Excluding the elites, it is not possible to create a society in which everyone is equally happy. It is however possible to create a society in which everyone is equally miserable, it is called socialism. ~Ghost
(Opinion)
In part one, we discussed my perspectives on meritocracy as a sociopolitical system, so be sure to check that out first. In part two, we will examine what I consider the opposite of a meritocratic system: Marxism, and its various offshoots that have caused significant harm, suffering, and death throughout history.
However, I've chosen to take a slightly different approach, as those familiar with my writings are already quite aware of my views on Marxism and its bastard children—socialism, communism, and fascism, which in my opinion today are collectively termed "progressivism". When it comes to my scribbles it is all connected. So, if you took the time to read through that link it should be more than obvious that progressives believe in "equity" over "true equality". (We covered the difference in part one)
An equity-based collectivist sociopolitical system such as progressivism is 100% antithetical to the Constitution of these United States as well as the Bill of Rights it contains that guarantees We the People the power to control our own lives and "destinies" at the cost of being 100% responsible for our own lives, successes, and especially our failures. This ideal is the root of our meritocratic system even though in today's world it has been bastardized into representing "privilege" and "entitlement" by those who for whatever reason cannot or will not do what it takes to find the same "success" as their peers. I have no problem with those who genuinely are unable, we got you man, no worries!
These "progressives" are also referred to as the *"uni-party" in our political landscape because they influence both parties, causing them to oppose each other on almost everything and, by extension, divides the population, preventing us from recognizing that we have a common adversary. New Democrats and Republicans cannot work together anymore because this uni-party of progressives won't let them, it is as simple as that and therein lies the problem does it not? Eventually this uni-party will take over and a one-party system emerges. Every tyrant in history has used this tactic of submission without force, every single one of them.
With this in mind, I realized there's a more intriguing aspect to explore beyond simply revisiting oppressive ideologies that aim to gradually wear down the population into accepting them (War of Attrition). This phenomenon has been alarmingly effective not only in the U.S. but worldwide. Therefore, we will briefly connect Marxist-based ideologies and then focus on what I truly see as the adversary of meritocratic societies: mediocrity.
Let's make sure we understand what that means, a "war of attrition". It is a key tactic within this subject.
This tactic is also tied directly into psychological warfare as well and is employed to a degree under very strict guidelines in many treatment regiments such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)
As I've mentioned often, since I tend to repeat myself for emphasis, I strongly support the K.I.S.S. method for sharing information. For those who don't know, this acronym stands for "keep it simple stupid," a concept I learned while studying design principles. As usual, I'll provide numerous resources for you to explore further if you wish. Also, be sure to check the "Connective Tissue" links at the end of the page for related topics to explore. I am also not at this time going to do a deep dive into what connects fascism to Marxism, but I will post some links at the end you can peruse at your leisure. So, for simplicities sake from here on out I will simply use the term "progressive/progressivism for all tyrannical ideologies because it is rooted in Marxism which is the black rotting heart of all tyranny no matter what it chooses to call itself.
Here's my commonsense thoughts without the distractions. Marxism/Progressivism suggests that because some people are either unable or unwilling to work (Note: this claim can be applied to anything that has a natural inequality factor), these individuals are disadvantaged, marginalized. progressives believe that when someone becomes wealthy, it results in someone else becoming poor, implying that any wealth gained is stolen from another. This flawed argument is not merely my opinion; it is a fundamental aspect of the progressive agenda for "change," achieved through "collectivism," which is entirely based on equity or more commonly referred to as "the greater good!". They aim for the minority, regardless of race, gender, or other factors, to have the same "outcome" as the majority without the necessary effort. In my view, this is quite straightforward and should be evident to anyone paying attention. Just saying.
Through a quick process of elimination before moving on we can immediately exclude many people from this discussion by considering those who genuinely cannot meet their basic needs without assistance, such as the elderly, the chronically ill, and the seriously disabled. This is the purpose of the SSI system; it is meant for them and no one else. Nowadays, it has been so misused by progressives that almost anyone can receive SSI benefits, except for those it was intended for it seems. Those of us approaching retirement age who have paid into this system our entire working lives!
This leaves the "unwilling" and those of us who are willing. When broken down to its core, this is the reality. This ongoing saga is not new; it is the human saga itself. The perpetual conflict between the haves and have-nots is rooted not in ideologies but in human nature. Ideologies are merely tools used by those in power to manipulate that nature through psychological programming and indoctrination. In order to maintain a more critical line of thinking it is important to understand that "teaching" is a milder form of indoctrination as well as psychological (social) programming, so this has been done to pretty much all of us who attended public school. Arguing about who is indoctrinated is idiotic and a distraction. What we need to focus on is what the goal of that indoctrination is which brings us around to that phrase "acceptance of mediocrity" that intrigued me so much during my research.
My generation, Gen X, was taught to love our country, embrace American exceptionalism, value hard work, and practice self-accountability, which instilled a strong sense of patriotism as well as individualism. We were also educated about the dangers of "Communism" and learned how to avoid its traps and deceit, having grown up during the Cold War. In contrast, the generations following Gen X have generally been influenced to dislike this country, its exceptionalism, and our sociopolitical and economic systems, which are designed for individual success rather than being driven by the whims of a tyrannical ruling class. Now we are getting to some true clarity.
The divide between the haves and have-nots can be further simplified to those who are willing to work and those who are not. This can be broken down even more, as it relates to the mindset of individuals on each side, ultimately leading us back to the unchangeable nature of humanity. If you approach critical thinking with the understanding of universal balance—where positive and negative forces influence everything, including humans—things become clearer, and it's easier to "connect the dots." Unfortunately, this reality is more than most people are ready or willing to accept. It took me years to navigate through it.
Please be patient with me, I'm winding up my point! Positive and negative cannot exist without each other, as each justifies the other's existence, and this applies to everything. We humans labeled these forces as good and evil to better comprehend them with our limited understanding of the time, and this is how most people still perceive these opposing forces, both of which existed long before humans. At its core, we're discussing the eternal struggle between "good" and "evil", which is of course inherently subjective based on your perspective. Good and evil are merely words representing our beliefs about each. Our morality, or lack thereof, through our actions, determines our stance. Remember, good and evil existed before we got here as these positive and negative forces, but it is only us humans who can commit acts of good and evil. We are the one and only source of both.
Have you ever wondered why, no matter how beneficial something is for everyone involved, there will always be those who dislike it for various real or imagined reasons? If something is positive, its existence inherently creates the need for its negative; it is unavoidable. This is why I say people inevitably create the very things they oppose. It simply cannot be otherwise. OK, probably went a little too deep into the laws of physics there so, back on track!
The answer as I see it to that question though can be found in the goal of all tyrannies. The acceptance of mediocrity among the populace. To crush the desire to rise above, innovate, create, and become more than we are because doing so may offend someone else who cannot or will not do what it takes to also rise above, to become more. Mediocrity is rewarded while exceptionalism is demonized. It has been so in every example of tyranny throughout human history. And since I want to expand further on that I am going to continue this vein of thought in my next scribble where I will go into more detail and depth about this subject. I felt that it needed its own probe so I changed my mind and since I work for myself, I can do that!
So, as always, something to think about man, until next time. ~Ghost
Connective Tissue
If you wish to understand progressivism then you need to understand Saul Alinsky and "being a radical". I find it quite interesting that Alinsky dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals" to his wife, and Lucifer while being funded by the Catholic church.