ATHOR-I-TY
*note: JS of ID-got your letter. Thank you much for the kind words. Be cool.
*
I’m by no means a nerd
watching episodes of South Park over and over again. I have the movie on DVD, and back in the day
I had some “best of” collections of the show, probably on VHS tape ( long lost
in a random move ) of which there was Hanky The Christmas Poo which was a
classic. And other than You-Tube clips I’ve
never watched any more. Jesus man, I’d
be the world’s biggest dumbass to ever pay for cable TV, and that is were the
show airs. I know you’re used to my
tirades against Rent and Cars being the nemesis of all frugalists everywhere,
but you can safely add on Cable and Cell phones to that list also. Never, ever, EVER pay for that crap if you
can help it. RC3: rent, cars, cable,
cells. I like that, pretty snazzy. I’ll forget it by next week and never find it
again in all my articles. Did you
recently read the Doomstead Diner Dude?
He was pretty hilarious, making fun of the Druid Dude for thinking
people wanted to buy a book collection of all his ten years of blog articles.
*
Most of our blog entries
are rather topical, like a newspaper article series on the CIA causing the L.A.
ghetto crack outbreak. In a sense it is
historical reporting and is always relevant, but in another sense he is correct
that nobody has any interest in going through ten years of your old evolving
yet to be current writing style. It is a
shame, almost, that blogs replaced newspapers.
A lot of top notch book worthy material goes ignored due to volume. I’ll come back again and again to “A Century
Of War”, the best paper book treatise ever on oil geopolitics, in my ever so
humble opinion, but the authors library of
electronic writing is basically at my fingertips yet soundly
ignored. With the Internet, quantity
does have a quality of its own but only in terms of diversity of
resources. From the consumers standpoint
it can be highly educational. From the
authors viewpoint, it is a graveyard.
Now, I have no idea why we just took that detour, other than I wanted to
for no good reason. I was speaking of
the cartoon South Park ( which has stayed fresh as social commentary long after
the less than stellar attempts by others such as Family Guy or Simpsons ). Even with never watching it, the few
catchphrases you pick up even so are brilliant in their bumper sticker
summation abilities.
*
“Respect my athor-i-ty”
was the fat kids attempts at leadership.
Don’t do as he said because he knew what he was doing, but because he
was given authority. To me, a classic
encapsulation of a huge problem with how our society is run nowadays. The idiots placed in charge by the Elite are
complete morons and douches, unencumbered by intelligence or common sense, yet
are expected to be blindly followed for the simple fact that they have been
granted the athor-i-ty to be our leaders, we of the perceived unintelligence
due to our social class. Now, and I’m
speaking to the guys here, think back on how all our tribal functions are
performed. Men are highly competitive,
in all things big and small, and challenge each other constantly. The winner is acknowledged as a de facto
leader in whatever endeavor is being undertaken, gladly, by all, for his
leadership has been established by token of demonstrated ability. This is how tribal war leaders are chosen and
hence how a lifetime of emulation in other matters reinforces and trains the
tribe to be more successful and the survivors of conflict.
*
( This is also why guys
can fight and then become fast friends.
We are wired to desire demonstrated ability, even to the determent of
our own aspirations. Women are
completely different, and also for very good survival reasons ). Our current social construct attempts to
train men to be women. It undermines
ability for the reinforcement of dominance by deceit ( again, this is NOT
malicious. Women are wired
differently. They all understand the
deceit dominance game and all play it.
It is anything but cooperative, whereas men’s dominance game is ONLY
cooperative. One is not better or worse
than the other, it simply just IS ). It
isn’t that women don’t desire demonstrated ability, it is just that the men
want to reward the ability to perform a specific task and women want the
ability to become a leader to be the only criteria. And THAT, my fine feathered minions, is why
women should not be in charge of war or corporations. Not because they aren’t capable leaders,
because they are, but because they can ONLY be leaders and not leaders of their
profession first and organization second ( obviously this is all said using a
broad brush. It assumes you understand
generalities ).
*
But look around you and
nowhere is ability rewarded. Only group
consensus. Group consensus should flow
from demonstrated ability, not just from the ability to be a leader of
anything. That is what happens when you
mix the sexes in the workplace. Two
diametrically opposed styles of organization being forced to co-exist. So obviously, deceit usually wins over ability. Welcome to Women’s Lib, Unintended
Consequences edition. Do you wonder how
a Girly-Man organized military is getting their asses kicked by a bunch of
ragheads? Even setting aside our
criminally deficient training in the wrong strategies and tactics. Both the military and corporations went down
the road to irrelevance long ago by becoming susceptible to the idiocy of
mixing the sexes in work when they slowly but surely started leaning away from
demonstrated ability towards book training which is far easier to game and
manipulate ( a female professional specialty ).
*
Which is a disease of
centralization. Elites, of either
gender, are far better at being a leader rather than a doer. They are professional leaders having no skill
in engineering or the military arts or any specific task orientated job. Their job is simply to lead. So if they can’t demonstrate a skill in a
profession, they must be given leadership positions by a higher
athor-i-ty. And you are expected to
respect the position. Full stop. This is going to lead to rather interesting
issues come the apocalypse.
*
ATHOR-I-TY 2
As we just discussed, the
majority of police are educated in theory and hired on schooling rather than
innate ability. The high cost of
education demands higher salaries, leading to understaffing. The politics of the leadership is leadership
without professional ability ( they are trained to lead, not to be police
officers ) and since like always hires like, book smart idiots hire book smart
idiots. They don’t hire good cops. This is an almost entire organization ( the
exceptions are neutered ) which is only about demanding respect for their
athor-i-ty. They don’t want respect
because of their abilities but because of the authority bestowed upon them ( I’d
think it was too obvious to be needed to be stated, but I’ll stifle dissent by
repeating the obvious. I KNOW a
government must to some degree insist on compliance under threat of force, but
in a functional society compliance is near completely voluntary. The more dysfunctional the society is, the
more threat and force is necessary and the less voluntary is the
compliance. You should happily comply
with the authorities because it is a fair and just system and everyone is
better off by doing so, and you respect the peace officer because he is good at
his job. He EARNS the respect, he doesn’t
demand it. Welcome to “no way in Hell
that is the case anymore” ).
*
I could go on and on,
evaluating the evolution of peace officers into law enforcement as part and
parcel to the very system they oversaw demanding as such as it changed to the
worse, but let’s just take this as a departure point. The cops are mostly incompetent appointees
and demand their authority be unquestionably acknowledged. Come the collapse, this viewpoint is a perfectly natural launch
pad towards warlordism. I’m not saying
they will be successful in the long run, since war has a bizarre habit of
penalizing incompetence ( all other factors being equal. Don’t look too closely at current conflicts
as resource control particularly skewed that ).
But they sure as hell will cause a lot of mischief in the short
term. I can see them as being a very
annoying force in trying to appropriate resources very early on. Just by acting on their own, you can imagine
the chaos. Deputy Dave lives in a walled
community ( they ain’t paid chump change, and their trophy wives usually match
their wages. Between the two it should
be easy to earn over $60k a year ).
Assuming he can’t link up with his buddies-say, he lives close to his
beat on the end of a large county-he’ll assert his authority and deputize the
security force and any residents with military experience and try to be in
charge, starting with centralizing the armory AND the community kitchen
supplies. Goodbye to your ability to
survive. Goodbye your supplies.
*
Officer Owen lives in your
suburb and mostly lives in the new appropriated barracks by the police station,
but keeps returning periodically to get reports from his appointed block
captain to see how well everyone is cooperating. He also takes away some more confiscated food
and ammo. He and his patrol buddies
storm any house not cooperating, aided willingly or not by other
residents. Thanks for supplying your
local law enforcement! These bastards
don’t belong in charge, or deserve material support, but they have
ATHOR-I-TY. So they are, until they aren’t
by a better group of paramilitary. As
stated, these idiots will rarely survive the transition devolving from a
centralized state. Ability will bloodily
reassert its primacy. But will you be
stuck in the middle of this conflict?
Groups are NOT your friend during the die-off. Not unless they are formed prior and are
competently vetted. Ad hoc groups, such
as your random neighbors? Well, see the above.
*
Your group had better be
able to not only stay away from legally mandated authority, not only fight them
if needed, they certainly must have the ability to see through the ruse of granted
authority. I don’t think you can
legitimately claim your potential group mates believe that. Most folks just go along with the authority
schtick. It is much easier mentally. Which is one of the reasons gang members will
have initial success. They can dismiss
the claimed authority since they have personally lived through its
misapplication. Otherwise you are just a
book learned Libertarian, no real world experience in the application of your
perceived freedom. You oppose on
principle but in practice acknowledge the demanded authority. If you don’t violently oppose, you
consent. Criminals by their nature have
opposed in reality rather than in principle.
*
So, it is not only the
authority figures you must fear, but all their little peons who gladly consent
to their rule. They are more of a
threat. Because it isn’t just that a
warlord wants to take your stuff and kill you.
It is also about group cohesion.
If the group more willingly fights, fights consensually, they are far
more dangerous. Most cops think they
deserve to lead, being given a mandate by authority, and most of their cannon
fodder recognize the authority. They are
incompetent, both leadership and follower, which is why criminals will prevail
over them long term, but they still pose a threat to you just from numbers and
location. Beware their existence and
threat. And keep in mind if you welcome
a cop into your group for security specialist or law enforcement, most do keep
that Athor-I-Ty delusion in the back of their heads. They will most likely be the one to turn on
you in a coup. Remember that “mandate of
heaven” deal. Since big daddy government
is now most peoples real religion, authority being granted is as a voice from
God. A infallible blessing of all
behavior needed to complete that holy task.
Word to the wise.
END
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there