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.
When we refer to something as a “con,” we use a term that has been around for quite a long time and originates in the idea of the confidence trick, a type of swindle that involves using the mental blindspots of the mark to induce him to lunge after an illusory too-good-to-be-true offer.
The most common con job today is the Nigerian scam. Millions of emails go out to lonely and retired people claiming that a prince in Nigeria needs just a few thousand dollars to unlock millions of dollars, which he will share with the mark. The mark, being both credulous and greedy, visualizes those millions just like a lottery play and pulls the trigger. His thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — disappear, and now the rest of us have to subsidize his survival while the scammer runs free with the dough.
A good confidence scam is a force multiplier of sorts: like martial arts, it is based on using your mark’s momentum against him and then locking him into a posture from which there is no defense. The trick must involve a semi-plausible story which like any trap is believable to the hungry and incredible to the well-fed, so that those who fall for it are afraid to tell others and others, upon seeing someone fall for it, assume it was stupidity that ensnared that poor fellow.
The way to see through a trap is to treat it as a strict business deal. X is traded for Y during time frame Z with parameters A, B and C. When exposed that bright light, most scams fade away because it becomes clear that the promise is vague. It is that vague promise which traps the consumer: motivated by zeal, he projects his mental visualization of his hopes onto the fuzzy promises made by the salesman. Then when he leaps, the salesman or con man steps back and hides behind the limited language of the promise.
Now let us look at democracy.
In theory, or rather “in terms of its stated promise,” democracy means that people select politicians on the basis of self-interest. The crowd hustles to the voting booths, and whoever gets the most votes wins, and then applies the will of We The People when he gets elected.
In reality, or by reading the strict terms of the contract, actors go on stage and offer pleasant visions. These are exchanged for votes. At that point, obligation ends; the election has been won, and the candidates — who are selected on the basis of being the “most qualified” and to whom judgment is delegated — do whatever they want. They also have a permanent excuse for non-performance, which is that the other party stopped them or the law got in the way.
The salesman claims the product being sold is government, but the real product is the sales pitch itself. Whatever makes people feel happy and warm inside, especially with women and under-30 voters, is selected on the basis of those warm feelings. Voting is a competition for who has the best speech and most flattering platform to the voters, not any choice of competence, honesty, integrity or intent to actually do the things that were promised. It is American Idol writ large.
Naturally, a good part of our political activity consists of concealing this from the voters. Politicians always talk about integrity, honesty and strong “signals” or acts which confirm an ideology or tradition. In reality, they are like any other entertainer: the one who is most comforting, interesting and good-looking wins. It has nothing to do with results in the end calculus, but the media and political pundits do their best to conceal this.
Every now and then, however, someone lets slip the lie, usually as the basis for making a second career in media and publishing:
‘Fundraising is so time-consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on,’ the anonymous legislator admits. ‘I don’t even know how they’ll be implemented or what they’ll cost.’
‘My staff gives me a last-minute briefing before I go to the floor and tells me whether to vote yea or nay. How bad is that?’
And on controversial bills, he says, ‘I sometimes vote “yes” on a motion and “no” on an amendment so I can claim I’m on either side of an issue.’
‘It’s the old shell game: if you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em.’
Let us translate this for the audience:
The process of getting elected > What is done after elections.
Politics is a career and a job. What is the purpose of every job? To get paid. And the purpose of every career? To make a name for oneself. In order to survive, politicians — like good salesmen — must raise funds and votes. Then, they must show the right signals so that their audience follows them throughout their career. This is how they both avoid being eliminated from the game, and how they succeed at the job of politician.
You may notice that nowhere in there is effective governance mentioned. The ugly truth is that doing the job of politics correctly eliminates career advancement for the politician. The representative who gets into a position and does everything right will quickly become forgotten because good news does not make the news, especially when mundane and not all that interesting. A competitor will come along and promise free stuff instead. Career over.
‘Voters claim they want substance and detailed position papers, but what they really crave are cutesy cat videos, celebrity gossip, top 10 lists, reality TV shows, tabloid tripe, and the next f***ing Twitter message,’ the congressman gripes in the book.
‘I worry about our country’s future when critical issues take a backseat to the inane utterings of illiterate athletes and celebrity twits.’
More importantly, what is hinted at but not said here is that voters treat elections with the same seriousness that they display when approaching the news. Cute, sexy, edgy and social messages win out over substantive ones, every time.
Notice that the politician who speaks in this piece, a Democrat, gets in a little propaganda for his side:
‘The GOP have their crazy wingnuts, and we have our loony leftists. Screw them both. What we need are more common-sense lawmakers. Folks who see both sides of an issue. Who are open to accommodating each other’s priorities. Today, both sides assume their views are the only logical ones.’
Translation: “compromise” means that you must accept insanity in the name of us all getting along, which is exactly the situation that produces the conditions this politician complains about. True to form, he has put self-interest first here as well. Compromise for compromise’s sake is as stupid as war for war’s sake, or using a hammer in place of a screwdriver because you like hammers.
The grim revelations continue:
‘My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything.’
…’Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works,’ the anonymous writer claims.
‘It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification.’
…’Nobody here gives a rat’s a** about the future and who’s going to pay for all this stuff we vote for. That’s the next generation’s problem. It’s all about immediate publicity, getting credit now, lookin’ good for the upcoming election.’
The idea of democracy is that we are all equal. This means that no person should rule like a king because, if we are all equal, he is just as fallible as the rest of us. Instead, we have a System: a maze of rules designed to limit power so that it works out for the best. But in reality, it is just another sales job.
Josef Stalin once famously inquired “How many divisions has the Pope?” He was responding to a growing sense within the CCCP Party elite that papal displeasure would lead to a hiccup in the grand Marxist global conquest. It did at a later date. This was to be long after the long run had ended for Premier Stalin. Donald Trump has essentially offered up a similar inquiry. “Of what validity is a papal fatwa?”
You see, Pope Francis has heard Donald Trump speak out on several issues near and dear to the Pontifex Maximus’ Inner Gramsci. It would appear that His Eminence views The Donald as The Bad, Old Antithesis. According to Pope Francis, those who build walls instead of bridges have not heard the good news. He offers his homilies below.
“Building walls instead of bridges is not Christian; this is not in the Gospel,” the pope said. The pope said he hadn’t heard about Trump’s plan, but took reporters’ word for it, and said he’d give Trump “the benefit of the doubt.” But he added: “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”
Donald Trump went positively Beast Mode when he picked up the social media joystick to respond.
I think he doesn’t understand the problems our country has,” Trump said. “I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico. I think Mexico got him to do it because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing.”
This was Trump being nice. He later went to a rally and reached back for full-metal concern-troll on The Pontiff.
“…if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which everybody knows is ISIS’ ultimate trophy, I can promise you the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”
So the question for Pope Francis became “What was His Holiness thinking?” You don’t wrestle with pigs unless you like it down in the gritty mud. That’s where The Donald lives*. If you’ve ever played prop in a rugby match against an opponent with absolutely gross personal hygiene, you know what a verbal sparring contest with The Donald is like. So why did Pope Francis so completely disgrace The Holy See?
Well, here goes the explanation of why.
Pope Francis could give a flying Kangaroo-Rat’s Rear-end less about Catholicism. Like any good Gramscian termite, he saw it as an institutional base of power he could subvert, use and help rot. So what if he has to put the clown suit on and say ridiculous things? “Magna cum laude, summa cum laude, the radio’s too loudy.” He’ll put the show on as long as he gets the power and adulation. His hatred and contempt for the poor desperate souls that he flim-flams with his pseudo papacy knows no logical boundary.
Donald Trump is appealing to a certain audience that Pope Francis believes are his. Not in the metaphorical sense, not in the show-biz sense. Pope Francis believes the poor are truly his. He gets to collect them and trade them with his friends like Simon Legree. If Donald Trump were to merely issue mortal threats against the Vatican, Pope Francis couldn’t be bothered. But the Donald threatened Francis’ true concern. The Donald now has to be excommunicated.
So Francis was out of his league with The Donald. The truly cynical man sees Francis for the utter fraud that he is. The Donald has seen every slimy SJW entriest that ever came down the pike and knew his best course of actions was to tell Faux Francis to go blow it out the sanctified cloaca maxima. When Trump publically explained Pope Francis was a disgrace, it was time for Snidely Whiplash to hop back into his Pope Mobile and slink away. A papal Spokesman emerged with the pooper-scooper to do the unenviable media cleanup job.
“In no way was this a personal attack, nor a voting indication,” Lombardi said. At first, Trump responded angrily, calling the pope’s remarks “disgraceful,” and saying no religious leader should question his faith. But Thursday night, he also softened his tone, saying during a CNN town hall that he likes the pope and what he represents. “I don’t think this is a fight,” Trump said. “I think he said something much softer than was originally reported by the media.”
As one talented Twitter smart-aleck put it “What we have here is failure to excommunicate.” This taught me two lessons. One as the newly-minted Nrxer and another as the believing Christian. As an Nrxer, I learned that the true rebel can challenge a phony SJW abusing an unearned title and banish the imposter the way the wielder of blessed crucifix sees off the malignant Nosferatu.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
In the end Pope Francis is just an SJW fraud. He has no love. As St. Paul so presciently predicted, he is nothing. This is why the crass, hard and cynical Donald Trump just pried him off the bottom of his shoe like a flattened pile of dog turds. Go and do thou likewise with all the SJW frauds that bedevil your existence.
*-Because it’s somewhat cleaner than Atlantic City.
Progressives want us to move “forward” as a society by forming a collective and using our group authority to enforce a universal standard of enlightenment.
In their view, history is a straight line from primitive days to a future where all is sensible and we are “enlightened,” or freed from our dark instincts, selfishness and jealousy.
Realists on the other hand realize that this is a dodge. Enlightenment is a great sales tactic, especially if what you’re selling is unproven, dangerous or idiotic.
In the realist view, history is cyclic. This means that the fact it’s 2014 means next to nothing; there are historical patterns which repeat based on human actions, and these have zero to do with the year-number. Much like a standard distribution underlies measurements of all collections of data, a cycle underlies all things on earth. Birth; growth; formalization; death. The cycles repeat infinitely.
Of course, progressives hate this. It is akin to saying that we need no new knowledge or methods, because it has all been tested before. By implication, progress is bunk. Most of a progressive’s time is spent trying to dissuade people from understanding this by inventing new ways to frame old ideas. This is why you have people introducing gay marriage as a new thing as if they never read the classics of Rome and Greece, or pronouncing Socialism a future path when everything they ask for has been tried in the past.
One of their biggest fears is that you will figure out that their plans are all failures based on past failures, and that the only reason liberal society is “working” at all is that it is buoyed by debt and technology. They can hide much of its dysfunction but not its ultimate failure, and the time when that becomes clear is coming soon.
A realist sees cyclical history as having an opportunity for “progress” of another sort: maturation. In this view, societies like individuals do not move “forward,” but move upward. They get better at being what they are. Progressives want you to change what you’re doing, like changing from French class to Spanish class, but they don’t want you to mature. Maturation involves simply getting better at speaking French.
This reveals the nature tendency of the progressive. They intend to avoid putting themselves to the test, a form of responsibility that occurs when one attempts to improve. You either learn the language in depth, or you don’t; ultimately, it’s a qualitative measurement, where changing languages would be a quantitative one (passed French 101, passed Spanish 101).
In the early years of the West, it aimed to move upward. It knew what it was and liked being that, and had a strong identity. Its goal was then to improve. However, this left a lot of people behind. If everyone around you is moving on to higher levels of proficiency and you’re incompetent, what can you do? You can either own up to it, or invent “progress” and claim that you’re misunderstood.
It’s time to cut this parasitic illusion off at the roots and, instead of searching cluelessly for “new ways” like a Californian trying this week’s exotic religion, getting better at being who we are. It is what progressives fear but as this century goes on, the failure of leftism becomes clearer, and a truly different path is needed.
You won’t need to buy another one. Always golden, soft and buttery. Everyone likes it, even the slow kid on the block. 300 horsepower. A favorite everywhere. All that you wanted, and much, much more! Never a dull moment. Can’t eat just one! Show them how far you’ve come. It’s everything you wanted, and more. You’ll never look so good as with — well, whatever product it is. We’re familiar, on a daily basis, with advertising bombarding us. What defines advertising? It makes us associate a product with a lifestyle or a success; the product is the sign, and what is promised is something far beyond it. Do you really imagine simply owning one type of car, shoe, watch or jacket makes someone without power or prestige into someone with those qualities?
Of course it does not. But advertising doesn’t work by appealing to the logical brain, but to our memory, which dutifully stores the association (a brand of beer, leggy blond hotties clustered around::a car, pulling up to a class restaurant and being recognized) and, when we’re exhausted or distracted and trying to make a decision, pops it to the top of the stack and we select it. Of course I’ll prefer that brand, or, maybe I can afford a nice big car. Advertising works by targetting the part of our minds that don’t get translated into clear “I’m buying this for the following logical reasons” discourse. It hits us below the level we can even put into words.
The same is true of politics. The best product in politics is one that links together a number of things we think of as good, and puts a symbol atop them that is something everyone can remember and agree is a “good thing.” We might call it hyperbole, or overstating the effect and importance of something, or we might call it a superlative, which is attributing to something a universal degree of power and worth, but really, it’s both, and more. Advertising and politics both use universal symbols that are not anchored at all in reality, but in images, in associations, in non-logical ideas that attract our unguarded emotions but not our critical thinking. This is the power of symbols, when redirected to a base level.
In literature and art, symbols abound, but usually, their purpose is complex: to associate a certain action with a certain abstract idea or tendency. Advertising and politics are much simpler: they want you to see a one-to-one correspondence between a symbol/product and a life you can leading, if only you select that one thing. It’s a good way to get led around by your nose, because you’ll notice that in advertising and politics, no promises are made. You’re allowed to make an assumption because the advertisers and politicians are vocal about the same assumption, but there’s no followup and no guarantee. Did they explicitly promise that if you buy a certain brand of beer girls will flock to you? No, but they showed you it happening in a certain case. Same with the car. You saw one guy buy the car, and immediately be thrown into a world of success. It’s not logic, but imagery.
The modern age has done away with magic and most of religion except the most dogmatic and unworldly type, the kind that promises eternal vacations if you just do what the god in question demands (note that older religions would encourage you to sacrifice to the gods, but there was no guarantee you’d get anything out of it; half the time they were still wroth with you, and the sacrifice was in vain). Modern politics, religion and advertising thus are quite similar in that they say that if you do a certain action in this world, forces from another world will make of you something in this world. Whether that other world is the realm of gods, of the political-economic machine, or of money and leggy bimbettes, really doesn’t matter. The unstated promise, based on assumption, is what keeps you coming back for more.
We’ll take an example symbol, not for the sake of assaulting it as illusion, but for demonstrating its effects, although it is clearly one of the more destructive illusions. Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why, because once the Iraqi people have freedom, they’ll be like us. They’ll see our way of life is the better one, and give up those primitive tribal superstitions. They’ll stop being unreasonable, and see it our way. What is freedom? It starts with democracy, but it includes economic competition and the ability to earn lots of money if you dedicate your life to it. It also includes emancipation of women, and of every ethnic group and in short, equality of us all, except in our competition for money, in which we assume the best will win. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution. Freedom. And doesn’t it just sound good?
You’ll note these are not promises; they’re assumptions. And they operate like magic. When we bring freedom to Iraq, all of its previous problems (which required a series of hardcore rulers until Saddam Hussein finally unified the place and began selling oil for a fair price to the English) will take a backseat. A life of prosperity will settle. Presumably leggy Arab bimbettes will gather around sports cars, and those who drink certain brands of beer can go home with the hottie daughters of Imams. Ignorance will vanish. But does adopting “freedom” really have anything to do with sex, ignorance, or prosperity? These can come from other sources as well, and obviously have, if the fecundity of the Iraqi populace is any suggestion. We’re not telling them freedom is a better way; we’re letting everyone assume it is, and promising our lifestyle in return.
Astute readers (good to see you again) will have noticed that advertising is amazing in that it predicts inward and physical changes in response to outward, symbolic options. There is no more nutrition in one brand of beer over another that makes you smarter, sexier, etc. Nor is there anything in one brand of car that makes your breath smell better, your muscles tighter, your testosterone more vigorous or your penis heartier (that’s another product, but read the two pages of fine print, in case it kills you). Advertising and politics redirect our belief in a thought process geared toward the right answer, and supplants it with something which suggests a universal right answer, but in reality, only sells a product. It methods is this same superlative hyperbole that we see in the belief that democracy/freedom will somehow conquer the world and make it a safe, Utopic place.
You can even see this merely in how we define “freedom” and “democracy.” Democracy means government by vote; it doesn’t guarantee that those votes are intelligent, or that intelligent solutions come from it. We associate it with “freedom,” meaning civil rights, but those don’t ensure that what is best is done; they only grant us a defense against government. In short, with democracy/freedom, we’ve gone from trying to do what is right to trying to do what protects us against wrong. Our only direction is defensive. But when you package that up as a perfect cure for all ills at once, it sounds good. And then when out of the forty thousand words spoken aloud you hear daily, the loudest voices babble on about “freedom,” you follow that carrot even though you haven’t been promised any real effect. Just an image, a shining image, one that tugs at your emotions. Have you been sold an illusion?