Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘symbolism’

Trump Evaporated White Guilt

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

bernie_sanders_racial_confrontation

The 2016 US election was remarkable in so many ways, but none more so than this statement:

Watch for an increase in babies 9 months from now.

This statement exemplified the almost orgasmic emotional release felt by millions of people around the globe, even in Russia. Interestingly this was not the first time in history, because the following events resulted in the same:

  • After the Second World War peace was signed, a lot of (white) babies were born.
  • After the Mandela peace was signed, a lot of (white) babies were born.

Since this emotional release is a normal human characteristic, the same will happen in any tribe subjected to the same circumstances. However, this does not refer to conquering soldiers raping “slave” women; it refers to women being relieved at the prospect of peace to such an extent that they view it suitable for their “own” children.

The same can even be said for animals, where it is known that (some) antelope will only breed if they think it will rain.

Although this is a known phenomenon, nobody foresaw this “condition” in the current USA. The reason is quite simply that we have been drugged to such an extent that we missed the forest from the trees.

Therefore, assessing this “condition” can only take place in hindsight as follows:

Dilbert creator Scott Adams identified long ahead of time that Trump would win the election (by far). Adams trained as a hypnotist and persuasion is “his game.” The prediction that Trump would win was therefore not based on “data”, but on Trump’s ability to persuade people to vote for him. That persuasion was even possible, is based on the idea that Trump “heard” the guilt-ridden cry of his people.

From a different angle, liberals interpreted Trump’s “connection” with the people as populism. In hindsight this was a mistake because the term “people” conjured the wrong concept in the liberal mind. Liberals sell the idea of equality but secretly they abhor “the people.” At the same time though, they use those abhorrent “people” to destabilize entire countries.

Almost all countries in the world have been destabilized, except America. It is now possible (in hindsight) to confirm the utter stupidity of insider elites like the Bush and Clinton dynasties, that they would actually destabilize their own country. That this is a mental condition as described in “The Liberal Mind” is confirmed after reports that NATO mobilized 300,000 soldiers on 8 November 2016 in Europe in preparation for a Putin confrontation.

To get back to the term “people,” another aspect revealed in hindsight, is that American destabilization occurred via a two pronged liberal attack of “the Russians are coming” combined with immigration of migrants who are also classified as “people.”

Take note that all this is arranged by the uni-party liberal virus sitting in the Washington swamp. This is hindsight; it is not conjecture. The “people” are currently literally being pulled down into the swamp. But the liberal concept of people is (thankfully) incorrect, which is why Trump won the election.

In Roman times the “people” were Romans (not slaves) and in America the people were Americans. This was the status quo until liberals decided to “entitle” slaves/migrants as “people” in exchange for a bribe called “grants” in some form or fashion.

Democrats lost the 2016 election because they “assumed” that everybody (that vote) are “people”, but Trump knew that there is a big difference between Americans and other humans such as migrants/slaves. Therefore he “recognized” the American, who responded positively by voting for him.

The question now is: Why did the American taxpayer respond to this simple act of recognition?

This is where Scott Adams comes into play by identifying that liberal fear-mongering caused Americans to subdue themselves (for decades) and Trump overturning that same table of fear. Because as Adams stated quite categorically – “to oppose liberal politics of fear, requires (of Trump) to counter with a worse fear.”

The worse fear is not some external threat like “the Russians” or “political correctness”, it is the fear of self, the internal avoidance of “I was wrong”. This fear leads many people towards suicide and to nihilistic thoughts while it is this same fear that once it is recognized, will evaporate thereby opening the mind to internal peace and the jubilation of knowing that I was “not” wrong.

This internal fear has several examples such as:

  • After Soviet dismemberment, Russians drank themselves to death (I was wrong).
  • South African police suicides escalated after Mandela came to power (I was wrong).
  • American veteran suicides escalated under Obama (I was wrong).

But from a fear-of-politics point of view, America is not the only country with this retarded liberal problem. Canada, France, Scandinavia and Germany currently enjoy the same, whereas South African conservatives are still bending their knees (to this strange God) every day since 1991, when George H.W. Bush declared the New World Order who incidentally, is the same retarded Republican “God” that voted for Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s persuasive play at the American internal fear of self, overshadowed the Democratic externalized fear (of feelings).

This resulted in the evaporation of guilt causing Americans to revel in the possibility of rain and a subsequent expectation of growth where children can prosper. However, it must be noted that liberals did not evaporate at the same time, meaning they can now be openly shamed (which is their worst fear as was demonstrated by Chuck Johnson, when he emptied a rail road car.)

A Proposed Symbol For The Alt Right

Monday, October 10th, 2016

This symbol is not intended to compete with others or replace them, but to be used alongside any other symbols. It is made of two infinity symbols (∞) and is designed to reflect the traditional belief in continuity, order and balance in all directions, both physical and metaphysical.

Osama bin Laden

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

The killing of Osama bin Laden is a classic example of a symbol that masks a more complex reality.

We often wish that we could hold the world in the palm of our hands, whether metaphorically or literally. If we could distill all that complexity to a single thing we must approve or reject, life would be so much simpler.

One way we do this is to stop considering broader implications, and consider only the impact of something on us in terms of impeding our will. If it helped us or didn’t interfere, it’s Good. If not, we declare it Bad and try to invent some abstract ideal that will prove it so.

However, at the end of the day, those types of decision involve treating reality like a symbol and ignoring its broader implications. As a result, they produce problems:

  • No legitimacy. Whatever we think of the outcome, the Nuremberg Trials provided a sense of legitimacy because they were consistent. When you go to war for peace, democracy, justice and other big broad symbols, you should try to demonstrate those. The Osama raid was not a capture raid; instructions were issued in advance to kill all men encountered. That’s an assassination.

    As another source put it:

    But capturing and trying violent leaders is probably a better marker of the end of such organizations – the chances of such an outcome being higher when such leaders recant their views and call on their followers to lay down their arms. Abimael Guzmán, the leader of the Maoist Shining Path in Peru, and Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey, are notable examples of this.

    By contrast, far from causing the demise of an armed movement, the killing of a charismatic leader at the hands of his enemies can transform such a figure into a martyr. Che Guevera was far more valuable to leftist militancy after his death than he was while alive. – Project Syndicate

  • Not structural. George W. Bush, as president, attacked the support structure for al-Qaeda: Islamic republics that adopted the Islamic extremist hierarchy into their propaganda or government. In particular, he tamed the Saudis with diplomacy and destroyed Iraq, which so far had supported the most radical terrorism because it was in a position to conduct weapons from the Russians into the hands of Islamic extremists. Osama bin Laden did not have such pull.
  • Martyrdom. After eight years of American action against him, Osama bin Laden was boxed into a corner. His attempts at terrorism in the USA and Europe failed more often than not, and he had no visible support from governments, making his organization appealing only to the already alienated outsiders. This hurt his recruiting and thinned his staff. Even more, he looked impotent and soon to be forgotten; toward the end of the Bush presidency, for a time he was. Killing him affirms his importance.
  • Legitimizing terrorism. Eye for an eye is a great policy except that it legitimizes the original deed. If he kills some of ours, and we kill him, we’re in effect saying that a war of attrition has been joined. A future terrorist needs only look back to this incident, like our domestic terrorists looked to Ruby Ridge and Waco, to see legitimacy in his cause.
  • Lazy Clinton-years policy. Clinton would have done the same thing. Where a Republican president will commit boots on the ground to destroy the infrastructure, Democratic presidents tend to make symbolic moves that allow the infrastructure to thrive. Now that our fake war is over with the death of bin Laden, we will (if history serves) relax our pressure on the money-hoarding, weapon-gathering and extremist-associating practices that happen before any organization is ready to make open war, even terrorism.
  • Romanticizing. The story is now that Osama bin Laden resisted the West all his life and was killed unarmed by a bunch of highly-trained assassins with a trillion-dollar military arm behind them. No one can survive that. We could have had another story, one of Osama dying in obscurity after drifting toward more abstract philosophies, as some evidence suggests was happening.

In Europe, there has been criticism of America that should for the most part immediately be forgotten. Everyone resents a superpower, and so most of the world is critical of America most of the time, which causes their criticisms to become a sort of background noise. There’s one legitimate point here however:

Many in Europe have questioned not only the manner of the killing of an unarmed man, but also the taste and dignity of the American public who chanted ‘USA’ in the streets.

Expressing these sentiments is Britain’s Archbishop of Canterbury who said: ‘I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.’ – The Daily Mail

The addled Euro-pundits can’t quite put their finger on it, but the killing of Osama bin Laden as a political symbol rings hollow. It’s a crass call to round up the troops and put on a good face while more serious problems lurk.

No war is started by one man, or perpetuated by him.

The conflict between radical Islam and modern liberal democracy is bigger than America. This is elements within the Middle East making war on their nation-state governments because those governments do not accept the mandate of fundamentalist Islam; this parallels the war between social conservatives in America, who want a society based around healthy values, and the liberal modernists who don’t think values except for political values are important.

In many ways, killing Osama bin Laden is our way of silencing this dissent in ourselves.

For example, it’s one thing to say that all speech should be tolerated and anyone should be able to do whatever they want to do. That’s a negative reaction to intolerance and authority abuse. But what kind of society do we actually desire?

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

[…]

What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages. European communities, in turn, will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities. Arabs, Chinese and Westerners, however, are not part of any broader cultural entity. They constitute civilizations. A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he intensely identifies. People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilizations change.

[…]

Third, the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities. They also weaken the nation state as a source of identity. In much of the world religion has moved in to fill this gap, often in the form of movements that are labeled “fundamentalist.” Such movements are found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as in Islam. In most countries and most religions the people active in fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professionals and business persons. The “unsecularization of the world,” George Weigel has remarked, “is one of the dominant social factors of life in the late twentieth century.” The revival of religion, “la revanche de Dieu,” as Gilles Kepel labeled it, provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations. – Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations”

There is no consideration of the consequences of “everybody do whatever you want, every man for himself, just keep going to work and buying stuff” as an ethos to a civilization, yet the intersection of democracy and liberalism seems to produce it every time. In fact, loosening the rules just ensures that commercial interests have a greater sway, and they want culture and religion out of the way.

Even in the United States, we can see that whether Osama bin Laden went about his political agenda the wrong way — by being a murdering terrorist — that his viewpoint, if taken in the abstract, might apply to us. Do we want a family-oriented society that believes in a morality higher than the individual? Or do we want an anarchistic open-air bazaar with no standards, in which things inevitably degenerate to the lowest common denominator?

When we killed Osama bin Laden, we wished we could have killed this conflict. Life would be so much simpler! This conflict underlies our culture wars, our political division, our recurring Civil War, and even our social division between urban and suburban values. It’s so much bigger than one man.

Yet like fanatics burning books, we destroy the symbol and hope it (magically) makes the deeper underlying problem go away.

Face Value

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

religion_is_gay

You know the score: you’re hanging with some friends, the night is winding down and groups have separated, so a few pull away from the eternal kitchen confab (kitchens are, apparently, the place for candid dialogue in modern society) and plump up the sofa for some video entertainment. “Let’s try a foreign film someone says,” and you, camping out to rest those feet for a few before checking out the porch scene, groan inwardly and think, I hope to forsaken gods that it’s not British.

Oh, but it is. “Look, it’s a bomb,” mutters the disillusioned-and-so-realistic detective. “No, it’s macaroons! The package says macaroons!” nasals the authority figure protagonist. Huge explosion, ceremonial gardens ruined. Someone actually does groan, which stirs you out of mentally composing Why I Hate British Cinema: An Ongoing Meditation (Book 71). These characters are plastic cut-outs, heck, the whole society seems to be.

To Americans, British people in television and film seem to be so nerdly and useless we can barely watch to the halfway point as they struggle with the obvious. Things aren’t what they appear to be, so we have to go talk to everyone who vociferously insists they are, and finally a crack appears, and the mystery unravels and it’s time for tea and another endless talky scene to make sure we understood that, in this movie, things are as they appear to be. Americans can’t believe how proper, how stodgy, and how endlessly nerdly the British seem to be.

What is it about nerds and the British that make them almost conflatable? If we fall into the trap of the movie, we try to look at their external appearances and derive formulas based on clothing, tea, prancing gaits and pinchy-nosed dialects. But really it’s the outlook on life that sees reality as even divided into square blocks, equals signs, and paths of proper behavior from which deviation cannot occur. Nerds get sand pushed in their face by jocks because a true nerd never quite gets it; he’s always trying to take something or another at face value, and so confronts reality with an awkward akimbo mentality that makes us all inwardly shudder.

If you ever wonder why software sucks, and most of it really does once you push it beyond the most standard use cases, you see this mentality in action. There is a specification, which in order to communicate between people, makes generalizations and then makes rules based upon them. Then they pass it to nerds, who generally use computers for nothing but nerd-tasks, in which there is always an archetype and a response in the code. These then create software that works great if you use it in laboratory-conditions isolation with perfect data, which almost never occurs in the real world.

They are afflicted further by marketing types, who whether the software firm is for-profit or not, want to promise everything to everyone, because if The People see it says it can do something on the box, they buy it — they want their macaroons to be XML-compliant. So features creep in, and nerds plop them into the software, without concern for the ecosystem formed of operating system, other stuff running on the computer, and the user. They ship it out to the world, crashes occur, and phone support people are left to tell us that they “didn’t consider that situation.”

Nerdism (and Britishdom) if you look at it carefully is a product of the modern mentality of “ground-up” construction. Ground-up is the idea that you make little parts interact, and then an order forms itself. People love ground-up construction because it is the fastest and easiest way to answer that one question or demand, right now, without having to fix integral problems with the ecosystem in which they’re building. The principle of ground-up construction is that you ignore the ecosystem, and you ignore all consequences beyond the immediate a + b = c of your plan, so that you deal with the smallest set of data and let the system build itself.

This idea gets applied universally. In literature, it’s the workshop method: you start with a character, invent one aspect of a scenario, and let the interaction between character and scene create a story. In software, you reduce your problem to the simplest set of use cases, build categories and build objects to address it. In society, you find a popular consensus on a problem and create a bureau to handle it. All of these responses work great, if we only look at the problem in that arbitrary form of abstraction which removes context; once we open our eyes to reality, and look at the whole, we see we’re creating rigid rules that contradict each other and ensure that our nerdly, proper solutions clash with reality in a collision between tangibly solid, square thoughts and an organic, gritty reality.

Nerdism is one of those great emergent properties of life that doesn’t happen, if we supposed life took itself as face value, with the creation of a law or a social policy. It’s a mirror of society itself. Nerds get it first because they are shaped by the machines they use, and can either struggle mentally against the disorganization or accept it and succeed; the British are infected by the class conflict of their small island and the desire for social climbing it creates. When society wants to destroy its elites, it first creates false elites through external appearance. They, and everyone else who wants to succeed, behave rigidly according to that appearance.

These two groups are similar because they are both people who have adapted to rigid social constructs which reward ground-up construction because they fear leaders. Technology grows rapidly when there are only a few loose standards, and then rapidly diverges into many incompatible standards, until some massive force like Microsoft unifies it through smart business logic. Then that big force itself becomes confused, because its goal has occurred, so it seems defunct, but now as market leader must spend more time defending itself — and there are many attackers, and one defender. Rome in the burning mist? Nerds succeed by acting like this situation and not pointing out its many flaws, because you make more profit by lying about a product than by pointing out what it can’t do.

In the UK, similarly, a populist rebellion took over the country through politics and created an environment where anyone could be whoever they appeared to be, and so acting properly, and having the right nasal accent and correct method of pinching your scones as you daintily munch them, superseded having a clue about reality outside of these social constraints. In both technology and the UK, a consensual reality based on the appearance of life to a disorganized group of others emerged because of this ground-up construction. Say what you want about the caprice of kings, but they are good at setting goals and standards.

The consequences of this mentality of ground-up construction (not design) for both nerds and the British has been a waste of their best energies. They follow a society that itself is following a notion based on the appearance, and not actual use, of its products; they have marketed themselves into oblivion and now find it hard to reconnect with reality. This is why societies go through spasms of revolution in 1968 or with the open-source movement: people are aware that reality is far away, but have no idea to reconnect with it because, like revolutionaries, they know they want something different but use the methods of the past and so arrive at their own version of the past, not a new society.

Of course, with humanity there’s a catch, and that is that we listen to each other and in a flexible society where everyone is competing to be popular, get rich and retire, it’s hard to find any thought-leaders. Even worse, because thoughts that are unpopular get smashed down, most thought leaders stay very quiet, until you get blatant suicides like Jesus who are so frustrated with the tedium they’d rather die as a big middle finger on a cross. Ground-up construction is popular, unlike top-down design which requires a consensus and hard work to make every part of the system work together, because it is accessible to everyone.

However, since ground-up construction works with the rigid square boxes of one problem at a time, it inevitably causes chaos, which in turn strengthens the governments and corporations who remove that chaos through blind illogical (and profitable) force. Freedom makes oppression, because freedom creates pleasant illusion which creates problems that require oppressors. We as individuals are our own worst enemy when we are interpreted through the filter of many individuals at once trying to agree on some order (like “freedom” and other ground-up constructions) that will protect us individually.

None of us like the cruelty of jocks, and in this country, jocks are generally idiots who are oblivious to everything but the social pecking order. Yet in us as we grow frustrated there’s something of this mentality, which is an urge to smash every bureaucrat and marketer who tells us that a turd is a macaroon and we’d better like it or we’ll end up in the jobless line. These people are acting innocently to advance themselves, but the order that permits that advancement is destructive, and until we create a contrary impulse by smashing a few faces, it’s going to ride us until we quite properly die wondering why the macaroons are ticking.

Computer Mediated Communication

Saturday, December 17th, 2005

apple_ii_plus

Back when the net was young as a popular phenomenon, there was talk of internet use as “computer mediated communication.” The idea was that people would use the net to share information and tools, and to do their business and spread their art.

This has been replaced by “computer aided socialization,” which is what happens when in a proliferation of instant messenging, video chat, web forums, blogs and “social networks” like MySpace, people are using the net secondarily for tangible information but primarily to exchange social dialogue.

Social data is different from functional data. In social contexts, what is being said is important not for its content, but for its place; people trade compliments or discuss their “important” projects or ideas, but what they’re doing does not concern the ideas but the people speaking them. The actual content is meaningless; what is being exchanged is social validation.

As a result, people do not have web sites to publish information, but web sites and blogs to represent their personalities and through which they hope to gain increasing social validation, like votes from the masses, with which to build popularity in the little fantasy world that is online.

For most of us, especially those of us who were using the internet before 1990, this is pointless behavior. You socialize in real life. Maybe you contact your friends using email or IM, but you don’t go online to hook up with people you will never meet in real life. Reality is still real.

This site, and all of its content, is not here to represent personalities or curry favor points from that specialized audience of people online who do not represent reality but the segment of our population with nothing better to do than use the net. These people are losers in the philosophical sense that instead of challenging themselves, and rising to meet the needs of reality, and perhaps bettering themselves through heroic action, they’ve chosen a cheap and easy way to feel self important.

This site is here to communicate, and if you try to link what is on here to a personality or a desire for socialization, you’re barking up the wrong tree. The “netty” people out there are not reality. They’re losers socializing through televisions with keyboards. This site is for those who want information, who want to learn and challenge themselves, and realize that the experience and knowledge of our writers could be a useful research resource toward that end.

The Internet People

Wednesday, October 19th, 2005

the_internet_people

Some people simply use the Internet, while others become part of this nebulous group known as “the Internet People” even to those who use the net infrequently. The Internet People are always there with an opinion, and their opinions are always dramatically similar. They have certain tendencies known to normal folk, such as a desire to reject any positive idea and to go back to whatever fecal little existences they’ve carved out for themselves online. Sociologists see them as a cognitive dissonance experiment gone wrong. Nihilists seem them as a symptom of this time. Who are “the Internet People”?

A healthy way to use the Internet, or a telephone, or a TV, is as an extension of normal life: you have a goal and you achieve it by using a technology of whichever flavor. There are some however who, like those who are addicted to television or buying the “different” CDs of similar-sounding rock bands, are permanent residents of the Internet because they have no goal and therefore use the net not to achieve real world things, but to exist in for its own sake, as a surrogate social situation and power structure. These are the people you see trumpeting their importance on forums, making clandestine deals with moderators so they can exclude their enemies, and of course endlessly adorning their blogs, mySpace accounts, IMs, emails and P2P profiles with new information about how fascinating, unique and truly inwardly beautiful they are.

For the Internet People, the internet is a source of entertainment and, as is the case with everyone whose goals are so limited, it’s all about them. They see the internet as an extension of their own broken socialization and their own needs. They do not consider using it for a greater good, or greater task, even, because for them there are no greater tasks or greater goods. There is only amusing themselves so that they can continue to function, which is usually a mishmash of steady contribution and dysfunction. They work fine at their jobs, because someone is there to tell them what to do. Let them loose in a grocery store and they come out with five boxes of candy and an apple. They can respond to government, because it tells them clearly what to do and threatens them with consequences.

They can even run their own businesses because those parameters are established and proceed in a linear manner from a basic assumption. But independent action? Art? Organizing something of a new type or method? Forget it; they’re out of their depth and in underconfidence they scurry back to what they know, which is munching junk food and playing on the internet. There’s a sort of uncoded attitude these people have, which is “We’re The Internet People, man, leave us alone, because if we wanted to be out there in the real world with you, we wouldn’t be Internet People.” Internet people are moral and personal failures, but they often do well in life, as long as someone is there to tell them the rules. They can follow a basic thought pattern as long as it already exists somewhere. Imagination and inventiveness are not their allies, except in tightly-controlled, minimally-variable situations such as Internet chat rooms.

What’s even worse is that not every Internet Person is a total idiot and jerk. Many are smart, competent, capable and likable. They may not buy into the whole aspect of Internet People culture, but may behave like Internet People none the less. It’s a useful affirmation that no matter how much one recites the correct opinions, actions speak louder than words, even if those actions affect no one but the individual. I’ve known a number of cool Internet People, and I wasn’t aware that they were Internet People until the time came for them to step up to the plate and spend time independently working on something they claimed to believe in. They made excuses, or pretended to work and then faded away, or outright flaked; many of these were also involved with heavy metal music, another entertainment culture at this point, and thus were doubly upset that reality intruded upon their fantasy play time. They like to imagine they’re part of some movement or grand idea, but the trip will be ruined for them if they have to make it real. It’s the fantasy – the could have beens, the fantastic daydreams, the erotic conjectures – that propels these people, not any firm sense of actually doing something.

For example, one reason that members of this organization are skeptical of people who “volunteer” via the Internet is that we’re accustomed to 99% of them, whether good guys or sloppy fool idiots, flaking out within the month. They want the image. Not the reality. That’s the core of being an Internet Person. That membership mimicks another one from real life: Undermen are those who wish to live in fantasy, and not deal with unpleasant reality. Crowdists are those who enforce Underman doctrine on others out of fear for themselves. Like entertainment culture, delusion and solipsism are comforting to those without the brains to see the inevitability of long-term confrontation with reality and thus, the value in actually addressing reality and making something good of it, instead of running away from it into the arms of illusion. Heroin addiction and most religion fit this profile as well.

In the end, the Internet People provide a firm example of the disease of our time, which is the same whether political or philosophical or spiritual or behavioral: a cognitive dissonance response to reality because of a lack of heroism. Heroism is what makes us get up and face unpleasant truths, in order to triumph over them by converting disorder into order and misery into beauty. We cannot fix death, perhaps, but we can make life so good that death is paltry. That is the heroic outlook, and it is totally missing among the deluded. Their fear is greater than their desire for a good life, and they want to drag the rest of us into their cesspool of hopeless fear, underconfidence, denial and masturbatory pleasures. In this, the Internet People – and all who think like them, whether millionaires who look like Brad Pitt or crack whores with AIDS – are fundamentally cowards, and by running away from life they guarantee that no matter how much they “succeed” in society or on the Internet, they will never have taken life on its own terms, and made something of it. Their mentality is that of slaves. For this reason, they deserve scorn and to be shoved aside by those for whom fear is secondary to achievement.

Abstraction or Reality?

Wednesday, July 13th, 2005

eiffel_tower

Modern politics by nature is a science detached from the actual function of society. It deals in abstractions, or concepts that exist by themselves and refer to the ways we organize those things that provide for our survival. These concepts are powerful, in that they allow us to make changes to the system as a whole, but also dangerous, because if they no longer accurately represent the actuality of a situation, they can be misleading.

Before modern politics, humanity was divided into glorified tribal groups. These “nations” signified people of common values and culture who ruled themselves according to these ideals, and therefore could not be grouped with others. As culture is both created by and influences heritage, these nations were also of similar ethnic heritage. This does not mean they were races of clones, but rather, that each nation directly represented the interests each population had in common.

With the rise of the modern state, “countries” were no longer grouped by national heritage, but by political expediency, and thus the former method of politics was considered obsolete. In order to motivate people to act for the continuance of each society, their leaders organized them around abstractions, such as “freedom” or common religious interest, and assumed it would operate as well as politics previously had.

Failures of Modernism

However, now that our society has gone down the road of time a bit further, we are seeing some fundamental flaws in this outlook. Our societies have lost the ability to say “no” to destructive ideas, and as a result have been unable to avoid disasters such as overpopulation, pollution, crime, drugs, and the like. Where previous societies could point to a common cultural standard and say, “We are not interested in behaviors that deviate from this,” modern societies try to be all-embracing.

The root of this view lies in the need of modern society to produce laborers for its machines and wars. For this reason, modern societies treat all individuals as abstract entities which can be shaped into whatever is needed through training and laws. We can call this view utilitarianism or decentralization, but it started in a far more innocent idea: that a society based on economic competition of the individual treats its workers most fairly.

When we start building a society around the abstract “individual,” and assume all are the same, we apply a greater normalizing force that had previously been at work throughout history. By the very nature of such an idea, it both liberates the worker to make more money, and constrains all who would rise above a crass lowest common denominator; it is therefore both freedom and oppression at once. In order to keep the workers appeased, such a system normally has grand rhetoric about “freedom,” and pledges to support whatever each individual desires.

This facilitative view of society is therefore by nature without leadership, as it exists only for the individual, and because it has no goals in common, does not grant the individual the ability to work for something larger than the self. It also has a “dumbing down” impulse, because if any one of the people to whom something is shown cannot understand it, the unity of divergent interests is lost. In political terms, it is more like herding cattle than achieving a clear goal for the benefit of a population.

The consequence of this illogical design is that civilization, while busy harvesting its workers for the work value they provide, is also active in uniting them around ever-simpler political goals. Since there is no goal in common but the continuation of facilitation of the individual, its political objectives normally involve greater “freedom” and fewer restraints that might lead toward a common goal. In such a system, any individual attempting to participate in something larger than themselves does so at their peril, as there are always competitors who conserve that energy and apply it toward self-interest.

As a result of this process, developing over centuries in every-increasing intensity, we have the modern society, which is such a permissive place it has outlawed any area, no matter how localized, from making choices about who it admits to its membership. While this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is destructive, as it constitutes a normalization of the population and a reduction of the freedom of the individual to live as they would desire. For most, their desires do not include any form of collective activity, or any particular culture, and thus those that desire such things are at an economic and social disadvantage.

Such a tendency is common at the fall of civilizations. Greece, Egypt, Rome and ancient India went through the same process, first losing a sense of values in common, and then becoming cosmopolitan, multicultural societies united by nothing greater than a desire for commerce. As a result, both their cultures and heritages were eroded, causing them to weaken from lack of collective resolve. When trouble finally did come their way, it crushed them easily, as they could not unite to take action against it.

We are now observing the same things in our modern system. Not only is it bad for the environment, and for our cultural-ethnic groups, but it is destructive to our souls, as it detaches us from the collective process of striving and from a sense of community, leaving us as abstract, idealized, individual workers who are valued only for their labor. For this reason, many now not only have fears about the direction of our society in the real world, but they also have a spiritual and philosophical void caused by the lack of any cause except self-fulfillment.

Nationalism

The development of nationalist parties came about shortly after the creation of the modern nation state, which as mentioned above is categorized by political belief and not desired way of living. Where modern societies try to out-compete each other with abstract rhetoric, such as the Communism versus Capitalism drama of the Cold War, nationalist parties appeal to the simple triumph of leaving behind empty abstractions and embracing reality.

Reality is that, while many want to deny this, we are our bodies; our brains are functions of our physical selves and the design of those selves. For this reason, much of what makes us comfortable revolves around the kind of cultural values that shaped our ancestors, and the type of living they would find fulfilling. Inherently, we prefer to live around those who look like, think like, and have similar preferences to ourselves.

A further dimension of reality is that, all political abstractions aside, what makes a citizen happy is how well he or she lives. This includes the basics, such as food and shelter and medicine, but even if the citizen cannot articulate this, extends to larger concerns such as the health of the local community and the ability to contribute to its collective welfare. Most people are well-intentioned, and would like to help out their neighbors and have a social system tailored for the type of people they are.

Nationalism addresses these realities by grouping us according to heritage, and then representing the interests of that heritage not be engaging in abstract international politics and finance, but by ensuring that its citizens have a good quality of life and a traditional style of living. This way, they always have a place, even if there is less radical economic mobility for the most monetarily competitive; they are understood by those around them, and have the ability to contribute to a community at large.

Most importantly, nationalism rejects the idea that a working society can be formed of people with fundamentally different interests. Its goal is not, like those of the grand ideologies of Communism and Capitalism, to take over the world with a one-size-fits-all abstract political ideal. The goal of nationalist societies is to take care of the people within them, and to allow those people freedom from constant economic worry so that they can concentrate on being better at what it is that fulfils them: artists creating better art, farmers growing higher quality crops, plumbers displaying the finest workmanship possible in their task.

In this type of society, unlike all modern societies, money and politics are returned to their role as functions for achieving the goals of the population. They become a means to an end, instead of the end in itself. A facilitative society is based on the opposite principle, namely that there is no end, and therefore the means – money, comfort, political prestige – are achieved for their own sake. Nationalist societies recognize that abstractions cannot be sought for their own sake, as only life itself has that position in a healthy existence.

Nationalist societies empower better life. They do not attempt to take everyone, or to take over the world for some abstract ideal that “seems to” be better, or start wars because people “hate our freedom.” They exist to benefit their citizens and help them grow as a culture, a heritage, and as individuals.

Practicality

When one accepts the wisdom of nationalism, the next task is to apply it. Nationalism’s focus on reality creates a real community, and places focus on culture and people, instead of creating bureaucracies that try to fit every disparate individual into a cookie-cutter mold labeled “Individual.” Even further, it withdraws from international politics by avoiding pursuit of money or abstract ideologies, and turns its focus inward on its citizens.

Stating a belief in nationalism itself is only a start, because nationalism is also a means to an end (the people) and must be further interpreted in every issue that confronts us. As it has, unlike modern political systems, an overall organizational principle of a practical nature, this is not a difficult task, but it is important for nationalists to quickly overcome the difference between nationalism and modernism and focus on the practical issues that threaten our stability as cultures.

Fortunately our societies still retain much of their traditional cultures, although another few generations of modernist politics may obliterate that in a flood of mass-culture products. We must replace the euphonious but empty abstractions of modernity with a focus on daily life, which requires that we give up the right/left divisions assumed as necessary in contemporary politics. After all, we no longer have allegiance to a political entity, but to a practical one: our people as selected by culture and heritage.

In this state of mind, we can actually confront the things that threaten us, including the need to find new energy sources; the imperative of restraining our reckless growth; the necessity of cleaning up pollution so we do not all die of cancers; the demand for stable, reduced crime cities where families can have normal lives without having to constantly be on the defensive. These are the ultimate goals of a nationalist party, as these are what our citizens need, but our outlook is not limited to that.

If one uses nationalism wisely, it is not only to stave off disasters, but to encourage growth of a society. Our culture has taken a back seat to television and pop music; our people have become seen only for their profit potential to industry. This has happened because we have refused to find a commonality in preferences, in part because we’re unwilling to group nations by culture and heritage. Nationalism reverses this entire trend in history, and therefore, represents the best hope of humankind.

The World as Will and Representations

Sunday, January 9th, 2005

Philosophy is a convoluted world. Writers try to find some central theme to their writings, and through that unify a system of belief, but since reality doesn’t fit under any heading in an outline except “reality,” these end up being contorted organizations. Despite thousands of people working in this field over the past centuries, not much of a definitive nature has been produced. One of the great classics, and one that best formulates the “transcendental idealist” position on philosophy, is the work of Arthur Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer wrote his classic “The World as Will and Representation” to express two basic ideas as indicated by the title. The first is the one grasped by almost everyone out there; that the universe, like individuals, is not purely rational but is more like a personality, in that it is like individual animals motivated by an attachment to life, or “will to live.” The second idea is more important in a broader context, and relates to the first; much as Plato saw “objects” and “shadows of objects” in his metaphor of the cave, Schopenhauer separates the world into its essential force (Will) and its forms, which are a human Representation based on sense-data of the world as is.

Unlike many who followed Plato, Schopenhauer avoided the trap of dualism, in which one would say that there is a pure world and it is mirrored in our physical reality. Will is a force that animates the world, and there is something like a representation generated from it, which we can’t know as a “thing in itself” because we are included in it and its scope is too broad for us to comprehend in a linear thinking system. The representation in Schopenhauer’s works was a revolutionary concept: he said that humans never know the world as it is, but only know a representation of it, formed of their interpretation of sense-data and memory.

These were revolutions to a philosophical world which had so far operated in the Christian tradition of an Absolute, believing there was a dual world (or an abstraction that constituted a pure and singular form) which was the blueprint from which the world of appearance is made. This is one viewpoint on the classic division of philosophy: what is the world, and what is the human, and how can the latter best approximate the former? The question “Why do we suffer?” even has its origins in this, as to the world, the suffering of humans is inconsequential, but to a human, individual suffering can take up most of his or her awareness.

Although all of these ideas had vast political and social effects, what this article targets as its topic is something else: the addition of another Representation to Schopenhauer’s list. This is not an addition to his actual cosmology, but a political notation. It is that in a modern time, when we have no uniform religious tradition and are accustomed to devotional belief as our means of finding truth, we view government and media and organized religion as sources of truth or at the very least, information about reality. This comprises an additional representation that a modern must address.

This representation is not unique to a modern time; we are always influenced by others, and there have always been doctrinal headlocks by various sources. However, in the age of technology, which asserts concepts as “scientific” and “proof” in an absolute sense, it takes on enough political and social importance that it’s worthwhile to comment on Schopenhauer’s philosophy and point out this additional cause of confusion. In the most rigorous academic sense, it would not be included in Schopenhauer’s description of reality, as that is analytic of process and not situation. But for moderns, for the purpose of this article, it bears commenting.

Nihilism by its very nature negates this social representation. Most people confuse nihilism with fatalism, which is the belief that one can’t know any truth or do anything about it, even if one could find out. However, nihilism is purely this: a negation of value in any sense removed from the inherent. It is not a negation of reality, but the values which are associated with a value-representation of reality, and while it removes that which exists, it does so to enable the individual to analyze reality and from it derive values on the terms of the individual in the context of a task, not an absolute. Fatalism says there is no ability to interpret, value, perceive or think; nihilism says that such thinking must occur outside of what humans have already projected onto their world.

Of course, reinterpreting this through Schopenhauer, we can see the reason for nihilism existing within the individual: the individual knows the world through his representation, and therefore, can act only on that data according to his degree of will. There is no absolute to which the individual can appeal, but there is grounds for “truth” or at least accuracy in statements about the nature of reality if the individual interprets it according to its structure. In turn, this interpretation is only allowed by nihilism, which by removing values outside of the inherent de-emphasizes perception of what something is, and turns the mind to focus on its importance in the context of a task or goal.

There are two ways to interpret Plato’s cave. The first is that there’s a pure world, and physical objects are shadows of it; this presupposes that we know physical objects as they are, instead of as data from our five senses. The second interpretation is that there’s a physical world, and it casts shadows on the cave wall that are what we know; these are the sense-data perceptions of physical objects, and this view presupposes that we can know our own representations fully. However, it is more logical that we can master thought than that we can achieve perception of things beyond our knowing, and for this reason, nihilism is the only sensible gateway.

It is a rejection of the artificial world imposed upon reality by the additional representation mentioned here: the social and economic reality that is trumpeted in our ears and eyes daily by any number of technological devices. It is repeated in newspapers, on television, on radio and on the Internet; government leaders and news/entertainment people give basically the same view, disguised as oppositional theories. All of these debate things that are not immediately important for the long-term triumph of replacing the reality we perceive, a representation of our world in our own minds, with another representation, that of a collective reality based on social values.

One thing that can oppose this mindset is nihilism, but it does not exist as a philosophical system as much as a method of liberating concentration to be able to apply other methods and intellectual systems. The basic idea of nihilism is accepting ultimate reality – the physical world that surrounds us and, whatever it is made of, is consistent in effect upon us all – and discarding all inference-information from others; it rejects both the absolute and the ultra-subjective, and replaces them with subjectivity as contingent upon an initial goal of valuation, such as a task. Although this is more complex than what most embrace, it clears the part of the mind that values to consider life anew without being unduly manipulated.

Undoing the best efforts of philosophers, there is no central concept or theme to life, except life itself. It is its own goal. Schopenhauer gave us some basic tools that can help us understand our relationship to the world, but there is no complete, single answer – only a series of starting points. The individual can use these starting points successively as the changing basis of a goalset, with each realization leading to something new. But that path begins with something like nihilism, or the mind is awash in the absolute representation of the herd.

Recommended Reading