Amerika

If we view ideologies not as honest communing of souls, but as parasitic ideas that live in us and perpetuate themselves for their own ends, we can see why so many ideologies are self-defeating.

Not only does a self-defeating ideology benefit the parasite, but also it benefits the host. Humans who want to appear significant and to mystify others with their ideologies should choose self-defeating ideologies.

By choosing such circular logic — and by that I mean fully circular, in that on the basis of assuming it is important it creates the problems it claims to address — they create a baffling semi-plausible scenario that none others pick up, and one which requires a “leap of faith” that bonds its adherents together like a cult based around a shameful secret.

If you look around the room and see other faces, you have support for your own beliefs, and other people who are held hostage to a desire to see those beliefs manifest. If the beliefs turn out to be false, everyone loses, and so you are bonded together.

For this reason, most cults start with impossible premises. When you acknowledge the premise, they have your allegiance — and your guilt. And many ideologies similarly try to suck people into paradox and then use it against them, motivating them to further the mental virus.

Let us count the ways:

• Feminism

  The essence of feminism, derived from that 1789 spirit, is that women become equal to men. This is self-defeating because it removes all that makes men treat women well, and turns them into economic chattel that has to compete with men and yet still do all that women do.

  • Doubling the workforce. When we send women to the workplace, that makes twice as many workers for the same number of positions. The economy doesn’t grow from this; salaries get halved. The resulting hypercompetition rewards those who spend the most hours in the office, since jobs have to be dumbed-down to the cog-like in order to support the new labor load. End result: women earn half as much, requiring all households to have two employed parents. Children suffer.
  • Transactional nature to sexuality. If you remove any special role to a woman, sex becomes like any other physical activity. Feminists cheer this, until they realize it makes all women equally valuable at the lowest common denominator, which is the vagina. Wonder why he’s not interested in your brain? He can get what you’re giving next door with no strings.
  • Baffling women with paradoxical notions. Someone has to perpetuate the species. But that will endanger your career, because in that decade you’re off raising the spawn, your male coworkers surge ahead. You can put them in day care, but then there’s an additional cost burden. Girls have no idea which they should choose: motherhood, or career. While they vacillate, both turn out badly — and the children are the ones who suffer.
  • Removal of respect. When you force someone to accept you as politically equal, and force a situation where you get treated like just one of the guys, you become a passive-aggressive political symbol. Like when the boss hires his nephew, you’re a no-fly zone because it’ll set off political correctness alarms. As a result, you are resented for being a potential zampolit in a workplace fraught with political pitfalls.

• Liberalism

  The basic principle of liberalism is equality; enforcing equality eliminates the urge to have quality, which guts the civilization and reduces the value of what is given. As a result, all things converge to an ever-lower standard as the infrastructure and coherent order of the civilization ebbs away.

  • Protects the vicious. While we think of equality as defending the little guy, it also protects both the big guy and the criminals, who have rights too. Once the equality train starts, it doesn’t stop but keeps expanding rights and the groups to whom these are bestowed. The end result is that soon a society is paralyzed and cannot act against those who are both equal citizens and criminals, perverts, grafters, insane or stupid. Everyone suffers because the end result is that society empowers the bad while tying the hands of the good.
  • Stops improvement. If you’re poor, and you are in a bad situation, you want to improve yourself. You can use discipline to change your ineffective behaviors (procrastination, dysfunction, drink) to productive ones. If you are considered liberal, and thus entitled to an income, there is zero impetus to change. As a result, you remain in the cycle, which depletes any chance of equality in the future.
  • Promotes the incompetent. Declaring us all equal requires that we use some other metric for measurement other than ability. After all, some are born with more ability than others. There’s only one thing we can substitute, and that’s “hard work,” or putting in lots of hours even if the person is less effective or incompetent. You can put hours worked on a spreadsheet and at the end of the year, promote the person who has been there the most. The result is a society staffed by incompetents.
  • Paranoia and passive aggression. If you declare equality, you will have to explain any failures of equality through means other than the differing abilities of your citizens. The result is that you invent a bogeyman, patterned after the original, who is Satan. It is not human incompetence that afflicts us, it’s Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Satan, Beherit, Mephistopheles, Beelzebub, Belial, Yog Sothoth, Xenu, etc. Societies based on liberalism are always in search of enemies to blame for their ills, and make war upon, so they can then consider the case closed until more blatant incompetence pops up and hits them in the face.
• Charity

  While charity for those who have literally fallen upon hard times — deaths, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, recessions — is always defensible, there is another kind of charity: perpetual help to those who are unwilling to change dysfunctional behavior. Missions to save the insane homeless, educate the ineducable, stop heroin addicts from enjoying heroin, and other efforts to subsidize bad decision-making in the name of humanism fit in this category.

  • Encourages dependency. If a non-critical and all-loving force will embrace you after days of drunkenness, clean up your vomit and put you in a bed all while claiming it’s not your fault and you’re a victim, why the heck would you change? Drink for a dozen days and then when you can no longer walk, call for help. It’s like having room service.
  • Concentrates the problem. You know what’s great about charities? They tend to put large numbers of ex-criminals, drugs/drink addicts, pedophiles, insane people and other problem cases into the same area and then have them compete for charity resources. The result is a crime wave, which not only victimizes the innocent, but discourages the dysfunctional from changing since hey, it’s easy pickings and they have an instant peer group nearby.
  • Symbolic solution. When we wake up and suddenly notice that we’re surrounded by people who are permanently impoverished, and that there’s a high correlation between that and drugs/drink or criminal behavior, we should look toward a solution. For example, do we segregate these people into a separate city so they can learn what most of us learned in grade school? Or do we want nature to clean up and remove them for us, through the process known as natural selection? Instead, we put them in shelters, hand them fast food and Bibles, and pretend the problem is solved. Then it rears its head up again, and again, and again…

Our society cannot face a single unpopular truth: we are not equal, and some have more ability and mental togetherness and they will rise, while others are never going to rise and will do nothing but undermine the rest of us. This truth goes against our notion of sociability, which is that if we band everyone together into a little group based on the idea that we love everyone, we’ll all be safe.

From this delusion, many self-defeating behaviors come. Our society is exhausted to the bone because in addition to our day jobs, we throw ourselves into these self-defeating behaviors and fight wars that can never be won, in the name of being “good people” — and we’re afraid to stop.

Through this constant self-defeating behavior, we see the triumph of a parasitic idea over the people who support it. We are weak because we need society to see us as “good,” and since this is a matter of appearance, we don’t care if our behaviors are unproductive — or even worse, self-defeating in that they create the very disasters they claim to eradicate.