Betas, why are Americans unhappy?

[discojoe]

It doesn't have to be just Americans, but anyone living in an "America-esque" society, if that makes sense. You could possibly even include Japan, definitely the UK.

Anyway, it occurred to me that most people in America seem unhappy and slightly mad, like they're balanced precariously on the edge of sanity and are trying hard not to notice. It's sort of like a cartoon character that walks off a ledge but does not begin to fall until he notices his predicament.

Also, I'm looking for thoughtful answers, not clichéd anti-American platitudes from dunces in pretend Eastern European countries. I would also prefer somewhat artsy answers from Beta NFs such as strrrng, George, and silverchris.

Please give me your Nietzschean/Freudian insights.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

LoL both of those men were weak pussies in my book.

But anyways, I will tell you what I think.

People just get off on misery. They like it. They think....that's the world is supposed to be. They 'keep it real.' I'm kinda amused at this. I just don't understand why people want things to get better. But that's too 'clean' and pretty and nice and faggy. they like complaining. They love self-destructing. They like slowly dying. They love the pain. In a warped way, being dark and evil and negative and insane makes people feel masculine and thus strong. It's weird tho.

They're afraid. They're afraid of their softer, more homosexual and European qualities. It takes a lot of energy to be tough. IT would make anybody insecure. Being strong is really being weak because who are you trying to prove? That is why Jesus is the strongest of them all. =p

and yeah I agree americans are like that. It's just like chill dude. but they are too fearful and insecure. so they lash and attack others like a poorly trained puppy. It's so sad. But hey. If you don't know how to behave, then we'll just have to put you to sleep!

[Creepy-male]

I am not a beta but my guess would be, most people have certain ideals, dreams, aspirations, whatever you wish to call them, and after a certain point these aspirations become confused or lost... tangled up like an unorganized computer network.

Eventually this yeilds to the demands of their current reality or circumstances, they need to work a job, be connected to people, and so forth so eventually they find themselves putting energy into this instead of untangled the metaphorical cords in order to pursue their happiness.

This becomes like something they leave in their closet while they deal with the norms of life, going to work, interacting with people, etc.....

Eventually the mess grows and grows and gets more tangled, and people are left with a general feeling of confusion about their life and their sanity in life. They build resentment to the system, to authority, to whatever.... but in my honest opinion half the people are confused.... they just want to rebel, but they don't have a cause, a goal, an ideal for themselves..... it just gets bad for people and they are confused and feel like they have to rebel for sanities sake first.

I can easily see this mounting in politics, people no matter who the president is always criticize them, usually it has nothing to do with the president and so forth, but relates back to their feelings on their "place" in society. They look to the supreme leader of the nation, because of this archtypal human sociological understanding that the leader is responsible for ones "place" in society, and if people become upset about their "place" in society, it's the leader that is to blame. Many people have trouble logically connecting their issues on the real world experience directly to the presidents direct actions with a clear line chain of cause/effect. Of course part of peoples problems in doing this is that they move forward faster than back and don't trace their failures back the original mechanism of failure like a good investigator would do... this leads people to generally be confused about their issues/problems in life and resentful towards the system which is perceived as an opressing force. It's really hard to say if everybodies problems are their own fault or societies fault when you have this confusion.... people have a bad habit of putting their own problems on others... and some people have a bad habit of taking on too much of other peoples problems.... in a good society this equillibrium is equal, which if americans are unhappy... then this comes down to a bad sharing of interest between people and the establishment.... as to were the source of this problem lies, is a great question. I personally can trace my concerns down to their sources, so I feel very free from this confusion, I feel bad for people that can't, and I'm also afraid of them.... they are like a paranoid monster that can't be reasoned with.

[strrrng]

I am not a beta but my guess would be, most people have certain ideals, dreams, aspirations, whatever you wish to call them, and after a certain point these aspirations become confused or lost... tangled up like an unorganized computer network.

Eventually this yeilds to the demands of their current reality or circumstances, they need to work a job, be connected to people, and so forth so eventually they find themselves putting energy into this instead of untangled the metaphorical cords in order to pursue their happiness.

This becomes like something they leave in their closet while they deal with the norms of life, going to work, interacting with people, etc.....

Eventually the mess grows and grows and gets more tangled, and people are left with a general feeling of confusion about their life and their sanity in life. They build resentment to the system, to authority, to whatever.... but in my honest opinion half the people are confused.... they just want to rebel, but they don't have a cause, a goal, an ideal for themselves..... it just gets bad for people and they are confused and feel like they have to rebel for sanities sake first.

I can easily see this mounting in politics, people no matter who the president is always criticize them, usually it has nothing to do with the president and so forth, but relates back to their feelings on their "place" in society. They look to the supreme leader of the nation, because of this archtypal human sociological understanding that the leader is responsible for ones "place" in society, and if people become upset about their "place" in society, it's the leader that is to blame. Many people have trouble logically connecting their issues on the real world experience directly to the presidents direct actions with a clear line chain of cause/effect. Of course part of peoples problems in doing this is that they move forward faster than back and don't trace their failures back the original mechanism of failure like a good investigator would do... this leads people to generally be confused about their issues/problems in life and resentful towards the system which is perceived as an opressing force. It's really hard to say if everybodies problems are their own fault or societies fault when you have this confusion.... people have a bad habit of putting their own problems on others... and some people have a bad habit of taking on too much of other peoples problems.... in a good society this equillibrium is equal, which if americans are unhappy... then this comes down to a bad sharing of interest between people and the establishment.... as to were the source of this problem lies, is a great question. I personally can trace my concerns down to their sources, so I feel very free from this confusion, I feel bad for people that can't, and I'm also afraid of them.... they are like a paranoid monster that can't be reasoned with.

[Park]

I am not a beta but my guess would be, most people have certain ideals, dreams, aspirations, whatever you wish to call them, and after a certain point these aspirations become confused or lost... tangled up like an unorganized computer network.

Eventually this yeilds to the demands of their current reality or circumstances, they need to work a job, be connected to people, and so forth so eventually they find themselves putting energy into this instead of untangled the metaphorical cords in order to pursue their happiness.

This becomes like something they leave in their closet while they deal with the norms of life, going to work, interacting with people, etc.....

Eventually the mess grows and grows and gets more tangled, and people are left with a general feeling of confusion about their life and their sanity in life. They build resentment to the system, to authority, to whatever.... but in my honest opinion half the people are confused.... they just want to rebel, but they don't have a cause, a goal, an ideal for themselves..... it just gets bad for people and they are confused and feel like they have to rebel for sanities sake first.

Right on the money.

I haven't noticed most people seeming unhappy. If they are, it could be from a sense of powerlessness. They feel unable to enact change in their own lives or make anything better and that depresses them. They feel like they can't do anything, and nobody is listening, and nothing they do gets them anywhere. People in 3rd world countries get depressed for the same reason - they can't change anything, no matter how hard they work or how fast they run, they're still on the same treadmill.

The cure for that kind of unhappiness is to find something that you can change. Something that you can take in your hands and make better through your own effort. Getting that foothold, where they have control can lead to great confidence in themselves to make another and greater change.

Consider the kinds of risks people will take to have any small gain in independence and self-direction. It's human nature to want to run things. At least for yourself and your own life. Having that responsibility, and wanting it, and enjoying being responsible for your own life and decisions is the only way to be happy. Blaming other people, or the culture, the system, whatever your favorite object of blame is, takes away the very responsibility you need to climb out of whatever hole or trap you see yourself in.

I like this, too. And I relate to the powerlessness-stemming unhappiness.

[Park]

BTW, why is this question addressed only to Betas?

[sarinana]

BTW, why is this question addressed only to Betas?

Because discojoe is so beta that opinions from other quadras doesn't interest him.

[MatthewZ]

I think you've all too easily accepted the premise that Americans are "unhappy."

[Crispy]

I think you've all too easily accepted the premise that Americans are "unhappy."

Yeah last time I checked, America had food. That's more than a lot of you other countries can say. America is usually happy, but never satisfied.

[squark]

It doesn't have to be just Americans, but anyone living in an "America-esque" society, if that makes sense. You could possibly even include Japan, definitely the UK.

Anyway, it occurred to me that most people in America seem unhappy and slightly mad, like they're balanced precariously on the edge of sanity and are trying hard not to notice. It's sort of like a cartoon character that walks off a ledge but does not begin to fall until he notices his predicament.

Also, I'm looking for thoughtful answers, not clichéd anti-American platitudes from dunces in pretend Eastern European countries. I would also prefer somewhat artsy answers from Beta NFs such as strrrng, George, and silverchris.

Please give me your Nietzschean/Freudian insights.

I haven't noticed most people seeming unhappy. If they are, it could be from a sense of powerlessness. They feel unable to enact change in their own lives or make anything better and that depresses them. They feel like they can't do anything, and nobody is listening, and nothing they do gets them anywhere. People in 3rd world countries get depressed for the same reason - they can't change anything, no matter how hard they work or how fast they run, they're still on the same treadmill.

The cure for that kind of unhappiness is to find something that you can change. Something that you can take in your hands and make better through your own effort. Getting that foothold, where they have control can lead to great confidence in themselves to make another and greater change.

Consider the kinds of risks people will take to have any small gain in independence and self-direction. It's human nature to want to run things. At least for yourself and your own life. Having that responsibility, and wanting it, and enjoying being responsible for your own life and decisions is the only way to be happy. Blaming other people, or the culture, the system, whatever your favorite object of blame is, takes away the very responsibility you need to climb out of whatever hole or trap you see yourself in.

[sarinana]

I don't know about America, but in the UK people seemed happy. Minus their rants about emigrants moving from everywhere else.

And this could be adapted to any nation: greed is the major factor of unhappiness.

And by the way. addressing this thread to Betas and then kind of letting people know that you only want to hear opinions of people like George, thePirate or those who think the same as them is quite silly.

[Absurd]

Because they're poor and don't have any money.

[Linas]

It doesn't have to be just Americans, but anyone living in an "America-esque" society, if that makes sense. You could possibly even include Japan, definitely the UK.

Anyway, it occurred to me that most people in America seem unhappy and slightly mad, like they're balanced precariously on the edge of sanity and are trying hard not to notice. It's sort of like a cartoon character that walks off a ledge but does not begin to fall until he notices his predicament.

Also, I'm looking for thoughtful answers, not clichéd anti-American platitudes from dunces in pretend Eastern European countries. I would also prefer somewhat artsy answers from Beta NFs such as strrrng, George, and silverchris.

Please give me your Nietzschean/Freudian insights.

uhh, mister, I was gonna say "WOW!" until the anti-Easter European part, uhh, anyway... yea, I know that's a catch for sandra, but anyways... not nyce, aight!!

well, in short... it's the core thing for this kind of money makin' socioeconomic system. you gotta feel shitty to burst your itty and get up doin' it! you gotta want, to stay alive. sorta... "dirbk, pirk arba mirk" (work, buy or die)... the whole unhappyness thing is the main component of money oriented society system. you gotta live, to be livin'... and you gotta "want", to be alive. if you want something, you gotta achieve that. so you gotta get a job and make some fuckin' money, dawg! to get yourself somethin' shiny, something nice... you know... shiny Cadilac, or Bentley... your bored of your old yellow Hummer? oh, that's ok! factory has a red one! but it will cost another hell of boredom in office for next [one...five months/years/decades(lol)]... so yeah be it. do it! burst a move, get a job! you want it, don't you? funny thing is, as in religion, we don't really know the truth. we have "a want for better future", which is similar to that thing... that you don't see, don't know....


well whatever, gotta leave

[Gilly]

The real answer to this question, though, is that America is in a highly precarious situation: we're at war, our economy is shot, and a lot of us secretly wonder if we will be going to war with China some time in the next 20 years. This creates a ton of anxiety and doubt in people's minds, and they drone on in spite of it because they have to have hope.

In addition America is still as sexually repressed as ever, and our over-sex-focused pop culture is doing nothing but provide a cathectic outlet by stimulating us towards sexual thoughts and attitudes but convincing us all the more that they simply "have their proper place." Americans are over-worked and under-sexed, which is a recipe for stress and anxiety.

Also you are slightly projecting because you have anxiety.

[Gilly]

Personally I try not to worry about whether or not I am feeling good or happy; when I do that, I am automatically unhappy.

[Linas]

you have anxiety.

I do actually. (like everyone else in this culture apparently)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

You try to say words that 'hit' people, but in reality it comes across as airy, flowery, and ineffectual. Just a bunch of word salad, really- this was. You said nothing. It's amusing but that's all. I did this a little whlie ago just for fun, but I got bored of it.

I would be all 'rose petals die on my nose and walt whitman's assholes speak loudly on the bathtub in the moon.'

[strrrng]

I'm pretty sure you just have a lower level of verbal comprehension than most people here.

[Gilly]

lol

[discojoe]

You try to say words that 'hit' people, but in reality it comes across as airy, flowery, and ineffectual. Just a bunch of word salad, really- this was. You said nothing. It's amusing but that's all. I did this a little whlie ago just for fun, but I got bored of it.

I would be all 'rose petals die on my nose and walt whitman's assholes speak loudly on the bathtub in the moon.'

When I was little I farted a cloud.

[strrrng]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

[Creepy-male]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

insightful but a bit depressing

[Khamelion]

the apparent unhappiness combined with the lack of awareness, is your answer. simply put: they know not what they do. but this isn't just because lazy consumers happen to overpopulate rapidly developing cities. it has to do with... the collective unconscious. unfortunately, a full description of this would require too much history for this thread, but there is a gist of it. you have a country founded on libertarian capitalism. this is man realizing that shackles need to be taken off, after excessive conflict -- that he has a will and can use it without the guide of a tablet; the mind is in a state to recreate the expression of archetypes. thus, people are always averse to imposing limiting structures when it comes to 'fresh pastures' ("the baby is precious"). this is because the archetypes become projected in the most simplistic form, starting with that of the mother, and its relationship to the child ('look what she has given us, and what we can produce' -- all human struggle is momentarily eclipsed under the beam of this horizon). the collective psyche believes that man has been excised, and his face turns with grim optimism toward the horizon ahead, ready to make this the most prolific (re)birth. the image of the founding fathers toiling in candlelit isolation symbolizes this perfectly (the period between inception and actual birth, within the womb). the problem arises from the very carefulness with which the 'rules' for such a society are created, because you have to maintain core boundaries without limiting people (the animus (male) archetype is that of giving order -- seemingly demanding, but only firm to strengthen and push forward, not control -- so that people can evolve naturally; this is in stark contrast to the stereotype of a father as being some embodiment of masculine prowess whose authority is unquestionable). those without a true appreciation for the principles behind such a doctrine, always bend the context of the words, or conversely, keep them too literal. these approaches are a devolved left and right, respectively, unconsciously believing that mother nature gave carte blanche based on the memory of the horizon, or that the father/animus's domain will not be undermined (so you have this degenerate condition called: homosexuality, in the first case, and lesbianism in the second). the next problem is resource surplus. a large amount of post-industrial revolution americans are not born into an environment that teaches the essential value of resources. they are actually objectified. this gradually leads to one's perception of tangible life as a holograph, and the evolution of the internet embodies this (now, the pasture is taken for granted with a sterile insolence, because it cannot be felt; a virus is incepted here). the bourgeois state of life is one of blase resignation: 'we know where we've come from, now let us rest' (as if the arduous summer's droplets of sweat were hydration to carry these larvae into the fall; a contradictory attitude of resource stabilization and indulgence comes about, as predicted with blind animals anticipating hibernation season). the only glimmer of humanity left in such a morass, is a kind of liberal innovation, which can sometimes result in ingenious market strategies that make the society's operation much less stressful... at the same time, this goes hand in hand with excessive boredom and indifference (the child archetype's natural growth is being stifled; he is implicitly shuffled into the holograph, and thus at best, can only clarify its lens somewhat, not remove or destroy it; the creators of facebook embody this). the relationship to the mother is no longer one of innocent gratitude, because she has been clouded and ignored (the child is now saying: I know what you gave me, and don't care anymore, because look where I am – it seemingly gives up on what it needs the most); the father is casually scoffed at, because a herd is playing god between fingertips (the most common emotion concerning america's struggle and creation, as embodied in the founding fathers, is one of solemn reverence – as at a funeral; this breeds guilt and childish power games). with the rise of motley consumerism comes a decay of cultural archetypes, because the attitude is: diversity is better (losing touch of the archetypes results in cursory, scattered attempts to retrieve them – and enough pebbles tossed into a pond will cause a greate ruckus on the surface!). this is horribly flawed. art is where the archetypes have to come through in the most distilled form. also, the idea of: free speech, becomes tainted with weasel-shitting degenerates who take it literally (one does not understand that archetypes speak through them, thus assumes complete domain over 'personal expression'), which only amplifies the problem with art, hence how a picture of a fucking soda can (or something trivial like that) made it into an art museum some years back. post-modernism is the youthful embodiment of this resignation; it represents the disconnect from the essential roots, hence positing that everything is a relative effect of an amorphous environment with no meaning. the youth is looking for a guiding force (child archetype mocking its roots, leading to a megalomaniacal state of existence; kids who shoot up schools illustrate this). consumerism breeds liberalism which breeds government leech-feeding (kids: "daddy, give me this!" -- dad: "watch your mouth, just maybe I'll give you a prize" -- kids: "thank you, now I want more." -- dad (frustrated): "ok, here" -- the former becomes a spoiled juvenile, the latter a sado-masochistic despot) which breeds a complete deflation of art that becomes nothing more than a reflection of a reflection -- the latter being humanity's lens after the disconnect, the former being the lens used to 'refine' it. the result of this, is a morass of corporate whores, useless bums, spoiled brats with too much education and too little spine, blights of poverty -- most of which are derived from slaves, and maintain the same puerile defiance -- and select pockets of power (the devolved right trying to maintain some semblance of fundamentals/stability). the archetypes are puddles on a street, and people are spitting into them at every chance they get, hoping it will vaporize and traverse to a plateau where greater forces can turn it into something powerful; and this only perpetuates the cycle.

holy wall of text batman

[Ave]

holy wall of text batman

You read it?

[Gilly]

It's probably the best wall of text that this forum has ever played gracious host to. Talk about giving birth.