Hierarchy

Although from the 60's onward, hierarchy has been considered the worst possible thing in the history of mankind, it is actually quite a useful construct. It appears everywhere, in nature as well as society. The reason for that is simple - it is to allow the best to rise to the top. In animals, it is used primarily as a way to pass on the best genes to the next generation. Instead of having a bloody mass fight every single time a female flaunts her pheromone soaked genitals around, males of the species establish a sort of pecking order in which it is pretty much known who gets to have sex with how many females. Thus saving both lives and energy in the process. Females are usually more egalitarian in that aspect, but even they have a breeding rights and child care hierarchy, to ensure the offspring of the most capable ones have the best fighting chance.

In humans, that is just one of hierarchy's many aspects. We see it everywhere around us. In school (not just physical hierarchy between kids but intellectual, between kids one one side and teachers on the other), in the workplace, in academia, at parties...The thing that hippies hate so much basically seems to be an inevitable law of nature. Attempts have been made to do away with the hierarchy, such as communism, but aside from causing lots of misery they really failed to do away with it and may have even enhanced it. Yes, true communism was never achieved, but not by accident as proponents would like you to believe. It can never be achieved at all, natural selection is too strong a force fighting against it.

Such false beliefs in egalitarianism slowly but surely grew more popular until they became a de facto social norm of the 60's. And although the few sane individuals of a new generation are starting to see through that fallacy for what it really is, there's one place where hierarchy has been considered bad ever since the 18th century, and that is politics. It is directly opposed to everyone's experience in every single area of life, yet for some reason, here it is considered to be a good thing.

Even though most people will say they don't like or believe in hierarchy, in reality they do. When they're sick they go to the doctor, not to a random guy on the street. When they want to get educated, they go to a school and listen to teachers. When they want to learn karate, they go to a guy who has a black belt in karate, not some random lardass sitting on the couch whose personal best in sports was being a goalie from whom the ball accidentally bounced off, although he was trying to dodge it in order not to get hurt.

All in all, people flock to established experts. They believe them to be better at things they're experts in than the regular folk. Yet in politics it's the other way around. A Regular Joe, which translates to a person whose knowledge of politics, economics, national security, science, etc. is in best case minimal and in worst case completely delusional is considered to be perfectly equal to a person who actually has deep knowledge of those same things. In every other field of human activity, such a democratic system would have been considered sheer lunacy, yet in politics it is the widely accepted norm. To find out that our leaders are pathological liars at best, and incompetent psychopaths at worst, should really not be too much of a surprise to anyone, yet for some reason people still seem to be perplexed by this revelation.

In democracy, people get exactly the sort of leadership they deserve. Regular Joe is easily swayed by emotional arguments, has a lacking knowledge of history, short time horizon, and even shorter memory. Although top politicians in a democracy may not be the best people to run the state, there is one thing where they excel, and it's figuring out what the people want and how to promise them those same impossible things without sounding completely dishonest or mad in the process. And since they're only temporary governors, their personal time preference is adjusted to their time in office, usually of 4-8 years, which is extremely high when going by sovereign state standards.

In practice, this system basically creates politicians who promise people what they want to hear, then take long term loans to help them fulfill as many of those promises as possible during their short mandate, and finally do their best to leave as big a wreck as possible for the next guy in order for themselves to appear better in the public eye. Any problem that takes longer than 5 or so years to solve is kicked down the road? Falling birth rates? No problem, we won't get those babies into workforce in less than 20 years. Immigration? It's great, these people do the same thing as raising kids but better, they'are ready to work right away. Sure, they may turn this country into a 3rd world terrorist nightmare, but it won't happen for at least 50 years. Social programs? Bring them on, we can have a great decade and we won't have to worry about paying the loans before the next 30 years expire. Kids being grumpy for learning too many new things? Go out and play for the whole day, when you're happy your voting parents are also happy and your lack of skills won't show in the next 20 years anyway.

What was seen as a long distant future back in the sixties is unfortunately the reality of today. The loans are coming due, demography is catastrophic, immigrants are creating their own no-go zones and rape squads in the midsts of our cities and local population can't put 2 and 2 together without a calculator. Just as a Regular Joe can't take care of his own life and is doomed to spend his life as a member of a lower class, so are countries whose policies are selected by Regular Joes doomed to long term ruin.

One may wonder how people like the USA founding fathers could have been so oblivious to these issues. Fact of the matter is - they weren't. What was then a democracy would really be considered a quite peculiar system today. The constitution itself didn't specify who exactly had the right to vote, but the states usually limited it to white male landowners. Those votes were then given to the electoral college, who could really toss them all in the garbage and vote for someone else if they decided the trust of the populace is misplaced.

While votes being limited to white male landowners may seem harsh today, one must realize that even those limits couldn't keep the lower classes from decision making process from more than a 100 years. Slowly but surely, they were taken away, and less and less competent people gained the right for their opinion on how to run the country be considered with equal merit as the people who actually knew how to take care of their lives.

If taken out of today's Overton window possessed by political correctness, all those rules actually made some sense. The first rule, for a man to be a landowner, meant that a person who is voting needs to know how to take care of a property. Indebted people living in public housing and surviving on welfare clearly have no idea how to handle even the simplest of tasks, let alone a whole nation.

Being white is basically a heuristic for people whose mentality is similar enough to that of people who settled this land first. Basically a safeguard against immigrant groups with alien culture establishing their own nation-inside-nation turfs. While it is most certainly not a one-on-one correlation and can be unfair in many cases, it is really not about fairness but about designing a system to keep the culture intact.

Similarly to the previous, while some women are brilliant and rational, many are actually pretty communal and emotional creatures. Going back to the small tribe, it makes perfect sense, as they were the ones who were taking care of the weak infants and youths. But when that mentality is perfectly adapted to a small tribe, care-bear mentality on a state level is the road to ruin. Men are by default crueler creatures, and a ruler needs to be just and cruel simply because he hasn't the resources needed to accommodate everyone's wishes. This is not to say that some women wouldn't choose their leaders wisely and make great decisions. Many would. But as a group, when given rights in the 1920's, they swayed the world into an egalitarian hippie nightmare. Yet again, an unjust heuristic that more or less managed to do its job for a 100 or so years.

Ultimately, all these safeguards managed to fail at one point or another, leading us to the system that we have today. Although the system designed seemed marvelous at first, it turns out the safeguards were simply not strong enough to keep it from long-term collapse. Some people suggest a return to the origins, the Constitution and all that. But even if it could happen, it is simply not enough. If a thing has happened once, it will happen again. The basis of the system is, however, pretty brilliant. The only thing it really needed was stronger safeguards, to prevent it from degenerating into a system that we have today.

What we have today is a system where every idiot's opinion is equally valuable, and which is therefore suited to idiots' desires. This is not to say there isn't a hierarchy in democratic politics, because there most certainly is. But that selection mechanism of that hierarchy is wrong, because instead of selecting the best people for the job, or at least selecting what smart people think are the best people for the job, it selects what average people think are the best people for the job. And those things are quite often hopelessly mismatched.

Keynesianism

If there ever was a scourge that came down upon humanity, it is the damage done by the policies of John Maynard Keynes. Although many have been taught to believe he is the greatest economist that ever lived, fact of the matter is that he designed an economic system that is an end in itself. Let's take a look at his system more closely.

There are two parts to it, first is plain and simple, obfuscated redistribution of wealth. The second is the means to the first, which is basically overworking and overproducing unnecessary stuff. The basic claim of the Keynesian system is that broken window fallacy is wrong, and that a broken window is in fact a good thing. Let's see what the fallacy is, and why it is supposedly not a fallacy at all.

Let's say you have a window. Keynesian argument is that it's good for someone to break it, because it will give someone else a job in fixing it. It looks pretty obvious at first why this is a fallacy, because it's an obvious waste of resources to rebuild something you already have. So instead of paying for that window you already had, you could have used that money on something else, say buying a new jacket.

Mr. Keynes and his followers claim that this is not the whole story. Because in times of recession, you may not have bought yourself a new jacket, but just held on to money in hopes you'll get more goods and services for it later in the day.

While this is essentially correct, it actually says that you having money in your pocket is a bad thing. That money should instead go to other people who need it more. In effect, it is simply an elaborate wealth redistribution scheme. As a matter of fact, a direct wealth redistribution actually makes more sense than Keynesian system. Because in a direct wealth redistribution system, you would be forced to give someone else a percentage of money you have with you. But unlike in a Keynesian system, that guy wouldn't have to spend any of his time to get it. So Keynesian economics won't just rob you of your money, it will also force some other guy to do completely unnecessary work to get it.

What this basically results in is overproduction. Instead of saving money and buying things we need, we are forced to spend the money and buy things we do not need, as inflation eats away at our savings and punishes us for not spending. Since most of the people are both producers and consumers of goods, it also forces us to do loads of irrelevant work for someone else who is paying for it just to prevent their money from melting away.

Back at the beginning of the 20th century, people were expecting we'll now be working for 4 hours a day tops, considering how most real necessities have been taken care of. But thanks to Mr. Keynes and his redistribution-overproduction combo, most people today spend best years of their lives sitting 8-12 hours a day in an office, doing useless cargo cult rituals over and over till they are pretty much ready for the grave. It's also likely one of the reasons why demography in the west has sunk to today's low and unsustainable levels.

It's basically a positive feedback loop, where employment requires higher taxes, higher taxes require people to do more working hours, people doing more working hours have less time to take care of the children, and ageing population requires more people to work for their sustainment.

A good way to solve the issue would be through dropping the Keynesian system alltogether, accepting the fact that recessions are an unfortunate part of life, and give people more time to enjoy their lives and spend time with their families. A bad way to solve the issue is to keep producing unwanted stuff and open the doors to massive 3rd world immigration hoping they will compensate for the lack of domestic workers. Sadly, the second solution has been chosen over the first.

Although I am perfectly aware people often suffer during recessions, a recession basically means that too many goods have been produced in a given time. The only sensible solution is to stop producing goods for a while, until they run out and become valuable again. Mr. Keynes' solution is to simply take away all the excess people have made in order to force them to create new excesses later on. And by taking away arbitrary amounts, no excess can really ever exist. The more people make, the more government can take away, either directly or by redirecting all that energy into building bridges to nowhere.

One more thing of interest is the fascination with GDP. Now, while the overall welfare of the population is paramount, GDP is really not the best way to measure it. All government investments are considered a part of the GDP. So by taking away money and time from people and forcing them to do useless things, GDP can go all the way to the moon. But that GDP benchmark is faulty, because it includes both the production of things people wanted and needed, as well as production of things that were made only because people were implicitly forced to make them. In other words, garbage.

So instead of living in a happy world with lots of leisure time, we live in a world where people are heavily taxed, work their asses off day and night, and a demographic catastrophe looms over our heads. A dream world perhaps, for a man who was at the time fascinated by communist economy. Pretty much a hell for everyone else.

Trigger warning: This post contains warnings about triggers

As the new hype of triggers and trigger warning comes about, it is absolutely fascinating to see how it personifies the schizophrenic nature of feminism and similar movements. Because if you look at feminism closely, you'll notice how on hand it claims that women are at least equal to men in every single aspect of life, while on the other hand they need a myriad of special protection programs and support groups in order to function on the same level as men do. And even then, their narrative presents misogyny as to be so prevalent that they still fail to reach the same social rank. One can only wonder how the inferior male sex managed to get such an unbreakable grip on society confronted with the strong empowered females (who nevertheless need trigger warnings lest they shatter like glass on the smallest of provocations).

The source of the problem is quite simple - feminists basically want to be men, and they want to beat men at their own game. Since that is biologically impossible in a fair fight, they need to utilize external help such as support groups and the like, just to lose the battle in the end anyway. Instead of aiming for more social recognition for jobs and activities females naturally strive towards (such as nursing, child care, etc.), they aim to prove themselves equal at the jobs that are usually a part of male domain (army, engineering, etc.). Now, there's nothing really wrong with a female engineer or a nursing male, but it is silly to ignore the fact that these people are exceptions rather than rules. Biology made us favor certain roles, and by pushing for male roles, feminists actually diminish the value of females in society in two ways. First they diminish the value of female roles themselves, as they explicitly consider them to be unworthy of participating in. Secondly, they force females into roles for which they are usually unfit and for which they show little personal interest. Many women would be perfectly happy as housewives, but the social pressure generated by feminists pushes them towards feminist ideal, which is a single childless female yuppie. Anyone who knows anything about anthropology clearly sees that it is basically a male social and biological role (not childless per se, but childless for all practical purposes). Little wonder then that female life satisfaction has been constantly dropping since the sixties, ever since the hippies won and pushed their ideology as the default social norm. Also not surprising is that the most unhappy females are just the feminist ideal - 42yo unmarried single professionals http://jezebel.com/5838505/the-unhappiest-person-ever-is-a-female-lawyer.

Still with me? Good. Because triggering is about to intensify.

The thing with triggers is that they are perfectly opposite of what feminists would want us to believe females are, yet they consider them to be a necessity nevertheless. Men who need anything like trigger warnings are practically non-existent, and the few that perhaps do need them likely suffer from severe hormonal imbalance. Strong females, on the other side, who are supposedly better than males in every single aspect of life, are purported by feminists to be in great need of such safety measures or their fragile yet empowered souls will implode. While I personally do not believe that any sane adult female needs a trigger warning about anything, feminists seem to consider females to be weaker creatures than a misogynist like me does.

So who needs a trigger warning? Trigger warnings are basically needed by people who are incapable of grasping the real world around them. People who want to live in their own personal bubble of false happiness and remain oblivious to things that they don't find personally pleasing. Now, I personally don't mind such people existing (although I don't consider them to be much of a benefit to society), but those people present a serious problem when it comes to decision making.

A good decision maker needs to be capable of grasping the entire situation and acting accordingly. A person who needs a trigger warning basically refuses to gain complete knowledge of the situation, and is therefore by default a bad decision maker. In other words, people who need trigger warnings need to be placed in positions where they can't make any important decisions whatsoever. Meaning they can be housewives and nurses, but they most certainly can't be managers or presidents. Also, if we choose democracy as our political system, it is critically important to forbid those people to vote.

And therein lies the paradox of feminism and similar equality movements. They treat women and other designated victim groups like both superheroes and imbeciles at the same time. If a group of people needs trigger warnings to normally function, it means that the people from that group are utterly incapable of taking care of themselves and should be restricted in their actions by those who do not. Therefore, if females as a group really do need trigger warnings, their activities should be limited only to those that exist in the most patriarchal of societies. Otherwise, if they really are as capable as feminists claim, they don't really need support groups or trigger warnings or any similar safety system to climb to the top.

Real truth is not in the middle, because both of those theories are incorrect. Women generally have different interests than men do, which are in accordance with their biological roles. Therefore they do have trouble penetrating certain occupations but it's usually occupations they don't care much about anyway. And while the reason for that trouble really is, exceptions aside, their inadequacy for those occupations, same can be said about men and female social roles. So what feminism ultimately does is it turns women into bad copies of men, who are then further infantilized by all the special support they need to keep up. And even then, most of them fail, while those that somehow do not turn out to be the most unhappy creatures on the planet.

Even worse, it actually presents women as pretty much worthless creatures, because they fail at activities that are purported by feminists to be worthy (those to which men have genetic inclination), even though they excel at jobs that are purported to be unworthy (those to which women have genetic inclination). Therefore the biggest threat to women are not male chauvinists, the biggest threat to women are feminists themselves, because their activities are the ones whose results seem to prove male chauvinists right. Male chauvinists are only a threat to the ideal female of a feminist mind, which is in all reality something that most women don't want to be anyway, regardless of the stories they've been bombarded by for the last 50 years.