The new Nihilism

[FireDragon76]

Someone sent me this, in an effort to describe what he and other young men are going through. They don't want to get married, feel they can't find good jobs, and that the deck is stacked against them:

"As our society drifts to the political left, and radicalism becomes the norm, this will be the reality:

1. Liberal justices and lawmakers will make sure men are punished in divorce court. Women will be able to make claims on 80% of a man’s property, and take his kids, even if they were at-fault in the marriage. Your wife can cheat on you and a leftist judge will hand of your property to her and her new boyfriend. This is already happening, and will get much worse.

2. A large expansion of DEI and affirmative-action initiatives will disenfranchise white men. You won’t get into top schools, won’t get jobs or promotions. If you do land a job, you will be forced into struggle-sessions, sensitivity training, and DEI workshops. What you say there will be held against you, and you will face professional blackmail.

3. You won’t be able to afford land / real-estate. That will be reserved for Boomers, the wealthy, and politically-connected. A good portion of your paycheck will go towards state pension obligations for Boomers –you will slave away as a supervisor in Walmart so some pensioner can play golf all-day in his retirement. You will rent a roach-infested apartment from Blackrock, or some slumlord. Without a home, you are less desirable as a mate / husband.

4. AI, automation, and outsourcing will make tons of jobs obsolete in the US. Avenues that were once open will be closed."

And I would add to this the declining church attendance and faith in this country ...

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

Things are bad for the average person in general in the US, and "woke" politics and rhetoric is often just a way for corporations, politicians, and academics to try to persuade people in the absence of a vision of hope for a better future. For several years, the US has slid from being a full democracy, to a flawed democracy, on par with Jamaica or Mongolia. Good jobs aren't going to come back as long as billionaires can make more money overseas, and as long as the US remains a flawed democracy, they will suffer no consequences for it.

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[returnn23]

Things are bad for the average person in general in the US, and "woke" politics and rhetoric is often just a way for corporations, politicians, and academics to try to persuade people in the absence of a vision of hope for a better future. For several years, the US has slid from being a full democracy, to a flawed democracy, on par with Jamaica or Mongolia. Good jobs aren't going to come back as long as billionaires can make more money overseas, and as long as the US remains a flawed democracy, they will suffer no consequences for it.

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The ruling class in the U.S. can only go so far. Cheap goods from China means U.S. dollars are going to fund 'the potential enemy.' They know that. I think young men in particular need to plan and refocus their efforts. Finding someone compatible with yourself, starting a family and so on is important or "progress" - as in technological development - does not happen. It's hard to think straight when you can barely make ends meet.

Fortunately, manufacturing is seeing a resurgence. New plant construction is happening and computer chip manufacturing is coming back to the U.S. The wealthy know that at some point, the peasants need access to good jobs. That lining their pockets with money is not all they need/want to do.

 

[FireDragon76]

The ruling class in the U.S. can only go so far. Cheap goods from China means U.S. dollars are going to fund 'the potential enemy.' They know that. I think young men in particular need to plan and refocus their efforts. Finding someone compatible with yourself, starting a family and so on is important or "progress" - as in technological development - does not happen. It's hard to think straight when you can barely make ends meet.

Fortunately, manufacturing is seeing a resurgence. New plant construction is happening and computer chip manufacturing is coming back to the U.S. The wealthy know that at some point, the peasants need access to good jobs. That lining their pockets with money is not all they need/want to do.

Chip manufacturing takes more than a highschool education and it will never employee the numbers of people that auto manufacturing did. So far it's only been talked about happening on a relatively small scale, as well.

"The Ruling Class" in the US are so divided, it's a mistake to see them as a monolith. A great many are simply out for their own wealth, fame, greed, or perceived interests.

 

[Eschatologist]

Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in hypocrisy. A person cannot assert that the left is about liberal identity politics in favor of women without also asserting that the right is about conservative identity politics in favor of men. That's how left/right dichotomies work. In any left/right dichotomy the objective view is in the center, and the left and right are opposing subjective views. The term liberal does not even belong in the discussion of identity politics since Liberal/Conservative is a completely different Left/Right dichotomy than Pro Female/Pro Male. There are many valid points to be addressed concerning young men in today's society, but seriously, you're undermining the credibility of the argument when you use the term liberal as if it means pro-female over men in divorce courts.

Except, it doesn't work like that.

First, I will agree with you on one thing. Liberal is not the right word. The American Left is not liberal; it is progressive. Liberal means limited government and an emphasis on civil liberties. Progressive is statist and demands government involvement in everything, even in supposedly supporting freedoms.

Progressives are single-mindedly focused on identity politics. Intersectionality requires this. There's always a calculus of who is most oppressed and in need of "help." All the help actually ends up being is encouraging dependence on government while insisting you are a victim and cannot help yourself.

Conservatism is not based on identity, but it is based on values. It doesn't matter what your sex or race is. What matters is what you prioritize in terms of morals. Now, this does have an effect on homosexuals and transgender people, but values demand a certain level of restraint. Only watered down interpretations of Christianity can suggest that homosexuality isn't sinful. Only watered down interpretations can suggest that there are more genders than man and woman or that someone born male can become female (or vice versa). Values demand acceptance of truth, and in this specific example -- Biblical truth. This kind of truth may not be convenient in the modern world, but truth and honesty have never been easy.

Conservatives value fairness in court. Progressives value promoting whoever is higher on the oppression olympics list.

 

[Eschatologist]

I'd say white men need to face the growing sexism and racism the same way other disenfranchised groups have successfully faced it in the past. Form local, tight-knit communities which reject woke racism and sexism, and allow these communities to flourish through human virtue and solidarity. Let the woke ideologues cannibalize themselves and show forth a healthy alternative. Folks of all races and sexes see the problems with the woke mob, and perhaps these white men would do well to take up King's approach of throwing a light on these dark creatures. It's a big problem, but there is plenty of good precedent.

That's a good start. I think it may end up being a self-solving problem when Latinos become the majority. They don't tend to be woke.

 

[Eschatologist]

Well, remember we're dealing with semantics when parsing the term white or male privilege. I don't feel privileged, but I didn't grow up black or female, so I'm not going to discount that maybe I was in that sense. In other words, I don't think it can be concluded that as a white male, I had no right or immunity under our laws in the context of being discriminated against, since I'm not black and laws do not simply make prejudice disappear. This may not be the 1950's, but like I said I grew up in the sixties. The fact alone that black people suffered oppression and my family didn't, doesn't mean I had no advantages compared to them. Anyway, I don't see any reason to take it as a personal attack against my ethnicity or whites in general, I simply respect and admire any people who would persevere through such discrimination.


Well, for one thing I would think that white privilege is an expression coming from a Black point of view. "Black" in America, in that context, refers to descendants of slaves, which should not be conflated with Indians or Asians. Since the term privilege comes from a "Black" point of view, one has to try to understand what they mean by it.

So, I don't think the annual incomes prove anything about Indians or any other race being more privileged or less privileged. There can be many reasons that explain why the incomes are the way they are, least of them being the color of their skin. I'm certainly not going to entertain a grievance through a prejudice and believe it was non-white privilege.

In the modern context, "privilege" is just an argument put forward by minorities that don't want to take responsibility for their own poor decisions.

Latinos are, on average, poorer than blacks when they come here as immigrants. Yet, they have risen faster than blacks in this society through hard work.

African immigrants also tend to fare better than native born blacks.

Most of your fate in society is tied to your own actions, not to "privilege", so my sympathy for the people who always fixate on privilege is very limited. Christianity calls us to help the less fortunate, but it also tells us not to toss our pearls at swine.

 

[Eschatologist]

Things are bad for the average person in general in the US, and "woke" politics and rhetoric is often just a way for corporations, politicians, and academics to try to persuade people in the absence of a vision of hope for a better future. For several years, the US has slid from being a full democracy, to a flawed democracy, on par with Jamaica or Mongolia. Good jobs aren't going to come back as long as billionaires can make more money overseas, and as long as the US remains a flawed democracy, they will suffer no consequences for it.

The Economist Democracy Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. There's an important difference between the two.

But more accurately, you could say we are a plutocracy. However, most countries are, in practice, that.

No matter what system you create, elites run the show. The only difference is that representative governments have some level of recourse by the public.

To be fair though, universal suffrage isn't a very good idea when considering the average person's intelligence. Limited suffrage based on your ties to society is far more logical. You need "skin in the game" to be a valid voice for any functional system. It's part of why you had to be a landowner to vote in the beginning. I know it was limited in other ways as well, but the landowning requirement actually made sense.

 

[Eschatologist]

Chip manufacturing takes more than a highschool education and it will never employee the numbers of people that auto manufacturing did. So far it's only been talked about happening on a relatively small scale, as well.

"The Ruling Class" in the US are so divided, it's a mistake to see them as a monolith. A great many are simply out for their own wealth, fame, greed, or perceived interests.

The elite aren't a monolith, as you said, but the majority of them often align toward certain interests. The military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex both wield tremendous amounts of power both here and abroad. COVID really showed how much power Big Pharma has, for example.

 

[FireDragon76]

The elite aren't a monolith, as you said, but the majority of them often align toward certain interests. The military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex both wield tremendous amounts of power both here and abroad. COVID really showed how much power Big Pharma has, for example.

That's a conspiracy theory not supported by the actual evidence.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, we're not a democracy. We're a republic. There's an important difference between the two.

The US has traditionally been a democracy ever since senators were elected by the people in the early 19th century. The presidency of Andrew Jackson solidified the US as a democracy.

But more accurately, you could say we are a plutocracy. However, most countries are, in practice, that.

There are a number of full democracies in the world, such as the UK, France, or Japan. However, the US is not one of them any longer.

 

[Eschatologist]

That's a conspiracy theory.

About COVID? COVID was most likely created by the Wuhan Lab, which involved funding by our government and the Chinese government. So, the viral research we still throw money at today ultimately killed millions of people. If that's a conspiracy theory, then you should tell the CDC, since they've recently suggested that the lab leak theory is likely to be true.

What I was actually getting at is how Big Pharma pushed the deeply flawed vaccines. Pfizer hid the adverse effects from the public, and the government encouraged this concealment.

 

[Eschatologist]

The US has traditionally been a democracy ever since senators were elected by the people in the early 19th century. The presidency of Andrew Jackson solidified the US as a democracy.



There are a number of full democracies in the world, such as the UK, France, or Japan. However, the US is not one of them any longer.

Neither of these assertions are true. First, at most, you can say we're a democratic republic. That's not a democracy in the strict sense.

The other countries you mentioned are parliamentary democracies that are officially constitutional monarchies (UK and Japan) and a republic (France). They aren't "full democracies" if you actually mean "direct democracy." You could argue that republics and parliaments are "representative democracies", however.

 

[Eschatologist]

The US has traditionally been a democracy ever since senators were elected by the people in the early 19th century. The presidency of Andrew Jackson solidified the US as a democracy.



There are a number of full democracies in the world, such as the UK, France, or Japan. However, the US is not one of them any longer.

A side note I have to point out is that direct election of Senators began with the 17th Amendment in 1913. That was under Woodrow Wilson.

 

[childeye 2]

Except, it doesn't work like that.

First, I will agree with you on one thing. Liberal is not the right word. The American Left is not liberal; it is progressive. Liberal means limited government and an emphasis on civil liberties. Progressive is statist and demands government involvement in everything, even in supposedly supporting freedoms.

Progressives are single-mindedly focused on identity politics. Intersectionality requires this. There's always a calculus of who is most oppressed and in need of "help." All the help actually ends up being is encouraging dependence on government while insisting you are a victim and cannot help yourself.


Conservatism is not based on identity, but it is based on values. It doesn't matter what your sex or race is. What matters is what you prioritize in terms of morals. Now, this does have an effect on homosexuals and transgender people, but values demand a certain level of restraint. Only watered down interpretations of Christianity can suggest that homosexuality isn't sinful. Only watered down interpretations can suggest that there are more genders than man and woman or that someone born male can become female (or vice versa). Values demand acceptance of truth, and in this specific example -- Biblical truth. This kind of truth may not be convenient in the modern world, but truth and honesty have never been easy.

Conservatives value fairness in court. Progressives value promoting whoever is higher on the oppression olympics list.

Logically speaking, the base dichotomy of Democracy/Autocracy implies a struggle for power between the many at the bottom and the relative few at the top, and everyone in between. By default, this makes our elected representation in government the battleground between these two basic points of view. What bothers me is that terms such as liberal/conservative, are no longer applied logically to form an objective point of view. The terms are more often used for propaganda to imply negative or positive connotations. Frankly, it's not believable that Fox News or Mr. Trump ever displayed having conservative values based on biblical Truth.

 

[Eschatologist]

Logically speaking, the base dichotomy of Democracy/Autocracy implies a struggle for power between the many at the bottom and the relative few at the top, and everyone in between. By default, this makes our elected representation in government the battleground between these two basic points of view. What bothers me is that terms such as liberal/conservative, are no longer applied logically to form an objective point of view. The terms are more often used for propaganda. It's not believable that Fox News and Mr. Trump ever represented conservative values based on biblical Truth.

Trump is a populist, not a conservative. This means he aligns with conservativism on certain things but also aligns with progressives on other things. Even though many progressives despise Trump, he took stances on social spending that many Democrats would actually agree with. He didn't exactly cut welfare, for example.

A lot of the establishment GOP is neocon, which is conservative on certain social issues, but it's also big government when it comes to things like foreign policy. Throwing tons of money at war, nation building, and foreign aid isn't conservative in the original sense. A lot of people forget that conservatives were the original voice that pushed against entering WWI and WWII. The GOP didn't really become pro-war until the neocons entered the party, just like they did before with the Democrats. The good news is that Trump forced a lot of the neocons out of the party. A lot of the PNAC cronies now openly support the Democrats (like Bill Kristol and Max Boot).

Paleoconservatives are probably the closest to Biblical truth, although they are a small group at this point. The libertarian wing of the GOP also fits this.

But we probably can agree that the establishment GOP (like Mitch McConnell) doesn't represent Biblical truth. The establishment Democrats don't either. The deep state (or bureaucratic state if you prefer that terminology) is decidedly unChristian, for sure. A quick look through our foreign policy and the actions of many federal agencies against the American public will reveal that.

 

[childeye 2]

In the modern context, "privilege" is just an argument put forward by minorities that don't want to take responsibility for their own poor decisions.

I see this as a mischaracterization of the intended sentiment.

Latinos are, on average, poorer than blacks when they come here as immigrants. Yet, they have risen faster than blacks in this society through hard work.

African immigrants also tend to fare better than native born blacks.

Most of your fate in society is tied to your own actions, not to "privilege", so my sympathy for the people who always fixate on privilege is very limited. Christianity calls us to help the less fortunate, but it also tells us not to toss our pearls at swine.

I don't believe income or work ethic has anything to do with skin color. I have sympathy for all people regardless of their decisions, privileged or not. For the descendants of slaves to which the term "Black" is referring, I think that for some of them, there still may be an issue of not wanting to be servants of the man. Cynicism and grace through faith are opposites in spirit, yet they are both self-fulfilling.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Someone sent me this, in an effort to describe what he and other young men are going through. They don't want to get married, feel they can't find good jobs, and that the deck is stacked against them:

"As our society drifts to the political left, and radicalism becomes the norm, this will be the reality:

1. Liberal justices and lawmakers will make sure men are punished in divorce court. Women will be able to make claims on 80% of a man’s property, and take his kids, even if they were at-fault in the marriage. Your wife can cheat on you and a leftist judge will hand of your property to her and her new boyfriend. This is already happening, and will get much worse.

2. A large expansion of DEI and affirmative-action initiatives will disenfranchise white men. You won’t get into top schools, won’t get jobs or promotions. If you do land a job, you will be forced into struggle-sessions, sensitivity training, and DEI workshops. What you say there will be held against you, and you will face professional blackmail.

3. You won’t be able to afford land / real-estate. That will be reserved for Boomers, the wealthy, and politically-connected. A good portion of your paycheck will go towards state pension obligations for Boomers –you will slave away as a supervisor in Walmart so some pensioner can play golf all-day in his retirement. You will rent a roach-infested apartment from Blackrock, or some slumlord. Without a home, you are less desirable as a mate / husband.

4. AI, automation, and outsourcing will make tons of jobs obsolete in the US. Avenues that were once open will be closed."

And I would add to this the declining church attendance and faith in this country ...

We can't afford to have a whole generation of young men give up. Thoughts?

My thoughts?

My thoughts are that this is the outcome of living in an Obtuse World, or even in a politically and ideologically obtuse nation, one that says it "cherishes human rights" on the one hand, but then also harbors profligate philosophies, in both secret and conspicious ways, on the other hand.

................................................................... And then we wonder why the civic life that is metted out and defined for us makes us feel like we're caught in a nihilistic web which then entices many men to make more, even crappier choices in life.

 

[childeye 2]

Trump is a populist, not a conservative. This means he aligns with conservativism on certain things but also aligns with progressives on other things. Even though many progressives despise Trump, he took stances on social spending that many Democrats would actually agree with. He didn't exactly cut welfare, for example.

A lot of the establishment GOP is neocon, which is conservative on certain social issues, but it's also big government when it comes to things like foreign policy. Throwing tons of money at war, nation building, and foreign aid isn't conservative in the original sense. A lot of people forget that conservatives were the original voice that pushed against entering WWI and WWII. The GOP didn't really become pro-war until the neocons entered the party, just like they did before with the Democrats. The good news is that Trump forced a lot of the neocons out of the party. A lot of the PNAC cronies now openly support the Democrats (like Bill Kristol and Max Boot).

Paleoconservatives are probably the closest to Biblical truth, although they are a small group at this point. The libertarian wing of the GOP also fits this.

But we probably can agree that the establishment GOP (like Mitch McConnell) doesn't represent Biblical truth. The establishment Democrats don't either. The deep state (or bureaucratic state if you prefer that terminology) is decidedly unChristian, for sure. A quick look through our foreign policy and the actions of many federal agencies against the American public will reveal that.

As I see it, "biblical Truth" is alluding to the Spirit of God as an incorruptible Love. For example, scripture says everyone who knows brotherly Love, knows God. While government policy should reflect that Spirit, there is always going to be a contention over how. After all, the same people who take the good for granted in un-thankfulness, are probably the same people voicing their grievances. Therefore, I see conservative and liberal as pertaining to how strict or authoritarian one should be.

This is from another post: "Only watered down interpretations of Christianity can suggest that homosexuality isn't sinful. Only watered down interpretations can suggest that there are more genders than man and woman or that someone born male can become female (or vice versa)."

I don't believe the carnal minded can be expected to not sin. The Christianity I trust in accounts for sin as a product of the weakness of the flesh. I also believe that the flesh dies with Christ when, through the Spirit of Christ, we pick up our own cross, suffer the sins of others and forgive them. So, I feel that cherry-picking the sins we want to condemn for political messaging is only going to end in a hypocritical judgment. When we speak of God as Christians, I think we should reflect the same grace, mercy and understanding displayed in the Christ, who suffered so much so that sins could be forgiven, not condemned.

 

[Eschatologist]

As I see it, "biblical Truth" is alluding to the Spirit of God as an incorruptible Love. For example, scripture says everyone who knows brotherly Love, knows God. While government policy should reflect that Spirit, there is always going to be a contention over how. After all, the same people who take the good for granted in un-thankfulness, are probably the same people voicing their grievances. Therefore, I see conservative and liberal as pertaining to how strict or authoritarian one should be.

This is from another post: "Only watered down interpretations of Christianity can suggest that homosexuality isn't sinful. Only watered down interpretations can suggest that there are more genders than man and woman or that someone born male can become female (or vice versa)."

I don't believe the carnal minded can be expected to not sin. The Christianity I trust in accounts for sin as a product of the weakness of the flesh. I also believe that the flesh dies with Christ when, through the Spirit of Christ, we pick up our own cross, suffer the sins of others and forgive them. So, I feel that cherry-picking the sins we want to condemn for political messaging is only going to end in a hypocritical judgment. When we speak of God as Christians, I think we should reflect the same grace, mercy and understanding displayed in the Christ, who suffered so much so that sins could be forgiven, not condemned.

There are aspects to what you're saying that I agree with. "Hate the sin, not the sinner." I don't consider homosexuality to be a graver sin than various others. What I do find very disturbing, however, is the West's push to embrace and celebrate the LGBT for "diversity".

Simply put, a gay parade celebrates sin. Drag queen story hours expose children to perversity. Forgiving the sinful is not the same as celebrating the sins they engage in. Accepting these people means guiding them away from sin, not putting them on display.

The problem is that the West in general has confused compassion with complicity. Christianity outside of the West is less prone to this mistake, because the countries involved tend to be more devout and less materialistic/hedonistic.

 

[childeye 2]

There are aspects to what you're saying that I agree with. "Hate the sin, not the sinner." I don't consider homosexuality to be a graver sin than various others. What I do find very disturbing, however, is the West's push to embrace and celebrate the LGBT for "diversity".

Simply put, a gay parade celebrates sin. Drag queen story hours expose children to perversity. Forgiving the sinful is not the same as celebrating the sins they engage in. Accepting these people means guiding them away from sin, not putting them on display.

The problem is that the West in general has confused compassion with complicity. Christianity outside of the West is less prone to this mistake, because the countries involved tend to be more devout and less materialistic/hedonistic.

When I first saw some gay people parading in a display of what is basically lust of the flesh, I felt tempted to voice my disgust. But there was another voice telling me not to judge or be moved. I feel God was saying don't let these parades push my buttons, and when I looked again it did seem that the spiritual darkness behind these parades was intending to do that. I also thought of how I honestly do not know what it would be like feeling the need to parade around like that, as if it was something to celebrate. I then considered that God is brotherly Love, and I wondered what I would do if any of my family were doing that. My very first answer was I'd be falling on my knees praying for them.

When you say "the west in general" I can't agree or disagree since I've never been outside of my country, but it sounds politically charged. From my experience I've heard very few people describing it as an embrace of diversity, and at the same time I don't like the idea of sweeping it under the rug out of fear of my grandchildren seeing it. On top of that, every gay person I've asked about this tells me that they find the parades disgusting also.

This much I do know, the scriptures teach that homosexuality began when God gave mankind over to the lusts of the flesh and even to reprobate minds, and I think that's what I'm witnessing at these parades. So, I don't see how one can confuse compassion with complicity, because I don't believe a government policy can restore a virtue found only in the power of Christ through faith.