The New One Political Party: Hipsters (Logistics)


The conservative commentariat is clueless about these realities. All they have to offer is empty sermonizing about the sacredness of the marriage vow and sanctimonious rubbish about men “preying upon” and abandoning supposedly weak and helpless women. This is of no help to a husband faced with the reality of an unfaithful wife and the prospect of losing his family through no fault of his own. As long as the men do nothing more than keep their marriage vows to women who are trampling upon their own and abusing their husbands’ trust, the situation can only continue to deteriorate.

When you destroy a fundamental social institution – and none is more fundamental than marriage – the usual result is a powerful lesson in why the institution was established in the first place. Never before have we been able to observe how women behave when unrestrained by honor, shame, religious instruction, or fear of social disgrace and financial ruin. In our author’s words, “We are just starting to see the glimpses of women’s natural sexual behavior.” If [Langley’s] stories provide the glimpses, one shudders to imagine what the full-length view will look like.

– F. Roger Devlin, Rotating Polyandry – and its Enforcers

“When you destroy a fundamental social institution […] the usual result is a powerful lesson in why the institution was established in the first place.”

It’s very hard to create a group these days. A different group, in public view I mean (I will refer to this simply as “group”) – its crystallization energy is very high. It’s probably higher than it should be given the advent of the internet (some political philosopher / conspiracy theorist could probably give an answer), but it’s helped along by the fact that the groups that are formed and do end up gaining traction are all the same type of group. Doesn’t matter if it’s environmentalism, or gay rights, or Occupy Wall Street, or this new Justice for Trayvon Martin thing.
Whatever the group turns out to be, they abdicate the individual member of responsibility. Every single time. Otherwise it can’t bandwagon/snowball and swat rational dissenters out.

Environmentalists claim that they are all about doing their own little part. But then they ignore the fact that recycling costs more and whenever something costs more it probably means that it costs more resources. Even when the market has infinitely higher rational processing power of “the situation” then they do, they claim that “it’s worth the price” – i.e. that the price of destroying the planet is worth the product of the delusional feeling that they are saving it. Gay rights is much easier. Has nothing to do with the person who supports it whether they are homosexual or not, has everything to do with getting “everyone” to accept them, or with getting the state to force everyone to accept them. Occupy Wall Street, same thing: “Give me more money”, “Doesn’t matter what the other guy thinks”. You might want to look at Occupy’s actual list of demands if you think that they’re up to any good – also remind yourself that they’re spending weeks on end out in parks. How much can you do in a month at your job? And Trayvon Martin’s thing is just so obviously a lynch mob. I thought about making an entry on how much of a joke it was, all this stuff about racism and Obama talking about Mr. Martin like that guy was his son, when Obama used killed an American citizen, a similarly aged teenager, in an airstrike last year. He was also brown. And also looked like he could be Obama’s son. But instead, I’ll do it in a video and a set of quotes.

“I think Martin’s death was unfortunate, sure. I think he overreacted to someone keeping an eye on him from a distance and attacked George, making him fear for his life, so he did what he had to do to protect himself. I think it’s a tragedy, really. But Zimmerman is not to blame. He did nothing wrong.”

“But there’s no such thing as an unfortunate tragedy. There’s always somebody we can lynch.”

“That’s what the sentiment seems to be, unfortunately.”

I believe it would not be inaccurate to call these people hipsters. I had called them “spreaders” in reference to their specific methodology, but I do not find that as important anymore. Hipsters allow us to use a conventionally recognized word and refer to them by their focus at the same time: feeling good for free. Doesn’t matter if the economics don’t work out, or if it’s not feasible with this form of government, or if it would require the overturning of long-standing social institutions, or if the chances of it succeeding during this situation are zero – it will work because it is right, and if it doesn’t then everyone else is wrong. Meaning that it wasn’t about succeeding at the stated goal at all – it was about believing that one is right.

If your house was burning down, you would not take such an approach to saving the people in it. You do not simply think of a plan, and then stick to it no matter what. If a beam has blocked your way, you either find another way or you break through it – you don’t self-righteously blame the house for not collapsing in the way you predicted it to the reporters afterwards.

Let it not be said you are not free to do otherwise. You can always decide to not do anything and suicide. Or save some people and not others. Or pretend to save people so you reap publicity and probably charity payments for a significant number of years. But we don’t talk about freedom here. We talk about how to use it properly, and/or how to not use it improperly (two different things).

To attempt to form a group of an opposing opinion, with a basis on making each person have discipline and responsibility, is unthinkable to the hipsters. If you suggest that race is real, that the sexes are indeed different, or that shops should be able to discriminate and refuse service to anyone they care to refuse it to, they’ll throw a fit…. even though everyone does treat people differently based on race (vaguely hard to prove), based on sex (pretty easy to prove), and most shops even have a sign at the cash register saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone (or ask the manager). They’ll say entire groups [of whatever] will be screwed over because their logic only works on the mob level. It makes sense that they think this way, because the mob is the only thing in this society that exists that allows them to exist. It does not actually make any sense.

The largest of the hipster subgroups is that group which proposes equality. With this group we can see the same traits as in all other hipster groups.

For these people, we can’t suggest that race/sex/[insert some biological category] is real because it might mean that it’s okay to systematically screw this group over.This is absurd. I prefer using forks over spoons and I prefer desktops over laptops. Does that mean that I’ll look down on spoons and laptops, like they’re mutants and will taint My Holiness? No, of course not. All such entails is that I will use utensils and computers with differing frequencies than the guy over there. It’s different, the hipsters say, because you aren’t dealing with people. You can’t just treat groups differently! Bad things could actually happen to real people! Let us talk about people then. Their proposed system does not get them to what they desire. Rather than have a distribution where some are “favored”, it should be a uniform distribution, every person having the same chance at everything at every time, in regards to social matters. They say that their ends, that everybody gets approximately equal dealings and thus fair dealings, will lead to fair deals for everyone.

The problem is this: there is no pure “social sphere”. Such is fiction.

If there are dealings, there is a dealer. This is not avoidable.

Even in regards to just socializing, there are people who are better at presenting their ideas, have more charisma, are more alike in thinking, than other people. Building from here it is not only infeasible but impossible to choose “equally” – you not only are unable of choosing people equally for certain relationships, you would not want to either: you pick the best person for the job, be the job “friend”, “lover”, “employer”, “employee”, whatever. Visiting our good old friend the burning house, you would not choose to use a worse tool for moving a beam or dousing a local area than you had to and would pick the best equipment that you could get your hands on.

Additionally, we do not interact with the sum of the human species at all points in time. If I am an employer and a certain group just doesn’t apply, or applies in less than uniform compared to other groups… how am I supposed to pick them? Do I wait, and unfairly screw over everybody else that wants the job? This is the case with affirmative action and quotas of all kinds. You cannot simultaneously allow the sum of all people to choose whatever they please and at the same time force them to be chosen equally at all points, because people are doing the choosing. (Note that in the most equal country in the world, women choose “traditional” professions.) Oh and by the way, while everyone’s being screwed because these programs are in place, people are also being screwed because the market isn’t allowed to be efficient. “Screwed” ranging anywhere from being brushed off at a job interview to losing their family, from starvation to death. (See why I used the burning house example now? It’s always about efficiency to desired goals.)

Now if you advocated for complete state control of everything, that would be a different story. Of course, then it’d be real clear that you’re just fighting against reality i.e. screwing over other people for your fantasies.

You should and do know that reality always wins.

Not that hipsters would know or care for truth. They don’t have the notion of responsibility. For them, it’s about picking the correct group to lynch – if only these people were gone, everything else would be good. We’re all good on our own, we just need… THIS group to go away.

(Have you heard of the Jews?)

Or they pick which group to “save”. It’s the same thing. Except that these days people are vaguely more complicated and talk about several groups instead and link them to ideas: rich-capitalism, white-racism, men-sexism, etc. Oh, and they don’t strictly advocate the elimination of such groups either because that would be against Diversity and Equality… they just advocate taking every dime out of these people instead. Because the rich can just get rich again, whites can just use their privilege, and men can just man up. Because economically murdering from a group is significantly different from actually murdering them. Somehow.

When pressured on this point, they say that the people in question are not *real* members of their group. They’re just the bad version. The extremists.

The *actual* feminist/gender equalitist/racial equalitist/whatever equalitist just wants people to be treated equally.

We’ve already gone over how equality is not only physically impossibly but also culturally and individually undesirable (those three things usually go together, hence the field of study on it), so we know these genuine versions of the hipster ideology mean nothing different. One likes to talk smack and one does not, but both abdicate responsibility and think they know best. All this might explain why Hipsters can tell themselves that they can respectfully disagree with people “no matter what”, because in their in-group, whichever specific issue to be “active” on can probably be approximated by disagreement about ice cream flavors.

Environmentalists are probably the biggest equality-unrelated subgroup of the hipsters, but all groups are approximately the same. Replace “there is no pure social sphere” problem with “there is no pure state”, or “there is no pure [insert their issue or executor here]”, figure out how it physically does not work with reality, their analogous problems reveal themselves. You will notice that the majority of them will say, one time or another, that their “movement” “is about an idea whose time has come”, or “it’s not about having a solution”. They will talk about those who disagree with them as unenlightened, as people who need to “wake up”.

We called these activists hipsters because they want to “feel good for free”.

Having a desire really isn’t that hard – compared to everything else you’d have to do to make it exist, it’s almost costless. It explains why so many people are for so many causes these days. All it takes to support a cause is clicking a left mouse button on a computer. It doesn’t entail spending a weekend or a few weeks not going to work, not taking care of your home, living outside insulation and without indoor plumbing. Now, you don’t even need to be away from your social group – there are these magic glowing rectangles we all have of varying sizes able to communicate anywhere in the world, manufactured by people who don’t really know too much about how it works, “programmed” by people who know slightly more about how it works, based on principles of physics found by people who couldn’t even imagine that we’d have computers of such capacity today. All that, by people who need to learn such things, and take care of their bodies and families and friends and bank accounts at the same time. But none of that matters. “Saving the whales” “matters”. Or [whatever], then “matters”.

In terms of individual discipline as a whole, the entire hipster paradigm is defined out of acceptability. But logistics is one of the big component reasons.

99% of the difficulty in anything is in the logistics.

Do you want to write a paper? You need to set out a block of time for it. You can think about the ideas and outline on lunch break and on the bus, but there is no way out of sitting down for hours on end writing or typing it out. Do you want to do well in a sport? You need to set out a block of time for it. You can watch competitions on and off and discuss with your friends what they would do in that situation, but if you can’t go and practice you’re never going to get better. There are probably optimal ways to write a paper, and a certain set of optimal strategies for a game, but none of it matters if you can’t even do it – and just being in the class which has that paper assigned or showing up to the stadium *does not count* as having the prerequisites for execution. Writing well consists of knowing how to open, how to flow, what to put in what order. Playing a game well involves knowing the metagame, having most of the motions in muscle memory, being slept well the previous night and eaten well in the morning. I don’t know what it takes to save the planet, I do have my opinions – this is why whatever it is they happen to believe, I respect their efforts going into whatever methods they think will achieve their goals. Logistics are why you can come to respect other peoples decisions if they disagree with yours – they want something and they have come to that conclusion, and they will accept responsibility if the executed it with flaws.

Respect does not happen without both parties understanding the importance of logistics.

Using the state does not count: It is not an actor, and its approach is always anti-logistical.

Hipsters ignore logistics altogether.

Thomas Sowell calls them “the Anointed”.

As far as this blog goes though, it does not matter in particular what a person is politically. If that person is a hipster as defined and explained above, they are a disgrace. In a sense, it is irrelevant that the hipster in particular chose to talk about, let’s say sexism, because the way they argue and what they argue reflects the way they act and think, which permeates throughout the other aspects of their lives. I believe it is probably true that the distribution of hipsters is to the left side of the conventional political spectrum, just as I believe that there is some distribution of beauty amongst women which favors East Asians.

Does this mean I am discriminating against Democrats? Discriminating for Korean women? …maybe. On the whole, maybe. But so what? So what if it happens to be that I don’t particularly care for leftists, or black women? That is not a facetious answer – I choose based on my standards of beauty and intelligence, which by circumstances completely out of my control have led to black women and people of the Democratic party getting the short stick.

Yes, this example is easy to see; that is why I chose it. Who cares about little old me. My opinion doesn’t matter.

Similarly, no one else’s opinion matters either.

Only yours matters. I.e. all this “should” talk applies only to yourself. It’s good that you know what you want.

Now, arguably the most important part… how are you going to do it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s