards traditional views of marriage, so when they meet a family, that mid-20s something needs to bring some sort of man home. You can also say that unlike the slothful west, which already has wealth, the Chinese work themselves to death, meaning there just might not be all that much time for a young women to meet a young man.

But here is what I am wondering. When will we see this phenomena in the west? We have already seen the rise of the old maid, how long until we see young girls renting boyfriends?

Observations: I am an American vs I am an American Citizen

I was watching a movie, TED, and there was a particular scene where the bear is kidnapped and hey starts saying he is an American citizens and that he has rights. It's innocuous, and the movie probably didn't mean anything by it, but I've been mulling on it anyways. What significance is there in saying 'I am an American citizen' versus 'I am an American' and I could see many people saying that differentiating the two is simply splitting hairs. But there is a difference, a big one, as they convey two separate identities. 

The two different phrases, while ostensibly describing the same person, an American is also an American citizen and it would appear to be vice verca, there is something at play.  The difference between the two phrases is the same difference between a nation, and a nation state. Individuals that study history and geopolitics know that a nation state is different from a nation.  Ideally, a nation state is simply the political organization and geopolitical boundaries that encompasses a nation.  Think Japan and Japanese, yes there are some minorities such as the naturalized Koreans and the Ainu, but their numbers are a mere fraction of the dominant people of the Island. 

In some instances a nation state borders does not encompass a single nation of people, think of the Kurds, whose people are split between Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Armenia. If you have paid attention to the news these last 20 years, it has been no small source of instability and tension in the region.  This isn't always the case, the United States has the various Indian nations, but once again their population is too small to be a source of instability, and the United Kingdom has been very stable in its 300 plus years of existence; There is talk of partitioning of Scotland out of the U.K, but I do not think it will happen.

Now, for the United Kingdom, they illustrate the difference between considering themselves a national or citizen of a nation.  Every person living in the United Kingdom is a British citizen and given their shared culture, trails and tribulations you would think they would think of themselves as British. However, talk to someone living in Glasgow, Cardiff, London, or Belfast, most individuals in these regions do not think of themselves as British, they are Scottish, Welsh, English, or Irish and this is self evident because if the people did think of themselves as British, then devolution wouldn't even be discussed.

Now, the British Isle could eventually have it's residents think of themselves a s British, national identities take a long time to form, and Great Britain has only existed for a couple hundred years. Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales as we think of them today have existed for over a thousands years.  But it could happen, three thousand years ago the Italian peninsula was a collection of competing tribes that spoke different languages, and it wasn't until the iron fist of Rome held it in unity for almost a thousand years, did an Italian identity really develop.

So how does this relate to America?  The United States is an anomaly in that regard as most individuals I have meet throughout the country think of themselves as American. I have spoken with people from the south that identify as Southerners and dudes from Texas that call themselves Texans, however, they will also say that they are American. It's a dual identity, one that I cannot identify with because I am not from that part of the country, but they still think of themselves as Americans, ad it is extraordinary.  This nation is only a few hundred years old, but it has managed to create a national identity in a short period of time, which has helped keep our country stable, however, recent cultural trends threaten this stability.

This isn't a post against immigration, far from it, as this nation was built upon immigrants and has enjoyed almost unrivalled success in spite of everything that history has told us should happen. This was largely due to the willingness to take who ever would come, but with the expectation that they would become American, that they would leave their old world traditions behind, and adopt new ones.

At the turn of the last century this was articulated as the melting pot idea of immigration. Pour in a bunch of different metals, heat it up, purge it of the impurities, and create a new metal stronger than anything that it was made out of.  Japanese, French, Russia, Jewish, Italian, Cuban, Indian so on and so forth, put it through the crucible of America, and you would get an American. It served the country very well but in today's progressive age, it is considered to ethno-centric, and the salad bowl, multicultural idea of America, came into being.

Now, instead of Americans, people who may look different and come from different lands but bound together by a shared culture and purpose, we get American citizens.  These are individuals that posses the rights and privileges of being a member of the polity, but they don't necessarily identify with their country of citizenship, it would be far more accurate to call them citizens of the United States.  Their numbers aren't widespread, but they do exist. The best example of these types of individuals are people who come to this nation, stay long enough to make their fortune, get their citizenship, and then they return to their home nation, all the while never giving up their citizenship to the United States.

It might perplex Americans, especially those who now how Byzantine and expensive our legal immigration and citizenship laws are, why anyone would do this, but there is a reason. Citizenship to the United States confers advantages. I met one man in Korea, a very devout and brave man, he once faced execution in North Korea as an accused spy, who had become a United States citizen, but now resides in Korea. When asked by a newspaper why he retained American citizenship, his answer was simple, and to the point, 'You guys (Americans) are like the Roman Empire. Americans can go to other countries far easier than many others.' 

The man was very forthright with his response, and I don't blame the man at all, he paid his dues and acquired citizenship, if he wishes to return home to his people and keep American citizenship then so be it, but I mention it to illustrate a point. He, and others like him, are not Americans, they don't say they are, but they are American citizens.  Whether we will admit it our not a persons loyalty is to their family, friends, and people, the state comes afterwards. Just look at the "Americans" who went back to their country, or parents country of origin, to fight against us. We can call them traitors, and ask how they could attack their country,but you have to understand, they were never Americans.

This issue is admittedly minor. America, despite the citizen of the world none-sense pushed by globalist progressives, is a very patriotic nation. Love of country isn't a dirty concept in America, how much some self loathing Americans might wish to to be, and we are rapidly seeing that globalists progressives best efforts in Europe, that it isn't there either. But it is a potential issue.

Once again I refer to Rome who, at the end of their empire, at millions of citizens, but few Romans. I mentioned in my post about the Constitutio Antioninia that Rome started to suffer a manpower crisis after extending citizenship, because the major impetus to get non-Romans to join, citizenship, was removed. They had what they wanted, the benefits of being associated with Rome, so why bleed for Rome, after all, they were Celts, Germanics, Iberians, Dacians, Thracians and Greeks, not Romans, let Romans bleed for Rome.  It's strange to think ,that an empire encompassing a quarter of the worlds population, was overcome by a couple of hundred thousand barbarians.  When the Celts assaulted the eternal city a thousand years before the fall every man in Rome, and almost every Latin and Italian allied to Rome, stood up against them and ultimately prevailed. And they prevailed because they were defending their home, their people, their 'patria'. The Empire fell because the various factions of Rome turned inward, to their own people, rather than assist their supposed brethren, after all, they were all Romans weren't they?

Culture matters, this is something we can never forget. I do not care who my neighbors and countrymen are, be they Jew, Islamic, Christian, Black, Asian, or White, it makes no difference to me so long as they share my culture, my American culture.  And this is something globalists need to understand, it took almost 12,000 years, since the settling of Jericho, and the beginnings of the city state, for the modern concept of the nation state to develop. It seems utterly foolhardy to think that we can advance humanity to the next stage of interconnection, the world nation state, that is a mere fraction of the time that it took for the nation to come into being.

Fortunately for us, in all the battles that we will have to fight, the infantilization of our country, statism, corruption this one is probably the easiest. It doesn't require a large government policy, in fact I think government action would hurt this cause, and it only requires that we speak out against the globalist nonsense and refuse to be shamed by those who would argue that patriotism is something to be ashamed of. It's a war of ideas, and the battlefield is in our favor in this one, but we must never give an inch. I will not apologize for being patriotic, nor do I equivocate or back track when individuals dare say that my expectations that people assimilate and become American is provincial/racist/close minded, I dismiss those arguments for the foolish ones that they are, and I have said outright that I consider citizen of the world idea an infantile one. We (the West) can offered to think this way (for now) due our position in the world, but it would be a grievous mistake to think that national sentiments do not exist elsewhere in the world and that in our coming struggles that nations will not act out on their sentiments.

For those who would say that I am advocating a kind of nationalism that resulted in two terrible World Wars, I would first reply and say that you need to study why those wars actually happened, and I would then also say that I am not. A realistic world view is not something to be turned away from, nations and people act out in their own self interest, it is simply the macro version of what human beings do on a daily basis, and it doesn't mean you cannot come into accommodation. The citizen of the world concept is far more dangerous to global peace and stability than accepting the reality of national differences. Just look at what the EU wrought in Greece, their (the EU) efforts to try and stifle national sentiment in favor of a trans-European identity, that does not innately exist, has resulted in the rise of Islamic violence, but of course the butchering of a youth in England is not related to that now is it, and counter extreme national retaliation, and it all resulted because the EU tried to create a nation of European citizens before there was a unified sense of Europeans among them. We must not make the same mistake as Europe.

Progessivism and The New Noblesse Oblige

Hierarchical structures have existed throughout human history, ever since man was first able to walk on two feet and grip his rudimentary tools.  The feudalistic system of the middle ages was a direct off evolution of the patronage system of ancient Rome, which started out as an informal agreement between a benefactor and benefactee and only became formalized into the feudalistic system with the collapse of the Roman economic system, and the concept of betters leading, or guiding, their lessors have direct roots to our first governing system, the tribal system.

It is easy to see why so many individuals are drawn to government solutions, after all, our human brain is geared to operate in small tribal communities lead by a chieftain, in wolf packs we would call him the alpha, and given the relatively small size of tribes, no more than a hundred or so individuals, the system worked relatively well. After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here today now would we? Our societies have evolved, but the evolution isn't nearly so large as we would like to think. It is  simply complex reiterations of the basic tribal systems, I mean, if tribal thinking isn't still inherent in modern man then how can you explain the almost fanatical attachment individuals have to regional sports teams? Or just look at the social cliques of high school kids.

Rule By The Nobility Never
Really Went Away

I mention this only to offer some contextual back ground to my post.  Because, with the evolution of our tribal system into larger and more complex systems, certain concepts were articulated.  One concept, noblesse oblige, articulated a rule that was meant to not only prevent abuse of privilege by the elite, but also stipulate that the privileged inherited grave responsibility.  Noblesse oblige has existed as long as formal human social structures have existed, but it wasn't until given the name it has now until the early 19th century by the French. It has been used to articulate the need of nobility to act honorably and justly to their less privilege compatriots, and also, by the morally bereft to justify the cruelty of tyrants.

This is something we need to understand, libertarianism isn't natural, it isn't an innate part of human nature, it has to be discovered and wrestled with rationally. People who do not admit that they have to wrestle the way human beings work with libertarianism, for example the perennially stupid making perennially stupid decisions, and that they have never felt doubt about their ideology, well they are lying, or just no examining their beliefs hard enough.  Ultimately, libertarianism is an intellectual decision, of the mind, not one of our instincts. This is why so many human beings continue to elect individuals that support policies that we do not understand, they are using the instincts, rather than their rational. It wouldn't be so terrible if our instincts weren't woefully out of synch with how complex societies operate.

With this background we move onto progressivism. Now progressivism isn't really all that new, yes some of the causes of progressivism are new, and aren't necessarily diametrically opposed to libertarianism, but the solutions they propose are nothing new. And in fact I should state now, many of the solutions proposed by traditional conservatives are also nothing new. The idea that social ills must be addressed by the state. This is were the variant strains of libertarianism diverge from progressivism and conservatism. 

One of the biggest tenants of progressivism is that the state must ensure that we are all equal. I call these progressives equalists. This isn't the notional that everyone should be treated equal under the law, I support that equalism, but that every one should be equal, i.e those with more give to those with less and that special favors be given to disadvantaged groups to 'level' the playing field.  I have made my, contempt, for such a system abundantly clear so I won't say much more on the matter. I will say that most equalists aren't a huge threat to our society. They will one day be forced to deal with the reality that no, not all people are equal, and when that day comes, provided they don't become mentally unhinged, they can be reasoned with.  It is a different strain of progressivism that worries me, the progressives who would consider themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, the new nobility of America, those are the progressives that worry me.

While some of these progressives who view themselves as our nobility are equalists, in the end I think they make up a minority, and don't hold that much sway.  You see, living in a progressive city, I can attest to one thing. Not all progressives are equalists, in fact, I have met many who aren't.   They have come right out and said they do not think all people inherently are equal. This scares me. The fact that they don't think all people are 'equal' doesn't bother me, I do not think that myself, but being libertarian, I am content with everyone being treated equal under the law, and then let everyone live their own lives the best they can. Not so with the non-equalist progressive.

I can understand the allure of 'equalism' and the desire of some progressives to achieve that magical state were everyone is truly equal. It will never happen, there will never be 100% parity in representation, salary, power, or intellect, the challenge is beyond our capabilities or our systems and attempting to do so will harm society in the long run, but the intentions are well meaning. But the non-equalist progressive, well that is a contradiction.  Here we have an individual that admits that individuals are not, can not, and will not ever be equal to each other, yet they support equalist policies. The question is, why? Surely a person, who knows the utter fallacy that is equalism, that these policies will only cause ruin

The answer, I believe, is advancement. Individuals, who knowingly support policies that are ultimately futile, do so because they believe they derive some benefit from them.  'Yes,' they might rationalize to themselves, 'I can see how policy x really doesn't work, but it benefits me, helps me move up the ladder, and because it does so, I will support it.'  Millions, or even Billions, of dollars wasted. The discussion of competent individuals because they are not a protected group? It doesn't matter so long as the policy helps them achieve their ultimate destination.

There is also another aspect at play. That is the unfortunate reality that human beings like telling human beings what to do. As much as it is true that human beings form hierarchical social structures in nature, it is also true that humans, outside a select few, like being the leader, or at least enjoy the perks that leaders enjoy. Moreover, these type of individuals excel in a particular eviroment, one favored by major corporations and governments.  You can get truly exceptional individuals of great talent and intellect, but history is replete with those type of individuals being cast out, only to have them return when they shake the very foundations of whatever world, think of Steve Jobs.

And that is why they support big government, ultimately it isn't even the politics, it's knowing that whatever cause the government takes up, a new opportunity arises. Calls for government to regulate and dictate an aspect of Americans lives that hadn't been overseen before? Great, it's another opportunity to become the chief undersecretary to the secretary of the deputy director of the department of fuzzy bunnies. It's another opportunity to become part of the technocratic ruling class.

All modern progressivism is today, what it has devolved into, is the concept of noblesse oblige. But rather than the nobility be conferred hereditarily, it is awarded by credentialism. The ring you are expected to kiss is now the ring with the most certificates, diplomas, unviersities and fellowships under his or her belt.  It is the perversion of the meritocracy, were one's status is based off of their actual accomplishments, into the technocracy, were ones status is based on how many of the right kind of documented accomplishments one has.

A Culture of Vamparism

The original Dawn of the Dead was released in 1978, and critics at the time hailed it as, not only a wonderful horror movie, but also a great criticism of America's growing consumer culture. Today we often we refer to the American masses as zombies, living purposeless meaningless lives and doing nothing but consume.  I'd like to expand on that idea. I believe we live in an age of  the vampire.

Vampires, or creatures like vampires, are an almost universal item of lore throughout all human cultures throughout all our epochs.  The current, and most popular idea, of the vampire stems from the European tradition, specifically the Balkans, and that tradition expressed vampires as the most terrifying thing on the planet. Zombies are scary, if only because it entails massive societal breakdown, but they do not hold a candle to vampires. Zombies are not evil,  they are mindless and something cannot be evil if it is unaware of it's actions, and the latest iteration notwithstanding, cumbersomly slow, and only pose a threat in large numbers, and can be overcome rather easily. The real theme of zombie movies is what humans do to each other in an impossible situation. You never see zombies infiltrating a compound, city, or settlement that has it's act together and is ready. You see zombies where you see a broken dysfunctional society. That is the threat of zombies, nothing more, nothing less. However, Vampires are a different being entirely. They are the very embodiment of evil, they know what they do, they simply don't care.

It took the very things wonderful and sacred about the christian faith and turned it on its head. Whereas God, and Jesus, promised eternal life that can be freely accepted, vampires forced eternal life, and damnation on their victims, doomed to forever wander the earth a prisoner to their unholy desires. Where consuming the body and blood of Christ, in the Catholic tradition, was symbolic of becoming one with God and gaining spiritual strength, vamprisim reflects the opposite. A victim of a vampire becomes weaker, not stronger, and their blood is taken, not given. They could command werewolves, possessed super human strength, preyed on the young and innocent, and even worse, doomed the victim to eternal damnation. They robbed you of your day, your life, and your very salvation. To the peasants of the Balkans there was no more terrifying than a vampire.

It is something that the west has forgotten about vampires, and perhaps it is fitting that a morally corrupt society would turn pure evil into the sexual fantasies of middle aged women and teenage girls, they do not 'sparkle', they do not agonize, they do not care. They only live to feed their perverse and insatiable desires. And that is where we are now, feeding off each other. Aurini is right about narcissism and the Captain is right about shamming, they are all products of the vampiric culture we have today. 

Look at any part of our society, men and women's relations, civil rights, entitlements, corporate welfare, even popular culture, and you see the manifestations of a vampiric culture.  Harlots, sluts, and women with no scruples use 'nice' guys as emotional tampons, fuck men who would have been losers in any other age, rob them of their riches in divorce court, or even worse, force them to pay for bastard spawn.  In return you have the degenerate men of society using psychology and dark triad traits to seduce and use women, many of those women are the sluts and will garner no sympathy as they wail alone in their 40's, but there also many decent girls, whose only crime is being born in an age of advice contrary to the human condition, and with their naivete, have their hearts broken and ruined. Even the men's rights movement has become nothing more than a vampiric movement itself. Rather than seek to restore man's proper place, and the societal respect for manly virtue, they seek to sit at the table of the victim, even though they will forever be denied the place they seek.

We now have an entitlement system that consumes us. The producers are sucked dry, I am not a rich man, not even close, but my own federal tax burden is 27% of my gross income and that does not include the additional burden I pay in sales taxes in my home state, I can only imagine the sucking sound the job creators hear every day they wake from their slumber. We have the government, all too gladly, taking the place of fathers and enabling the creation of baby mommas. Their damaged progeny often become wards of the state, which costs us even more money. We have the old sucking future earnings from the young and the young mortgaging their futures so they can extend their adolescence and when the check comes due they cry foul.

Businesses, rather than focus their time creating products and wealth, now have to contend with a myriad of obscure regulations. Commerce is no longer about production, but about nuzzling up against the government teet like a new born cafe and sucking away with abandon.  We have multi-national corporations that use lobby groups to block out their competition and lower their tax burdens. We have non-profit organizations that do nothing but seek government handouts. We have entire industries that only exist because the government funnels money, which they do not have, to ensure their existence.

The analogies are endless. Find any aspect of society and you will most likely see, if you look hard enough, evidence of how our degenerate culture has turned it on it's face and perverted it. Every time I think about our current society I imagine something right out of Dante's Inferno. I see a tangle of bodies, intertwined with their fangs biting into the flesh of their neighbor. Frantically, they are forever sucking blood in efforts to try and counteract those who are sucking their very life blood from their flesh, as they suck blood drips out of their orifices, they gourge themselves on the blood of their neighbor, and all the while it is for naught. They continue to shrivel to nothing. Around that jumbled mass of intertwined bodies are screwtapian demons dancing and laughing as they scoop up the blood oozing from the body pile. What is most insidious, and terrible, is that we are all vampires now, we do not get a say in the matter. Society has now been organized that you must become a participant, short of retiring to the wilderness and becoming totally self sufficient, you have no choice.

It certainly seems hopeless but a day will come when no more blood can be extracted, when the last drop has been collected, and the buckets will run empty. On that day the laughing demons will wail and gnash their teeth. Some of them, their desire for blood so insatiable, will turn on their fellow demons and try to take their blood from them. It is on that day that we might be able to build anew and we relearn the wisdom of our forefathers. Until then we must steel ourselves for the vampiric culture that we now live in.