Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Yeah, but that’s only because as a society we’ve become effete and lost the will to try new things just for the hell of it. In the 60’s they were trying things like nuclear propulsion, and they were walking on the moon. Then, something horrible happened in the early 70’s. I grew up then, and I could FEEL it. I’m still trying to figure out exactly what it was, but I think what it was, was a generation of kids who grew up with television instead of playing with gizmos, and who got into power and then just turned our society into a big mess of paperwork and lawyering, because paperwork was all they’d ever learned to do.
When I look at the physiology research done in the 60’s, it takes my breath away. The creativity of it! The things they did! I find my “new” ideas all the time in papers done in the 1960’s, but they never went anywhere (perfusion of organs with fluorocarbones to cool them, for example). One guy (the same guy in fact), before heart lung machines, repaired the hearts of babies by surgically cross-connecting them to the circulation of adult humans, who volunteered in order to save a life. Where has that kind of courage gone? Where are the Yeagers and the Goddards and the Microbe Hunters?
How come the heros of our movies are no longer Micky Rooney or Spencer Tracy playing Thomas Edison, or Paul Muni playing Erlich or Pasteur, instead Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison and Woody Harrelson playing Larry Flint? And movies whose heros are lawyers. Arggh. I don’t care if it is Tom Cruise or John Travolta. And the rest of the movies seem to be re-creations of 60’s TV shows.
Paperwork and lawyering. Fixing and improving and advancing society by talk-talk, not building. A lawyer president and his lawyer wife. [ed: bubba and thecunt] Crises of power that don’t involve spy planes and sputniks, but incredibly complicated and deceptive word definitions and complicated tax frauds. You think we’re not preparing to go to Mars because SF is too optimistic? Sure. But it was optimistic about whether or not the can-do engineering of the 40’s and 50’s, done by the kids who’d grown up playing with radios and mechanics in the 20’s, was going to continue. Needless to say, it didn’t.
I’ve seen a late 1950’s book of science fair projects for teenagers that include things like building your own X-ray machine and cyclotron (no, I’m not kidding– it can be done). There are rockets in there, and cloud chambers, and all kinds of wonderful electronics stuff. But we didn’t go that way. Instead, we turned our children into little Clintons, and our society into a bunch of people sitting at PCs, entering data about social engineering, not mechanical engineering. So instead of going to Mars, we went instead to beaurocratic Hell. Enjoy, everybody. It really could have been different. Nature didn’t stop us – WE stopped us.
(God, look at me. I’m well on the way to being Uncle Al)
Posted by defconquell at 6:32 AM
Friday, June 16, 2017
[–]OneRedYear 3 points 17 hours ago
Son, they can have every fucking thing on earth and they will never be satiated because they don't have the stars. They will have the stars and want galaxies, they can have galaxies but want the entire universe. They would bend God himself to their will and cuck him. There is no limit. There is no filling the howling black hole in the center of their being. To try is a fools errand. You just have to subjugate them or enjoy them for a little while and move on. These days, it's enjoy and move on.
Posted by defconquell at 10:03 AM
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
"What a Fool Believes" is a song written by Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins. The best-known version was recorded by The Doobie Brothers for their 1978 album Minute by Minute. Debuting at number 73 on January 20, 1979, the single reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 on 14 April 1979 for one week. The song received Grammy Awards in 1980 for both Song of the Year and Record of the Year.
"What a Fool Believes" was one of the few non-disco No. 1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 during the first eight months of 1979. The song lyrics tell a story of a man who is reunited with an old love interest and attempts to rekindle a romantic relationship with her before discovering that one never really existed.
Posted by defconquell at 11:40 PM
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Michel Houellebecq on Tocqueville:
I want to imagine under what new features despotism could present itself to the world; I see an innumerable crowd of similar and equal men who spin around restlessly, in order to gain small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others; his children and his particular friends form for him the entire human species;g as for the remainder of his fellow citizens, he is next to them, but he does not see them; he touches them without feeling them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if he still has a family, you can say that at least he no longer has a homeland.
Above those men arises an immense and tutelary power that alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyment and of looking after their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-sighted and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like it, it had as a goal to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary it seeks only to fix them irrevocably in childhood; it likes the citizens to enjoy themselves, provided that they think only about enjoying themselves. It works willingly for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent for it and the sole arbiter; it attends to their security, provides for their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, settles their estates, divides their inheritances; how can it not remove entirely from them the trouble to think and the difficulty of living?
This was published in 1840, in the second part of Democracy in America. I found it breathtaking. In terms of ideas, this own passage contains the whole of my work. I’d only add one thing: the individual in Toqueville at least has a friend and a family; in my universe he doesn’t anymore. So the process of atomization that he described has reached it’s final conclusion.
This passage also contains almost all of the work of Phillippe Muray. Phillippe only added one thing: that that power he described isn’t a fatherly power. He sees it as motherly power. And so the modernity announced by Muray implies the comeback of the matriarchy, in a new form, formed by the state. So the state keeps the people in a perpetual state of infancy; and the first enemy that modern society attempts to crush is virility itself.
In this sense, the evolution of France since Muray’s death [in 2006], and in particular since the socialists won the presidency, have confirmed his prophecies to an amazing degree. So much that even himself would have been surprised by, for example, the fact that France was after Sweden the second country in Europe to criminalize prostitution. I think he would have had trouble understanding it.
If I tell you my opinion, I believe that banning prostitution amounts to abolishing one of the fundamental pillars of society. It means making marriage impossible. Without prostitution as a corrective, marriage collapses, family collapses too, and then society for demographic reasons. And so banning prostitution is simply one aspect of the European suicide.
So as things stand now we can predict a great future with a rather ancient formula, which comes from the Middle Ages, the 7th century. Salafist Islam. It’s true that right now the events aren’t quite agreeing with me. But I stand by my prophecy. Because jihadism will end, people always end up tiring of carnage and suicide. The proliferation of Islam is only on its early phases, because demographics are on its side. And Europe, by not defending itself, has a suicidal attitude. And we mustn’t think it will be a slow suicide. With a fertility rate of 1.3 or 1.4, it will happen very quickly.
Given the circumstances, I think all those debates that French intellectuals are having on secularism, Islam, etc. are all completely pointless. For they ignore the only relevant factor, which is the present state of the couple and the family.
Posted by defconquell at 6:49 PM
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Clark Kent • 4 days ago
I forgot who posted it a while back but I'll paraphrase an older ROK comment. Women pay to go to school and get degrees in social studies, healthcare, or some such. They rarely start companies or do the most difficult and prestigious work. In the end, the majority of them become teachers, nurses, retail, and office workers. These are the same jobs women used to do before feminism "liberated" them. Except now they put themselves into serious debt to do the same shit they've always done. The result is we've basically destroyed motherhood and social standards. If you look at wages vs. cost of goods, prices have tripled since 1970. People complain about everything being so expensive now, but instead of making more real things we just make bullshit busy jobs and extend more debt. Guess who benefits in that scenario.
Posted by defconquell at 6:51 AM