No Lives Matter 2: From the Margin to the Edge

No Lives Matter 2: From the Margin to the Edge

My good adversary @IlMentore has responded to the first No Lives Matter epistle. And though his response included some very enticing images of gorgeous Asian women, I was repulsed by it. Monsieur, you have disregarded the concept of marginal decision making (or it can be called the tendency towards impulsive consumption).

Allow me, in my typical long-winded fashion, to describe this economic phenomenon. People tend to make decisions on the margins. Without any information about the future, they will readily exchange all their resources for immediate gratification. The more they know about future possibilities, and the more certain these possibilities are, the more they will put off gratification for attaining more resources. This delay is called, in the dismal science, investment. And this is important, because this is why morality fails to truly influence human decision making. In short, every individual is less concerned with what is “morally right” (right here being a conclusion they have personally developed) and more concerned with what is most satisfactory to the five senses. Morality is often only used to justify these decisions, hence the Sadean mantra “do whatever you want, without regards to whom you hurt”. This is human nature in a single sentence.

Monsieur states “I would argue that may if not all of these kids have been defrauded by the universities. Getting ideology when they paid for math.” Not quite. The students, if defrauded by anybody, are defrauded by themselves. Many are experiencing the freedoms of adulthood with the securities of childhood. Most young university students go with housing and food guaranteed, either by a grant, a loan, or a benefactor. So, they choose to drink, socialize, and fuck; all of these are adult behaviors, but they are indulged in with childlike abandon. It is not the university giving ideology instead of math. There are two separate programs, and many universities do not mandate common core classes of ideology. Those only exist along certain degree paths.

These degree paths are separate from the ones which would involve mathematics. These degree paths are separate from the ones which would involve true philosophy. And most universities, second only to their bloated athletic programs, advertise themselves not by their gender studies departments, but by their business schools, their engineering programs, and their art exhibitions. So many students come in, declaring majors such as engineering, finance, music theory, and chemistry. And then these young adults find that Riemann Sums are hard to calculate. They find that painting requires hours of practice. Then they meet a green haired freak calling itself “Zir” who tells them about gender studies. And while the Romer-Solow model takes hours of study just to understand, calling Robert Solow and Paul Romer “old white men” is easy. To the impulsive mind of these supposed adults, they will take the easy route. They will use the least time possible to study, maximize their time for fun.

It is only when they graduate that they develop a true moral sense. This moral sense is developed not on noble ideals or Enlightenment philosophy, but on the fact that they cannot find gainful employment. Those with student loan debt invariably turn to Socialist ideologies, which tell them that spending four years in a Libertine paradise, they are an oppressed class. The morals they proclaim are charity, kindness, and altruism. And they can do this because they are idle.

Their lives are now stuck in constant ennui. They take shift work in retail, or, if they are lucky, they work some office support job like a mailroom clerk. The alcohol suddenly costs some significant fraction of their meager income, so they adopt sobriety as a moral. The sex is suddenly not just some spat game away for men. Women are now looking for men with potential and financial security. So the men who partied hard now adopt Feminist morals, to make women superior to men so women will (hypothetically) not seek out potential and financial security since they have it and perhaps return to loving spat game. Women in this “oppressed class” are now single mothers or used up slags, so they adopt similar morals of which they would be the beneficiary, since whoring to the top is now all but impossible. Now they can be taken care of by men to whom they would otherwise have to prostitute themselves. They are idle, so they are moral.

Those who were not as impulsive, whether due to experience, age, or just a natural inclination towards their academic and athletic endeavors, cannot be so idealistically moral. Their income is greater, but the demands of their labor are also greater. Their quality of life is better, indeed, but they are under a constant strain to better themselves (for in every field with good pay, it is never enough to merely remain competent). Thus they’d rather pursue a higher degree, certifications, additional training, or promising financial investment. They cannot be troubled to support those children they knew in their college days.

They often have families (though the Marxist-Feminist movements have obliterated this). They look forward to children’s birthdays, graduations, and eventual inheritances. They cannot feasibly provide for their own offspring as well as that of a single mommy and her nameless bad boy. They put money away so that their children may one day inherit it all, not so that it can be distributed among aging alcoholics and wrinkled beauties. They are not idle, so they cannot afford to be moral.

Monsieur also says “The other real problem is that divorce is an option. If marriage isn't forever then it's little more than a bunch of legal benefits and detriments that favors women.” This is outcome of those idle morals, did you know that?

In his treatise “On the Subjection of Women”, John Stuart Mill discussed the divorce laws in 19th Century Britain. The divorces were very much the opposite of what they are now. Men could decide what the wife could keep, down the clothes. This was deemed, by those who were idle (which would become evident to those who would read this work and remain without compassion for the fairer sex) an offense to human dignity.

So the fix proposed was to set up alimony laws, and later, to give the wife some fraction of her husband’s property. This was, according to the majority of the old society and the new, the moral decision. It was the easy, idle decision.

Contrast this with Mary Wollstonecraft’s proposal, which was to simply give women the equal rights of men (remember, this the Eighteenth Century she was writing in) and abolish marriage. In this manner, two lovers whose passions fade merely part, and take with them what was already rightfully theirs. This simply required women to act as men in Society and, more importantly, the labor market. The bimbo (who Wollstonecraft despised) would die in the gutter, unlike nowadays, when she is a publicly supported single mother. This required women, and men, not to be idle, but to be active. Such a Society certainly offends the moral senses of the idle! (for those who are interested, Wollstonecraft believed in a mix of parental concern for children and the Saint-Justian concept of the State raising all children)

The idle accepted the proposals of Mr. Mill and not Ms. Wollstonecraft. So now we have these Feminist divorce laws, which no doubt the beneficiaries of would praise. Not only is morality for the idle, but it is also often an easy solution for a complex problem. Anyways…...