Friday, May 02, 2014

How Liberal Policies Promote Cosmic Inequality

Think about that the implications of that one: monogamy made us human. If that is the case, then what the excuse me fuck are we doing? Trying to undo civilization and progress?

Well, yes. But only for the undesirables. Doing so maintains the power of the powerful because it preemptively diminishes the competition.

It is similar to how racial preferences shrink the pool of qualified or gifted Asians, Jews, and white males. It's a fantastic scam for white elites. If excellence is your competitor, well, just make it more difficult for the excellent to compete. Better yet, make it against the law, as per the Wise Latina.

Likewise, why else would black elites -- i.e., poverty pimps, race hustlers, liberal house negroes, and tenured bullshit artists with PhDs in Historical Fantasy -- so adamantly oppose school choice? Because it is a direct threat to their gig. If more blacks do well, then the parasites who feed on failure and resentment would have to do something productive. But not one of them is qualified to sharpen Thomas Sowell's pencil.

In Charles Murray's Coming Apart, he points out how liberal elites preach one thing but practice quite another. That is, in the lower classes, "welfare dependence and single motherhood are rapidly becoming the norm."

To illustrate the point, in 1960, 85% of the adults ages 30 to 49 in his apocryphal Fishtown "were living as married couples. Now the figure is 48 percent. In 1960, 81 percent of households had someone working full time in the workforce. Today it is only 53 percent." And most disastrously, "Divorce rates have climbed from 5 percent to 35 percent, and children living in broken homes or with single mothers rose from 2 percent to 23 percent" (in Tucker).

Or in other words, mission accomplished. We don't have to worry about these children becoming our competitors. Predators, yes. But so long as we confine them to certain areas, or the predators mostly prey on each another, then it's cool. Liberal polices promote and celebrate nothing less than psycho-cultural genocide.

Again, what is most striking about this is the hypocrisy of the anointed, who insist that these underclass boobs should not imitate what they do, but rather, do as they say. That is, "although many of the attitudes that denigrate the importance of marriage originate among the intelligentsia and the upper middle class, that stratum of society has so far managed to keep its families intact" (ibid).

The result is that we are truly facing a crisis of inequality, but income is an effect, a marker, a measure, of something more fundamental.

That is, the vast majority of people living in poverty are single mothers and fatherless children. Factor out these two categories and poverty almost disappears. But this material analysis does not and cannot measure the soul damage, nor does it even recognize such a thing. Rather, the left starts by materializing man, so it is a case of animal in/infrahuman beast out.

So, the gap in marriage equality results in "a yawning gulf of economic inequality," so much so that marriage is "the fault line dividing the American classes" (Murray, in Tucker). No one can deny that "those who form traditional families succeed; those who don't fail" (Tucker). Nor would any leftist ever acknowledge that monogamous marriage is the telos of human sexuality, i.e., its proper end. Which is just one more reason why leftism is the quintessential doctrine of failure, a recipe for cultural decline.

To zoom out to the Cosmic perspective, one thing which which I failed to entirely think through in the Coonifesto is why, if human beings evolved or are created to be monogamous, there is so much polygamy? All human cultures regulate sexuality and recognize marriage, but, as Tucker notes, "the practice of polygamy was almost universal outside the Christian West."

Long story short, if you want to look at it in a purely scientific way, human beings were definitely selected for monogamy, in that hunter-gatherer (HG) tribes practice monogamy, and something like 99% of our evolution occurred within, and was shaped by, this cultural matrix.

It seems that polygamy doesn't appear until the emergence of agriculture and herding. The HG lifestyle can only support a group of limited size, and it is vital that everyone in the group -- especially the males -- get along and cooperate. Therefore, the one-to-a-customer rule prevents a war of Each against All for access to Feminine Charms.

The transition to monogamy happened so early in our development that it is completely entangled with what it means to be human: "In other words, we never would have become human if we hadn't adopted monogamy." One thing to which Tucker fails, in my opinion, to give sufficient emphasis, is the role of the Helpless Baby in all this. After all, it is the baby, not the adult, who will carry the genes, the evolutionary memo, into the future. Thus, the baby becomes the hinge of civilizational advance and of Cosmic Evolution. Be as children is no joke.

Tucker does briefly touch on this, noting that upright walking was accompanied by a narrowing of the pelvis, just when our brains were getting so oversized. Ouch!

Note that in Genesis, our exodus into time and history is accompanied by the "in pain you shall bring forth children" business. No pain, no brain. Or Cane.

At any rate, only one thing makes this possible, and it is a very weird solution, the real key to our humanness: all of us "are born prematurely.... This means we arrive in a more helpless state, requiring constant care and attention" (Tucker) for a lengthy period of time. It is in this period of development that we forge the intersubjective foundation of our psyche, and "only a pair-bonded couple could offer" the protection needed to nurture this space.

What Tucker fails to emphasize is that -- well, I suppose this is just my opinion -- the kind of uniquely intense intimacy characterized by human pair-bonding rests on that foundation of infantile attachment. In other words, the helpless baby brings about the familial circumstances necessary for its own survival. Only because we were neurologically incomplete infants intensely attached to the mother can we form the later intense attachment with an opposite adult of the complementary sex.

Another key development was the loss of estrus, thus making the human female sexually available all year 'round. This prompted men to buzz close to the hive instead of polynoodling with all the other honeys in the annual whambam and scram.

But then the Agricultural Revolution occurred, changing everything.

To be continued...


Van Harvey said...

A quick OT comment regarding the topic of the previous days, timelessness and time travel, aka:

"Wow, time really flies when you're having fun!"

What if it doesn't?

What if you are simply engaging in a form of time travel which transports you from here now, to then now, without having to trudge through the ticking details of timebound activity?

Do timeless concepts such as Truth, etc, the more you engage in them, or even experience them (aka: vertical fun) behave like conceptual DeLoreans?

Gotta return to the tic-tic'ing....

Gagdad Bob said...

Liberals don't care about the consequences of their policies except insofar as they flatter their own moral vanity.

julie said...

Again, what is most striking about this is the hypocrisy of the anointed, who insist that these underclass boobs should not imitate what they do, but rather, do as they say.

Ironically, it seems that many of those liberals make the mistake of filling their childrens' minds with the same platitudes they feed everyone else, with the result that their kids grow up to do as they said and not as they did. And so one sees stories coming out about the nice elite family who are shocked! to find their daughters (it always seems to be the daughters who take this stuff most to heart) taking up careers as sexworkers or lesbian activists or engaging in behavior that is otherwise very destructive to the idea of family; this because they were raised in homes where they were told, repeatedly, not to judge alternative lifestyles.

This is true of libertarians, as well. I often wonder how Instapundit would react if his daughter decided on "prostitute" as a career choice, or if his wife decided it would really boost the family income if she were to start a video porn business in their basement. He is certainly happy to preach about the goodness of sex work for other people; why not his own family?

And it does happen. Consider how many girls are putting themselves through elite colleges now by starring in porn: it used to be that women wanted an education so they wouldn't have to sell their bodies. Now it seems almost to be the opposite. And of course, when the parents find out they are devastated, even as they have no grounds for complaint, having preached for so long that one mustn't judge.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bob, re: the link to Spengler about why progs don't care about the destruction their ideas cause;
It's apparent that progs have selective psychopathic tendencies.

I mean, really, they have zero empathy for all the death, poverty, and slavery their ideas have caused to people.
Even their fellow progs.
They just keep blaming republicans for detroit, or the NRA for Chicago, etc., etc..

I cooncur, the left produces infrahuman monsters.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Good point, Julie!

Many libertarians who have that view (also the view of legalizing drugs) haven't thought about the consequences legalizing prostitution and drugs cause.
Among the worst consequences is more damage to families and monogamy.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Van, so yer sayin' we fly when we're having fun?
That works for me. :^)

katzxy said...

Ben at 3:48

That last line is harsh.

Sadly, I don't think it harsh enough.

Van Harvey said...

" But this material analysis does not and cannot measure the soul damage, nor does it even recognize such a thing. Rather, the left starts by materializing man, so it is a case of animal in/infrahuman beast out."

There two possibilities, the hard climb towards the sky, developing an ever higher, more refined conceptual structure so that the embodied soul can better grasp what is highest and best... or actively to shuck all hierarchy to embrace the flattened perceptual materiality.

aka Good or Evil - our choice.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Hi Katzxy,
Aye, although to be more accurate, the leaders of the left are the most evil.
The average lefty is basically a borglike cult member who is basically brainwashed, IMO, due to how they were raised and/or the public indoctrination system (not to mention the bulk of the media).

Some embrace it without question while others have never experienced anything different.
Plus, reality can be very scary which makes it difficult for many lefties to build up the courage to think for themselves ( peer pressure from family and friends also plays a role, I reckon).

mushroom said...

I hadn't thought about it that way, but polygamy does theoretically give you more farm hands.

Unless you're a Dugger.

One of my grandmothers had nine kids; the other one had ten.

katzxy said...


Point well taken. Dennis Prager sometimes refers to the proverbial liberal brother-in-law who is sweet, good natured person who votes Democrat but means well. That's the follower I think you are talking about.

Education doesn't help; it just provides more ammunition for rationalizing the positions.

Which suggests 2 questions. (1) What is the most effective way to talk with them, effective in the sense of persuading to rethink their views, and (2) in what way are they responsible, in the moral and spiritual sense, for the outcomes that they support?

I remember once, a very long time ago, a professor of education was going over how he was instructing future teachers to tailor lessons to the ethnic background of the students. I unloaded on him, calling what he was doing evil. It didn't work out well.

Van Harvey said...

Katzxy said "What is the most effective way to talk with them, effective in the sense of persuading to rethink their views, and (2) in what way are they responsible, in the moral and spiritual sense, for the outcomes that they support? "

In the opening of the Republic, Socrates and his friends are trying to get up and out of the Piraeus, the crowded port area and democratic stronghold in Athens, when they are detained against their will:

"Polemarchus said to me: I perceive, Socrates, that you and our companion are already on your way to the city.

You are not far wrong, I said.
But do you see, he rejoined, how many we are?
Of course.
And are you stronger than all these? for if not, you will have to remain where you are.

May there not be the alternative, I said, that we may persuade you to let us go?

But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you? he said.
Certainly not, replied Glaucon.
Then we are not going to listen; of that you may be assured.

And that is about the way it has always been. A rejection of Determinism goes both ways, it also means that there is no sure fire way to win an argument, especially if those you are arguing with have no intention of listening to you.

The one method I've had the most luck with is not to start off with an argument, but with questions - if they are willing to listen, you can show them how to expose their own errors... but they do have to be willing to listen.

Most people, even lefties, those unaware of the actual meaning of their positions, like to believe that they believe something true, that they are 'principled'.

Ask those questions that lead them to identify their first principles, and then which bring out the contradictions between them and their actual positon.

And hope for the best.

They are directly responsible for what they know and deny, and guilty of negligence for what they should have known based upon their knowledge and awareness.

And good for you for calling out the education prof - it couldn't have gone any better, he is preaching evil, and should have known (and likely did... vaguely) it was evil. If someone overheard you, perhaps they put two and two together.

julie said...

Slightly off topic, but I was reading this interesting article yesterday about the singular weirdness of Americans.

One of the things that crops up, again and again in different ways and different places, is a complaint that Americans are too "individualistic." It's a complaint from both traditional religions and from leftist extremists, but either way it boils down to an argument against modern life, and a desire to regress to a "simpler" time where people are more social and reliant on each other. Of course, the only way to get there would be to do away with most of the conveniences of modern life.

Anyway, it occurred to me that the very individualism people complain about is rooted, ultimately, in the Decalog. The commandments are personal: not addressed to "y'all," but to you. And those communities which center their lives around those commandments are both the most successful and, I suspect, the most individualistic. Certainly there are places in Israel which require a rigid degree of Orthodox conformity, but there are just as many others that seem to allow for - or at least tolerate - more individual expression, and of course it's no mistake that Israel is a shining jewel in an otherwise largely barren wasteland.

julie said...

Even more off topic,

If a family member starts quoting Eckhart Tolle on their Facebook feed - with side-by-side portraits of him, as if one weren't disturbing enough - is that grounds for an intervention? It's probably too late for that anyway. Maybe grounds for a stiff drink...

katzxy said...

Van @ 5/3 5:27

Yup. I don't know how often I've listened to an interviewer try to persuade a guest of a position thinking why not clarify the position and let the viewers decide.

Your advice is along the same lines, and more, as it gets at the willingness of the other to listen.

I'll be trying it the future. Thanks.

- Leo

interviewer = talking head
persuade = browbeat
interview = mostly one sided exchange where the interviewer makes known his opinions

Magister said...

With all the psychological damage caused by divorce, it looks like half of our future countrymen will be at least neurotic. Too high a proportion will also be psychopathic.

Will they all look to the State as their longed-for absent disciplinary Father? Will this mean the future American is a subservient little serf? Possibly, but I think the forecast is more violence and anomie, at least at the lower income levels.

H. G. Wells was right.

Magister said...

(1) What is the most effective way to talk with them, effective in the sense of persuading to rethink their views, and (2) in what way are they responsible, in the moral and spiritual sense, for the outcomes that they support?

Van made the good Socratic suggestion simply to ask uncomfortable questions. I'd also advise finding a way to agree on a source of knowledge in common (e.g. NASA) and then introducing a fact from that source ("there has been no global warming for 15 years"). The goal is to undermine their ideology from within. Picture them as a composite of:

- unresolved psychological issues
- emotions
- current contextual pressures
- cultural sensibility
- internal temples containing personal gods
- groupthink pressures and anxieties
- desires
- things they've read or heard
- rational arguments

The latter is a relatively small percentage. You might have more success in other areas.