Action or No Action. What will it be?

[Spectrum]

The masses put false leaders in power, and no one really knows the "truth". We citizens are expected to be cogs in the machine. We may not criticize anyone. Otherwise, we are deemed "antisocial". Surely, such an awkward empire is not the best we can do. After all, we are already seeing the shortcomings of maintaining the modern world of enlightened freedom (e.g. demagoguery, wealth at the expense of others, moral bloviation, unstable economics, psychological degeneration, et. al). It seems as though we cannot ascend our fear of tyranny (which occurs anyway) and sensuality (a necessary fallback, but not a goal). Some sort of secession or revolt is in order. What are you doing to redirect the world to greener meadows?

As for me, I do not have any goals. I honestly find my life to be mundane, so I seek out art, video games, and other means of distraction (for sanity, obviously). I have noticed that the masses will do anything for a little more technology and promise. The future generations will be expected to pick up the pieces of any failure, since the masses only become engaged when disaster hits them square in the nose. Even then, they will turn to their gods and politicians, neither of whom will help them. In other words, humans want to fail.

This thread is for personal, honest convictions. No internet tough guy bullshit. Succinct ideas for improving the Western quality of life are welcome.

[Cargést]

Fuck the West.  Let it burn.  This civilisation has run its course.  What's the point in trying to prolong the life of something that screams as it lives?

[Spectrum]

Fuck the West.  Let it burn.  This civilisation has run its course.  What's the point in trying to prolong the life of something that screams as it lives?

Which is why we shouldn't reproduce. Don't force the future generations into reviving a dead organism; don't send them into an array of chaos. They won't have the tools to create a better society.

[tronas]

Jews want the west to die so globalization can unite the entire world under one banner, EARTH. Western civilization will continue to degrade for another 100+ years until the world economies and societies are completely united in an effort to create a starship to colonize other planets and eventually other star systems. Science and technology will proliferate as culture is further destroyed. A very strange time we live in, indeed. Do not despair, THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

[§Transcix]

From an external perspective, I believe economic poverty is the root cause of lots of the problems, and perhaps the easiest facet to engage in fixing the problems. In this vein, although capitalism may create gross inequality and be abused, global standards of living can be raised through the technological evolution capitalism propels so that in the future even those who have less money (the poor) compared to those who have more money (the rich) will be able to lead a decent life and, their immediate needs being met, will be able to look to higher and more communally and philosophically important things.

Of course if you want to be a dirty liberal and disagree with me...

[Spectrum]

From an external perspective, I believe economic poverty is the root cause of lots of the problems, and perhaps the easiest facet to engage in fixing the problems. In this vein, although capitalism may create gross inequality and be abused, global standards of living can be raised through the technological evolution capitalism propels so that in the future even those who have less money (the poor) compared to those who have more money (the rich) will be able to lead a decent life and, their immediate needs being met, will be able to look to higher and more communally and philosophically important things.

Of course if you want to be a dirty liberal and disagree with me...

I think capitalism is a very tentative (or perhaps, even amorphis) term. There are so many different ways to run it. The best definition of capitalism, is probably "modern economics".

Anyhow, it is not increasing the standards of living globally. Globalization only assists certain nations, while others receive less benefit over time. If I am incorrect, then some nations are efficient, while others are inefficient. By that logic, the "efficient" nations can accumulate wealth while the "inefficient" nations don't -- even at the expense of certain nations. I am not convinced that "everyone wins" in global exchange. Even then, new generations are at the mercy of the old generations' mistakes, and those with higher power are allowed to capitalize on lesser others. If the lesser others receive a raw deal, even unknowingly, they have no chance.

Nothing is perfect. I simply think that the UN, EU, globalization, and other such attempts are not what they seem on the surface. Nevertheless, the trickle-down-effect works to some extent. Without (the right kind of) intervention, it can destroy a nation or people. Commerce is much too complicated to be used on a universal scale; applying the same standards on every nation is facile. Once your nation becomes attached to the global economy, there is no going back. On other hand, self-sufficiency is more stable and creates more prosperity/fulfillment.


I am skeptical at this point.

[nothingnowhere]

global standards of living can be raised through the technological evolution capitalism propels so that in the future even those who have less money (the poor) compared to those who have more money (the rich) will be able to lead a decent life and, their immediate needs being met, will be able to look to higher and more communally and philosophically important things.

How's the kool-aid taste?

In other words, humans want to fail.

This is kind of an ambiguous and meaningless statement, but there is truth in it. The truth in it is that almost the humans of our culture want this civilization to come crashing down, even if they don't consciously realize it. They are obsessed with their own self destruction. This is a healthy reaction to what we know intuitively is a poisonous culture. However, it's only a very small percentage of us that realize that what we really want is a spiritual/cultural death. We're a lot like young adults who feel like they genuinely want to die, but what they really want is to let the child die, so that the adult can live.

We find ourselves in a situation that requires a shift in heart and mind, but as Joseph Campbell noted, there will always be those who will prevent changes in society, because they are very comfortable and benefited by the very society that is so damaging to even themselves. They will (and have been extremely successful at) convince people, whose minds they literally control through media, that this civilization is the best way to live, is heading to a great future, is without limits and not subject to natural laws, has a right to destroy the life systems on earth, and, most importantly, is something that we could not live without. The power structure works in a way similar to an abusive relationship, actually.

As far as goals go, the only thing I will ever be able to do in this society without lying to myself and being miserable is to do everything I can to bring about a paradigm shift back to a healthy, sane, human lifestyle while doing everything I can to prevent this dying culture from it's final attempts to destroy everything that is not itself. Currently I teach primitive skills, naturalist knowledge, and wilderness awareness at a nature school for children and adults. These things are very important to heal the members of a terribly wounded human culture by reconnecting them to the community of life on Earth, and giving them the capability to grow out of the infantile and domesticated civilized herd into responsible and healthy human communities. It is the most fulfilling thing I have done with my life thus far (21 years in!). I'm not sure if it's enough, but I know that it is important to plant the seeds any way we can.

[Cargést]

Fuck the West.  Let it burn.  This civilisation has run its course.  What's the point in trying to prolong the life of something that screams as it lives?

Which is why we shouldn't reproduce. Don't force the future generations into reviving a dead organism; don't send them into an array of chaos. They won't have the tools to create a better society.

No, it's why "we" - that is, above averagely intelligent individuals - should reproduce, while either directly or indirectly keeping the numbers of morons down.

[Spectrum]

Fuck the West.  Let it burn.  This civilisation has run its course.  What's the point in trying to prolong the life of something that screams as it lives?

Which is why we shouldn't reproduce. Don't force the future generations into reviving a dead organism; don't send them into an array of chaos. They won't have the tools to create a better society.

No, it's why "we" - that is, above averagely intelligent individuals - should reproduce, while either directly or indirectly keeping the numbers of morons down.

There are too many of them, and numbers trump intelligence in survival. Else, they just bring the smarter individuals down with them when they fail. Therefore, there is no use in subjecting future generations to this sort of unhealthy society. Adopt if you feel compelled to nurture a young one.

Your only other option is to create a totally new nation, because most Western states are hammering down on secluded communities (living "outside the system").

[Cargést]

Fuck the West.  Let it burn.  This civilisation has run its course.  What's the point in trying to prolong the life of something that screams as it lives?

Which is why we shouldn't reproduce. Don't force the future generations into reviving a dead organism; don't send them into an array of chaos. They won't have the tools to create a better society.

No, it's why "we" - that is, above averagely intelligent individuals - should reproduce, while either directly or indirectly keeping the numbers of morons down.

Your only other option is to create a totally new nation

This is what we're talking about.  Nation needs children; make more babbies.

[Bondage]

The masses put false leaders in power

How can one be a "false leader"? Because you do not agree with their philosophy/politics?

[Spectrum]

This is what we're talking about.  Nation needs children; make more babbies.

Where? Surely you don't mean to do so within the cesspool itself. Location and sovereignty are important as well.

How can one be a "false leader"? Because you do not agree with their philosophy/politics?

Leader -

: a person who leads: as a : guide, conductor b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence

There is a difference between leading, and pandering to the crowd (which provides the soil for corruption). The US is very good at picking people who want to lead, but who do not actually lead the nation into a more stable and efficient future. Bush, various Congressmen (research their lack of knowledge concerning laws, and their various scams), Obama, Hollywood, major pundits, and Zuckerberg are fine examples.

Claiming to be a leader is not being a leader.

[Cargést]

Current focus is on Canada/Alaska.  We're all getting degrees/work experience so that we can have legitimate bases in the country of choice; we'll amass funds, buy land, move out of "society" as smoothly as we can, and, maybe before our own deaths, but certainly in the future, declare sovereignty.

[AnHero]

From an external perspective, I believe economic poverty is the root cause of lots of the problems, and perhaps the easiest facet to engage in fixing the problems.

Is the root cause of someone being murdered the bullet flying at his head? Or the guy who pulled the trigger? Or the fact that he's poor? Or that he's too oblivious to think of any other way of handling his life? Or the fact that he was born in the first place (on accident)?

What you call "fixing the problems" I would see as masking them. You're covering symptoms. The problem isn't that there are so many people out of work, the problem is that there are so many unnecessary, less-capable-than-average people. If you spread the wealth around or split up working hours, you mask the fact that there are so many unnecessary, incapable people consuming an exponentially growing amount of resources.

I appreciate the external perspective, I'm not in love with capitalism either, and I think this forum needs even more honest criticism, but solutions like "Progress the global economy" don't sound like proper rebuttals. You said that once - what does it even mean? Give money to the 3rd world? I'll consider what you have to say if you give me something to consider.

In other words, humans want to fail.

I think that would be misreading the situation. Humans don't want to fail or suffer - the problem is that what is needed to succeed or be happy, to fulfill some innate desires, is contradicted by another set of innate desires or impulses. Humans want to succeed and be happy, they just have innately wrong ideas about how, or can't find a way to accomplish this collectively, or are being given the wrong ideas through media by people who are taking advantage of them.

It makes sense if you think of it this way: Emotions evolved as motivations to do certain necessary things. But being able to ever actually satisfy those emotions permanently would be disastrous for a species' Darwinian Fitness. Once those motivations are satisfied, what's to motivate you to do the things that satisfied them? If you could distribute a pill to make everyone happy, who's going to bother operating the happy-pill factory? With all this talk about the End of the West and the Modern Malaise, this should be old news.

[Mindtraveller]

I sympathize with Transcix's view to some degree.  Let's see how globalization pans out before aborting it. Consider this: a child born of parents with an 85 IQ, if he has his fundamental needs fulfilled (ie consistent source of food and water, shelter, no militias pillaging, etc) and if he exercises his will to its fullest extent while also receiving proper guidance and care from more intelligent people, could conceivably grow up to have an IQ of 95 by living the perfect life. Apply the same formula to his kids, and in a few generations you could have kids with 120 IQ. Is this a pipe dream banking on a completely unsubstantiated claim about flipping some genetic switches by having the right mindset? Yes. Is this impossible? Maybe. Is it worth trying? ...

Of course, the West won't be able to raise the standards of living in third world nations if it fucking collapses first. But in regards to the ANUSian goal of genociding all under-120s, that would be a logistical nightmare. It would probably be impossible to kill 90% of humanity without the act taking the form of WWIII, the most destructive war ever, possibly entailing nuclear Armageddon, and the rape of the planet's ecosystem.  It would need to be done by gradation, slowly but surely trimming the bottom rung in a discreet fashion every now and then so that the slightly-less-dysfunctional wouldn't notice and revolt.  Passive eugenics like compensated sterilization is the best we can hope for in our lifetime, unless shit really hits the fan.


AnHero, when talking about happiness, even though it seems like a simple concept everyone understands, there needs to be delineation between higher and lower forms of happiness. Lower happiness is having fundamental needs fulfilled and correct levels of neurotransmitters. Higher happiness, which may not require lower happiness, is a function of the will, and arises from a constant striving and perpetually fulfilling one's duty. Everyone wants the former, only special people want the latter.