Socialization is a fantasy world that replaces reality

Socialization. It’s all about dominance and submission. It has nothing at all to do with life, or living.

There is a world, and we are born into it. It was there before we arrived. We don’t know anything about this world. It is a blank map filled with mysterious places we haven’t been to yet. We don’t know it.
Parents tell us about it, and what it means. Teachers do the same, but for different reasons. Others appear, and muscle in with their own agendas. Views, opinions, judgements flood in, from day one, like a relentless tide, vying with our own experiences and conclusions, for dominance.
If you form an opinion that is unknown to others, your opinion is labeled ‘wrong’. If you try to explain why you don’t think your opinion is wrong, you get labeled stupid. If you try to explain why your opinion is not stupid, you get labeled arrogant. Resist surrendering your opinion, and you are labeled egotistical.

Over time, you may realize that your opinion is not an opinion at all. That it is, in fact, observation, that is neither for, nor against. Not an argument, nor a defense. Not an assertion, nor an excuse. And it is the others who have opinons, based upon biases, that have very little to do with observing the world, and more to do with persuasion and control.

The hermit in the woods is unconcerned with socialization. To him, it is meaningless. He interacts with the world, not just a single fragment of it. He discovers things, and the nature of those things. Most of all, he discovers himself. While not being acutely aware that it is himself he is discovering. He fits his environment, or he dies. Things work, or don’t work. Persuasion has nothing to do with anything.
Such a man may learn things, directly, in his one-on-one interaction with the world, that are unknown to the social masses. Upon returning to that social world, he may speak of what he knows. But the things he speaks of, and the way in which he speaks of them, will not be social things, or his delivery geared to social norms. For he is not social, even though he might like to be. And the socializers are nothing like him.
The newly-social hermit soon discovers he is being misunderstood. He shares himself with others, and speaks of what he knows. While others interpret what he says, and the way in which he says it, as an attempt to appear to be trying to seem like something he is not.
The hermit knows not what to make of this. Though he speaks the same language, and uses the same words, somehow something is just not happening, and he is unsure what that something is. He stretches himself, in unaccustomed directions, to accomodate the others. While the others demand more and more accomodation, and that he be as they are.
He can not do this, beyond a certain point, for he is not as they are, and so he trys a new tack. He reduces his flowing narrative to the simplest terms, and speaks in ways that resist misinterpretation. Yet all his words, even in their sparseness, are misunderstood.

He had begun by feeling joy at the chance to share with others. But now his joy slowly turns to dismay at the results of his sharing. The others whisper among themselves, and become angry, and he has no idea why. They attack him. He turns aside their attacks, thinking that they would not be attacking him if they could only understand him. So he perserveres, hoping to be understood…
Finally, though, he comes to realize that there is nothing he can do. He is hated.
He does not know why he is hated, but is painfully aware that he is. He offered what he had, simply to share it with the others. Because he was aware that they did not have what he had. And somehow this act of sharing was taken to be an attack on the others. As if to say that he was telling, implying, indicating, insinuating, that they were somehow less than he, and who did he think he was, to pose as seemingly superior, at their expense.
He started out as who he was, and knowing who he was. As what he was, and knowing what he was. Only to inexplicably find himself attacked from all sides for seeming to appear to want to make it look like he was thinking he was something he obviously wasn’t in order to give the impression of superiority for the purpose of lording it over everybody else who were all the things he thought he was, but wasn’t, while they were.
He sadly got on his bike, pedaled off, and that was the last anybody ever heard of him.

Socialization. The big reward you get for wiping out the other 99.99999% of life.


  1. Ted Swanson says:

    I live in my own place – have never copied nobody even half, and at any master who lacks the grace – to laugh at himself – I laugh!
    (double negative is deliberate)


    1. This is where for me Nietzsche is full of himself. Being unique isn’t important, but being truthful is. Being able to laugh at yourself is useless too. I know he thinks he’s rebelling against a bad spirit of the time, but he picked the wrong spirit. Every prole is unique, his own master and laughing at himself. None of them are truthful.

      1. Ted Swanson says:

        I now speak earnestly. You speak of spirits of the time. If you could indulge me and explain further how you would classify the various spirits of the time, I would be interested to hear how you describe them.

        1. In this case, there’s a couple things I have categorized as spirits. One is the conservative (not Conservative) tendency to somewhat dour, cheerless, obedient, rule-driven and materialistic. Nietzsche rebelled against this, as did many of the Romantics, but he picked the wrong spirit. Every idiot wants to rebel against duty. The spirit that needed rebelling against was the individualistic me-first spirit of equality. Nietzsche’s work was great but may have been a giant screw-up because he chose to target necessary functions of society instead of illustrating how the selfishness of individuals creates the kind of society he deplores. When every person is going crazy with their drama, the only safe space for thinking people is the dour, cheerless, obedient, rule-driven and materialistic. To subvert that, you have to subvert the spirit that created it, not the spirit as which it manifests.

      2. EvilBuzzard says:

        I tend to think CHuck Pahulenk was smarter than Nietzsche on that one. “You are not one of God’s unique and beautiful snowflakes!”

        1. That goes to the opposite extreme however. If Nietzsche erred by implying that we all can be unique precious snowflakes, Pahulenk errs by implying that none of us are. Both are tainted with egalitarianism. It’s better to say that all of us are somewhere on the snowflake scale.

      3. Mihai says:

        I believe that laughing at oneself from time to time means to be able to understand our limits as human beings and the impossibility of living without making any kinds of errors or of doing everything perfectly.

        It conserves the possibility for spontaneity, while avoiding bitterness and robotic attitudes.

        1. When life is playful, humans seem to get farther than when it’s an obligation.

  2. crow says:

    You’re only saying that to imply that others are inherently supposedly trying to appear to seem as if they would wish to insinuate something other than wanting to manipulate by their indications of being inclined to participate in something other than impressionistic ramblings that understanding should be tailored to appearances.
    Which is illogical and devoid of any factual representation since it clearly indicates a bias against what is apparent inasmuch as rationalisation is hitherto manifest in de facto spoonerisms inherently designed to specifically target something or other.
    In other words you lose.

  3. This is one of the few blogs that recognizes the root of liberalism is socialization, or people trying to get along with each other and twisting truth as a result. “Understanding should be tailored to appearances” is the watchphrase of a social group. Even worse is that science and politics can be corrupted by this as well, because they are staffed by human beings who like to socialize. The only salvation appears to be genius, which is arrogant enough to push back the social crowd. At the same time, it is fascinated by its object only, like a mad scientist obsessed by his work, so it steps out of the idea that whatever is popular, profitable or democratic-egalitarian is fundamentally “good.” As usual humanity is a few exceptional individuals who do everything important, and a vast herd of useless and/or destructive people. For the last couple of centuries we’ve paid more attention to the herd than the exceptions and are poorer for it.

    1. crow says:

      Sorry, my zany humour got the better of me.
      Blame it on Ted Swanson.
      My earlier rant was designed purely to be absurd, in its similarity to modern intellectual drivel.
      “Understanding should be tailored to appearances” popped out of nowhere, and didn’t mean anything at all, other than to make no sense.

      1. It’s accidentally very clear. I recognized the satirical nature of your post but guessed that you had hidden a nugget of truth in the middle. When you think about it, “understanding should be tailored to appearances” describes the politically correct mindset perfectly.

        1. crow says:

          Well, you are right.
          I can take no credit.
          The idiot savant strikes again.

  4. 1349 says:

    He can not do this, beyond a certain point, for he is not as they are, and so he trys a new tack. He reduces his flowing narrative to the simplest terms, and speaks in ways that resist misinterpretation. Yet all his words, even in their sparseness, are misunderstood.

    You’re describing EXACTLY what i’ve been experiencing in the last couple of days. Are you spying on me?

    1. crow says:

      Well I am damned glad somebody else recognizes it.
      I was beginning to think only Brett could see it.
      I commiserate.

  5. Lisa Colorado says:

    I submit that the hermit in the woods, discovering what works and thinking for herself, would then have an opinion of what was being discovered.

    1. crow says:

      There’s a whole universe beyond opinion.
      Imagine what that might be like…

    2. Imagine if reality itself had an opinion two. The hermit and reality could only get along when their opinions were roughly the same.

  6. Jason says:

    I have to disagree.

    It is very fun to socialize.

    If you’re unhappy about who you socialize with, change circles.

    That is all, carry on.

    1. crow says:

      That’s something I really must write about.
      I wonder, if one should find oneself in hell, what would ‘fun’ be?

      1. Jason says:

        Being told how you live is wrong, even though it brings you joy and harms no one else?

        I’m sure to some Taliban men, the thought of Malala Yousufzai and girls like her being educated brings them GREAT pain. No longer will they be able to own women like property to act as chattel, because women will want their own lives and they will want to make their own decisions once they are educated and able to support themselves.

        Who is right?

        1. Doug Vance says:

          Most of what is isn’t of man’s will but that of cosmological or natural effects. Most of man’s will is error, hence all the corrections, updates and reforms that never seem to end. Most of these errors of man’s will occur in the pursuit of what in his or her view ought to be, against what exists as is, most of which again wasn’t man made to begin with.

          1. crow says:

            Clear view.
            Clear message.
            Clear delivery.
            You made my day :)

          2. You mean, that we as brilliant thinking apes didn’t create this world, but are little parts of it?

            Wow. No one thinks that way.

            You’ll never be popular. I can make a billion dollars tomorrow by telling people that the world exists within their minds.

            Do we exist within the world, or does it exist within us?

            Or do we exist within the world’s mind?

        2. Mihai says:

          “Being told how you live is wrong, even though it brings you joy and harms no one else?”

          A typical bit of liberal, reductionist thinking.

          Each person is intricately connected with the environment he inhabits. There is no such thing as an act occurring separate from everything else.
          The modern man thinks that he can do whatever, as long as it ends at his own body, and nobody has the right to tell him anything. If modern man suffers from myopia in everything he does and cannot see any longer than the short term, it doesn’t mean that consequences do not exist.

          1. There is no such thing as an act occurring separate from everything else.

            This is so profound I can feel my mind shutting down every time I read it or something like it. Everything we do has consequences, and those consequences come back to visit us indirectly. But if we’re going to “like” ourselves, we need to be able to know that we’re not producing lots of bad consequences, because then we’ll realize that we’re selfish if not outright bad as people.

      2. Jason says:

        That totally came out wrong, sorry, tired from 2 hours at the gym today. That and these sour cream and onion chips are so fucking good.

        Fun in hell would be going on a date with a girl, before you find out, the hard way, that her vagina is a rattlesnake mouth full of broken glass.

      3. A bucket of ice water and some salve for the wounds?

        I don’t believe in Hell as an afterlife destination. I think the price of Hell is that life is Hell if one’s mind is disorganized.

        It’s not Hell because you get punished. Hell, no. That would be too easy. It’s Hell because of what you miss out on.

        They taught me this early on with alcohol. You think it’s the path to heaven. Then you wake up one day, and you see this big river of “stuff I could have done with this time, money and energy” that has passed you right by.

        That feeling… that feeling is Hell.

        Now imagine it as the summary of a life.

  7. Lisa Colorado says:

    This is all too vague. I think everybody is just being a little scientist all the time. What is life but playing with time? You can learn how to start a fire with just a 9 volt battery and some steel wool, and then what? The fire you start may be good or bad depending on if you burn your fingers or just your campfire wood. And what happens if I…post something I find funny on FB and it’s a double entendre about balls, and some people snicker but others don’t? I may have just burned my fingers. What the hell. The best we can do is be honest, as has been stated here.

    1. crow says:

      Vague is as good as it gets.
      Life is vague before its clarity is seen.
      Seeking this clarity is a worthwhile use of life, when vagueness is seen for the empty shroud it is.
      Clarity can not be handed out, but only described.
      The description may serve as a treasure map.
      But never as the treasure itself.

    2. This may be a male, rather than a female, perspective but… adulthood begins the day you start caring about end results of what people are proposing to you.

      I don’t think adulthood is bad. Eternal childhood would be no good either. What’s good about adulthood is that it lets me create a safe space for my family, or for my town, or my culture (and ethnic-cultural group).

      In each of us, there’s the child experimenting. But after the experiments, we have to pick which of the results we like best. The uncontrolled fire, or the warm campfire? It depends on what we need, but also, on whether we want to survive.

  8. EvilBuzzard says:

    Metallica did an awesome song about this.

  9. Tucken says:

    Well I don’t hate you I like you a lot
    and this new way of speaking I find rather pleasent
    its a blobby mess from a far, but quickly
    I find myself sucked into it

    on socialization well people are different
    when its enjoyable its rather great
    connection, comradery, spirited play
    fun is fun, crowspeech
    Perhaps you speak of socialization on the internet, it is quite different from the oldschool

    Your recent poetry touched me
    you can do much with that
    the general chirping nudged my conscience so ill try to amend.

  10. Attila says:

    I am listening to some folk music from Macedonia- and that’s all that it takes for me to de-socialize into a pure, transparent sound world. Balkan beats, f’k yaaaaaah.

Leave a Reply

45 queries. 1.075 seconds