• The Jihad Is Coming?: Why Western Society May Cease To Exist

    by • April 23, 2013 • System Opt-out 6 Comments

    Thinking for Yourself is Bad

    When I was going through Catholic confirmation back in my high school days, I remember one girl dropping out of the confirmation process. The reason she gave? She was questioning her faith.

    Murmurs around the Church ensued. I overheard some adults say, “it’s because she’s homeschooled. She’s thinking for herself too much.”

    Wait. What?

    You’re not supposed to think for yourself?

    Actually, you’re not. Because if everybody could think for themselves and make moral decisions for themselves, then we wouldn’t need religion or government.

    And, we don’t want that. Because, clearly we need religion and government .

    “Uh oh, he’s thinking for himself again.”

    You shouldn’t think for yourself. It leads to bad things.

    If you think too much about religion, and really study different religions: current religions, past religions, there’s only one logical conclusion to it all.

    There is no God.

    That’s it. It’s the only logical answer.

    “Uh oh, he’s thinking for himself again.”

    If you think too much about marriage and infidelity: from relationships to sex scandals to everything in between, there is only one logical conclusion.

    Monogamy is an impossibility.

    That’s it. It’s the only logical answer.

    “Uh oh, he’s thinking for himself again.”

    If you look closely at the most of the statistics we’ve bought into, most of the ones we’ve largely accepted as truths, you realize two things: they were put and promoted by the institutions behind them, and they’re all bullshit.

    Over the long-term the stock market always goes up?

    Bullshit.

    Burning more calories than you consume equates to weight loss?

    Bullshit.

    Higher education means higher lifetime earnings?

    Bullshit.

    Home ownership is a a great life achievement?

    Bullshit.

    If you know anything about statistics, its easy to find the flaws in any of the above. Actually, pretty much all statistics you see/hear are flawed.

    There’s always a bias. This isn’t anything new. You know this. Whole industries are built off of finding the right statistics to promote their bias: management consulting, law, accounting, public relations, politics, private equity, banking, finance, etc.

    That’s all it all is really: finding the statistics that promote your agenda. Leaving out the ones that don’t.

    Is it flawed?

    Of course.

    Is it life?

    Yep.

    This doesn’t mean that statistics are bad. Just that they are flawed.

    Same with life. Not bad, but flawed.

    Same with the system: not bad, but flawed. But, there lies the rub.

    Women, once they have access to information, no longer want to be housewives.

    Men, once they have access to information, no longer want to marry at all.

    Couples, once they have access to information, no longer want kids.

    Society crumbles?

    “Society” as we know it. America, Europe, the West, as its been built and successful in the world for the past couple of hundred years relied on a certain society. A largely homogenous society with certain underlying beliefs – white protestant beliefs, where everybody has a certain role: Men were men, women were women, God was God, Jesus was Christ, other races and religions were lesser beings, the educated class was the educated class, the poor were the poor, etc.

    But, with access to information all of the above gets questioned. There are no sacred cows. They all get slaughtered. Everybody, with information, opts out.

    What happens to society when nobody buys in anymore?

    Disruption: The Internet Changes Everything.

    Does Western society as a whole follow the path of the music industry? Of the book stores?

    We don’t know. It’s too early to tell.

    We’re only at the beginning of the information age. The amount of information available at our finger tips is unprecedented. Individuals have never had this kind of access to information before. Individuals have never opted out of the system at this fast of a rate before.

    What is the new model and what will happen to the societies where information is accessible is yet to be seen.

    Does information equal power? We would like to think so, but we don’t truly know that yet.

    But we know the previous model is collapsing. The whole “get an education, get a job, get married, have two kids and a house in the suburbs, and attend church every Sunday” model is collapsing.

    Maybe this is what is supposed to happen?

    The natural order of things? The natural order of a democracy?

    Maybe.

    Because of its “for the people” design maybe this is the direction democracy winds up going in. As people clamor and clamor for more information. It takes a few hundreds years, but access to information builds great scholars and a peaceful people.

    This has happened before. See: Ancient Greece.

    But what happened to Ancient Greece? It was conquered and thrashed by a non-democratic society. A Roman Empire run by Emperor Constantine.

    Constantine, like all emperors and dictators, actually like all governments ever – knew that the way to stay in power over a populace is to limit the access of information for the populace. If you limit the access of information the people have, the people will trust the government, and the government’s power over its people remains untested. [See: current day North Korea.]

    Sexiest Man Alive

    But, the more information is available the less the populace is trusting of government. [See: American feelings towards politicians in general.]

    It will only get worse.

    Without limiting access to information, governments and churches who have thrived on their own power, lose power. They lose their influence.

    Greece was defeated by a Roman Empire where the Emperor could still weld influence. In Rome, there were still distinct roles: emperor, generals, army, and people.

    The roles that are falling apart in The West today. Less and less buy-in with each generation. More access to information with each generation.

    So…

    What Happens Next?

    Can a peaceful, free-information society prevail?

    Or will the West be overthrown by a society with a model that has already proven successful: a society that is still able to limit information and keep its people in traditional roles?

    If that’s the case, then who is the real threat? Who limits information, gains trust of their people, and maintains a role-based homogenous society the best?

    China tries. It does its best to limit information to keep the power in the hands of the government and not the people.

    But its not doing a good enough job. Everyday the Chinese are finding ways around the government’s censorship. The mistrust in the government is already beginning.

    Part of this is because China missed one important point in the indoctrination of a society: China hasn’t tied itself to a prevailing religion. [See: Romans and Catholicism, England and the Church of England, America and Protestant Christianity]

    No, your best bet is the Middle East. The Muslim countries.

    The formula is perfect and fits inline with past rises to World power that Europe and America have achieved:

    • A government tied to a religion and a fully indoctrinated populace
    • Strong societal roles: women are women, men are men, Allah is Allah
    • The power and willingness to limit information and keep the people uninformed

    Perhaps then, maybe we shouldn’t be installing Google Fiber in Austin , we should be installing it in Saudi Arabia…

    “Uh oh, he’s thinking for himself again.”

    Going the way of Borders Bookstore?

    [randomtext category="Post Sigs"]

    About

    Consultant. Entrepreneur. World Traveler. Tester of Conventional Wisdom. Avid Learner.

    6 Responses to The Jihad Is Coming?: Why Western Society May Cease To Exist

    1. April 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      While I agree with most of what you say, one thing you stated is simply wrong. Burning more calories than you use does make you lose weight. It’s very simple math. It requires nothing more complicaed than addition and subtraction.

      If you use obviously false example, it doesn’t help the credibility of everything else.

      As far as thinking for oneself, that does destroy the credibility f religion. It’s how I became atheist at age 13. Blame it on my parents, they always said, “Think for yourself.” I doubt they really meant that. I suspect what they meant was “Think what we tell you but do it in your own words.”

      • William
        April 25, 2013 at 1:45 pm

        Hi James,

        Thanks for the comment!

        But, I do disagree with you on the calories equation. Calories come from 3 main sources: calories from protein, calories from fat, and calories from carbohydrates. This muddies the “simple math” quite a bit, ie: calories from protein should not be treated the same as calories from simple sugars.

        • Diablo
          May 6, 2013 at 5:47 pm

          Derp what? A calorie is a unit of measurement. What you are attempting to argue is along the lines of me stating “A pound of ice cream weighs more than a pound of sand”.

          Its jibberish.

          • William
            May 7, 2013 at 5:33 am

            Umm, no not at all. You totally read that wrong if that’s what you think I’m saying.

            Continuing with your example. A pound of ice cream and a pound of sand, obviously both weigh a pound – but if (for whatever reason) you’re choosing to eat 1 pound of something for desert – would you rather eat ice cream or sand?

            All I was saying is that the two should not be treated as equal. One is more valuable than the other, regardless of the fact that, in this case, they weight same amount.

    2. April 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      Your presumption that calories from different sources are different is not supported by the facts. A calorie is a unit of heat. So one calorie is equal to another calorie. It is true that some foods are more calorie intensive per unit of weight. Celery, for example, contains fewer calories per ounce than potatoes. But 100 calories is the same no mater what the source.

      What is true that exercise does not always equal weight loss. As an owner of fitness centers I can attest that starting an exercise program can often cause a person to gain weight as it develops muscle tissue that weighs more than fat. You can exercise for hours a day and never lose any weight unless you correctly match your calorie intake to your exercise level. Being an ectomorph body type, I have always have to exercise to keep my weight up.

      You can read about this with references at:

      https://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/the-cruel-truth-about-fat/

      If you provide an email, I will send you a copy of my book “Fit For Free Forever.”

    Leave a Reply