Conformity and Manipulation: The American Virtues

Conformity and Manipulation: The American Virtues, by Christopher DeGroot.

“My biggest flaw and strength,” says James Damore, “may be that I see things very differently than normal.” This simple sentence reveals the essence of our fraying social fabric. For Damore’s “strength” — his rare ability to think for himself and exercise independent judgment—naturally leads to conflict with the majority, who, in their stupidity and weakness, must deem his virtue a “flaw,” a sign that he is not “normal.”

For most people — those bundles of herd affect — “truth,” as they can understand it, is nothing but a means for their personal interests, which are mostly material and, beyond that, trivial. Hence their utter inability to understand a man like James Damore and their natural disdain for any principled truth-teller.

The former chess prodigy is now blacklisted from the big tech companies, despite having, in the language of the corporate rabble, a proven track record of success as a software engineer. …

It is now very difficult for people to understand the conformity and manipulation that lie behind America’s constant pseudo-moral show. And it is especially challenging for men. From childhood on, the American male is made to become a docile and compliant worker bee — that is his “normal.” The yuppifed and feminized culture’s attitude toward masculinity shows itself in the forms of attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and psychiatry’s other sham metaphors that function to make one an obsequious slave to greedy liars and sanctimonious prigs. It is their pretend values that matter. To be a “good person” in 21st-century America, you must be a base dissembler, very eager and happy to carry out all sorts of meaningless and degrading tasks. The person who finds this dreadful may pass from Ritalin in youth to Prozac in adulthood. To be honest and principled, he learns, is professional suicide. …

The deceitful games of the success crowd are nothing but a reflection of what man himself is, on average. Hannah Arendt, in her work on the Holocaust, upset many people because, for her, the phenomenon could not be explained by just arguing, what most people wanted to hear, that the Nazis were evil. For her, as for virtually all of the great philosophers from Plato on, it was evident that the ordinary person is an unthinking and unprincipled conformist. He knows nothing, and can know nothing, but superficial monkeylike following and spineless obedience. … In fact, he requires submission to the day’s shallow whims, and positively detests anyone who would urge him to live a better sort of life. To anyone who disagrees, I can only say: Observe people more closely, and have the strength of character to accept the truth of your perceptions, however painful.