In this day and age, at this point in the evolution — or decay — of liberal democratic capitalism, one should be able to say without fear of offense, that to be a rank-and-file loyalist of the Established parties you must be an idiot bred to maximum stupidity.
Social stupidity is not the exclusive domain of the masses. The ruling class is infected with it, only We are on the advantageous side of the consequences of stupidity. We believe in the same logic as the lower order loyalist, for it benefits Us in the short term. The willingness with which the redundant masses sacrifice intelligence and enjoyment of life in return for the pleasures and privileges of a minority is astonishing. We call it the Ninth Wonder of the World.
It also shows that the primal “choices” one makes in life are not choices at all but bundles of perceptions they have learned to accept as natural to life. “Logic” and “common sense” start from that foundation. Society would be better off if its offspring were taught to be aware that their perspective might be off simply because they grew up in the Establishment ocean of the Great Institution, and perhaps then they may be able to grasp that they have become heretofore unable to think or address life on its own terms, but rather on Our terms. Therein lay the potential real Person which must be suppressed at all costs.
What does the average individual get from their pro-ruling class stupidity? Less than nothing if We can do anything about it. The lower orders must always be useful and always indebted — whether to a god or a creditor, otherwise they are dead weight and useless. Debt and guilt have always been the main tools! We want Our lower orders producing, consuming and fighting among each other. We want the masses to continue to give Us the visceral feeling of being superior through their servitude, suffering and esteem for Us.
The Preservation Society watches this unfolding destruction-by-stupidity as helplessly as the powerless masses, for it is not Our place to destroy Our glory and master. It seems that nothing can change the presiding ideologies and systems until the rulers — or perhaps, the “people”? — decide otherwise, or they come to ruin one way or another. And even then, the learned stupidity of much of the masses will ensure that the old order will have many loyalists, who will only preserve the agony.
All one can do is brace for the collapse of the Established modes, and then scramble to assert better forms of thought. A highly unpleasant notion for Us to consider.
What more can be said? The stupidity of the well-bred individual should by now be a foregone conclusion. It is not a matter of facts but a well indoctrinated ego.
Herd stupidity is best exemplified by the loyal Liberal, Conservative and the like. Our criteria for determining stupidity: the denial of 1) simple-to-understand concepts, 2) easily corroborated news, and 3) the well-known historical record. Here is a small list of blatantly obvious facts which would not be in dispute in a society of common sense:
Terrorism. It has been proven time and again, that the UK, Israel and the U.S. create and fabricate acts of so-called terrorism (not counting conventional war of course) by creating funding, training and equipping its terrorist assets in the field. Who doesn’t know the U.S. created Al Qaeda? Or Reagan’s Contra terrorists?
Turkey allowed U.S. subsidiary ISIL to run contraband oil through its territory. Zero Hedge in “The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking” reported that “Bloomberg cites Pentagon officials who acknowledge ‘that for more than a year they avoided striking tanker trucks to limit civilian casualties.’ Since when has the U.S. been concerned with avoiding civilian casualties?
The well known historical record is replete with U.S. terrorist activities, the latest being Syria. It is cliche to run down U.S. anti-democratic campaigns against Central and Latin America, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Indigenous people all over the world, etc. . . and then there’s Gladio.
Corporations. One might say, “it’s the corporation, stupid”. Conservatives and Libertarians in particular have a difficult time comprehending just who exactly is in charge. The blatant criminality and gluttony of the corporate class is as obvious as the gluttony and waste of the aristocratic ruling classes of the past — only they had actual class!
It should be uncontroversial common knowledge by now that all disasters, from wars to poverty to epidemic diseases, including “governmental” disasters, can, with minimal but honest research, be directly traced back to corporate imperatives and policies or reactions to them.
Instead Liberals and Conservatives choose to go in the opposite direction, namely handing those big private interests even more public institutions and assets. They privatize utilities and prisons, and destroy public schools and the post office. This does not mean much to Us personally, but one would think that these are troubling signs for the individual of the lower order.
Money and Elections. Rank and file Liberals and Conservatives still can’t seem to understand the consequences of well-funded corporate candidates. One of the more shining moments of pro-ruling class stupidity came when Liberals dismissed Clinton’s big money speeches to Wall St. during the campaign (though we tip Our hat to the millennials who supported Sanders). Conservatives gave us Citizens United in 2010, under which any amount of money, no matter how large, may be injected into campaigns.
The New York Times acknowledged this problem in a recent editorial, American Democracy Is Drowning in Money. Reports the Times, “In 2016, candidates running for federal office spent a record $6.4 billion on their campaigns, while lobbyists spent $3.15 billion to influence the government in Washington. Both sums are twice that of 2000 levels.” They point out that “commentators in Europe often describe the American way as ‘legalized corruption.'”
A few paragraphs down they ask,
But is it corruption? Do the gigantic sums doled out to campaigns — and later lavished on elected representatives as they are lobbied for their votes — amount to attempts to buy political power? Or is it, as the Supreme Court agreed in the Citizens United case, an exercise in constitutionally protected free speech?
It is still up for debate? Nobody knows for sure if big money means anything in politics. But then the Times goes on to make a laughable comment:
Transparency International, the Berlin-based anti-corruption group, defines corruption as the “abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” In light of that, perhaps the American system isn’t so crooked after all.
The U.S. scored a pretty high transparency rating on Transparency International’s country corruption index. In 2016 the states ranked 18th. Denmark was number one in transparency. Predictably, Russia ranked fairly low, 131st out of 176, placing, we are told, far lower than China, who was ranked at 79. And Venezuela, a country time and again regarded as the most transparent in its elections, came in at a dismal 166. Impartial indeed. We are to believe that Liberals and Conservatives actually don’t know of the massive abuses going on openly and in front of their faces, the billions doled out to topple democracies, or of the hundreds of military bases in most countries. How does that figure in the transparency score? This extraordinary denial floors Us.
A simple internet search on Wikipedia (a handy reference but also one to be wary of) tells us a little about Transparency International:
At its annual meeting in November 2013 in Berlin, Transparency International’s national chapters from Germany and Ireland proposed a resolution calling for the “end of the prosecution of Edward J. Snowden… He should be recognized as a whistleblower for his help to reveal the over-reaching and unlawful surveillance by secret services… He symbolizes the courage of numerous other whistleblowers around the world.”
The final resolution that was passed by the plenary excluded any reference to Snowden, and excluded a call for “comprehensive protection on whistleblowers from all forms of retaliation”.
Who better to judge state corruption than Transparency International?
And of course behind this non-profit is “German engineering multinational Siemens, which in 2008 paid one of the largest corporate corruption fines in history – $1.6 billion – for bribing government officials in numerous countries.” Siemens gave Transparency International $3 million in January 2015.
The Times compared campaign contributions with quid pro quo:
tolerance of quid pro quo transactions, which is more common in some other countries, is even worse than a political system awash in cash, according to Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on political theory at Harvard University. In his view, the former discourages economic investment, skewers attitudes toward local government and corrodes faith in the justice system.
Trading favors is corrupting but unlimited “campaign contributions” apparently do not corrode “faith in the justice system.”
Mounk’s task is to explain the rising discontent and anger among the masses, the increasing non-participation and cynicism of the younger generations as disdain for democracy itself. He explains this in a paper he co-authored with an Australian professor. It appeared in the July 2016 issue of Journal of Democracy under the title of The Democratic Disconnect. He lays out his premise:
Three decades ago, most scholars simply assumed that the Soviet Union would remain stable. This assumption was suddenly proven false. Today, we have even greater confidence in the durability of the world’s affluent, consolidated democracies. But do we have good grounds for our democratic self-confidence?
He automatically accepts that what we have is a functional and respectable democracy. Mounk fails to address the foundations upon which he based his study. He does not ask, can there be a real democracy in a society of such great disparity? And permitting that democracy does exist in the great disparity, how democratic can it be? Shouldn’t a certain amount of cynicism be expected? Any opposition or contempt for the system is taken as dislike of democracy. He is worried about our “democracy”:
What we find is deeply concerning. Citizens in a number of supposedly consolidated democracies in North America and Western Europe have not only grown more critical of their political leaders.
For Mounk discontent with society’s “leaders” is a sign of an ungreatful masses, not a symptom of (capitalist) social decay. He is not concerned that these “democracies” are are not functioning properly — for they are functioning as they should — Mounk is more concerned that people are less respectful and less willing to participate, for whatever reasons, in the “democratic” institutions as they are.
“But,” reports the Times,
he agrees that the vast sums spent on political campaigns in the United States are amplifying the sense among ordinary Americans that they’re being marginalized, politically and economically. The notion that “all politicians are corrupt” is an old one, and present in other democracies, Mr. Mounk said. But the idea that the rich are getting richer while everyone else falls behind is becoming more prevalent in the United States.
The masses “sense” and have the “idea” that they are being chewed up by their masters. They may not understand, or may entertain erroneous notions of what’s going on, but We believe it is be safe to say — pure speculation here — that hating democracy is not the masses first concern. No mention of big money, corruption or ruling class scams.
Accepting this requires a lobotomized herd.
Clinton and Orwell. Speaking of lobotomized Liberals, in her recent book, What Happened, Hillary tried her hand at literary analysis and here’s what she came up with:
Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.
Clinton confirms a point we made some time ago in The Alternate Reality of Michael Kazin vs. the Reality of the Ruling Class Establishment, and that is that the ruling class needs to control perception of reality. She got that right. That is why every individual must be born sinful or guilty in some way. The new-born must come out of the cold of sinful reality and into purity of the ruling class fold. Trust your leaders! Being part of Big Brother Clinton, as all minions, naturally wants to believe that reality is perverted and deceitful. The experts and Establishment leaders want to guide “us” through this treacherous reality. The complete opposite of Orwell. This is profit logic revealed.
Interestingly, We found this tidbit on Breitbart and not in the Liberal media. The Guardian didn’t seem to think much of this blaring “mistake”. Apparently they didn’t grasp what 1984 was about either. They omit these words from the same above quote “toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. “
Physics. A building cannot collapse at free fall speed under its own weight and structure into its own footprint. Elementary physics.
Technology. Technology is the elephant in the room. With the exponential growth of technological capabilities, the human being has not seen much in the way of liberation from want and toil. The 8 hour work day is based in a world where people worked 10 or 12 hour days, and not on today’s computerized efficiencies. Many work more than 8 hours in an effort to approach a livable wage, and yet we overproduce and create so much waste. Walmart helps its employees sign up for welfare because they don’t pay enough. The truth is the capacity to produce an abundance with minimal labor is tremendous. Why must the lower order individual work so much for so little? Because it is the basis of ruling class society, efficiency or no efficiency.
Libertarians. “It’s all the big government’s fault!” Who runs the government? Communists or private profit? For what purpose? Who pays the lobbies? Think tanks? What’s the revolving door? Who is more powerful, rich or poor? Who usually benefits from mistakes and disasters? Wages have been stagnant for decades, one percent wealth has increased hundreds of percent. Is that because “the people” want it that way?” There is government and big business. If you eliminate government what are you left with?
Don’t the masses want to stop their orgy of stupidity?