Posts Tagged ‘deception’
Monday, November 14th, 2016
Uber-skeptics like the people who will survive this dark era in history tend to view all human interactions as businesses. This is not because they like business, but because they are realists: all people act in self-interest, and in civilization, since the primary skill required is to induce others to do things for us, self-interest requires acting for personal gain usually through deception.
In this mindset, we can debunk ideology by pointing out that it is a business, specifically a variation of the entertainment business. In entertainment, one creates images that makes consumers feel safe and content, and in order to experience that feeling again, they buy the product. However, in order to make the product appealing, the sellers must ensure that it never appears to be a product.
One notices over time that successful products center around a few themes. These involve what humans wish were true, including eternal youth, sudden wealth, narcotic romances, and other fantasies that involve the human being as the center of life, more important than its context, so that the brain feels safe in its significance as if that would hold back or at least diminish mortality and individuality. Essentially, entertainment fantasies focus on the individual being God or god-like,
If you wonder why Leftism resembles a religion, this is why: it is a replacement religion with human intent at its center instead of a divine being.
The central idea of Leftism is control, which one might describe as the replacement of structure with a linear centralized authority. Under control, the intent of this authority alone matters; it removes anything which competes with it by using the device of “equality,” which reduces those under its command to atomized beings who can be commanded with identical mandates.
This serves the convenience for control and in the case of people, isolates them in their own fears of offending control or missing its rewards, eliminating the structures of organic civilization which nurture it from within. Instead, they must become dependent on the controller and act as a mass that waits on control for commands.
Through this hybrid of religion and tyranny, Leftism, Inc. runs itself as a successful business that makes itself essential to the function of a civilization, but in so doing, removes any other option for order in a society. Like a parasitic worm, it enters through the heart, where people long for an end to risk, war, differences of ability and other sources of stress. Then it makes its way to the brain, where it rips out the nervous system and replaces it with a remote control that directly manipulates every part of the body to act in unison. This abolishes differences between the organs, turning the body to mush that responds jerkily and ineptly to commands, but the controller does not care. The zombie serves its intent, and therefore can be sacrificed, because only the intent matters.
This represents a different type of “game.” Normal healthy people seek to win the game of life by playing well and making themselves better in the process. Those who are dead inside instead quest for control, power and other tangible things they can manipulate. To do this, they destroy all order outside of themselves because it competes with their intent for importance. In fact, they adore having chaos and destruction all around because these only serve to emphasize the necessity of their intent, choices, whims, feelings and judgments. The ego sits in a blaze of glory formed by the incineration of everything good — because only good, not bad — competes with the self.
If you wonder why your world is a wasteland, with every normal function — jobs, government, art, culture, family and friends — perverted into a replica of the larger control structure, this is why. The West is a ruin because it is existential misery with excellent shopping. The soulless person says, “Hotdogs only a dollar! I love this country, such a bargain!” and then goes through life ignoring crises, and rationalizing the loss of time and autonomy as necessary for the highest value, which is then justified as being the shopping itself. This type of reversed order of thought is essential to surviving this time, but the most important parts of each person — the inner self — does not survive it, because it, too, is perverted into a control structure.
Leftism sells a highly successful product, equality, which makes every individual feel that they are safe even if they fail or do something degenerate. The Left sells acceptance, and this quickly morphs into a sense of being “good,” and this encourages people to feel good about themselves without needing to do anything to that end.
Since this product is eternally popular, Leftism sells it with a catch — a Devil’s bargain — in that in order to enjoy the product, users must pass it on to others like multi-level marketing, drug addiction or a street gang. The group defends itself and spreads benefits among its people, who are presumed to be “good,” and by the converse assumption, others must be “bad.”
This gives Leftists an identity: They take from the bad and give to the good. This suppresses both concerns over the inherent immorality of theft and gives people a new identity as Robin Hood styled social reformers, instead of merely neurotics who find life difficult and want to scapegoat others in order to force their way into society despite being fundamentally irrelevant to it.
As soon as it achieves traction, Leftism begins to resemble any other business, which is to say that it collects incompetence and weaponizes it by making each person fear for their own position, thus driving them into doing symbolic acts for the sake of appearing important, busy and competent.
If you wonder why Leftists are such fanatics, the basis of that psychology can be found in this development. They now feel accepted by society, but they must still demonstrate their place in the gang, and they compete among one another in a game of Who Is The Most Egalitarian. If one person liberates orphans, the next liberates retarded orphans, and the winner grants freedom and welfare to gay minority retarded disabled orphans. Whoever shows the most pity is the champion.
At the same time, this Office Space like dimension to Leftism — and indeed, to all control — creates a situation where all other political actors become coworkers. People trade favors, and prioritize “getting along with” one another above whatever job they are doing. This serves to further Leftism by co-opting normal people in because the Leftist will approach them as a colleague, trade favors, and then expect loyalty. This is how conservative movements are quickly absorbed into the Leftist morass.
When the Leftist empire reaches monopoly status, it tends to do whatever any business does when its productive years are over, which is sell out to a wealthier but directionless concern that will absorb its assets as a type of long term cash cow. The Leftists have held their competitions, and those who rose to the top make off with the funds, and then everyone else goes home to their bleak apartments in what are now Venezuelan-Soviet conditions. The civilization they parasitized is now effectively destroyed, but this does not stop each new generation from rising up to see what it can steal.
The only way to stop Leftism is to recognize it for what it is: tyranny by the unimportant, miserable, unhappy, neurotic and obsessive. In other words, those who are not the productive contributors and creators in a civilization have become a growth within it that hopes to take over. The rest oppress the best, which causes the best to drop out or leave, and renders that civilization into a wasteland of incompetence and solipsism.
That allows us to see what the true opposite of Leftism is, which is oppression of the rest by the best. When the best gain the upper hand, they tend to filter people into two groups, “useful” and “less useful or useless.” They then give positions of power to the former, and either disenfranchise or eject the latter. This creates a competence surge which can restore civilization.
It also puts people into stable positions within a hierarchy, eliminating the profit through social mobility gambit of the Leftist. Social mobility sounds good until one realizes that all but a handful of us every generation belong doing roughly what our fathers did. The exceptions can be promoted on an individual basis, but what the rest of us need are roles where we can excel without being destabilized.
Along those lines, creating an aristocracy and giving it wealth and power removes the motive to conquer within civilization by its leaders. They have everything they need, and did not receive it because of their expertise and thieving it, but for their expertise in making the best of imperfect situations. This indicates a moral inclination to do the best and avoid the type of small-minded, predatory and defensive behavior that Leftist leaders exhibit.
Our aristocrats were destabilized by events such as the Magna Carta, which limited their power and forced compromise with the commercial class. This in turn commercialized a great deal of the aristocracy, and gave rise to the shopkeeper class, who treated government as a business and not a quest to improve civilization in a gradual basis by rewarding its best and ejecting its worst. This created a mentality of treating society in a utilitarian manner, which naturally gave rise to the business-like thinking of the proletariat revolutionaries.
The rise of the shopkeeper class was unfortunate because while these were clever, especially with “making” money, they were not intelligent in the sense of being able to see a dozen moves ahead in the game. As a result, they specialized in short term decisions which created long-term problems, destabilizing society and allowing the ideologues to take over.
As usually happens, the rise of ideologues brought about instability because now, in addition to the task of being a good person and performing a role, people had to defend against ideological suspicion which was like a constant witch-hunt. This in turn made people inauthentic and driven by appearance, which pushed them further toward the ideologues in the search for a protector.
This type of “defensive personality” afflicts all societies where authority and power are not closely tied to realistic and long-term thinking such as the aristocrats display. This is the root of control: by making all people isolated and afraid, it compels them to obey, but in such a way that they rationalize it as their own choice.
As we see in the world of commerce, the best products do this as well. People go to the store and buy the bread that is always there because it is the convenient option, then rationalize the purchase by convincing themselves that they like it. Eventually the company realizes it will profit even further if it buys up or drives out all other brands. Leftism behaves in the same manner.
If the realization became widespread among the thinking people of our society that Leftism is a business, it would remove the aura of holiness which Leftism uses to induce people to believe in it. That mantle is how Leftism grows without its true nature being noticed, and when it falls, the raw profit motive will reveal itself.
Monday, October 31st, 2016
As Amerika has noted before, the miracle of the FBI re-opening an investigation into the Hillary Clinton emails may in fact be deception which will snap shut like a trap right before the election when the FBI declares her innocent:
These emails were not sent by Hillary Clinton, and the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing by her, according to a source familiar with the investigation. The FBI is only just beginning the process of trying to look at these emails to determine whether they offer any new evidence in the Clinton matter.
The challenge for the Left is to get its base energized to get to the polls, which true to the nature of Crowds, requires some great drama. The possibility of the first black President really woke them up, and fear of G.W. Bush did also. But in this election, Hillary consistently strikes voters as boring and untrustworthy, and most of them wanted self-identified socialism in the persona of wizened neurotic Bernie Sanders instead.
Imagine the trap slamming shut this way: two days before the election, FBI Director Comey gives a press conference. In it, he says nothing of great substance, only that the investigation produced nothing solid enough to justify its continued existence. Or, he says that the FBI is backing down because it was denied a court order to use the emails found in a child-porn investigation to pursue a national security one.
Either way, the message is clear to the Democrat base. The evil has attempted to destroy us with underhanded tactics, so it is time to take our revenge, and Leftists love nothing more than a revenge fantasy. They surge into the polls along with their compatriots from beyond the grave, and usher Hillary into office.
The Right, having though itself ahead, becomes dispirited. It takes people about 48 hours to recover from a shock of that nature, so the counter-reaction will be warming up just as the polls close. In the meantime, many who had hope will have given up that hope, and stayed home. Consider this.
Friday, September 9th, 2016
So… which one of these is closer to reality? Fascinating, the gulf between them.
In the meantime, the article about the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos is both tragic and disturbing. How do such fake valuations get passed along so easily? Or is that the case?
And then there is this:
In some ways, the near-universal adoration of Holmes reflected her extraordinary comportment. In others, however, it reflected the Valley’s own narcissism. Finally, it seemed, there was a female innovator who was indeed able to personify the Valley’s vision of itself—someone who was endeavoring to make the world a better place.
The old question: did history make the person, or the person make history? She came along at the right time to inherit $4 billion from investors and valuation of her company. And yet, it seems, it was vaporware all along.
And, is it worth giving up your soul, for twenty pieces of silver?
Tuesday, August 9th, 2016
We live in a unique form of hell. It is hell because all of it is lies, which you cannot tell by focusing on any one point, but by stepping back and seeing the whole. What is its purpose? What is our experience? Where do we find goodness in it, and is it real goodness? Those questions remove the covers from the void.
Our time is hell because we are empty, and lacking purpose we lack any notion of goodness, so we tend toward default human-monkey behaviors and cover them up with fancy words and pretentious ideals. We got to this state because we have made lies legitimate as truth, and as a result, lies have become more competitive than truth and have taken over every detail of our civilization.
Equality makes lies equal to truth. That is its goal: to avoid discomfort or mental inconvenience on the part of those who are not naturally gifted like the aristocrats. When all people are included regardless of their opinions or the outcome of their actions, lies no longer disqualify them, which means that liars and truth-tellers are both accepted.
To an economist, or even someone who observes the flow of fluids at different pressures, it becomes clear that equality creates a perverse incentive: telling a lie is easier than telling the truth, and also more popular, so if there are no consequences — because lies and truth are equal — then telling lies is the easier path to truth.
Further, because equality constitutes denial of reality, it creates uncertainty. People want to believe it, but have doubts, so they go on a perpetual search for confirmation. This establishes a market for writings, speeches, promises, art, and music that echo the bias of the audience back to it. Again, lies are rewarded and truth demoted.
Throughout human history, the harbinger of destruction has been the notion that “it sounded like a good idea at the time.” Equality sounds like a good idea to us, because it eliminates the struggle for survival and the differences between people, so “in theory” we will all just work together. In reality, it rewards the worst among us by refusing to acknowledge the best, and in doing so, guarantees we will be ruled by the worst.
Wednesday, September 30th, 2015
There are moments where life comes down to binary decisions. One either flees the bear, or becomes lunch; one either escapes the locked room as floodwaters rise, or becomes a floater. Sometimes, one must make decisions about continuation, such as remaining at a job, or in a marriage, or within a city. These all fit within the yes/no pattern of binary decisions. But sometimes binary decisions are forced upon us by using false categories which resemble those needed in threatening situations, but are in fact carefully constructed to force you to answer one way only.
For example, someone grabs you by the shirt and says, “The enemy is at the gates — do you stand with these fascists, or are you an anti-fascist?”
Like any good con, this works by rhythm. First there is shock; then outrage, at about the same moment the dichotomy — a binary category imposed on the data — rises in the mind. Thus the emotional surge and the realization hit at about the same time and the average person stands up and says loudly,
Of course I stand against the fascists!
…all without having an idea what a fascist is, whether an enemy is really attacking, where the gates are, whose enemy is attacking, or really anything else (but we all know that low-information voting is the hallmark of democracy). As any salesperson knows, it is important to lead the mark into the decision so that he thinks it was his idea, when in fact it was a set-up.
Politics operates by these set-ups. It creates binary categories where there are none. Yes, when a dragon is attacking, there is an actual dichotomy: attack the dragon or do something other than attack the dragon. In non-emergency situations however the options vary more widely. This is why salespeople, con men and politicians all try to shorten the time scale: “This offer ends soon!” “We must act quickly before it’s too late!” “My buddy can’t hold on to this sweet deal forever!”
In the same way, people reframe the question of race as an ongoing attack. People are assaulting our minorities, and you either agree with us that everyone is equal, or you agree with the fascists. We need action now! Whose side are you on? And so the slow-witted average person, stunned and dumbed by forty plus hours of work and shopping, leaps to the obvious conclusion, as was intended. By this method, anything but saying we are all equal in every way becomes “racism” and makes you an enemy of the State, a Stalin-Hitler-Goldstein to be smote with fury.
The term “racism” has no meaning. As used, it is too broad; as conceived, it suggests a singular purpose behind multiple reasons to make the same decision. It is like talking with the street hardened cops:
Police #1: Why did you turn down this alley?
Citizen: I wanted to check if my tire was flat.
Police #2: He wanted to check his tire, he says! I’ve heard that one before.
Police #1: We all know there’s only one reason to go down this alley. Out with it and we’ll be easy on you.
In this case, the mental terrorists behind the term “racism” want you to think there is only one reason why you might not want to accept the all-people-are-equal line. Never mind that there may be multiple reasons, including being proud of your heritage and believing it should continue. Accept us all as equal — which really is an advertising term more than anything else, implying that people are marionettes who respond knee-jerk to a “good deal” — or you are the enemy.
Our healing begins when we recognize this term is useless. There is no racism and there are no racists. There are only people who do not agree with the liberal agenda, and those who do. The former group includes some who are just angry and hateful, but we have no data suggesting they are the majority. Everything we have suggests they are the (heh heh) minority. But the left wants us to lump everyone non-leftist into the same category as the bigots. That viewpoint itself is bigotry, and needs to die.
Friday, June 6th, 2014
Among curmudgeons, the notion that it takes ten times longer to refute a lie than to tell one is widely known. Such facts come to life because curmudgeons familiarize themselves with both truth and lies, and use both in their arsenal. Generally their lies are innocent: feigning illness to avoid social events and suggesting far-off lands as “ideal destinations” for idiots.
But the truth remains that lies form a culture of themselves. Once a lie takes hold, it must expand or it will be revealed. Its death occurs through revelation because when a statement is shown to be untruthful, it has lost its attraction for its audience. It then lacks minds in which to live and winds of gossip on which to spread. Cornered by irrelevance, it fades from history.
The act of lying itself constitutes the fundamental lie. To say, “It is so,” when it is not, one undertakes a burden of keeping a lie alive. This makes the master of the language the servant of the lie, because with a lie’s revelation there also comes an unmasking of the liar. And while people possess no particular drive to truth, they fear being manipulated and thus shy away from liars.
Once a lie is told it invents a culture of deception around it. The lie must be protected; the liars must unite and back each other up; all contradictions to the lie must be erased, subverted, blemished, corrupted or otherwise neutralized. Most human cultures on earth dedicate themselves to nurturing a lie and inventing a mythos around it that turns good into bad and bad into good. This keeps the lie safe beneath layers of misdirection.
In the West, we cultivated a culture (instead) of truthfulness. Where in other cultures people consider it a loss to reveal a truth that is personally embarrassing, the West made a religion of placing truth — and Reality — above the individual. This concept shocked the world, which was composed of people who dedicated themselves to the exact opposite. To them, individual ranks above Reality as a means of self-protection. Even when — especially when — they talked about how egoless they were.
Western culture probably reached understanding in only a relatively small number of minds. But its salvation emerged from what it did not do, which was protect a central lie. Instead, it looked to the stars and to the infinite and eternal, finding a union between truth, beauty, immortality, harmony/balance and goodness. The West found God in knowing its Reality through truth. But this placed it at a brutal disadvantage.
The rest of the world thrives on deception. Most humans live under primitive circumstances even when on the surface they imitate advanced societies. The people there anticipate dysfunction, dishonesty and parasitic intent from those around them. As a result, they stage pre-emptive strikes against their fellow citizens, hoping to manipulate those fellow citizens before they manipulate the people themselves. The lie feeds as it grows.
Cultures of deception have the upper hand over cultures of truth, however, because cultures of deception are always on the attack, never trusting, and always deceptive. Cultures of truth cannot respond to them in time and get obliterated by them. The two are not even speaking of the same things when they use the same words. Cultures of truth do not understand naked self-interest.
These cultures of deception value nothing except that which gives one person an advantage over another. They can unite in moments of passion on polarizing activities like extremist religion, political upheaval and class warfare, but for day to day life they lack unity. But they also come about within cultures of truth, and this minority status unites them immediately.
When culture aims at truth, it bypasses these infected quagmires of deception. It rises above and organizes itself, discovers learning and creates a sense of unity among its people. But much as any greatest strength is a greatest weakness, healthy societies attract the unhealthy who are enraged by what they cannot have, and seek to destroy it.
Many of these — but not all — call themselves leftists, liberals, progressives and socialists. Like all infectious agents, they disguise themselves as harmless or benevolent. Their goal however is to kill. They wish to destroy the civilization of truthfulness by bringing the culture of deception into its midst. All because they perceive that they cannot have it.
If they were to study history, they would see that having what is good comes easier than expected. One must call out the lie and puncture the culture of deception, then replace it with a culture of truth. From that all good things flow. And for a former culture of truth now infected with deception, the same solution works every time.
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006
In any situation where delusional thinking becomes the norm, as it clearly has in a modern society to which global climate change was a sudden surprise, the effects of the delusion will be analyzed and a variety of voices clamoring for attention will proclaim “solutions.” In that we find the first of a number of traps which protect delusion by attacking its manifestations and not its origin.
- Head of the Hydra: the first major delusion is that you can fix endemic problems with band-aids. You cannot, because like the mythical Hydra, any cause of delusion will simply regenerate. Address global warming, and holy mackerel, there’s pollution, water shortages and peak oil sneaking up on you from the same source of the problem.
- Good Cop versus Bad Cop: Any system with a core delusion will become occupied by those who seek power, and they will rapidly find a need to manage power by allowing controlled opposition. Such “conflict” is both real and illusory, in that while two powers vie for the same throne, they share one agenda (of several) in that their goal is to perpetuate not change the system. They perpetuate it by making a series of small changes which they know the other side will undo; every sixty years or so they will change sides. This is why Republican versus Democrat, Liberal versus Conservative, Freedom versus Oppression has been such a losing card over the years; both sides are controlled by the same basic motivation, which is power and not solutions.
- Methodological thinking: The concept that by putting into place the right system, like buying the right machine, we can “control” a human population and force them to the right conclusion is similarly illusion. Not all humans react alike. There is no universal “human nature” any more than there is a universal ice cream flavor. Further, many people are constructed such that they will always be destructive; most people are constructed to be incapable of decisions beyond their personal sphere; a few people are constructed to be conscientious, perceptive and cognizant of long-term consequences. In saner times, we killed the first group before they could breed, sent the second group into the fields or shops, and made the third group leaders.
- Economic thinking: One hilarious idea of a delusional time is that if everyone just has enough money, they will act for the collective good. This is fairly humorous when one considers that because people expand families and activities with the arrival of money, they will at some point need more than enough; further, it completely ignores collective political action, because buying off the individual does not address problems of society as a whole; finally, it assumes that money and not other factors (revenge, powerlust, emotional responses) governs all of humanity, where we can see that is not the case.
- Pure collectivist or individualist thought: These two basic schools trade off over the centuries in the “good cop, bad cop” routine and have produced no tangible benefit. Collectivist thought in its purest sense holds that we act for the interests of a bureaucratic entity known as “the collective,” and that by doing right by all people we do right by the individual; however, its basis is in individual materialism and it uses the individual as means to an end of the state. Individualist thought denies the collective to focus on satiating the individual, believing that the collective will somehow be addressed as part of the individual’s scope, even if as we have seen from countless examples most people cannot think beyond their personal sphere of influence and are thus unaware of it. Individualist and collectivist thought in their pure forms end up seeing the task of governance as that of overseeing individuals, and miss out on qualitative and abstract factors. Traditional societies see both individuals and collective as means to an end which is an abstract idea of ascendancy based on the rules of nature and science.
- Photonegative fallacy: If we remove the opposition, this thinking goes, what is left will be the good people. It is an illusion because “opposition” changes as the dogma changes, and therefore, a perpetual group of easily-subjugated enemies is maintained. While this allows the leaders to show up before the crowd with severed heads and proclaim the problem solved, it never is. More sensible is what Aristotle suggested, which is to eliminate all illusory ideas and thus to have remaining an approximation of the truth. It makes some sense to remove populations whose values are contrary to that of the society, but that can be accomplished by denying them property ownership and jobs.
- Good intentions: One giant illusion that afflicts particularly women from the suburbs is the idea that if we mean well, others will understand and help us out. It isn’t dangerous because in itself it is untrue, as meaning well always helps in any interaction, but because it ignores the basis of power and it ignores the autocentricism that defines “good” and “well.” First, power must settle itself according to pragmatic goals and methods, and intentions do not factor into those negotiations. Good feelings do not solve problems; solutions do. Second, each society has a different meaning of “well.” Our idea of meaning well naturally includes bringing what we consider “good” to other societies, but they might not want democracy, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart and 24 channels of Internet anal porn. “Meaning well” is often a disguised desire to passively subvert and destroy other cultures; this is most evident in treatment of Arab nations and Africans by the United States.
- Compromise: The biggest silly thought ever is that we can have a rational solution by taking two possible answers and finding a compromise between them. Doesn’t it sound good? The idea of accord, each side giving a little… but in reality, what this means is that what makes each answer workable — its unique approach and method — is adulterated by the other and the solution, the “compromise,” thus becomes so averaged that it is not structurally distinct from the status quo. Compromise is a method of destroying solutions to preserve our power squabbles, not a finder of solutions.
- More government/privatization: Dummies love an answer you can spout off in response to any problem. The idea of more government, on the left, and privatization, increasingly on what’s left of the “right,” is the same impulse: instead of shaping society toward positive goals, we will put out more “policemen” to constrain it. Unlike real police, however, these regulators oversee morality, social factors, driving behavior, form-filling, etc. and at the end of the day contribute nothing. If everyone in your society is pulling in the same basic direction, you do not need these outrageous control mechanisms. If everyone is going in radically different directions and thus cannot be counted on to do the right thing unless forced to, that is the root of the problem and it cannot be fixed with band-aid application of more control mechanisms.
- Don’t offend: Any system based on illusion has supplanted reality with social popularity, because it derives its power from manipulation. Consequently, a basic tenet of its operation becomes “do not offend” because that alienates potential customers/voters. We turn our politicians into salesmen, and soon even our military leaders become late-night infomercial voice-overs. Hint: this type of decline can never be reversed, because as soon as one eliminates that which is offensive to one type of person, a new type pops up. In America, we had to first avoid offending the nouveau riche; then the women; then the Southern European immigrants; then the African-Americans; then the homosexuals; then the Hispanic immigrants. Now each group has its own entrenched bureaucracy, and all of them oppose any clear statement of truth if it might possibly offend their members; of course, they tend to be overzealous, because when one is paid a salary for nonsense work, one tends to leap up at chances to justify that salary through dramatic (and quickly over) action.
- Not in my backyard/Parasites are not a problem: We might as well call this “out of sight, out of mind.” The idea is formulated by your average television-watching voter as, “I don’t care what you do in your own home, as long as you don’t do it here.” Translation: if it is out of sight, it is out of mind, and I am thinking about nothing but myself. People doing destructive things do not confine themselves to a different backyard, but actually manage to cultivate communities around the same activity. Parasites, for example, might not be doing things in your neighborhood but the costs of supporting them affect you, as do the consequent disasters throughout society. Those who think “not in my backyard” are ignoring that our world is one (1) single entity and that destructive actions anywhere come back to visit us all. Take it to an extreme: would you be OK with me testing nuclear weapons in my backyard, if it were big enough? You would worry about radiation. The same way I should worry if you are fomenting a cultural movement that will tear apart a unity of direction and values in a society.
- “Freedom”,”Justice”,”Liberty”,”Equality”,”Brotherhood of all humans”: Anyone can promise you the world, especially if they wrap it up into a simple single idea of no clear direction. You want freedom? Well what does it mean, then? — no one can tell you. They just know they want it. You are not hearing words, but bleating. Compare these ideas to a saleperson’s rhetoric: “All New”,”Best Ever”,”Lowest Price”,”Unique” — these are promises with no time at which they are tested, and no necessary bearing on the quality of your experience. It might seem to be the lowest price, but if it’s also a cheap piece of junk, does that help you?
Our society is complex enough and has enough complicated failings that these basic realities take years of analysis to see. One way such a delusional system stays in power is by grabbing people when they have too little experience to know anything, polarizing them with a political identity (“good cop, bad cop”) and sending them off to do battle. It will take them decades to admit what they once thought were solid answers might have holes, and even decades more to find an alternative to the thought process they’ve been taught. The result is regretful old people sitting in retirement homes wondering where everything went wrong. And, per its nature as delusion incarnate, the system keeps chugging while they talk inconsequentially…
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006
The internet – a bold new frontier in media. Not only does it escape the necessity of being confined to a single channel to receive information, but it also enables users to be publishers. Radio and television couldn’t do this. Yet after an even decade of the internet changing our worldview, have we really learned anything? No, I’d argue — because our problem exists on such a basic level of thought that we cannot address it by changing methods. Our problem is a series of assumptions in the minds of most people.
There’s an old parable about not seeing the forest for the trees; if all you see is a tree, you might not notice that it is surrounded by other trees. It’s the same way with the forest of symbols we’ve created for ourselves in modern times. In an effort to be well-educated, to have political power and important opinions, we the people have inundated ourselves with information we cannot digest. Overwhelmed, we turn toward the nearest comforting view that seems to encompass it all, and thus we stumble from democracy to dictator with no thought of actually ending this situation.
Symbols surround us but even more, become part of our identities. If we are liberals, we must – must! – defend certain ideas. If we are conservatives, who are just conventional liberals these days, we have a different set of symbols we must use to process any incoming data. If we do not, our personal identity is at stake, and since we base our self-worth on that external construct determined as much by our peers as by our own actions, for our identity to be at stake means that we feel our own self-worth is in doubt. We might have to suicide if judged unfit by the herd, which graciously grants us membership and thus makes us feel worthy in the first place, rising above the machines that populate our skylines…
This is why people will stumble, lie, dissemble, etc. in order to avoid seeing the truth. The truth is plain, but they feel they cannot change it or that to face it would destabilize some aspect of their own lives, especially their egos, so they campaign against it. But really it’s quite simple. Societies decay much like any social group. Initial impetus being gone, the members campaign for personal power instead of collective success. This leads them to adopt ironclad ideas like capitalism and egalitarianism, but basically what’s going on is an “every man for himself” mentality: it’s not social behavior, but complete parasitism. There is no contact with reality.
Our current Iraq war is an example. People ramble on for hours about paranoid conspiracies and lies and falsified data. They forget the truth is obvious: this war makes powerful and wealthy people happy, probably for a number of reasons. Is it Israel? Certainly. And oil interests? Probably. What caused it? Convenience. Same way with multiculturalism: there is no conspiracy behind it; it is profitable, however, to import people to a foreign culture and hold them hostage for a generation or two. And then you can sell luxury services to the indigenous population as they try to avoid the ferment of violence that is brought of conflict cultures, especially when some are bred for tribal hunting societies and others have evolved as a result of established, educated agrarian/artistan cultures.
If I had one word of caution for someone trying to make sense out of the human situation today, especially while using the internet, it would be this: cynicism. I mean that in the oldest sense, which involves a willingness to look past what people claim is their motivation to their actual aims, a cui bono before all other questions. Look at people for what they are: scrabbling animals who are unaware of the world around them yet doing anything they can to gain power within it. Look at your leaders – do they lead, or make promises? Then look at how your society is structured: equality of the individual so that each can gain as much power as possible. Do you need conspiracy theories anymore?