The Cult of Defeatism

Out of all the bizarre trends that we as a generation seem to be following lately, one of the strangest has to be the fad of defeatism. This newfound love of self-loathing and lack of desire to better oneself leaves me scratching my head as I struggle to understand the thought processes of my peers. On one hand I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at this fad. We are constantly bombarded with how we're the unhappiest generation -- how we're the most depressed, the most likely to commit suicide, the least likely to be employed, the least likely to be happily married, etc. Most of these statistics, if true, are troubling to say the least. The media seems intent on portraying my generation, the Millennials, as simply lost. We're beyond lost even, in that we're accepting of our loss and perfectly willing to continue down our rabbit holes to our uncertain futures. I'm not quite convinced of the truth of such statements and how they're repeated ad nauseam wherever one looks. Unfortunately many of us seem to believe this fad and are perfectly content with it. I worry about the normalization of such struggles and what seems to be a growing trend towards the beautification of such thoughts.

It's always been said that the first step to fixing a psychological or mental issue is admitting one actually has an issue. I have to wonder if that's the truth in today's world, since so many people seem willing to say, "Why yes, I'm broken. I'm damaged. I have issues..." but then make no effort to change their damaging thoughts or behaviors. Brokenness is now worn as a type of badge. We all know people, mental hypochondriacs of sorts, who seem to collect problems because they desperately crave attention or never received love as a child. But how many more of us go about our daily lives and define ourselves by some particular problem we face?

My generation can balk at the psychologists that point out that we seem to be stuck in an arrested development where we never quite emotionally mature into an adult. Paradoxically, we seem to willfully arrest our own development by refusing to truly "grow up". Multiple times a day across the internet young people in their 20s-30s crack jokes about their lack of maturity. "Haha, am I adulting now? How do I into taxes? Being an adult sure is hard, amirite fellas?" and so on. I won't mince words here -- I find this beyond cringe worthy. I fail to understand this desire to showboat ignorance and childishness and all it really seems to be is some twisted tribalistic signaling to our fellow men. Instead of signaling our worth or importance, our MVP status, we seem to be striving for the role of being on the bottom rung, the Least Valuable Player. It's a senseless and self-damaging game, so why play it?

Maybe I'm not in the right mindset to understand this phenomenon. Who knows, maybe I'm too privileged to understand it, being a hetero white male and all. But I've seen all types display pride in their LVP status, whether it's rather normal folks flagellating themselves on social media and the real world for their peers or NEETs gathering together and crying about ">tfw when no gf" in the little deplorable corners of the internet. This twisted signaling seems to pervade our society across social statuses and groups, maybe even generations.

So why don't people just get up and do something about their lives?

Do note that I'm not pointing out those that genuinely understand that they may have some personal issues and are actively seeking to do something about their mental health or whatever problems they may be facing. I applaud those that go beyond simply recognizing they have problems and actually set about doing something about it. Many of these people also don't seem to proudly wear their insecurities or inability to function in society as a badge of dishonor, so extra points for that as well.

But I fear that most people my age have hit such a low emotional state that they simply see themselves as unable to lift themselves out of their self-defeatism. Beyond that, there's a very perceivable lack of desire to even try to better themselves. There's no desire for self-betterment simply because people aren't seeing any problems with having problems! It has become normalized in society - accepted and desired - to simply define yourself by your struggles.

Much blame could probably be placed at the championing of minority struggles; where various fringe groups in society are elevated to higher perceived status simply because they belong to some outlier group. In response, many purposely segregate themselves off into a minority group solely for the social status bump that they believe will come from it. It's a growing trend I find awful for reasons beyond the normalization of defeatism. There is the little matter of how the people who actually belong to the minority groups feel after all. It's little wonder that we see growing cries of "co-opting" from outsiders coming in to various groups. Add in the growing desire for further splitting off into minority statuses for ever higher social privilege and we reach a point where minority groups are practically being invented daily. Not to mention the rather obvious "-isms" that come with people considering minorities worse off than them simply for being minorities and therefore trying to elevate them or assimilate them. Can that even be considered egalitarian at that point?

This sort of bizarre class struggle, where class has simply become one's race, ethnicity, orientation, mental health problem, etc. seems to be part of much of the western world by now. But the self-defeatism that comes along with elevating the struggles themselves to a desired status seems to have grown into its own beast and has permeated every level of society beyond any class warfare. How many people do each of us know who introduce themselves with details of their depression or self-destructive behavior? Just think of how many people sprinkle through their daily conversations with how hard it is to be single/to be in a relationship or whatever other nonsense they deem important enough to share. Beyond that, how many people love signaling that they prioritize spending money on worthless pursuits such as media merchandise, video games or sports memorabilia? "Ahaha yeah, can't pay bills but just bought a new game that launched this week!" Forget knowing these people, most of us probably are these people.

So what happened? What destroyed our self-confidence? Surely the world isn't so bad that all of us collectively just decided to check out and pursue our own self-interests to such destructive ends. Perhaps it has and my boundless naiveté keeps me from seeing just how screwed we all are. I can understand that depression rates are higher than ever for men and women in the west, that more of us aren't marrying or even seeking relationships and fewer of us are able to hold off jobs. But I have some hope and confidence that things aren't as bad as the media paints the picture to be and that things can get better. If this is truly the low point for western civilization, then surely the only way out is up. Unless we truly do just want to snuff out the candle altogether.

There's no point in the self-defeatism folks. Take it from someone who wallowed in it for too long. Self-confidence, discipline and responsibilities aren't sins for us to shun. Instead of spending our days playing video games or posting in the always-tempting >tfw no gf threads, we can work on self-betterment. Get fit, get jobs, stop destructive habits, etc. You've all heard it before. Just start doing it this time, if for no other reason than making yourself better than you are now. 

First Debate Performance - Everyone's a Winner

I've yet to check the morning news coverage to see who they're saying has won the debate. Not that anyone really needs to check the news to know that they are lauding Hillary for last night's performance. It is true she managed not to collapse last night, so I suppose points must be given to her for that admirable task. I suspect that the debate did little to sway people who were already decided though. If one was already planning to vote for Trump, then Trump managed to do well. If one was going to vote for Hillary, then they will probably still vote for Hillary. Some undecided or third party voters may have been swayed to a side and if any of them were swayed I suspect they were most likely swayed to Trump.

Though Trump didn't come out swinging with any knockouts - he was noticeably silent on Hillary's multiple scandals - he hit on many of his points that were familiar to his followers. Tax reforms, trade deal reworkings, explanations of how his business acumen would help the country's economy, etc. He was visibly angry at times and frustrated, most of which was directed at Hillary. Trump was in visible disbelief that she had been running the country for so long but had done nothing good for the American people, a disbelief that many of his followers certainly share. I'm sure the media will paint his anger as ravings from a madman without ever touching on the fact that's what we want to see after years of dealing with inept smiling politicians.

Speaking of smiling politicians, who told Hillary she needed to smile more? She can't smile worth a damn without coming off as either terrifying or condescending. I took note last night that she was trying to ape Trump's body language somewhat and tried to come across as smooth and confident. It doesn't work for her in the slightest. Her half-lidded glassy-eyed stare didn't help matters, though I suspect that was more from the effects of her drug cocktail than any conscious effort on her part. I'm not sure if she can't look human due to plastic surgery or if she simply doesn't know how to appear natural. Putting her face side-by-side against Trump's only served to highlight how bizarrely robotic and rehearsed she sounds and appears. Is this what "presidential" is supposed to look like? Screw that, give me Trump's fiery passionate pleas and organic talking any day.

I am curious here if Hillary's portion of the debate was actually rehearsed. There were several moments where she tried to use jokes (zingers I think the media is calling them) to her advantage but they came off as stilted or misused. One noticeable moment for me was when Trump was talking about how he had been visiting inner cities to talk to people and discuss ways to help with their problems and he accused Hillary of staying home. Hillary's response? "I think Donald is accusing me of preparing for the debates. Why yes, I have prepared for the debates, just like I'm prepared for the presidency!" Cue some applause from the supposedly silent audience. What a bizarre moment. If this is her trying to tap into memetics I don't think we have anything to fear.

One thing people will be picking apart for weeks is the extremely obvious contrast between the two candidates. It goes beyond speaking style or organic feelings. All of Hillary's points were filled to the brim with the usual liberal platitudes. Amusingly, Trump actually pointed this out. "It's all sound bites; it sounds good now but they don't mean anything". Beyond the usual liberal niceties about how we all need to come together and just be more accepting, there was a definite strain of globalism that should alarm anyone. Her insistence that NAFTA was a great thing for our country, her refusal to dismiss the TPP, her pleas to other countries that the US would always be there for them and never ever think of renegading on our deals, her praise of immigrants... all of it very globally focused. Trump shot back with his well-known America First policies, though he was more impassioned than usual. He outright stated that the US couldn't and shouldn't be the policeman of the world for free, that we need to get the rich to bring their money back into this country instead of spreading it about internationally and of course that we need to be tougher about protecting our own interests and people.

Many people are rightly pointing out that Trump was on the defensive all night, but they're also pointing out that it hurt him. I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps it hurt him in some things. He did spend far too much time talking about his tax returns that I've yet to find any voter sincerely concerned about. But to offset that, he fired back that he would release his tax returns when Hillary releases the emails she deleted from her server. Hillary and Lester Holt managed to keep him prickly throughout the debate, which will do well to serve her agenda of promoting Trump's "dark and dangerous" propaganda. But having Trump on the defensive produced some great results for anyone who supports him. When was the last time anyone at a presidential debate has pointed out that our economy is in a bubble and the politically motivated Fed is waiting until just the right moment to pop it? How about his punch to the Mainstream Media, a label he was all too happy to use to point out how friendly they were with Hillary? His own zingers will likely go unnoticed by the MSM, aside from the cottage industry of so called fact checkers. Statements like, "Hillary's been fighting ISIS her entire adult life" or "I got Obama to produce his birth certificate in 2011, something Hillary's people had been trying to do for years. She wants to produce jobs but she couldn't even produce a birth certificate". Trump's willingness to point out such obvious truths is what has set him aside from the usual crop of politicians and there's no reason to believe that it's stopped working for him.

I realized an important thing as the debate wound down with Hillary hurling accusations of sexism toward Trump. She had been relatively smooth, if zombie-like, all night. This was her at her best, something she knows. Trump was very clearly not at his best and seemed to be running at around 70-80% of his normal zeal. This isn't good for Hillary. Trump's pacing himself, feeling out how these debates are rigged against him and working out his strategies on the fly. I have no doubt that in the next debate he will escalate his energy and in the final debate he will come out swinging. Hillary needs to remain at the top of her game and even surpass it to keep up with Trump, something she will not be able to do.

There is another bit of persuasion at play that I'm wondering if anyone else noticed. Who would you rather have as president, the person with the adult-sized podium or the one behind the child-sized podium?

Getting Comfy for the Pre-Debate Landslide

In most cases I tend to write off when the Mainstream Media try to hype events. Any sort of "most watched event" or "must see showdown" I ignore as I have no desire to give them my viewership or money for something that inevitably falls short of their sensationalist headlining. That said, I am making an exception for the first presidential debate tonight. If only because for once I actually am feeling rather hyped up for an event. Here it is finally, Trump and Hillary in the same room actually speaking to each other. I can't believe it took so long for Hillary to steel herself.

Still, I am legitimately trying not to hype myself up too much. This is Trump's game to lose and I fully expect some surprises to come out of Hillary's corner. At the same time, I do expect the Nimble Navigator to deflect most of them and hone in on actual issues. Hillary's tendency for long-winded roundabout answers will play off rather terribly against Trump's simple snappy responses. Even if it is Trump's game to lose, I expect him to come out of the debate looking even better than before despite the inevitable whining and "fact-checking" the MSM will be doing for the rest of the week. Like others have pointed out by now, the question no longer seems to be if Trump will win; now we are asking by how much he will win.

Lester Holt will undoubtedly try to pry his way into the debate as a participant, especially with the Clinton campaign and a decent percentage of the voters asking him to fact-check Trump's lies. A rather bizarre thing for a moderator to do but not all that worrisome. If Holt is extra hard on one candidate and not the other, this will only help Trump as this will confirm our preconceived persuasions of media bias. Liberals may whine about party lines and point out that Lester Holt is registered as a Republican voter, but the man's a known softball reporter. All anyone needs to do is take a look at Lester Holt's "unbiased" reporting history to see who he favors.

Beyond Lester Holt's obvious biases, other persuasion tactics will certainly be at work tonight. Take a look at the great seal imagery used in this debate prep, the American Bald Eagle clutching his arrows and olive branch. Anyone who knows US imagery can immediately see that the arrows and olive branch have been flipped. Conspiracy theorists can have fun trying to figure out if this means we're signalling whether or not the US is preparing for war, but persuasion theorists should take note here too. Who do the arrows of war point to on the stage? Who does the olive branch hang over to signify the peaceful one? Very subtle persuasion at play here and certainly purposeful; the objects held in the talons are never switched accidentally. We can fully expect lots of the usual "dark and dangerous" talk that helped Hillary earlier this year. This weekend's higher than usual violence will almost certainly be used by both sides and I also expect Hillary will try to spin the madness unfolding in Syria to her favor as well.

All of that being said, I cannot wait for the proverbial fur to fly tonight. I'm going to be comfy tonight gents; who else is ready for the beatdown?

Preparing for the Apocalypse

As the first US presidential debate draws ever closer, I'm noticing that we as American citizens seem to be dividing into two camps across the battle lines. Normally this wouldn't be unusual. After the summer months of campaigning and policy reveals, everyone usually gets settled into their choices by the time the first debates roll around. The debates help solidify the choices of those people who already know who they're going to vote for and maybe help convince the undecided along the way. Yet there's a noticeable difference going into this debate. Perhaps it's just me in my own deplorable corners of the web, but I'm hardly seeing the battle lines one would usually expect. There's no, "Oh yes, Hillary will steamroll through Trump, she has this in the bag!" to go alongside the frequently touted, "Trump's going to win so hard we're going to get tired of winning!" Has anyone else noticed this?

Where is Hillary's ardent support? Most people I see say something along the lines of, "Well, both candidates are equally bad" or, "Whoever wins, we're screwed, it's like the apocalypse is really happening". There's a definite feeling of pessimism settling in on the other side. The liberal left can decry Trump for all of his perceived shortcomings, but in the end they remain unable to look at their own candidate for any positivity. Hillary has had months to hammer out her policies and sharpen her image without any Bolshevik upstart coming in to sweep away the youngsters' votes. The problem is that there has been no image to sharpen. No matter how much behind the scenes rigging Hillary pulls off, no matter how many elites she is able to buy for her stable, no matter how many desperate millennials she hires to correct the record - she is unable to properly hide her true colors from the American public.

Frankly I'm not sure how anyone thought she could hide herself from us. Months ago when she waved off the "vast right wing conspiracies" by saying that she had dealt with them for 30-odd years, I didn't find that reassuring in the slightest. All that told me is that she has skeletons going back throughout her entire political career and no one's successfully lived to tell people about them. Skeletons pile up though. And after three presidential candidate runs, all the laundry's aired out for everyone to see. Even if every single accusation thrown against her was undeniably false, that's still two generations of accusations stacked up against... what? What is her legacy? We all know her supposed legacy; that's the problem.

Yet even despite having to wade through piles of skeletons, Hillary continues to press on in her own way. Her own way is what I believe has finally led to all of this open pessimism. It's too easy nowadays to see that her way means hiding from the press, lying about her health, perhaps even being too unhealthy to serve and seemingly being too fearful to face the American people, let alone the challenges that come with being president. The truth is nobody really wants Hillary as president, not even the Dems who were saddled with her. Her failing health and newfound low energy only serves to give reason for all the Undecided to finally admit they were going to vote for the other guy all along. After all, they can't just waste a vote for someone who might die the first year they're elected.

But there is an apocalypse brewing with some immense political fallout likely to occur. Most of us expect some bombshell leaks will drop around the time of the first debate to give Trump some fresh ammo and send Hillary reeling. I fully expect this myself, though I don't think Assange and Guccifer 2.0 are the only ones in the leak game. If Roger Stone is to be believed, someone recently broke into Trump's campaign HQ to steal some rather sensitive data. Ten bucks says the Mainstream Media won't blame the Russians for this one, if they mention it at all. But most of my money is betting on MSM and the globalist elites crafting a narrative about newly found Russian support for Trump right around the same time that our eagerly awaited Wikileaks files drop.

This isn't so farfetched. I've already mentioned how Zero Hedge realized that this would be a perfect ploy for them to pull on us if Trump wins the election. I believe it could happen earlier though, especially given recent events in Syria. Consider how everything we've done in Syria lately has involved us throwing the blame on our Russian friends. We accidentally bomb a Syrian city? Well Russia gave us the go ahead, so they set us up. Someone blows up our aid trucks? The Russians were watching it happen, so they must be in on it. Anti-Russian sentiment is nothing new, but it's certainly hitting new lows as of late. RT may be statist-operated news, but I imagine many other Americans agree with their questioning of America's Middle Eastern policy. Anyone who bothers looking beyond the usual MSM reporting will find that our actions in Syria are utterly bewildering and nonsensical. Unless of course, we're trying to set Russia up for a fall and take Trump down with them.

Some may accuse me of being a concern shill or a defeatist. I admit to being concerned, though I would argue my concern is more that we should be warier than ever of the false narratives that will be built. We must not let the enemy surprise us, not when the stakes for the future of our civilization are so high. We must also be especially prepared to counter the arguments our globalist friends will use built from these false narratives.  The MSM and the globalists are losing ground, ground that we cannot let them recover. Trump is most certainly winning and I have little doubt he can shirk off whatever is thrown at him, but if the left expects us to get comfortable and sit at home while he wins, then they have another thing coming. In these final days our swords must be at their most sharp and our eyes at their most watchful. An apocalypse is absolutely coming and I for one am relishing it.

A Forum-less Forum

The Commander-in-Chief Forum was somewhat ill-named as it was little more than a prettily packaged press event with pre-fielded questions and a highly controlled environment. The existence of the CiC Forum actually seems to be a bit of an oddity, because I can't really see a good reason to have it. Perhaps the NBC Network is seeing it as a whetting of the appetite, a preparation of sorts for the debates later this month. I'm thinking it's more that Hillary's campaign and even Trump's campaign are testing the waters though. Hillary's people want to see how she can hold up under the lights, the people and the pressure.

To her credit, Hillary actually performed better than she has in quite a while. No coughing, no hacking, no horrible balls of yellow phlegm. She seemed more focused and even stood occasionally during her talking, as if to make a specific point about her health. I still had several issues with her half of the forum however. I didn't really find her speech very persuasive. I'm sure Scott Adams will have much to say on this matter, but for me personally, she came off as a bit confusing. She tells us to pay attention to her record right before saying that she wouldn't do what she did in the past. What part of the record are we to pay attention to then? She says she wouldn't do the private email server again. She says she wouldn't do the Iraqi War again. But then she cites her handling of information and her ability to handle international conflicts as good points. It's conflicting.

And despite Matt Lauer telling both candidates to try to stick to their own selling points other than attacking the other candidate, Hillary couldn't seem to help but tie in how Trump would do things bad compared to her. Good for a debate but not a forum. Her actual talking was also very long-winded and at times she seemed to almost pad or drag out her answers to the pre-fielded questions. Perhaps intentional, perhaps not. To me she really seemed to be struggling to sell herself. A very telling point was when she snapped at Matt Lauer who was trying to push on to the next question. A quick burst of anger reared its head as she demanded she be let a chance to finish her thought. Not very reassuring.

She made another very odd remark later that, for me, was the opposite of reassuring. When Matt Lauer asked the pointed question of whether or not she could promise the American people that they would be safe from terrorism on our soil, she replied that was not a promise that she could make. In one sense it's true; she probably would be unable to guarantee the safety of every American just by sheer probability factors. But no American wants to hear that. We want reassurance of some safety. It felt very odd that she phrased her response that way. Perhaps she was getting tired towards the end.

Now I'm going to be a bit biased here, but I feel that Trump handled his half of the forum much better. He opened it well with a good quip to keep Lauer off-guard and remained mostly in control of the conversation flow afterwards. That's a good thing to see in a presidential candidate. He was also very polite to everyone, thanking them for their questions and repeatedly stating his respect for various people in the military. He managed to breeze through most of the questions, giving sharp and succinct answers. I noticed that Trump actually managed to answer more questions than Hillary and wrapped up sooner than she did.

I feel there may have been a few missteps though. I question Trump's proposal that we should have kept soldiers in Iraq to safeguard the oil reserves from power vacuums. In theory it's probably good, but I foresee a lot of Mainstream Media tearing apart his remark that, "To the victors go the spoils, right?" That sounds power-hungry and manipulative, dangerous even. We don't want to see dangerous right now, just safe and secure. But maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.

One other good thing I saw that Trump had over Hillary - his family was there in the audience to support him. That's a very good thing to see, it shows unity and togetherness, things usually seen as very American. I don't believe Bill or Chelsea were there for Hillary, though I may have missed them.

In terms of NBC's handling of the whole event, it was passable. Both Hillary and Trump were asked fairly direct and challenging questions, though there was a definite tailoring of the questions for each candidate. Lauer continually tried to catch Trump saying he would be besties with Putin, perhaps in preparation for an election con, but Trump managed to sweep most of it aside easily. There were also a few odd moments like where a question was fielded from a military woman and the audience erupted into clapping. I'm not sure why they clapped only for her when many others also asked good questions. It seems Sue Fulton is more important somehow.

Whoever may have been more important, the winner here is the American people. We all got an excellent chance to compare Hillary and Trump's speaking styles and some of their foreign policies and military plans. It will definitely be interesting to watch over the next couple days to see how the Mainstream Media tells us to treat this event.

The Crumbling Facade of a King

Well, President Obama would like to think himself a king I believe. For awhile I think we all wanted him to be a king as well. Some may balk at this idea, but they can't deny the almost mesmerizing effect he seemed to hold over the US and global populace during his first presidential run. He could seemingly do no wrong. Questions about his birth were swept aside as conspiratorial or racist, questions about his leadership ability were laid to rest as racist - really, most criticisms were easily hammered out as "racist". So he was popular, hugely so, and he rode his wave of popularity to an easy second term.

Somewhere along the way, cracks began to appear in the facade. I wish I had paid enough attention to politics years ago that I could point out when exactly these cracks began to appear. I think some people knew there was a problem all the way back in 2010 with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. There is a distinct difference between knowing a problem exists and seeing a problem however. Many people knew the government bailout programs for the Wall Street banks were bad, though few among the average American citizen could directly reason why. At the time, everyone else was saying these programs were good. Obamacare was good. We could all keep our healthcare plans, remember? The worrying and fretting seemed silly, like an elderly woman fussing about the shape of clouds in a sky wondering if her arthritis will be affected. Everything was fine, Obama was the most popular president ever among the US people and even citizens around the world. He could do no wrong.

Then 2013 came and everyone lost their healthcare plans. Snowden blew the whistle on the US spying on its own citizens. Benghazi was fresh in everyone's minds. Cracks. But it was fine -- Obama was still the most likable fellow around. The popularity polls wouldn't lie after all. Obama wouldn't lie. No, it was those damn conservatives (this was still a bit before the alt-right boogeyman really rose into prominence) and their backwards ways. So we all focused on correcting those backwards ways and worked on implementing some social equality. All that needed to be done was that one half of the country needed to fix the other half. I'd like to say that the US began waking up to the fact that something wasn't quite right around this time when groupthink began being enforced less surreptitiously than it had in the years past. Though perhaps that's just me extending my own realizations to the rest of the country, so it's maybe not quite a fair assessment. Still, it's a position I'll hold since I believe many other young people my age could probably point to around this time when they began to see that something was severely off-kilter about their world.

The strange thing to me is that years later, the facade is still being propped up and defended with an almost religious fervor. The Mainstream Media still preaches Obama's incredible popularity here in the US and abroad. As he continues to spend his days golfing and snorkeling, he can seem to do no wrong. Even as the Chinese snub his arrival for the G20 summit... and roll out the red carpet for Putin. Even as Duterte humorously rants against him and his imperialistic aims. Even as the Brits blanch at the idea of him telling them how to vote for their Brexit. Even as the Japanese largely shrug at his "apology" over Hiroshima and ask when the US will ever leave Okinawa and stop raping their women. Even as the Puerto Ricans bemoan the austerity measures forced upon them.

Even as the American people wake up and realize their country is being sold piecemeal from under their feet.

The king turned out to be a king after all I suppose, King George III.