Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Updated States of America - Version 3.0

I read this article from the American.com website with the greatest of optimism, because, as people who know me well, know that I am a bubbly, upbeat, glass half-full kinda guy. OK you got me, I'm really not. I want to be an optimist, I really do. Things usually do turn out OK, right? But here I'm afraid things will not turn out OK unless a drastic course correction happens in America, and I just don't see it happening.

What James C. Bennett and Michael J. Lotus, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, fail to acknowledge in their article is that past transformations from one paradigm to another for America were not accomplished under the boot of an overwhelming and controlling central government like we have today. We have drifted ever so close, for all intents and purposes, to a powerful national government instead of a collection of states bound by a federal government.

Their supposition that versions 1.0 and 2.0 were wrenching transformations from an agrarian society to an industrial society with 3.0, just underway and just as wrenching, to the information society, has some real merit. Those earlier transformations gave rise to a powerful and dynamic nation that steered the entire world for decades starting with World War Two. But since the 70's the combination of a rebuilt Europe and Japan along with the meteoric rise of an Asian economic force has weakened that dominance to such a degree that very fabric of the nation is starting to unravel. The middle-class, which was a singular strength for America, has been devastated and current government and corporate policies are not only unhelpful they are accelerating the decline.

The American political and economic regime now in crisis was built for the world of America 2.0. Today, we are in the midst of a dramatic transition to a new technological and political configuration — which we call America 3.0. Institutions that once looked permanent are cracking at the foundations. Technology will drive the transition, and the shape of future technology can only be known in broad outline.

Most importantly, the cultural foundation of America, based on its unique type of family life, will remain intact. This is the continuous thread linking each of the three “versions” of America. Our deeply rooted orientation toward personal and economic freedom will allow us to dismantle America 2.0 and build a better, freer, and more prosperous America 3.0 in its place.

But wait a minute!!! I can't let that second paragraph go unchallenged. First, if our strength as a culture is based on families then my friends we have trouble coming. Unless you've been asleep for the last 30 years you know that the very definition of a family is being challenged. For those still in the traditional family mode we are seeing a troubling trend toward "child worship". Nothing is more unhealthy for a child or a parent than creating a mini-god that then goes out into the unforgiving world with an inflated sense of entitlement. For the nontraditional family it's anything goes, I mean anything. Today millions of young men are being brushed aside as unnecessary and millions of young women are expected to do it all and when it fails, and it will, men in general will be blamed. Families may have been the nation's strength, but ultra-liberal trends (and policies) are destroying it as we speak.

Secondly, they say our deep rooted orientation toward personal and economic freedom will propel us into the future!!! Both of these tenets are being destroyed by the government in D.C. at an alarming rate. In today's Washington crony capitalism is the name of game and nothing destroys economic freedom faster than the rule of law that favors some over others. Where is the opposition to the trends we are witnessing supposed to come from? Politicians? Hardly. The loyal opposition? What opposition? Both parties are fully staked in this game by their corporate benefactors. The Tea Party? The media crushed it with a flick of its middle finger. The people? Lemmings.

The authors acknowledge all this: FTA
As the 2.0 state fails, we are seeing increasing awareness, urgency, and activism in response to a deepening crisis. The emerging America 3.0 will reverse several key characteristics of the 2.0 state: decentralization versus centralization; diversity and voluntarism rather than compulsion and uniformity; emergent solutions from markets and voluntary networks rather than top-down, elite-driven commands. Strong opposition to the rise of America 3.0 is inevitable, including heavy-handed, abusive, and authoritarian attempts to prop up the existing order. But this “doubling down” approach is doomed. It is incompatible with both the emerging technology and the underlying cultural framework that will predominate in America 3.0.

I'm not buying it. The Internet was the emerging technology a decade ago, a real game changer, the governed rising up with powerful voices, and still the march toward centralization and government control into all aspects of our lives marches on. I agree that powerful industries, even monopolies may disappear. I could see cable TV companies, health care compaies, Microsoft and other software companies and even possibly things like massive power utilities lose out as new and fantastic technologies come about, but the government is not going away and despite their avowed benevolence they will crush freedom in all it's forms if not brought to heal. It's inevitable.

It was the at the corner of version 2.0 in the late 1930's when the coming of total war demanded a powerful government that a monster was born. The monster had two figures sitting on it's shoulders. One might have resembled an angel and the other a devil. In one ear the monster heard the spouting of the American Constitution and in the other pure socialism. You decide which was which. Fast forward to 2013 and it's fairly obvious which road version 3.0 will take.

God knows, I hope I'm wrong on this one...


Saturday, August 17, 2013

It's the Patriarchy Stupid...

I've had some fascination with this Internet phenomenon known as the Manosphere. It's a kind of loose "community" of male dominated, male centric websites that comprise a modern version of the no girls allowed tree fort. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure and a validation of my modern sensitive male training. Essentially if I'm not occasionally offended by some of the articles and comments then it's time to re-do my sensitivity training.

I actually see an intrinsic value in these websites for a young man, I really do. While a lot of it is the childish musings of twenty-something man-boys who've never been with a woman and are bitter that women just don't find their basement blanched complexions, belly-rolls and constant blather about Call of Duty all that appealing, there is some truth to be gleaned from these lads. Adults for all their aged-based maturity aren't really all that mature. A young man fresh out of high school has already seen enough of male/female interaction to have some wisdom in that area. For an old guy like me it's hard to remember what chasing girls was like... Or the inflated bragging about my conquests.

The overarching theme of these websites, if one can distill it as such, is a true lamentation of the loss of maleness in modern Western society (as well as an homage to the alpha male). The feminization in all area's of society, the successful feminization I might add, has left men and particularly young men flailing like a weather vane in a hurricane. The interesting part is that most of them blame men for it. So do I.

These websites, known as Red Pill sites are largely just a place to blow off steam and pretend that they're actually doing something to regain male domination of society once again - but a movement has to start somewhere. It may fall to the generations that follow the self obsessed baby boom generation to turn the tide, to revive a strong patriarchal society, rather than this absolute mess that is developing before our eyes under the control of politically correct liberalism.

This brings me to the thrust of this posting. For the longest time I believed that the hatred Marxist/leftists had for the United States and the West was a hatred of the Judeo/Christian dominance, but it is really a hatred of patriarchy. That all major religions are built on pillars of patriarchy put them squarely in the cross-hairs.

Make no mistake that it was and is patriarchy that has made mankind one of the most successful organisms on the planet. I have often said - to the women in my life - if the world had been left to women to run we'd all still be living in caves. I believe this and if you don't please present your argument. Does patriarchy have a dark side? Yes, of course, but it is a system that is actually good for the vast majority of woman and also their children. Again if you think that what has happened to black children in particular since the demise of the black patriarchal family has been a good thing please present your argument. The black population in America does not have a worse enemy than the cultural Marxist/feminist movement. If one wanted to destroy the black man they couldn't have done a more thorough job than what the Marxists/feminists have done since the 1960's. When men are left off the hook for raising and caring for their own offspring then Katy bar the doors, all hell will break loose. (see South Chicago circa 2010's).

And yes, for the most part men have done this to themselves. We've allowed this to happen. It should be pointed out that some of this is directly the result of the success technological progress has made during the past 200 years. Strong minds are needed now more than strong backs. Make no mistake feminism and leftism intends to add the final blow against the patriarchy. Leftism, when given and inch will take a mile. In the course of righting some wrongs, some abuses that patriarchy had allowed the whole thing has snowballed the the point where society is literally throwing the baby out with the bath water. To a point where young men aren't needed - at least not like they used be. So we drug them as children (ADHD) and allow them to drug themselves as young adults. We send signals that they aren't free act like boys nor do we provide opportunities for them to work hard with their hands and their backs and then when they fail we warehouse them in prison.

Patriarchy isn't a dirty word and certainly doesn't mean male domination over woman. It's a societal construct that provides for the protection of woman and children (physical and financial) and leadership for the family in exchange for loyalty, companionship and sex. In the Christian home a man is expected to provide these things while loving his wife as Christ loved his Church, that is - a self sacrificial love, not with chains and yokes. Simply put, patriarchy is good for children.When fathers are absent or rendered inconsequential children - and especially young men - suffer greatly. This isn't to diminish a mothers role, it's simply to say that young men and even young women need their fathers. They need them to provide an example and to provide leadership. Mothers are expected to provide other essential elements young people require - but these are different from what a man can provide. Modern feminism and Cultural Marxism intend do away with every aspect of the patriarchy. The good and the bad.

I'm sorry to say that a matriarchal society would be a disaster for man and mankind. Woman as a whole (meaning most women, not all) lack the essential and even whimsical imagination that is need to drive inspiration, innovation and other key elements for progressing beyond the here and now.

For men to stand up now in this day and age and demand (as the feminists have done) what they need would be counter productive. The opposition by the feminized elements of society including millions of "enlightened" men would be cacophonous. Clearly it will have to be done another way. Simply letting the world descend into hell is suicide. A different way of helping the world wake up from its insanity is required.

A decade ago a male centric movement was spawned that intrigued me. They called it the Promise Keepers and while I never joined in I saw the wisdom in their message. It was a call to men to become the leaders of their families, to accept the responsibility of being the head, to become true partners with their wives and positive examples for their kids.They put the onus on themselves, did not blame woman and manned-up. I was intrigued enough to examine my own mess. To make a long story short in the ensuing eight years by accepting the role of head of the family, including great deference to my wife as needed, we have a stronger and happier life than we've ever had. I don't know what ever happened to the Promise Keepers, but if they inspired more men like me then it was a good step in the right direction.

The conclusion that the death of the patriarchy is terrible for society is being drawn in many places in and out of the Manosphere. Brave woman have spoken up about how the dismantling of established, successful societal constructs has in many ways made their lives harder. I say brave because these women are shunned from that day forward. Feminism loves the decisions woman make for themselves except when that decision is to fall under the headship of her husband and follow him. Woman shouldn't be discouraged for wanting to work in a fulfilling career, they should not be criticized for choosing a traditional family either.

Am I wrong?


Saturday, August 10, 2013

Sustainability: Sustain this

If there's one word that makes me cringe whenever I hear it that would be the word sustainability. It's usually followed by a good scolding or some half-truth on it's way to a bold-faced lie. It will be uttered in every "green" rant you'll ever hear, referenced over and over on the campaign trail and, of course, slathered all over print ads, radio and TV commercials like so much cheap perfume.

sustainability sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty [suh-stey-nuh-bil-i-tee]
1.the ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed.
2.Environmental Science. the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance: The committee is developing sustainability standards for products that use energy.

Now I'm pretty certain that point number 2 was added more recently. If I were to look at a dictionary from the 1960's or 1970's I doubt the point number 2 would be in there. Words take on new meanings all the time, but few have such deceit, such arrogance, such an aura of shame as the word sustainability does as used by the modern finger waggers.

Time and time again the finger waggers looking down their noses at the rest of us just trying to get on with our lives have been proven wrong. Dead wrong. I don't use the word "dead" lightly here...

Almost nothing brought to us by the modern liberal politically correct ruling elite is sustainable. Moreover, almost nothing they claim to be unsustainable actually is. Going back to 60's when the enviro movement got it's wings all their dire predictions have been wrong, and perversely almost all their remedies have cost the world billions of dollars and countless lives.

Starting with the ban on DDT to protect the sustainability of bald eagles the lies and distortions started:

(From various articles...)
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.

A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs...

On June 14, 1972 William Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the EPA, as a result of political pressure from environmental extremists, made a one man decision to ban the use of DDT in United States, a move that was illegal. He took this action ignoring 8,300 pages of testimony and the findings of the hearing examiner and most scientists and in the absence of any honest substantiating science.

Not to turn this into a exposé on DDT I use this to point out that on every single subject the enviro/sustainability Nazi's lie and ignore facts - and people die. Millions have died from malaria and other insect related diseases that could have been prevented by using DDT.

Paul Erlich's Population Bomb scenario couldn't have been farther off the mark. Oddly it has sustained a myth that the human population is out of control and has led to a pathos that is seeing millions of woman deny the notion of even entertaining the idea of motherhood. Born of this pathos in part is also the tragedy of the abortion culture.

Peak oil is another grand myth. It is constantly reported that new and fantastic oil reserves are being found, and new technology has opened up access to more resources than could have been imagined only a few years ago. Prices continue to rise not because of a supply problem, but because of a political problem - all driven by environmental lies. Technology advancements will eventually make the use of oil significantly decrease, but in the here and now the vast majority of the people suffer high prices while just a few get filthy rich. Don't think the filthy rich dislike it that way.

More to the point about sustainability and leftist politically correct elites is what they have done to great unwashed in North America and Europe where this evil was born. What is sustainable about the morons and idiots being passed through the monopoly of public education? What is sustainable about the vast welfare state being aggressively promoted by left-wing? What is sustainable about the cost of the higher education and the "university-industrial complex"? What is sustainable about massive immigration into job-starved economies? What is sustainable about government spending that eats more and more of a nation's GDP? What is sustainable about a regulatory and tax environment that favors giant corporations over Mom and Pop's little world on Main Street? What is sustainable about the crony-capitalism that promotes the denuding of the West's industrial might in favor of cheap labor in Asia?

It's actually unfair to lay this all at the feet of leftism, the modern right-wing offers just token opposition and might as well be reclassified leftist-lite.

The trendy lie these days is the myth of man-caused global warming - or climate change as they like to call it. Climate change is a fact. It has been changing, sometimes dramatically, since the beginning of time. The perverse aspect of this whole made up debate is that even if man is in some small way responsible for rising temperatures the prescribed remedy when boiled down to it's essence is massive human depopulation of the planet. This is the end goal of the sustainability crowd, and it is based on lies.  

There is so little truth, because the elites have made it all relative. There can be no truth if everything is relative. All that's left is lies. What is sustainable about lies? Nothing.

But I could be wrong.