The Precariat and the Last Exit Before Violence
Anonymous ID:Cpcm1k62
Sun 25 Jul 2021 19:54:14 No.331461050
>The Precariat and the Last Exit Before Fascism
What causes revolutions? When does the violence start? To find the answer, study one group: Dissatisfied, angry young men. 100% of every revolution in human history was started by this cohort, and if you want to know how likely you are to have a revolution, ignore everything else and study the angry young men in your society. Why are they angry? How many of them are there? Do they communicate regularly? Do they have weapons? Are there political movements that address their grievances and defuse their anger, or are they mocked and shamed? Do they have a stake in society, and do they have incentives to maintain stability and keep things as they are? These are the questions you have to ask to know if landlords are about to get dragged out of their houses and shot. These are the questions you have to ask if you want to know if celebrities, academics, journalists, and politicians are about to be beaten, raped, stripped naked, and paraded through the streets. These are the questions you have to ask if you want to know when Jews are going to be genocided next. It's happened hundreds of times, dozens in the 20th century alone, and it's about to happen again, here in the USA. We are coming up on the final chance for a political solution to the USA's problems before we enter a full-blown, violent revolution. We have had multiple missed exits to political solutions to violence, which I will describe below.
>Missed Exit 1: the 99% and Occupy Wall Street
The first missed exit was in 2008-10, in the form of Occupy Wall Street. Young millennials protested the banking system and their exclusion from the normal avenues of building wealth and buying property. The OWS protesters didn't want handouts. They weren't calling for UBI or more welfare. They didn't want Latin American gibsmedat Venezosocialism. They simply wanted wages commensurate to the value of their labor, and a chance to buy and own a share of America: A slice of American land and a stake in American businesses. Milennials were the first American generation in living memory to have no hope whatsoever to own land and build wealth, and they knew it, and they protested. They wanted dignity. Instead, the banks got bailed out, and one of the largest wealth transfers from the middle class to the hyperwealthy took place.
OWS was not identitarian: It cut across lines of race, gender, etc., and it dissolved along these lines, as identity politics emerged to dismantle the movement. Progressive stacks, social justice, restorative justice, and white guilt were introduced: the 99% died immediately after, and actual class politics have never come back to mainstream discourse.
>Missed Exit 2: #MeToo
The next large left-wing movement was #MeToo, borne from GamerGate. Angry, dissatisfied young men of the millennial and zoomer generation, sick of being perpetually demonized as the villains of identity politics in their heretofore male spheres of gaming, as well as mainstream culture and (for zoomers) in classrooms and colleges started voicing their anger. #MeToo was the elite response, a broadside of thinly veiled managerial supremacism under the guise of feminism. #MeToo was exclusively bourgeois, exclusively moneyed, and incredibly politically influential. From 2015-2018, #MeToo accelerated the reconfiguration of American politics, journalism, media, culture, and the overton window of mainstream discourse. Identity politics was no longer just an obscure instrument to destroy class solidarity in OWS: It was now the official civil religion of the USA, a replacement for Christianity. No aspect of #MeToo addressed any kind of material inequality, wealth inequality, property ownership, land ownership, or other traditional popular concerns. Around this time, the word 'populist' became a pejorative: a perfect summation of the total capture of leftwing politics by wealthy, whitecollar, sanctimonious, and overwhelmingly female managers.
#MeToo was exclusively concerned with superstructural minutiae, tone-policing, editorial decisions of fantasy novels, micro-aggressions, and policing the grey zones of human sexuality. Perhaps because of its astonishing vacuity and pettiness, it didn't last long. Leftwing politics soon pivoted to #BLM. Proof that #MeToo is entirely dead can be found everywhere: The 'Karen' meme is clearly a sexist disparagement of women, and is totally acceptable dinnertable conversation. Bill Cosby raped some 50 women, confessed, and walked a free man: There were no protests, and there was no vociferous objection. The "feminists" were silent, partly because they had nothing to say about the material world. Biden probably sexually harassed a woman or two: nobody cared. #MeToo was more successful in reducing the breast size of Japanese videogame characters than it was in creating any tangible improvement to the lives of Americans, male or female. And now, #MeToo, like OWS before it, is dead.
>Missed Exit 3: #BLM
BLM is the largest social movement in postwar American history and THE largest charity drive in American history – although nobody is quite sure where the billions of dollars of donations have gone, and interracial trust is at a historic low since the Civil Rights era. If #MeToo approximated a civil religion, BLM codified its doctrines in Critical Race Theory, complete with foreign missions (European football players kneeling to the new American God), prophets (Robin DiAngelo, Ibram Kendi, etc.), martyr saints (George Floyd, whose image is painted on the walls of every American city), castes (blacks at the top, whites and Asians at the bottom), and a motivated political party (the Biden administration). BLM's sister doctrine, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is a tithe that every organization, public and private, pays to the new religion. As with #MeToo before it, BLM is only nominally leftist, and as with #MeToo, it's overwhelmingly bourgeois, openly disdainful of the productive classes such as manual laborers, farmers, etc., who it openly mocks and despises. Cultural workers, teachers, and government or corporate bureaucrats are the heroes of BLM: farmers, oil field workers, and bricklayers are its deadly enemies.
BLM has no plan whatsoever for fixing the wealth gap, land ownership, or public stakes in businesses: it's primarily concerned with openly anti-empirical police and educational policies, which dramatically fail every time they're implemented. Conveniently, BLM is also strictly opposed to objective measurement and accountability, a sensible orientation that may allow it to endure for a year or two more than it would otherwise. Critical Race Theory is fundamentally a faith-based doctrine: facts don't matter, only spiritual virtue, admissions of guilt, and celebrations of the Word. Unsurprisingly, the old Atheist intelligentsia that castrated Christianity for young millennials -Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al - absolutely loathe CRT. Presumably once people start realizing that defunding the police massively increases rape and murder rates and that abolishing standardized testing doesn't improve black literacy, there will be a backlash. From the public perspective, the best aspect of BLM is a typical Latin-American style """socialism""" based on demanding a vastly expanded government bureaucracy to give welfare and handouts to an elect class of professional victims. Even in this regard, it appears to have partially failed: Blacks are no better off than before #BLM, likely due to the extremely corrupt grifters in charge of the treasury of the organization.
BLM has, however, successfully increased the proportion of white-collar managers and nonproductive workers in every institution, and in this regard is a resounding triumph for the managerial elite. Back in 2000, boomers used to joke: "You'll never get a job with your degree in comparative African lesbian basket weaving". The average DEI officer earns $122,000, around four times more than what an average blue-collar, productive worker earns. Is the joke funny now? Are you laughing?
>Sex and stable societies
Stable societies have to find a way to pacify young men, for the abovementioned reason that young men are THE only known cause of violent revolutions. If you piss off enough young men, your civilization doesn't survive. Throughout history, countries have found different ways of doing this: empires typically send their young men off to conquer foreign land – this is what the British did, and what the Japanese did after the Rice Riots of the early 20th century. Send the angry young guys to kill foreigners and take some land for themselves. Modern, non-colonial nation states don't usually have this option. They have to calm the guys down another way.
One traditional way is marriage. Get the guys married, ideally in a 1:1 ratio, and things calm down a lot. Polygamy typically creates unstable societies: look at the constant strife in the middle east as an example. If 3 guys out of 4 can't get a wife, expect constant violence, suicide bombings, etc. Similarly, noncommittal relationships tend to be associated with very high rates of violence. Look at the West African matriarchal societies, where men don't stay with their pregnant partners, and instead form rotating circus of bandits, rapists, and murderers. These societies never invented the wheel, the plough, the sail, or a written script, and today enjoy the highest rape and murder rates on the planet. This is almost certainly because of the constant havoc caused by angry, unanchored, deracinated, alienated men, none of whom had fathers. Tragically, this pattern that has been nearly-identically reproduced in black communities in Baltimore, East St. Louis, Detroit, etc.; communities that BLM is conspicuously silent about, because BLM is a managerial project for increasing the number of white-collar administrators in public and private institutions, NOT a project to improve the lives of black people.
Increasingly, young men in the USA don't marry, don't have sex, and don't have girlfriends. Over 40% of zoomer males have never had sexual intercourse. The median age of the cohort is 21. This is historically unprecedented. Women have a calming and pacifying effect on males, even on the biological level; cohabiting with a partner lowers your testosterone and drastically decreases your violent crime rate. But young men in the USA aren't doing that.
Settling down with a woman requires resources. It requires a stake in society. It requires a slice of American land. For millennials and zoomers, this is close to impossible. The chance that you marry increases massively if you own property. The chance that you have children increases massively too. The inability of young men to buy property is directly causing their failure to have long-term partners and children. Guys who 40 years ago would have been doing DIY, building a front porch, volunteering at the local church, and helping raise their kids, are today spending their nights ranting about the Jews on 4Chan. If you are concerned about the possibility of a violent revolution, this development should alarm you. OWS touched on this issue, but the two major "leftist" political movements, #MeToo and #BLM, have not even obliquely addressed this problem. In the case of #MeToo, male success and wellbeing is probably directly antithetical to the movement's stated objectives (inasmuch as they ever relate to material reality, which is rare).
>Pacifying Young Men
The USA has developed a new solution to pacifying young men that does not depend on marriage, children, love, community, business ownership, or ownership of a little plot of land to call their own. The new solution is drugs, pornography, videogames, junk food, and social media. So far, it appears to have worked to sedate the young men. Even the angriest young men are so physically unfit from their sedentary lifestyles and corn-syrup diets that the chances of them forming a cohort of red guards and door-to-door murdering landlords is vanishingly slim. They're much more likely to smoke a blunt, eat some froot loops, and watch Rick and Morty. But how long can this passivity last? Are we kicking the can down the road, or have we finally found a way to permanently stop violent revolutions? Is this what Francis Fukuyama called the 'end of history'? Will Zoomer males, totally iced out of land ownership and business ownership be content with subscription-service *everything*, spending their lives as perpetual, sexless tenants, receiving government UBI stipends which get funneled instantly into the pockets of a hedge fund megalandlord and online pornography purveyors? Is Ready Player One the perfect image of the immediate future? Are corn syrup, Nintendo, porn, and weed the ultimate technology in preventing Mao Zedong or Adolf Hitler from rising again? It's very hard to tell, not least because exactly 0 good-faith sociologists are examining what is going on in all-male spaces and male culture. We simply have no idea how close we are to a Bolshevik revolution. It might happen tomorrow.
>Land Ownership and Violence
If you had an average salary in 2020, and saved every single spare penny you had, by the end of the year you were *further* from purchasing the average residential home than you were at the start of the year. You played by the rules, you scrimped and saved, and you were FURTHER from the American dream. This is obscene. This should be the top, and possibly the only, news story in our country. It is the largest problem we face as a civilization. Failure to solve this problem WILL lead to mass-murder, rape, and the total destruction of our civilization. Instead, the news gives us stories about how it's racist that Naomi Osaka (net worth: ~$60,000,000) is forced to give interviews, and candid discussions about how much racism is faced by the British Royal family (net worth: $???bn) and Oprah (net worth: $2.7 bn).
Here's an excerpt from an online forum popular with zoomer males: "I'm going to own a house by the time I'm 40. If I can't afford it, I'll fucking take it. I'll shoot someone and take their fucking house. I'm an American, and I'm going to own a piece of America. My ancestors killed and took land. If I can't buy it legally, I'll do the fucking same. Fuck Black Rock Capital. Fuck the government. Fuck my faggot kike landlord and his bitch of a wife. I'm not a rentcuck." How many young men feel the same way? Do they speak to each other? How many more politically peaceful chances do we have to avoid them enacting this fantasy? Do wealthy Americans of the managerial class understand that there are increasingly angry, deracinated, alienated young men with absolutely no incentive to maintain society as it is? The CIA, FBI, and NSA have identified angry young men as the #1 terrorist threat to the USA. You should listen. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions are, inevitably, of the managerial type: we need more censors, more anti-bias training, more government spying, more anti-racist educators, more control over publishing, more scrutiny of social media, more shaming of young men, more language policing. None of these solutions make even passing reference to why males are angry. Who cares? Will these solutions work?
>Demography of Violence
You may think that I'm exclusively talking about the bete noire of American politics, the dreaded White Male. Soon, that won't be true. Over 50% of under-18's in the USA are Hispanic. As of 2021, the median age of Hispanics is 11. In less than a decade, a colossal cohort of young, low-net-worth, low-education young males are going to begin adulthood. Their parents usually married and settled down. The younger generation of Hispanics do not. They don't marry, they don't have kids, they don't own businesses, and they don't own property. Will they be satisfied with a future of perpetual tenancy to non-hispanic landlords, compounded by their humiliating cultural inferiority to the non-hispanic white population? Will they peacefully lay down and accept their fate? The best outcome is a descent into constant low-level violence, as we see in Columbia, Mexico, etc. The more likely outcome is an actual revolution as young men from this cohort decide to take what they want. If working doesn't get you anywhere, what kind of an imbecile works? Americans tend to think of everything in racial terms, but I'm suspicious. I imagine that the first step towards violence will involve rural whites, urban blacks, and 2nd generation Hispanics setting aside their differences and torching country clubs. Little wonder that identity politics is so enthusiastically endorsed by politicians and elites! They're absolutely right: At this point in history, actual cross-racial solidarity will almost certainly lead to a violent revolution. If white young men and black young men realize that their enemies are landlords, hedge fund managers, and the politicians who protect them – well, if that happens, I hope you've stocked up on ammunition, and that you don't have too many frail dependants.
