Sustaining an illusion

From the looks of it, our age, to many, on both the left and right, is one with a standard of living that has been raised too high to neglect appreciation, with liberties that have multiplied and engendered an equally greater rise in happiness. Neither claim is true. But the interesting thing is why people believe these things and how they continue to believe them.

The sustenance of an illusion is not democratic. To be sure, our current illusion — that everything is more than alright, but better than ever — does depend on the majority of people ultimately buying that idea and living accordingly. This illusion does require that people wake up every day and truly believe things are good. Indeed some may believe that because they are simple people, and by virtue of being simple, they are virtuous. They are humble, kind, patient, and hopeful about the present moment.

But there are also those that sincerely believe that good things are here to stay and many more will come. Of particular delusion is the capitalist and the people convinced capitalism has offered humanity irreplaceable improvements that no one could possibly deny the benefits of these things. There are some good things that capitalism has helped bring into the world. But there is a whole nother side of capitalism that it’s defenders usually ignore or remain ambivalent about. The harshness of a capitalist society leaves at bay all the other parts of being a human that make human existence more than mere survival. The nature of life as competition, between businesses and employers for hire, is one of the saddest. Competition is for sport, not livelihood. Yet, some of the most moral people have nothing to say about all of the immorality created by a society in which people have to be desperate for pay and sell themselves on a daily basis in some cases, and at least for an interview in others. A person can have no moral principles in the capitalist society. None by which they truly live.

Feminism has also offered it’s own false ideas that stand not up to the scrutiny of common sense. As a movement, it has tried time and again to emphasize the simple notion that all it is seeking to do is to help woman’s status in society, and move society towards respecting her more or more fully. And yet, I can find nothing more disrespectful to woman than the current way men try impersonating models (an enemy of some lost impulse within the feminist’s mind), the female form exploited as a selling point by Hollywood, clothing companies, and pornographers. How much higher than this low ideal of a woman who has sex whenever she wants with whoever she wants, and earns as much money as she needs to feel free to oink like men have had to do when we impersonate capitalist pigs. The illusion is that all of this is what women want and how they truly desire to live.

There are more to add, which, if you were uncertain of such a fact, will become clearer as we look at why these illusions are kept alive. The truth is, as I’ve said before, the average American, even most Americans as a body of people interacting with the political sphere, are more or less powerless. Certain ideas sell better than others, and the woman as housewife cannot sell as well as the woman as a walking purse on the prowl for freedom and goods to consume. The idea that people shouldn’t work for a boss they’ll never see, contributing to ends they’ve never agreed to except insofar as those ends assure him/her a steady paycheck, doesn’t sell as well as the idea that if you continue working hard to others rich, you can, bit by bit, buy more of the things you believe will help you enjoy life.

There is no way that an illusion like the one we have before us could last so long and with such vigor unless it was being sold to us. And there is no reason for it to be sold to us unless it kept us dependent on those selling it.

When Chesterton says, in “The Voter and the Two Voices”

 I doubt whether the best men ever would devote themselves to politics. The best men devote themselves to pigs and babies and things like that. And as for the fanatical conflict in party politics, I wish there was more of it. The real danger of the two parties with their two policies is that they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen. They make him barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to do anything except prefer one existing policy to another. We have not got real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people. We shall have real Democracy when the problem depends upon the people. The ordinary man will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.

He is referring to an issue such as the following incident:

Mr. Bove, who lives in Larzac, an area of southwest France that is one of the country’s best-known gastronomic regions, organized the destruction of the McDonald’s in nearby Millau — using tractors to tear down half the roof — to highlight what he sees as the unfairness of the United States’s decision to levy high tariffs on Roquefort cheese, pate de foie gras and other luxury imported food. Washington acted in retaliation for the European Union’s decision to ban America’s hormone-treated beef.

Note Chesterton’s line about the best men devoting themselves to “pigs and babies.” Jose Bove mentioned above is a sheep farmer.

The more I live, the more I find the utmost delight in the poetry of coincidence found between two seemingly separate circumstances, incidents, or statements — such as these. It is one of the most curious things about truth, that coincidence is the evidence of order. Chesterton’s regard for the dignity of the common person and their ability to reason and think for themselves(one reason he’s labeled the “apostle of common sense”) was based on something real, and the anger of Jose Bove was also based on something real as well. Both sing together in the melody God has plucked.

And, with the fact that politicians would levy tariffs against France simply because they don’t want to import hormone-treated beef or withhold funds to countries that might refuse a sexual “rights” agenda brings forth one more reference to Chesterton:

The men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He’s the pestilence of modern times. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It’s terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged today.

 

Fight for Diversity

Or fight for the poor. It is not possible to fight for both. Only one has all the ease attributable to copious funding.

At the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.K. Department for International Development joined forces with UNFPA and USAID in an effort to put family planning at the forefront of the global development funding agenda. There they launched the FP2020 initiative. The quantitative goal of FP2020, known as “120 by 20,” seeks “to enable 120 million more women and girls to use contraceptives by 2020.” Elsewhere on its website, the target is described as “extending contraceptive access.”

From this article. Worth the read, one is granted a stark view of all the unelected members of various organizations pushing a certain agenda all across the world. If anyone is inclined to quickly dispel theories about a global elite running things, feel free to continue to do so. It doesn’t change the fact that organizations acting publicly are indeed placing their efforts in creating changes they desire all across the world.