‘If You’re going to be in a Disaster, the Best Place to be is in a High-Trust Society.’
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.
“… 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.”
Yes it is exactly that but there seems to be, in a non-national-disaster state of the present, in the slow decline of now, to be no stopping it. It will take a truly existential and sustained crisis to reverse this and, in the process, many who are now happy to help in the current suicide will, as a matter of course, have to be purged. But when you get to a place where mass purges are underway that’s not the place you need to be either.
There is one place where a mass purge would be acceptable: Seccession/Seperation. There it would not be a purge in the classic sense of mass terminations, but a purge of differing viewpoints that are no longer compatable. (please note the prior 3 words are critical).
IMO we are nearing the point where that will become a reality. It’s been stated that the next presidential election is a referendum of the nations future (dependence vs self determination). There are enough gathering on either side to generate a critical mass for rejection of the others. The dependants are a high proportion of one side (Their neo-feudal rulers a true 1%) and the entrepeneurs/independant minded are a high proportion of the other side.
They are mutually anathema to each other. They cannot understand each others point of view. Not will not. CAN NOT. That is a rip in the social fabric that cannot be mended.
Were there to be an existential and sustained crisis…life would be interesting. Chinese version.
We are in a civil war. Fortunately we are still fighting with words and ballets. If we don’t figure out how to reform our government and get it out of the income redistribution game, at some point it will devolve into a war of bullets. I dread it, though it might be the only way to restore liberty. Liberals have the advantage in a war of words. Conservatives have the advantage in a war of bullets (probably why libs work so hard to ban guns).
On the bright side, if it ever becomes a bullet war, it won’t be called Civil War II. It will be called the great liberal turkey shoot.
My buddy was telling me that the woman at a fast food restaurant got the woman behind him in line her food before his,even though,he had ordered first. When the female customer asked why, the other woman said ” we women have to stick together.”
If (when) we have a disaster all of these slights and injustices are going to dampen the motivation for men to help women.
The 70′s slogan was “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” This mentality has permeated our culture.
The breakdown of trust and the “we don’t need you” mentality will certainly make things messy when disaster hits.
This is why so many men wanted to issue “This is what a feminist looks like.” tee shirts to all the men on the Costa Concordia.
So a lady got her french fries first. And another guy doesn’t think women and children should be first in a shipwreck.
I enjoy this blog, but the men v. women/boys v. girls stuff is kinda one-note.
Maybe the blog should be called “Dr. Helen & The Lost Boys.”
Getting your french fries first or second isn’t a big deal,but this men vs. women thing is bad for society and families within it. Feminism and white knight male politicians feed on it to the detriment of society.
Dr. Helen and the Lost Boys –that was the name of my punk band in college. How did you know?
“Boys”
How very predictable. It’s working less and less and less though. You are
going to have to come up with some more effective manipulative tactic in the future.
And your screen name is another not very clever piece of shaming. Men who don’t roll over and serve women are not real men in your book. Got it. It’s called objectification.
As your men go, so goes your society. When women go bad, they kill their husband or children. When men go bad, they set out to conquer the world.
I have also seen references to several studies which claim that trust in a social group is inversely proportional to diversity. The more ethnically diverse a neighborhood is the less trusting of each other are the inhabitants of that neighborhood (sorry, don’t have the references at hand).
Robert Putnam, a social scientist, did those studies. You can read more about them here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
You make a very valid point about decaying trust. Years ago (Christmas, a year or two post-Katrina) I was at a party at my brother’s house. His wife leans a bit left, and has a lot of lefty friends. One of them, from previous encounters, I knew to be a serious lefty, who had a $90k/yr make-work do-nothing, schmooze for a living position with MoveOn.org courting donors. I was in a small group discussing various thoughts on what would happen if DC were ever to be hit with a Katrina style disaster. The basic discussion was whether DC would devolve into a maelstrom of chaos exactly as you would expect for a city full of essentially useless people, or if being the seat of government would mean an all-out National Guard or even Regular Army occupation to keep order – we were undecided. I had just finished making the point that while I’m far from being a ‘prepper’ (we still called them ‘survivalists’ back then), I kept several weeks worth of food and bottled drinking water in the basement and had enough guns and ammo on hand to (with a neighbor or two) protect myself and my property from anything short of a ‘Chicago fire.’ At this point, little Miss MoveOn interjected “If anything like that happens, I’m coming to your house!”. I replied, “Why’s that?”. She said “I’d be safe!”. Me: “What makes you think you’d be safe at my house?”. Her: “You have guns.” She took it for granted that I’d protect her. We weren’t even friends. Just acquaintances because she was a long-time friend of my sister-in-law. So I repeated with emphasis: “No… honey… what makes YOU think YOU would be safer at MY house.” Now, she’s a progressive, so I suppose we can forgive her for being a bit slow, but she said again: “You have guns. You could protect me.” At that point I lost patience and just laid it out bare: “You work for MoveOn. You work every day with the people who’d happily take away every gun I have. You work every day to go easy on criminals, and give voting rights to thugs that should by all accounts, still be locked up. I wouldn’t help you. You’re part of the reason there’d even BE a problem. You’re the enemy of everything I believe. I wouldn’t help you. I’d happily throw you to the wolves.” I thought she was going to cry.
Getting mugged by reality in spades. A great story that neds to be oft repeated int he presence of the uber-left.
Read a similar story a few years back: another woman/women who expected that they could just show up to be taken care of; no preparations on their part, no supplies to contribute, just “I’ll bring my family and you’ll feed and protect us.” When informed that, unless she brought stuff to contribute, the door was closed, she and some of the other women didn’t nearly cry, they called him every name they could think of. In their minds somebody else was responsible for taking care of them, and if the selected man wouldn’t, why, that BASTARD!!!
Frankly, that sounds a lot more like how American women would really behave than the first story.
On top of it, though, she would manipulate other men to try to force their way in for her (and beat up the “host”). The host better be nice to her because she may have HIM kicked out of his own shelter.
There have always been, and there will always be, White Knights to do the bidding of spoiled women. And the women fully know it.
I had a similar conversation with a woman who worked for the Social Security administration about 20 years go. She took exception to my criticism of people who work for the government as being coercive thugs. She said “I don’t coerce anyone!” and I said “Right. So tell me what happens if I decide I’d rather not pay my Social Security taxes, and arranged with my employer to have their contribution paid into a private retirement account instead.” Her answer of course, was “That would be illegal.” To which I replied, “Right. So if I don’t do what your agency wants me to do with money that I earn, you’ll dispatch men with guns to put me and my employer into a steel cage. But that’s not coercion, right?” The best way to annoy a government worker is to ask “Would your job exist if you couldn’t send men with guns to make people do what you want them to do?”
Awesome. I’d buy you a beer if I could.
Comment Of The Week.
Anon that was awesome. Good for you…
Come to think of it, that might explain why people can band together more effectively in a catastrophe. The external situation erases the differences which otherwise serve as barriers and groups bond as new (and diverse) groups based upon the necessary need for survival not on less important ethnic or social similarities. Think of Jeff Bridges line as the alien in Starman (I paraphrase): You are an amazing species. You are at your best when things are at their worst.
Apologies for my armchair psychology.
Dr. Helen, be fore-warned; if i see you walking toward me on the street one day, I might just take you by the shoulders and kiss you on the lips. Thank you.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time….seriously, I have had men come up and thank me for my work which is both rewarding and troubling. Troubling because men’s rights should be a common issue in our society, not one so unusual that it warrants such a response.
Hey, Chris P.!
Take a number, bud. There’s lots of us ahead of you in line.
Is this the Internet equivalent of yelling “Woo-Woo” at girls from your car as you go by? You get lots of chicks that way?
There’s a considerable body of literature demonstrating that diversity lowers social trust and cohesion. The more diverse and multi-cultural we become, the less resilient our society will be, and the less functional its institutions will become. Check out the work of Robert Putnam on diversity and social trust. Here’s an article on the subject from all the way back in 2007: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/diversityandtrust/
The first things that would disappear in such a future would be:
gay marriage
PETA
vegans
vegetarians
gay marriage
welfare
questions of diversity
etc.
In short, the world of failure and unreality liberals swim in.
The first things to reemerge:
Men.
Why would gay marriage disappear? When everyone’s struggling to survive for themselves, why would anybody care about who other people marry? As for the vegans, PETA types, and other “won’t somebody think of the X” types, they’ll be first to go, and good riddance to them.
A few weeks ago I had the experience of being present at a scene where an emergency (fortunately minor) occurred. My wife and I were attending a function at a semi-private venue when a corroded water line burst in the women’s room. Several of the women started out to mop it up at first, but the volume of water was very high (the building has high water pressure) and it quickly started to flood the building. At this point, several of the men, including myself, noticed what was going on and we jumped in.
There was a shutoff valve in the ladies’ room, but it didn’t work. So we had to find the main shutoff for the building. It turned out not to be where the building proprietor thought it was — there was a valve there, but it didn’t do anything. So we split into two groups. One group worked on trying to dam the water with whatever was handy — mops, towels, tablecloths, etc. The other group, including me, went in search of the building’s water meter. It turned out to be in an odd place (in this part of the country water meters are outside the premises, in a small underground enclosure). We dug with our hands and found the city shutoff valve there, but we didn’t have a meter key. So we had to find a pair of offset pliers to be able to reach down into the hole and turn the valve. One of the guys had a pair in his car. Two of us applied force to it and we got it turned off. Next we solicited for someone who had a shop-vac; I had one but I live too far away. Two guys who lived nearby had one, so they went to go get them. Meanwhile, a couple of other men and several women got busy sweeping water out the door and drying what they could with fans that were in the building. When the shop-vacs showed, two teams formed with one person handling the hose and another applying pressure to the attachment so it would suck all of the water out of the carpet.
The point is: it all came together because the men present stepped in, determined what needed to be done, organized it and got it done. It’s not that the women weren’t making an effort, but when the water got out of control several of them got panicky and didn’t know what to do. Plus, I doubt that any of the women present would have had the necessary muscle to turn the meter valve off — it was really stuck, and the hand-arm position was very awkward because of having to reach down into a hole to get to it. They had called a plumber, but this was on a Saturday night and by the time a plumber got there, the building would have been completely flooded. The owners of the venue don’t have a lot of money and a major flood repair bill might have put them out of business.
Yes, it’s an over-generalization, and some women will be offended by what I’m about to say. (And I’ll temper it further by saying that at least two of the women present were every bit as decisive and level-headed as the men were, and at least one of the men present turned out to be a pathetic little wimp who ran and hid while all of the above events were taking place.) But when there’s an emergency and quick, decisive action (and muscle!) is needed, you usually need some good men around.
If you want to read a great science fiction short story, Dr. Helen, read “A Boy and His Dog” by Harlan Ellison. I believe it’s in the book Ellison Wonderland. There’s also a movie starring Jan Michael Vincent.
It’s a story about post-apocalyptic Earth with two surviving populations, the above ground dwellers and the under ground dwellers. Above ground, the young men have developed a telepathic link with their dogs, so that they can communicate mentally. The men find food for their dogs, and the dogs find women for their men.
Under ground though the men have all become sterile. So what they do is send their women to the surface to lure fertile men below ground to harvest their sperm. As the story progresses, a young man is lured under ground by a young woman. But once he figures out what they have planned for him–they intend to strap him down and drain his testicles–he revolts, fights back and escapes. The young woman follows him to the surface.
There at the entrance is his faithful dog, who’s been waiting patiently, near death, on the verge of starvation. So he kills the woman and feeds her to his dog.
It’s a great story and a good movie. And the point is salient. In a post-apocaplytic world, who would you choose, a woman who seduced and betrayed you or a loyal companion?
That’s a pretty easy choice to make. I’d choose the dog over the woman in a heartbeat, as would most men. When it’s a matter of survival, you go with who you trust.
Women may not like that, but it is reality. If she wanted to be more valuable than a dog, she would be loyal and trustworthy. To the extent she is not is the extent to which she is dog food.
“Well, I’d say she certainly had marvelous judgment, Albert, if not particularly good taste”
It wasn’t Jan Michael Vincent. It was Don Johnson! lol But, yeah, great movie. Hilarious ending.
Actually, it was Don Johnson not Jan Michael Vincent in the movie
I stand corrected. It was Don Johnson.
Misandry is alive and well in our culture. The recent inclusion of women at Augusta Nationals is a classic example, and female pundits around the country are applauding it as one more “gender barrier” broken. But no men are allowed to join Curves gym because it’s a female-only establishment. Furthermore, they will quickly tell you that no men are allowed because women feel uncomfortable with all the leering. Automatic assumption that men are perverts and that the women are worthy of leering.
We will not see the end of this until there is another war in the US and men are needed. Or, when men “go Galt” and simply refuse to support women.
“So he kills the woman and feeds her to his dog.”
Wow!
I didn’t see that coming.
Speaking of men as predators, anyone else following the Todd Hoffner case?
He’s the football coach at Mankato State University. Yesterday he was accused of possessing child pornography. I had a visceral reaction. I imagined hard-drives filled with thousands of images of kids being manipulated and or/tortured. I was disgusted & wanted vengeance.
Today we’re actually getting some facts. And boy, has my perspective changed. Details here:
http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x257412394/Update-MSU-football-coach-Todd-Hoffner-arrested
This doesn’t sound pornographic. I may be wrong. Maybe the context somehow changes things. I have no inside information. I’m in no way connected to anyone involved. I just saw the story in the local news.
But this now sounds like videos they planned showing to their kid’s future prom dates.
BTW, just wanted to be crystal clear about MY intent. My point ties into the OP. This is one of those gray areas that badly erodes trust. I wish there was a more effective way to address such situations. I am not justifying the coach or condemning his accusers. It’s poor form to speculate so early.
Takeaway for me: never photograph kids in the bathtub. The lighthearted gag is not worth it. Fortunately it never even occurred to me to do so in the past. I hate having my picture taken & therefore avoid photographing other people.
““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.”
I think he may overestimate the character of Americans. If the disaster is relatively short, with government assistance assured, yes. If it lasts for some time or borders on near-collapse, I think the result would be quite different.
Why?
For most of its history, Americans lived in conditions that would be considered a long-term disaster today. Yet de Tocqueville noticed the same behavior.
Most of us do not have family/clan/tribe members nearby, so we form voluntary associations with those who seem likely to not be parasites.
Of course, there are those who simply do not understand this. You may well be one, but you will not know for sure until the stinky stuff hits the impeller.
Yes, the eventual presence of authority on the scene is presumed, here in the US. I have witnessed and participated in several voluntary associations that formed spontaneously to sort out some unexpected problem, everything from finding a fuse box to helping at a traffic accident. I have also been in close association with foreign nationals, mostly Chinese, granted, whose first impulse is “don’t get involved.” I know because that is what they said to me. One of the things you frequently hear (or read) about in Chinese news stories is how some person was rescued by the American passing by while scores of native Chinese just stood around and watched the situation unfold. It is very unusual for a Chinese in China to step into a situation to set it to rights, even the authorities are slow to do so.
Or, there can be no true trust without familiarity and demonstration of character, and Americans in heavily populated areas just lack this sort of familiarity with most people around them. What they do have is the stupid sentimentality of sheeple.
Ah. I see.
For what it’s worth (nothing, really), I consider use of the word “sheeple” to be as nasty behavior as anything that might warrant the application of the term.
Who’s attributing nasty behavior to the vast majority of people living in major population centers? It’s a useful pejorative that gets at their dependence upon the government, as well as their willingness to suppress the legitimate rights of others for the sake of “security.”
I live alone. Do not have a woman in the house, nor would I want one. Once bit twice shy.
Down the street from me is a lady I talk with. Enjoy her company.
She lives alone. Does not have a man in her house nor, so she says, would want one. Once bit, twice shy.
Funny thing, that. She feels about men what I feel about women. Seems odd somehow.
But if a disaster strikes I have no doubt that we would do our best to help each other.
The thoughts on diversity and social cohesiveness are interesting to me. I have been speaking with a relative who was once a racist, he voted for David Duke for goodness sake. He is no longer a racist as he feels an allegience with working people. If you work for a living, he is your guy! Moochers need not apply though.
I can relate to that and think the more salient divide in America is between those who pedal and those who coast. I think those of us who pedal recognize and accept each other readily, no matter what the demographic “divisions” between us.
Trey
Well, now we just have to figure out who the pedalers are and who the coasters are.
Lots of men will tell you that sit-at-home housewives without children have “the hardest job in the world”. Bernie Madoff was a high earner for decades – is he a pedaler? I don’t know. Was the Buddha a coaster because he gave up the job-free life of a prince and went around in rags and begged? Dunno.
Was Ivanna Trump a pedaler when she had the formal job in the 1980s of being in charge of all of Donald’s hotels? But she basically just clicked through the lobbies in high heels and bullied the workers, without doing anything at all for the hotels. Dunno.
The conflict in America today is indeed between the productive classes and the entitlement classes, and as WTF points out, these don’t necessarily break down according to traditional economic classes. Welfare queens are coasters, but Tim Geithner and Elizabeth Warren (and a whole lot of other people in Washington) are also coasters. Pretty much any executive associated with Goldman Sachs or GM at this point is a coaster. Joe the Plumber is a pedaler. Lots of first-generation immigrants are pedalers.
Well said Dave! This is not about class, it is about whether or not you contribute. And the examples given by WTF were well off people who did not contribute. So they are moochers.
Trey
You know what else is moving us in the direction of a low-trust society? Our legalism and lawsuit-happy culture. If you help out someone informally, you might be breaking a law. Even if you’re not breaking a law, you might end up getting sued over it. That affects trust.
Indeed, this is already happening in a lot of emergencies involving children. Most men and a fair number of women won’t get involved in any emergency involving a child that they aren’t closely related to, for fear that they will wind up getting arrested or sued for their actions.
Finally men are standing up to the bullshit culture of feminism that is emasculating them:
The Problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zSRkBMPng
The Solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzkbzd0YqJI
The Application: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJETp0hcUE
See Huricane Katrina!
This is the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
You, Dr H, sooooooooo have your work cut out for you.