Topic: At a Time of Disaster, the Best Place to be is in a High-Trust Society

[Pandora]

At the suggestion of science fiction author John Ringo, I am reading his book The Last Centurion.

I am not a big fiction reader so this book was a good start for me as I like the “bloggy” first person style that it is written in. The book is set in the second decade of the 21st century in which the world is struck by two catastrophes: a mini-ice age and a plague. The book describes a possible future and all the political and military problems and limitations that exist during a catastrophe. As a psychologist, however, I was struck by how people and society behaved during these crises.

The main character, an American army officer, gives his observations about how important trust is in a society when there is a disaster. “Americans form voluntary random social alliances. Other societies do not. Low trust societies in the U.S. do not.” In other words, in America, groups of random strangers will get together to aid other people for no direct benefit to themselves. In a disaster, it is imperitive for people to help each other to get through it and save the greatest amount of people.

Okay, this is a work of fiction but extrapolate the concept of trust to the real world and it plays out the same. Americans are often generous and go out of their way to help others because we have a bond of trust here, even between strangers. However, that trust is eroding with much of the propaganda and agitation by politicians and their minions who want to punish certain groups such as men, while rewarding others.

If we keep bashing men and ostricizing them,  nothing good will happen.   Every time we take away due process from men, throw them in jail for debts to women and children (child support), portray them as perverts and rapists in the media, and treat them as expendable, we break the bonds of trust and threaten our own survival and that of others at the same time. It is societal suicide.

Dr. Helen (Mrs. Instapundit) writes frequently on the raw deal men get in America today, and she views it as a societal detriment.

What she omitted from her piece is that high trust societies are also weakened by "cultural diversity".

Discuss.

[EW1(SG)]

What's to discuss?  Americans are the most generous people on Earth.

People what has to forcibly take ain't truly American.

[Weisshaupt]

Obama and his forced "unification" have resulted in the break down of any such trust ( entirely according to plan I am certain)
I will not be helping my Father, Mother or Sister, or  Liberal Neighbors. The only "random"connections I will make will be in my predominantly conservative mountain community, and even then only with folks who others I know will vouch for.

Men as a group are resilient  - and in the natural, biological order of things we are expendable. One man can impregnate countless women. If you have countless men, and one woman, you end up with a lot of those men dying and one baby every 9 months. .  . Men  take on the more unpleasant tasks, including war, for this reason.  While the war on Men obviously reduces the number of marriages formed and maintained,  I am not sure it erodes the "trust" factor above. As I man I know I might get screwed going into a marriage - so it isn't a surprise if it happens.  I have a buddy who lost two fortunes in two divorces (the women cheated on him)  and even had to take out a loan to pay $70K in back taxes because he was still married to her one month of that tax  year and he had "the ability to pay." He doesn't date and doesn't have a high opinion of women, but he is active in his church and as generous a guy as you could hope to meet ( You need your barn painted? Here, let me drive 4+ hours to  your house with my professional paint sprayer and paint it for you.  Seriously. )

What erodes "trust" isn't bullying. Its the deaf ear.  When you tell people that they are bullying you; that they don't have the right to do what they are doing, and their only response is "Tough  Titty, I don't see it that way" - that is what erodes trust. They are demonstrating they they don't give a rip about you, your rights, or your life if it interferes with what they want or think they deserve. Pelosi and her little Gavel Walk through the Tea Party Crowd said nothing other than that- that she has no concenr for "bitter clingers".  Roberts re-writing the ASA  shows nothing but contempt for the separation of powers. Obama refusing to enforce duly passed laws say he has no respect for the Rule of Law. And if you are a Democrat and voted for these people, and still support them, you are just the kid that hangs around with the bully as backup. How can you "trust" someone like that? I sincerely hope all of the Christians kin this nation realize that helping people such as this is not Christian.  You might as well invite Satan into your home and fix him your best food in hopes of winning his gratitude.  Trust is based on the expectation that your kind behavior will be reciprocated. Liberals are selfish, self-centered malignant narcissists to the man. They see you as a fool for being such a sucker and not cheating like they do.   

Wrongs happen in this world, but liberals see that as a bonus, and work as hard as they can to be on the up side of those occurrences. They only complain when they get the downside,  and then claim that they must commit another wrong to right their situation. They are evil. They are evil because they see evil and feel no need to fight it. They are evil because they do evil and see no reason to repent or change when confronted with what they have done. Their understanding of "Right and Wrong" is based on what you can get away with - that is why "judicial Activism" to them is just getting a decision you disagree with. The idea that  there are rules and procedures that should be followed ( Blackstone)  when interpreting law is preposterous to them. ("What- you have a supreme court position and you will limit your power with rules? Are you insane? - and they are right- its is those rules which form the basis of the ratchet effect.  We refuse to break them when we win, but the Liberals never hold themselves bound - so we progress ever leftward.

Such people will steal your food and kill you  if they find it to their advantage.  Need proof look at 1:42 in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91RNXkwTQco&feature=player_detailpage#t=102s

In the coming event, the rules cannot be obeyed as they have been. If they are, all will be lost.

    

[Pandora]

The woman obviously knows no history.  What does she imagine her "community" will "get each others' backs" with, apple cider?  The bearded man believes in his ability to charm strangers into a false sense of security, leaving themselves vulnerable to having their throats slit, evidently without considering said strangers might prefer to shoot first and feast over his dead body.

These people are scary.

[charlesoakwood]

I'll take the one in the hip huggers, you shoot the beard,
we'll split the food and you can have the rest. OK?

[Pandora]

I'll take the one in the hip huggers, you shoot the beard,
we'll split the food and you can have the rest. OK?

Hip huggers?  I obviously missed something.....

[charlesoakwood]

Tactically of little importance.

[Alphabet Soup]

(3rd attempt without resorting to TMI)

I was blessed with female offspring. As such I never had the chance to experience raising boys. I did have one short episode - I had a girlfriend who had a boy. We had several collisions regarding the boy because she insisted on raising him to be some sort of emasculated metro-sexual and I wanted him to assert himself. Every time I hear of one of those mass shootings I wonder if it was Eric.

The take-away from that interlude was that 1. I was foolish to have a liberal girlfriend and 2. raising boys to be men is a daunting task, even if you're not working at cross purposes.

When Random was in school I saw that so many of the little boys in her classes were being programmed in similar ways - not to assert themselves, not to be boisterous, not to be boys. I often wondered where our next generation of leaders were ro come from with such a limp-dicked bunch of losers. The answer was that the next leaders would likely be sociopaths. Sociopaths aren't created as much as they are hatched that way. No leftist on earth can prevent the blossom of a sociopath. So if you eliminate natural leaders all that leaves are bullies.

Same with sadism (to an extent). I have no idea how folks become sadists but they are ever-present in our midst. You get a sociopath like Øbozo orchestrating a platoon of sadists and turn them loose on a post-apocalyptic commune like that pictured in the Donna Reed of Doom vid and they won't last the night. Sure, it isn't hard for people to band together and work toward common goals - even without clear and defined leadership - but those loose coalitions seldom last long or survive calamity.

[charlesoakwood]

Especially without a cogent physical defense plan.
Poisoning them after they have raped and pillaged
your village isn't a well made plan for a sustainable
habitat.

[Libertas]

Hilarious, these people just admitted to everyone they are willfully naive and are ripe for slaughtering.  Marauders will be getting hammered on their hard cider while their heads are displayed on pikes and their women are being raped and butchered.

Can't say I give a damn about 'em either.  Enjoy your libiot community, it won't last long.

[AlanS]

These people are scary.

I beg to differ. I find them hilarious! They don't have the ability to scare anyone. They should be petrified of real life, though.

[John Florida]

The woman obviously knows no history.  What does she imagine her "community" will "get each others' backs" with, apple cider?  The bearded man believes in his ability to charm strangers into a false sense of security, leaving themselves vulnerable to having their throats slit, evidently without considering said strangers might prefer to shoot first and feast over his dead body.

These people are scary.

 I kind of would like to know where they are in case I need something.