It was a puzzle! It's okay, someone worked it out for me.
Red cities are where all the loot comes from. Attacking them would only kill the golden goose. The Regime isn't dumb enough to do something so dumb.
Luckily red cities are dumb enough to think rioting in blue cities is a threat and to cringe accordingly. The tyrannous citizen lacks both wisdom and courage.
Come to think, rioting in blue cities is likely a net gain. Their peoples are so irresponsible that they're a burden, so destroying their stuff and killing a bunch of them adds (slightly) to their profit margins. Parasite-parasite competition is starting to get fierce. America peaked in 2008, so it's no longer possible to pay off the numerous supporters they need (recall Bruce Bueno de Mesquita) by re-distributing the extra pie. The pie is shrinking now, not growing. Someone has to get the shaft. Fidelity, also, is lacking in democratic times.
10 comments:
Happens around the world.
>Shithole destroys its own city
>USG runs the money printer to "help them rebuild"
>money funnels to local elite, creating resentment
>City destroyed
>brrrrrrrrrr
Keep working hard and generating them taxes!
"Wow! How did air-dropping a massive pile of cash on a corrupt shithole, with nearly no oversight, end up in the hands of a corrupt tyrant?"
It's so shocking.
"I know, let's try it the exact same way in Haiti next! I'm sure it will work this time!"
Even children aren't this stupid, they just like causing resentment.
P.S. Trust me...I'm not working hard. Except, sometimes, on my blog. It's mind-boggling to me that this is apparently a genius-tier strategy. Like, it's a corrupt society? But you can just use a hack and decline to participate?
I think red cities like supporting their elaborately corrupt regime. The more corrupt, the harder they work.
> It's mind-boggling to me that this is apparently a genius-tier strategy.
How high in status do people perceive you? I would guess the answer is "who fucking cares".
You live in a different reality to most people, one closer to "actual reality".
>I think red cities like supporting their elaborately corrupt regime. The more corrupt, the harder they work.
I don't think they can detect that its corrupt.
Obvious lie - elites telling everyone to consume less "for the planet" while they consume the same amount or more.
It's low status to say that you don't believe in climate change, therefore playing along with the elite proscription will make you high status.
The trick is this fine balance. People need status. To lose status = to lose mating rights = death. So you can manipulate people pretty easily by having them play status games that people win when they give you all their gold/time/attention. EVERYONE can feel like they win if they just follow the rules.
(Example - why aren't any of the stereotypical "jocks" also "goths"? Why aren't "goths" athletic? A "goth" is someone who perceives they're losing one status game, so they play another. Every very pretty goth girl I've ever spoken to is convinced she's ugly and deeply, deeply, deeply hates the girls who get to bang the athletic guys. If you don't win, the correct answer is play a different game.).
However, the fine balance is in that if you make yourself too obviously not the same as your marks they will fire up the guillotines. That's why our elites don't wear suits (or crowns) anymore, see our good buddy Zuck, or Elon smoking a joint with Joe Rogan.
Have you read much of Theodore Dalrymples work? He notices that low class status symbols are much loved by the elites (full sleeve tattoos eg), just doesn't understand why.
I would say this is a genius response to resentment/ slave morality. The powerful create a moral system, then imitate as much as possible their slaves. "I want to bring my masters down to MY level" - but, friend, look - I'm already just like you....
I absolutely adore pre-senility Dalrymple's work. I have 15 permanent bookmarks.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/bc1104td.html
He had many things on his mind that had clearly been forgotten about. Like Plato, he was on topic in a way moderns recoil violently from.
Speaking of Plato, he predicted the ripped jeans. Under Revolution, the low shall be brought high, and the high places brought low. In other words we shall (pretend to) exalt petty criminals and the highest in the realm will have to camouflage themselves as the low or the lowest. The capable will (appear to) revere the incompetent.
See also: Paul Fussell and his top-out-of-sight class. (libgen that stat) Under democracy, all that happens if you parade around in a gold-encrusted carriage is that the voters agree to take your carriage away. (Then mulch it for scrap, losing half the gold behind the couch cushions.) Hiding becomes priority #1, and it turns out they can afford extremely elaborate shrouds and blinds.
Result being that the lower orders are entirely deprived of good taste. The uppers keep it all for themselves. Great work everyone? Greater inequality was the point of equality and Marxism, yes? I knew you could do it.
--
For the most part the answer is "who fucking cares," yes. But empirically, very high status. I have to be careful not to accidentally crush folks' egos, that sort of thing. In meatspace, everyone wants my approval - not enough to actually behave differently, you understand, but it's still important to them. Folk spontaneously ask me to lead, frequently implicitly and occasionally explicitly, if I haven't revealed my power level recently.
Mentioning this is an invitation to tell me about yourself, by the way. Only if you want to volunteer, though. It's not narcissism if you're invited!
>I absolutely adore pre-senility Dalrymple's work
I'm glad, I worry that people don't read him. Brilliant writer, and a person who managed to see quite a lot of bad and negativity and general shittiness and not get black pilled.
>Speaking of Plato, he predicted the ripped jeans...
Ah.. honestly, I'm not one for the classics at all. The moustache'd one is about as old as I go. With that said, I'm starting to see this as a mistake - I've made assumptions similar to musicians. "This musician is very theoretically proficient and their music is trash, therefore I must not learn theory as it will trash my creativity".
Now I just don't know givens that have already been discovered literal millennia ago. Oops.
New personal rule : You're dumb, you haven't even invented your own language.
But I much appreciate your blog posts on them. Learning much.
>Greater inequality was the point of equality and Marxism, yes? I knew you could do it.
Step one : be someone of Lord-tier intellectual capacity, that doesn't like the same classical composers as the actual Lords. Be frustrated that you're just as good as actual Lords but they won't let you play
Step Two: Use that big brain to convince the peasants to kill the Lords
Step three : Rule
Step four: realise the people who like that other asshole composer are smart enough to come up with the same plan
>For the most part the answer is "who fucking cares," yes. But empirically, very high status
Curious. I suppose similar to Mr Donald in that regard. So then, would it be fair to assume that, if challenged, it is obvious you can defend yourself with violence?
>Mentioning this is an invitation to tell me about yourself, by the way
Just some guy, I dunno. I suppose in the same vein as what you've revealed, I'm decidedly not high status, but I think that's mostly because I'm too lazy to put in the work. With that said, though, in any given social setting I do create a lot of internal cultural memes, and I can get away with saying some absolutely deplorable shit. So.. hm. Depends how you slice it I guess.
I'm certainly willing to attempt to defend myself with violence, but it's so far from a live possibility that I don't know. Folk find attacking me physically to be unthinkable. Handy, but mysterious. Tested by stopping incipient fights just by standing uncomfortably close by, and by hanging around a homeless shelter. I am not physically imposing, so that's not the reason. Rather, it's like I have an aura of sacrosanct ground - I stopped those fights by deliberately overlapping it with the place they wanted to fight. I got to watch them reconsider and de-escalate in real time.
I mention this mainly to expand notions of how much human variability there is. I've seen this with jokes too - the person telling the joke is extremely relevant to whether it's funny, even if delivery is identical, and even if the audience isn't terribly familiar with the comedians.
Stuff like hanging around the homeless is not hazardous for me unless I do something absolutely pants-on-head retarded, like violating the "don't start none" rule. I wouldn't be fine if I tried to stop an active firefight by standing in the middle, but short of that I'm good.
One time some street scum tried to harass a vulnerable-looking older lady I was with. "Can I borrow your phone?" He kept giving me ashamed looks. I said nothing. He tried again. I said nothing. He had to say something face-saving and retreat. In this situation he should have pretend-asked me for my phone, but unfortunately I knew it was a pretense and he knew I knew it was a pretense.
Pretty sure the lady had no idea I had done anything. Women aren't very socially skilled, after all.
--
Actually, come to think, maybe she did suspect. She might well have been trying to play "Let's you and him fight," and got super discombobulated when her chosen pawns refused to escalate. "Why didn't this one push harder? Why didn't either of them? WTF?"
It's really common for women to deliberately attract trouble if there's trouble around.
>Folk find attacking me physically to be unthinkable.
Hmm. This is my experience too, although I don't put myself into situations like you. I can only recall once where someone threatened me, and a guy that I didn't think was on my side defended me.
>Stuff like hanging around the homeless is not hazardous for me unless I do something absolutely pants-on-head retarded,
That's true too, I have weird rapport with the homeless. Like they either avoid me or I can always disarm their demands. Weird.
So.. next question, do you have a history of low mood, but only before early 20's, and then, nothing?
>It's really common for women to deliberately attract trouble if there's trouble around.
"Show me that tail, Peacock". Nothing wrong with it. It makes us better. Apparently a lot of these recent large format lectures/debates are attracting women - this is a good sign, intellectual sparring is a much more.. hmm.. desirable combat sport than outright violence. One thing that I find deeply sad is how poor people are at language these days.
I have a history of horrible depression instead. This is the main reason I studied the scholarly arts. As per my previous post about every philosopher being fucked in the head.
I know psychology for the same reason most study psychology: as a cry for help. At least I didn't actually take psychology courses. Obviously something is/was broken and needs fixing, and it was clear I would have to do it myself or it simply wouldn't be done.
If you're also the JBP guy: for the most part my depression was actually worse than his. Dysthemia is ultra-depression, and if you get better you transition to regular depression before getting any further. With caveat: dysthemia is slightly more functional, in that it never makes you bedridden.
Sorry, I’ll play namefag to make your life easier.
>depression
Yes, that’s what I meant. You solved it yourself which is what I was trying to elicit, JBP is more of an anxiety depression combo Imo.
If you haven’t already, try diet modification. Everyone hates this advice but another reason I gained respect for JBP was the beef only diet. That’s hardcore, difficult to adhere to.
Might not work for you, depending on ethnic background, but my experience is the same as his, Strict keto makes me so relaxed, but not unproductive.
I’d offer specific advice for your direction but you’re smart enough to work it out, unless of course you would like some. (But I suspect I’m preaching to the choir)
As far as your philosophy though, true. Being fucked in the head helps. It would be nice for you to have periodic breaks from suffering though, in my opinion.
>cry for help
I actually studied it because I wanted to get a low hour, high rate job. Regrettably my genitals and mildly disagreeable personality kept me from being a clinician. I wish I could lie for personal benefit.
However it was amusing to note that cognitive behavioural therapy is almost exactly what I did to myself to stop my own depression. Every lecture on it I was incredulous as I thought it was common sense self talk.
Post a Comment