Cling

Our political system polarizes us. Like many of our most important decisions, it causes us to drift toward extremes so our position is clear to everyone in the room.

We tend to analyze these positions as logical responses, but we miss out on what they could be: adaptive justifications. In other words, these attitudes are ways that we justify our continued participation in the system, which requires we believe it has a future.

There are two important vectors for the average citizen. First, they must believe in their own efficacy; second, in the efficacy of “the system” which is the combined effort of government, economy and culture around them. If the system is not effective, it cannot help them — or hurt them for disobeying.

Our modern systems are like the drunken, diseased and senile tyrant of fairy tales. Tyrants are not just authoritarians; they are authoritarians without any direction but maintenance of their own power. They aren’t just bad leaders, they are the anti-leader.

We know that the tyrant is pointless and will say and do anything to maintain his reign. Like most rich and bitter men facing death, he wants to take us all out when he goes. But we’re not yet to the point of saying the tyrant has lost his power, and enough of us rising up at once to oppose him.

In the case of modern society, the tyrant is all of us — it’s shared social attitudes and viewpoints that cause us to believe in certain religious icons like democracy, equality, economy, freedom, etc. These definitions are the tyrant’s power.

We don’t have a single leader to blame because as a mass we are the leader. When we swarm on a product, it makes billionaires. When we hover around a political idea, it makes world leaders. We are inward-looking, trying to figure out what the crowd wants so it will reward us.

This tyrant is harder than most to dislodge. Killing a king, or overthrowing a government, is easy by comparison. Even genocide is tame and easy. But when people stop believing the tyrant can reward them or hurt them, the tyrant will begin to fall.

Realizing the incompetence of modern society is essential to its downfall. Our governments cannot buy a hammer for under $20,000; our social crazes never find answers. And now that this has gone on for two centuries, we’re tired of the constant class warfare and internal division.

At that point, the adaptive justification shifts. We can no longer take either extreme because it’s a comforting illusion that helps us make it through the night. We see both extremes as illusions, and turn to the ideas that came before the great divide into these two illusions in 1789.

The opposition is strong however. They cling to the idea that a solution can be found in the options on their screen, both of which are mostly liberal. Whichever side they pick, they are reinforcing the power of the tyrant by affirming his legitimacy.

The young especially cling to their hollow rebellion, shaped from products bought from large corporations and entertainment activities, because it allows them to believe they have a future. Their ideal is that they can rage about a little bit, get some new civil rights laws passed, and then everything will be perfect.

It is saddest to see the young doing this, because they have the farthest to fall. Where they could demand actual change, they are too ignorant and scared, and so they adopt what “everyone else is doing,” which is rebellious but like all rebellions strengthens the idea of what it rebels against.

When you rebel, after all, you don’t replace that which is there; you replace the people who occupy the positions created by that power structure. You become another one of the options on the screen, inevitably swallowed up by whichever of the two is closest to your ideal.

The clinginess is growing in intensity as the tyrant accidentally displays more weakness in public. First his economy burped, then his military vomited, and finally his vision of peace and happiness keeps erupting in boils and class warfare.

Cling behavior of this type of ardent desperation can only mean that those who read this post are not the only ones to notice the imminent death of the tyrant. The next step is for people to accept this death, and then slowly realize that it opens up fields of new possibility for a better life.

20 Comments

  1. A. Realist says:

    Liberalism is a form of terrorism that keeps us all in suspended development through the threat of class warfare and with it, moral judgment of us as “bad” by the herd.

    Instead of fighting it most people choose to embrace it because they fear every other alternative, however, they’ve forgotten critical thinking and so they do not know how to analyze other options. This leaves them in a dead-end circle, hating what they have but afraid of anything else.

    This is why the West is self-hating and consuming itself.

    1. Ryan says:

      excellent point! the crowd moves in circles, around and around like moths to a lamp. we all are sucked into the vortex of ‘materialism’. the hero must come out and slay the tyrant within! man must be overcome, etc.

  2. Avery says:

    The Internet propagates this. When you’re alone reading, your own biases get reinforced. When you get “social”, you’re basically becoming a mob. It’s fun to join 2,000 other Twitter users in commenting on someone’s blog to help police your personal tyrant kingdom. That guy will surely never think sexist thoughts again. Lynching administered, justice delivered.

    1. Esotericist says:

      If we all chant KONY 2012 together, maybe it will be The Singularity. Just like in that enlightening and intellectually stimulating movie “The Matrix.”

  3. crow says:

    We all agree that women are equal to men.
    We all agree women that should have the right to vote.

    No. We don’t all agree.

    1. Ryan says:

      i agree that we don’t all agree, but that is (insert trotskyian buzzword)!

      1. A. Realist says:

        And if we don’t follow (Trotskyian buzzword) we will not be very popular, especially with the, you know, lower classes.

    2. Anon says:

      With the risk of missing something cryptic and subtle above, I’m going to respond to this at face(beak?)-value:

      Most men shouldn’t be electing leaders either. I believe some women (very few exceptions) are wired in a way which makes them not only fit to elect leaders, but also to lead others, even outside the domestic sphere.

      1. crow says:

        This whole ‘we all agree that women…’ thing, is a huge problem.
        Nearly everybody automatically subscribes to this most sacred of Western cows. I wonder what percentage of the subscribers have ever spent a moment considering why they subscribe.

        Women operate, almost entirely, upon emotions.
        Which is not a bad thing, in itself, in some areas.
        But emotion-based responses are not ideally applicable to a great many things.
        Like running a civilization.

        1. Sun says:

          Better watch out for the smart critters at Feminist at Feministing and Manboobz!

          (sorry meant to be a reply to Crow)

          1. crow says:

            There are smart feminists?
            They work from a script, don’t they?
            Memorize the labels, insults and stereotypes, and you, too, can appear to be uber-powerful and mega-smart.

            On a more positive note, I was trying to come up with something I really hated, the other day. Because I don’t really hate very much. In fact, the only thing I could actually claim to really hate, was male-feminists.
            Male-feminists???
            Now there’s an oxymoron!

            1. Sun says:

              Male Feminist are called “manginas” around the parks. Logic being, they are kissing up to left wing women to get approval and/or sex–protectionism takes the form of fight for equality (or the interest of women only).

              But wait until you hear there is a Men’s Rights Activism–acronym “M.R.A (sounds like a militia group rebelling against some government in war torn Africa).”

              Men’s rights fight for equality and human decency!

              So there you have it, the slave-morality vs slave-morality, where both sexes are galvanizing based upon Gender for a war of untold proportions. And the West will crumble because there is no solidarity among both men and women!

              I’m what you call a “white knight,” an idiot willing to die for someone of the opposite sex and protect them due to traditionalism (but really as a part of my biology). It is supposed to be derogatory, but hey, I like it.

              It sure beats “mangina.”

              1. A. Realist says:

                I’ll never fight for equality, but I will fight for a hierarchy (both vertical and horizontal) of roles. Men and women are horizontal, complementary roles.

                1. Ted Swanson says:

                  Horizontal hierarchy – interesting concept.

            2. Esotericist says:

              There are lots of smart feminists.

              Being smart doesn’t prevent you from being deluded if your personality is uncertain or damaged.

              Most feminists were either raped, sexually abused or think that society has done the equivalent to them.

      2. A. Realist says:

        This may also be true. Even the Americans originally wanted only land-owning (pre-usury) males over 30 to vote. Today, that’s like saying millionaires over 40.

    3. Esotericist says:

      Do we even agree on what “equal” means, since it exists in about 2400 contexts?

  4. Sun says:

    Better watch out for the smart critters at Feminist at Feministing and Manboobz!

  5. great guy says:

    Brett… have you ever considered doing a leadership seminar or something along those lines?

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 0.901 seconds