Waldo CheerRallyMassMarch

"It's easy for people to get themselves (and to get others!) into situations where there is no good solution." (Dr. Jordan Peterson, modified)

Groups are bad: they disindividuate the person. As a child neer liked being in a group. You would never have seen me clamoring in a swarm of small squirming bodies around some adult clamoring to get something. Maybe that's part of the reason I liked sitting in the front row in school classes: because the other students were behind me so I did not so much notice they were there as if I was confined in the middle of them. In a movie I alwys wanted an aisle seat so there ewould be one ide without some body next to me.

There are two kinds of groups, per the three pictures above. On the left we have too many people so each is not worth much. But to some degree the persons are either being individuals or interacting with other individuals. This is not so bad.

The two groups on the right are worse: Here too ther are too any people so each is not worth much. But in addition, here all the individuals are homogenized into a unified herd (hoard): the lefter group are a lot of testosterone soaked pubeecent males being hyped up in a school "cheer rally to compete against a rival homogenized herd (hoard): a "rival" school's students. These students are not interacting with one another even as insignificant individuals: they are not individuals at all, all the eaches are focused on the group purpose and have no relation to one another excapt maybe germs and pressure of clothed flesh against other clothed flesh (sweat?). Might we call them 'groupons": elementary group particles, like protone in physics. What (if anything) is gong on in each of here minds? In what way does each have mind?

The group at the far right is Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous "March on Wshington". Here the groupons do not generally even know each other's names. They are thoroughly de-personalized. What (if anything) is going on in each of their minds? In what way does each have mind?

Since that only thing that can really be known is self-reflective thinking, what are we to make of these people?

If what's important is for every body to be a homogenous member of the group: for eahc student to cheer for the team or for each perons to add 1 to the size of Dr. King's audience, then why do we differentiate between people. At least in school: Why do they give the kids SAT tests? Obviously: We want people to be different all in the sme way. Like if you're a drug dealer you prefer a 10 kilo block of crack to a 1 kilo block of crack. But you don't want any block of cane sugar.

We all know the deal People want what they want and if they have the power they will get it from those who don't, children and employees being prime examples of the latter. "Why do I have to do it, mommy?" "Because" "But because what, mommy?" ... When mommy gets tired of the child's disobedience she punishes the child and that ends the matter.

*      *      *      *      *      *      *

Racism is an instancw of groupism. This can easily be illustrated by the cse of Adolf Hitler nd the jews. Everybody knows he killed 6 millions of htem. But! He personally knew one specific jew: His family doctor: Eduard Bloch. He did not kill this particular jew, i.e., this particular person: He explicitly issued an order to the SS to give tha man safe passage out of Germany. What was the difference? This should be obvious: Dr. Bloch was not a groupon. Hews not "a jew". He was a person who happened to belong to the group: "jews". Dr. Bloch wa a jew when viewed from 40,000 feet, at which distance all jews look (are) alike. butat 3 feet, his individuality was what stood out. The solution to racism is to end groupism. No more groups, no more racism. But with8 * 10 ** 9 groupons currently swarming on earth this is clearly not practicable, so we have the problem of racism.

Ind, per Dr. Peterson's wise observation, we may have created a problem which has no good solution. A stitch in time would have saved nine but we didn't. And what makes it worse, to adduce a politically incorrect idiom: Who "we", white man? Not me. Neither I nor any of my ancestors that I know of ever had any slaves; many of them were peasants.


But now for something completely self-harming: Wokies reject "individualism, worship of the written word and objectivity" because white people invented them. Slave traders did not invent these things; persons like Rene Descartes did, who were not slave traders. But for the sake of argument let's say they were. If you were a jew, would you throw Dr. Mengele's records of his horrific medical experments in the garbage because they were the results of crimes gainst our ancestors, or would you maybe think: The only good thing we can possibly get out of this horror is if by studying Dr. Mengele's records we can find cures for present day disease to make living jews' lives better? For wokies to diss white people's leraning is like throwing Dr. Mengele's records in the garbage. All they are doing is hurting themsevles.

+2024.01.15 v041
 PreviousReturn to Table of contents
This page is validated HTML 5