Amerika

Individualism divides a society because no one works together toward a goal any longer, only maintains a grudging tolerance of each other so that each individual can accomplish his mission of isolating himself from consequences through wealth, technology, and social power/status.

This individualism forms a type of social wave, swallowing up everything else because it is popular and therefore everyone is afraid to say “no” to it. It is the personal and the political united: if you reject individualism, people take it personally and view you as a political enemy.

Civilizations decay by this method. Once they reach initial success, their previous goal goes away, and it becomes nearly impossible to achieve consensus enough for a new goal. Therefore, everyone goes his own way — “every man for himself” — with a caveat that basic social order to ensure legal and economic systems remains.

Eventually someone comes along and figures out that if individualism is popular, subsidized individualism will be even more popular, usually at the point where technology has made most of the workers redundant by greater efficiency and economies of scale.

At that point, individualism takes on a religious dimension. Instead of protecting the individual, we worship the individual, as was pathologically evident in The Enlightenment.™ When we worship the individual, we find anything that stands in its path to be evil.

The term “liberalization” came about because of the tendency to relax rules, standards, mores, and aesthetic principles so that the individual could have more leeway. Liberalizing removes culture, natural order, logic, and realism from our lives, and also benefits government and business.

When government and business remove culture and other non-individualist values, they gain power because now there is nothing upstream of them and they can fully take over. Conveniently, government is a business, albeit a bureaucracy, which makes money by finding “blank cheque” reasons to tax and then redistribute wealth.

The final stage of liberalization consists in making the individual purely a creature of preference. We removed social hierarchy, culture, and nature from the equation, so now people can be whatever sex, race, class, and profession they want to pretend to be.

Democracy Inc finds itself running out of room however because there is nothing left to liberalize, so instead we have an obsession with transsexuals, homosexuals, and pedosexuals because this really is the last frontier. Now that we are diverse, deracinated, areligious, cultureless, and classless, only sexual identity obstructs pure individualism.

As part of our liberalization of gender and sex, some find it useful to analyze gender differences in communication (archive):

Women for example have a tendency to be more polite and talkative. Chodorow, Hartman, Statham and Surrey state that “for females, the process of communication itself is valued”. They are more focused on establishing and maintaining contacts and sharing opinions and emotions. Whereas men are searching for being appreciated by women and underscoring their own position in the hierarchy. Overall, the main goal of male conversation is breaking the news to the listener as directly and briefly as possible to avoid being misunderstood. Moreover, men have a tendency to interrupt and speak more confidently than women in order to establish leadership and impress their listeners. On the other hand, female communication style focuses on building mutual understanding and support as well as raising the level of trust and respect instead of dominating their listeners.

It is common knowledge that men are goal-oriented whereas women are relationship-oriented. Just follow your workday to spot the difference. For instance, men tend to be self-affective at work, as they want to achieve tangible outcomes, whereas women concentrate on creating a friendly and helpful atmosphere at work and cooperation to achieve a goal. They don’t need to be regarded as the leader of a project. Overall, women converse in a more polite manner, they avoid swearing and using intensifiers and tag questions, meanwhile men want to be treated as more independent, confident and assertive.

Naturally most people want to come down hard on one side or another. They believe that either male styles of communication are best or that the female version is. There is no ability to see both in parallel, and realize that what we have now is comprised of bits of both.

If you accept things in parallel, you recognize the need for both; if you choose only one, you end up incorporating bits of the other into it, and what results is a hybrid of the two without the strength of either. Such is the case with our modern intersex communications.

Unlike transsexualism — which involves a few people who would rather be the other sex, and a lot of people changing gender for the sake of being trendy — the position known as intersex refers to being between sexes, which like the space between two opposite-polarity magnets reflects weak forms of both.

Intersex communication is direct and aggressive like the male, but like the female communications form, emphasizes eliminating threats to the atmosphere of collaboration. As a result it uses male methods to achieve female goals, but both end up being in service to the nature of intersex itself, which is ambiguity.

Consequently you have the modern American corporate document, political speech, or narcissistic parent screed at their children. It starts with bold, clear objectives and strong preferences, but since its goal is an atmosphere of pacifism, these are negative rather than positive and end up creating as much ambiguity as clarity.

In the same way that Leftists from Jacobins through Stalinists aimed at desexualizing individuals and making women more masculine while making men more feminized, at least to the political propaganda of the Party and the need for an atmosphere of conformist obedience, intersex communications take a male approach to the female objective.

This loses what makes male communication unambiguous and designed to force decisions, while also shedding the female ability to make people feel welcome. Instead you get a grating blast of nanny state language which reflects the narcissism of our society and the people within it.

They are too narcissistic in fact to admit masculine or feminine, and prefer to believe that they are their own creation, therefore they manipulate indirectly like a woman while using strong yes/no logic like a man, resulting in a list of acceptable methods such that anything off the list could lead to your downfall.

Narcissists ultimately focus on themselves as a goal and see others as a means to that end. They want you to be male or female until they need you to be the other, so they insist on exaggerated male and female appearance (hypersexualization) while emphasizing an intersex mental state (political correctness).

Like the loss of race, culture, and social class, the loss of sex turns people into robot-zombies who can function only to transmit signals of equality and affirm the importance of dogma. They have no goals in themselves, which means that society only moves further into the egalitarian abyss while reality is ignored.

Tags: feminine communications, intersex, masculine communications, transsexualism