I thought this was interesting:
Friday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson said when he talks to Republicans it has become “therapy sessions” over anxiety caused by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s success.
Gerson said, “Yeah, every group of Republicans that I meet with now, breakfast, lunch, and dinner, are therapy sessions. People wondering how they deal with this fact because it’s not just a political decision here, it’s a moral one. There’s a candidate who’s placed exclusion at the center, at the heart of the Republican message. That’s causing people real concerns. What do you do? Do you sit it out? Do you support a third party candidate? Do you support Hillary Clinton, which might be possible.”
There was a time when in-grouping your own and out-grouping others was not just accepted, it was viewed as normal, and it happened along all sorts of lines. Germans, Italians, Irish, Blacks, WASPs, Catholics, Asians, and so on all mistrusted each other, and favored their own group. They made objectionable jokes about one another. They did business with each other. They even had their own neighborhoods, because you didn’t want to be the one Irish guy in the middle of an Italian neighborhood.
It will be claimed today that such a state of affairs was unconscionable, but I view it differently. I view such a situation as indicative of a fierce drive to compete within the people as a whole, to the point that they would be so desirous of competition that they would look for any differences with other people, no matter how minor, to justify their competition with them. These were competition machines, desperate to go at it with someone.
That nation was a nation which breathed greatness, because just as that competitive spirit divided the nation, it also bound it together. Let the Japanese launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and every minor difference between citizens would evaporate instantly as that intense competitiveness and prone-ness to out-group focused itself completely on the external threat. That was national unification.
Let the Soviets appear as if they would beat us in space exploration, and we would land men on the moon, just to prove we were better. Our companies thrived on that competitiveness as our government sought to help them win. Our economy roared, our military’s massive capability became our pride, and when we thought about our nation, nobody would ever imply we needed to apologize to some out-group outside of it.
Sure it is non-threatening to be told today that competition is wrong, and every man is equally your brother, but in relieving the stress of feeling a drive to compete, we lose that spark that produces greatness. Without competition to drive us, our lives lack all meaning, and our species becomes a shadow of what greatness it could be.
Explore Mars? For what purpose? Cure cancer? Maybe later. Defeat a great evil? But what if it is we who are the evil? Prepare our nation to win a great war? What is the rush? Competitiveness is the spark that ignites greatness, and a hallmark of its spirit is in-grouping. Without that, everything becomes meaningless.
Even worse, as the drive to compete in the populace is lost, so too is the underlying emotional drive to enforce right and wrong. Such a population quickly finds itself exploited and abused by craven immoral scumbags who gain power, and then use it for corrupt enrichment. The same drive that made an Irishman belittle a German immigrant is the same drive that made that Irishman vote out a politician who was exposed as a scumbag. It kept government in line. Without it, the populace also lacks the drive to keep government honest, and you get what we see today.
What this article highlights to me is how the rabbits in this nation, be they liberals, or Cuckservative GOPe, are like dogs who have been crated their entire lives. Dogs are designed to run free and play. But dogs who are crated their entire lives in a cage end up afraid to leave their crate, and assume their natural destiny. Open the door to the crate, and they cower before the sweet freedom most dogs relish.
As r-selection took hold in America, the rabbits successfully exploited it and eliminated most competitive and in-grouping behaviors through social ostracization and brainwashing. For liberals and GOPe, they have never know what it is to genuinely compete in a competition against others, or view an outsider as an opponent. All they have known is competitions where nobody really competes, and everyone gets a participation trophy. They have been crated away from their natural competitive urges.
Now K-stimuli are returning as the economy hobbles along, and Trump is rising to the occasion and reintroducing this competitive in-grouping stimuli. He is uniting Americans against outsiders, and cultivating a sense that America should negotiate trade deals with outsiders as if we are competing with them. He is saying we don’t owe every third world foreigner citizenship and welfare. He is belittling the professional criminal lobbyists in #blacklivesmatters, and turning the public against them. He is humiliating those who fear competition and aggression. Most dangerously of all, he is saying we shouldn’t cede our competitive natures to the liberals and the Cucks of the GOPe.
Now, as K-selection returns and the populace grows more aggressive, Trump is rising. Those liberals and cucks of the GOPe feel as if they are dogs who have spent their entire lives locked in cages and Trump is trying to throw them out into the dangerous world outside. They so fear this competitive aggressiveness that they are seeking therapy for it, and whining to every person they met who will listen to their terror.
The more you look at Trump, the more you realize he is the right man at the right time. He could really change the nature of the entire nation, and restore a spark of aggression which is sorely missing today. Most of all, you realize he has all the right enemies, and they are all complaining about all the right things.
Best of all, I suspect that in four years, his blinding success will have exposed how incompetent the entire establishment is, and he will have replaced them with winners who will not be afraid to engage in aggressive, fearless competition.
It is about time.
[…] Trump, The Establishment, and SJW Conditioning […]
(seen in the comments at Jihadwatch, in response to Trumps previous donations to the Clintons, i thought it was good)
“Businessmen have to grease the wheels. Clinton is a very greasy wheel. Trump is now an expert in greasing greasy wheels — an absolute master who has decided that the future of his country is now at stake. The future of his children. Trump’s #1 most important thing in his life as he sees his life coming to an end in the not so distant future. Now the master of greasing the greasiest of greasy wheels will rip those wheels off and throw the little monster to her doom”
When you say that the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, are you exonerating Hopkins, Roosevelt, et. al. for purposes of discussion? Or do your theories only apply within the echo chamber?
I love this blog and read it almost daily. I have a meandering question, though …
It seems that K is the product of maturity, a normal life of ups and downs, and normal conflicts between people, even family members: r is the absence of such life events.
To me, r seems like the default state, our childish self. Is this true? Is r the default state of most humans? Do you see r’s as unformed and immature, or do you see r as the consequence of coddling and aversion to normal conflict? Do people start out r and then mature into K, or are people born with a tendency toward r or K, a tendency that can be morphed into one or the other as life progresses?
Also, I’m curious about the r to K transformation and wondering if there is a parallel K to r transformation.
I’m predominantly K. I have always been this way. I can’t easily imagine, and have rarely thought, like an r. Was I born K? Similarly, I have a two sons and a daughter who are also rather Kish, particularly my oldest son. I don’t recall training them to be Ks, though I 1) never sheltered them,2) removed them from the leveling influence of public schools, and 3) encouraged the older one, at least, to compete in individual sports (cycling) and the younger one to compete intellectually.
But I can think of plenty of liberals who have raised their children similarly. Have you noticed that tiger moms are almost always liberal? They want their children to be successful, and are willing to give them advantages to assure their kid’s (mostly financial) dominance as an adult. I wonder if their children’s sense of unearned, or at least greatly enhanced, success in later life — most are, after all, successful — produces guilt, and if that guilt, in itself, is a r-selected emotion.
My kids were given a lot. I gave … but I let them fail. Often. Humiliatingly. Perhaps not being allow to fail, along with the sense of unearned entitlement, produces r-selected individuals?
I’m rambling. Sorry. Just trying to get at the genesis of r and K.
I really hope Trump is not a dark horse. I would be crushed. He really is just too perfect and we’ve seen other operations that turned out to be just another betrayal. On the other hand if Trump is also a failure and provides no relief the average folks from mass immigration and the destructive banking class then I think it will be the final turning point for Whites. They will believe in nothing. They will consider the whole establishment hostile and will never again trust that they will get any breaks. It will be a definite change and Whites will become MUCH more tribal. As you say their amygdala will be stimulated. It will swell like a grape fruit.
I would say my faith was completely lost during the Bush the Younger administration. “W”. I knew then that the standard Republican party was never going to address the issues that faced the country.
I hate to even mention Hitler but the fact is he took a country where you needed a wheel barrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread and after a few years people were taking vacations again. He didn’t do this by being a Nazi. He did it by getting control of central bank, the banks and forcing them to not speculate and instead invest in the economy. He also worked to have most goods made in the country. It was quite a remarkable turn around and if we could separate the Nazi part it would be very fruitful to look closely at what he did to turn things around.
My dear Sam J., “the Nazi part” is what made Germany successful. The “nationalist” component of the party’s platform limited the benefits of the “socialist” component to those with genes committed to the land, and the “socialist” component made those benefits be shared across the majority of the “in-group” (as our host would put it), rather than permitting destruction of the laboring support structure by finance capitalism.
Our host’s desired political policies are national socialism, because he wants to bolster the in-group at the expense of the out-group. That may be good or it may be bad, but it’s what he’s advocating.
Sam J., the things you describe Hitler doing are national socialism, which the media has decided amounts to “being a Nazi,” as you put it. Putting an end to the financial speculations of a certain ethnic group’s banking system, and using the bank to benefit his people, is why he was retroactively slurred with the label “Nazi.”
I hope you are right, but something tells me that Diebold are already programming a Hillary win as we speak.