Futility

It's probably not an exaggeration to say that those who have
experienced life respect endurance. In this world, because chaos is its
lifeblood and its way of stress-testing any variation before it
happens, you have to take some whacks before your idea gets
accomplished. You might starve a lifetime, lose a war, collect a
mountain of rejection slips, or even spend decades in jail, but if you
keep at it, the world in its benevolent wisdom smiles upon you,
eventually. However, this bittersweet platitude is balanced by a hard
fact: some persistence is pointless because even if the desired change
is accepted, it will not fix the problem or change the overall outcome.

For example, we might have a sadistic laugh at the expense of worldwide
liberalism, which might be summarized as the concept that personal
empowerment equals the best government; it's a highly contrived form of
utilitarianism that does not rely on central control. Focus on the
individual is the herald's call of the left; Focus on the community is
the unstated maxim of the right; the third front, being wily bastards,
say Focus on the ideal through which our community complements cosmic
order, and at that point, lose everyone's attention including that of
their own Gauleiters and Reichsmarshals (idealist philosophy is best
undertaken only by those with at least 150 IQ points, preferrably more;
this is why Jim Morrison, Hitler and Buddha got it but their followers
mucked it up consequently). In this context, we can see the continuous
liberalizing trend - more focus on the individual, on the ownership and
political rights of the individual - as an unbroken chain of leftist
ideas that, amusingly, coincide with the collapse of will to
accomplishment in our society and hence the rise of "let's divide the
spoils" logic such as capitalism, communism and marijuana mooches.

However, we have to ask ourselves: and what did this achieve?

This vast tide of leftism, emerging from our distant history and
culminating in the luxuries afforded by the internal combustion engine
and populations in the billions, has it fundamentally changed the
predicament of the individual? No: most still work for those who own
them almost literally through debt, and while they might have
"freedom," the important freedom - time apart from the tedium of money
and bureaucracy in which to appreciate family or interests - is
lacking. Yes, they can move anywhere - if they have the money. They can
say anything, as long as it doesn't offend, and anything truthful will;
if they offend, they had better be rich, because they won't get
employed again. They can express themselves however they want, as long
as they don't need an audience, since the media barrons have far more
influence than individuals. In short, they have the freedom to do
anything harmless, but beyond that, they're in the same predicament
they've always faced - and it is the "beyond that" which not only
encompasses most of what is meaningful in life, but anything that would
be needed to make change to this system.

I have to ask leftists what all these years of campaigning have gotten
them. Women can vote. Minorities can vote. Gays can marry. Pot might be
legal. But jobs are still tedious, and there are still social taboos.
Smart people are still in the tiniest of fractional minorities, and
most people still waste their money and do destructive things. Our
rivers are clogged with trash, our streets inundated in cars going
nowhere important, our air filthy, the species we once counted as glad
companions vanishing... and our "freedom"? What has it achieved? It has
changed the details and missed the larger point, and therefore our
"freedom" is the greatest guarantee our oppressors could ever need.
It's like a football game: whether the home team wins or not has zero
bearing on life as a whole. Liberalism is like putting uplifting,
hopeful, positive wallpaper in a jail cell and giving prisoners the
"right" to scream obscenities, since they'll never be released.

Similarly, you have to wonder about other activists. Neo-Nazis seem to
want to keep the fight going, instead of doing something practical like
influencing society outside their tiday little camp;
anti-racist/anti-fascist people are even more insane, and simply want
an excuse to torment others, something perhaps as binarily
open-and-shut as "fascist=bad, multikult=good." The people who hate
abortion and the people who love abortion can now be seen in the
context of failure, which is that a 30-year cycle determines what will
be popular. These political positions are all chosen for their clear
identity as opposition to other ideas, like a pyramid made of negative
reactions to whatever is proposed. For each idea that exists, the
counter-idea is roughly equally popular. This is where the society of
constant debate and critique gets us in democracy; we wanted more
discussion, more freedom, more rights. And what do we get? Incessant
bickering that as soon as it reaches a conclusion, undoes it on the
rebound. Democracy = stasis through constant debate. It's a boon to
those who would control us, as it gives us the illusion that we can
change our world, but because every action meets an equal
counteraction, ends up preventing any change of meaning.

When I look at this kind of futility, the sad old truth hiding behind
new and more creative appearances dawns on me: most people were bred to
pick turnips, shoe horses, fight battles and create masonry. They're
not capable of philosophical thought, and not inclined to it, which
prevents them from making any real sense of politics, although they can
fake it. This truth - that not all can do the thinking necessary to
make decisions - is their Achilles heel, and they do their best to mask
it by insisting on "equality" of wealth, of opinions, of
representation, and so on. That political stance however is like a drug
addict insist that rooms not be searched, because that's where he keeps
his stash -- their political "activism" is limited to covering up their
own shortcomings. For this reason, all of their other futile political
inclinations exist so that they feel a sense of identity and importance
to the constant bickering, instead of a desire to actually solve
problems, and because any task which is approached for the wrong
reasons ends in futility, so does their entire political experience.

The system that has them thinking they should be "equal" and
politically active is to blame here, because it is not a bad thing to
be a turnip-picker, although a horrible thing to be a turnip-picker
pretending to be a king (we're all indoctrinated as to how the royalty
became inbred, but the inbred ones were the minority - the rest were
good and often great leaders, yet we never hear of this - think
carefully: why is that?). Putting people who cannot handle a task in
charge of it is a good way to make them cover up their shortcomings,
and invent political dogmas to conceal their own incompetence. They
will create a big lie ("freedom"/"equality"/"peace") to hide their most
fundamental lack of ability, and then as if selecting television shows
to pass the time until death, will invent a succession of smaller
issues to amuse themselves and to give them an identity, and deep down,
they will thus be content with the fruitless process of endless debate
lacking results. And what sicker thing can be imagined than to be
pleased with futility?

http://www.*****.com/zine/articles/futility/