- Centrist: adj. the act of claiming to not care about identity politics in order to feed one’s own already narcissistic self-value.
- Communism: adj. crippled by Progress (see Progress).
- Conservative: adj. a desire to recapture an imaginary Golden Age, and cease caring.
- Corporation: adj. the benchmark of personhood for Conservatives; n. the Great Satan of Liberals.
- Economics: v. the act of attempting to predict the future, through a broken crystal ball.
- Elections: n. the greatest theater production money can buy.
- Family Values: absolute control of the person (see Person), and her/his genitalia.
- Fascism: v. the act of feigning fear.
- Free-market: n. the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God of Libertarianism (see Libertarianism).
- Independent Voter: n. a disgruntled Conservative/Liberal; n. a committed Moderate (see Moderate).
- Labo(u)r: n. an archaic animal of antiquity that invokes nostalgia in Liberals (see Liberal), and disdain in Conservatives (see Conservative).
- Liberal: v. a state of perpetual inability to cease seeing faults everywhere in society.
- Libertarianism: n. the completely rational belief that faceless, easily corruptible conglomerates are more honest and trustworthy than faceless, easily corruptible governments.
- Middle-class: n. a mythical being with no clear definition; adj. a rhetorical token point.
- Moderate: n. white bread.
- Person: adj. act of being valued by your monetary and/or societal contribution; n. a corporation (see Corporation).
- Politics: adj. the art of self-interest.
- Progress: v. the infantilization of humanity; adj. hope for change with no plan to act.
- Religion: adj. a source of false humility for the socially powerful, and a source of false power for the socially humiliated.
- Socialism: n. the elder brother of Communism (see Communism); adj. being beyond redemption.
- The People: n. a device that creates the impression of human compassion.
- Voting: v. a dramatic tragedy.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the best thing about the internet is that it can connect you to people you would never have had the chance to meet otherwise. Unfortunately, the worst thing about the internet is that it can connect you to people you might never have wanted to meet in the first place. A further caveat I need to add to my thinking here is that it also gives opportunity for groups of people, who would otherwise silently fester in the fringe of their own obscurity, an outlet by which to promote and recruit for their ideas. Trailing in that online tradition of appealing to edgy opportunism, mixed in with out-group paranoid hysteria, development of an in-group lexicon, and add a good sprinkle of desperation for online celebrity (propelled forward by a base of fans hiding behind the unrestrained security of online anonymity). Finish it off with a dose of victimhood mentality about being an aggrieved, unheard sector of society, and you have the key ingredients of an Identity Movement.
The alt-right is one such Identity Movement in the news lately. It’s hard to tell whether the white
supremacist nationalist “identitarian” movement is really winning over any hearts, or if its vocal presence and relentless social media self-promotion is just giving that impression. Either way, these brand of racists are no longer content with posting anonymously on message boards like Stormfront [no, I’m not linking to it; you can google it if you’re that curious], and are confident they can gain a mass appeal among America’s white majority. One of the main reasons why I’m doubtful of the alt-right’s claim to be gaining mainstream traction is the fact that despite being a movement focused on race, whose primary objectives deal entirely with the promotion (though they would undoubtedly call it protection) of white people and white identity–well to the point of wanting race to be the determining metric of citizenship in a proposed ethnostate–it’s main proponents (and their online followers) will whine incessantly if you so much as dare actually pin the dreaded “racist” label on them. (It has to be a social progress of a sort when even racists consider being a racist a bad thing, and I’m one to take any progress I can get.)
Deflection, conflation, and obfuscation are common tactics of argumentation and self-defense among the alt-right when it comes to fending off the (accurate) racism charge leveled against them. Usually something along the lines of:
“The leftists/liberals are the real racists! All they do is talk about racism, and always at the expense of white people. The alt-right is just a reaction to the left’s/liberal’s anti-white racism. The Left’s anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white.”
Okay, I’ll bite. For the sake of argument, let’s grant the premise entirely. Let’s grant that the current political Left has a prevalence of anti-white racism at the core of its ideology. Now, how does the Left being racist against whites (a scenario wherein racism is a bad thing within the stated premise), justify an equally racist pro-white reaction against it (wherein now racism is stealthily flipped as a desirable response)? Surely, if the initial racism from the Left (as the alt-right identifies it) is a bad thing, then racism as a counter to it would be equally bad, as it would make you simply an inverted copy of that which you are opposing to begin with.
What the alt-right misses (be it intentionally or unintentionally) is that rather than succumb to a false dichotomy in which one must choose a side between racist leftists and the racist alt-right, it is possible to denounce both sides as racists, and oppose them both simultaneously (as the vast majority of people living in the Western world already do). Just like I can oppose a crime committed against a person, without having to condone the wronged person’s subsequent retaliation if he or she decides to even the score by committing an unlawful act in revenge.
It simply amazes me how people involved in this argument (including those attempting to argue against the alt-right) fail to point out how saying that other people (people you ideologically oppose) engage in racism, doesn’t nullify or justify one’s own racism. After all, the KKK and the Nation of Islam are both ideologically just as racist as each other, regardless that the stated goals of their racism contrast one another. To repeat, simply pointing to racist practices of other groups (practices that you wish to emulate, by the way) doesn’t make your racism more justified, or less racist.
I’ll state it even clearer for alt-right supporters: whenever you find leftists/liberals saying we should get rid of whites on the basis of them being white (by whatever active/passive/Marxist/post-modernist/cultural/political means or influence you wish to identify it as) it is racist. When the alt-right says we should get rid of non-whites on the basis of them being non-white (by wanting to create an ethnostate where citizenship is to be determined based on race, which will inevitably deprive current non-white citizens of their citizenship status based strictly on the criteria that they are not white) it is racist. And I can–and I will–call them both as such, and point out the myopia of calling out one side’s racism while mimicking the same line of thinking from the other end of the spectrum.
Alt-right spokespersons are very quick to eschew the racism charge against their ideology by saying that they (and people like them) are essentially just in favor of preserving white identity as a unique and distinct concept, just as all other races ought to be respected in their desires to preserve their own unique identities. When stated in such terms, it can sound rather benign. But the reality is that every time people who are sympathetic to the alt-right start to map out their end goal (i.e. the creation of a white ethnostate, wherein citizenship rights are to be primarily based on the merits of a person’s race) of just what this sort of ideology entails if it was actually implemented, the outcome is always, by necessity, indefensible on every civic and (I would argue) moral ground.
Once again, deflection and obfuscation are the means by which people within movements like the alt-right communicate. So whenever challenged on the indefensible violations of human rights that would inevitably follow were their proposition for a white ethnostate put into practice, their go-to retort is to insist that nothing about their goal of creating a white ethnostate is inherently violent, in and of itself, against non-whites who happen to already reside in the carved out area; insisting that sufficient compensation to these non-whites to simply be relocated out of the white ethnostate would be a peaceful alternative to the transition. I’m tempted to point out how these are the same people who mock the political Left for being unrealistic utopianists for advocating for a classless society, all while sincerely putting forward the expectation that a group of native-born citizens will peacefully relinquish their citizenship rights (and all the protections and privileges it guarantees them) as long you give them enough cash to make it worth their while. However, I’ll be charitable once more, and for the sake of argument grant even this (absurd) premise well beyond any reasonable sense that it deserves.
So let’s say the alt-right accomplishes its goal, and a white ethnostate is established. Let’s say that within this ethnostate there is a moderately-sized metropolitan city of 150,000 people, whose non-white population now needs to be relocated. For the sake of being generous, let’s also say that the percentage of that non-white population is as low as 10% of the whole, leaving us with only a meager 15,000 individuals that now need to be removed. And since I’m in such a generous mood, let me put the total percentage out of this already small group of individuals who will actively reject any attempts to be removed from their place of birth (regardless of the monetary compensation offered to them to do so) at a measly 1%. That’s 150 individuals. 150 native-born, law-abiding, multi-generational citizens, whose legal status and citizenship rights will now have to be forcefully revoked, who will have to be forcefully evicted from their country of birth, not on the merits of any wrongs that they have individually committed, but based strictly on the metric of having been born as the wrong race. This is the reality of what the alt-right is advocating for, if one follows their proposition to its logical conclusion.
So why is this point not being hammered every single time someone like Richard Spencer gives an interview? And then continuously followed up on when he gives an evasive non-answer that fails to acknowledge the violent ethnic cleansing campaign that will undoubtedly have to happen to fulfill this alt-right talking point? How can you let these same people babble on about being stalwarts for the cause of individual freedoms and liberties, while advocating for the implementation of policies that seeks to deprive people of the greatest guarantor they have for safeguarding their individual liberties: their citizenship rights–rights most of them have a privilege to by virtue of their births, regardless of their race.
The reason I’m writing this post isn’t because I’m worried the alt-right will actually achieve its stated goal. I’m fully aware that all of this is a fantasy scenario. A racist, fascistic wet-dream of a fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless. The logistics of it are not only impractical, the morality of it are intolerable even among the population they are trying to appeal to, i.e. conservative-leaning whites. I’d even go so far as to say that the proposition of creating an ethnostate, where being white will be the primary criteria considered for citizenship, is furthermore not just ahistorical, but outright anti-historical.
The reason I say this rests on the fact that even during America’s most openly pro-white eras–where slavery was an acceptable labor practice and open discrimination against non-whites was not only tolerated, but often encouraged–even at such a time, where the proclamation that the United States was a de facto “white country” would not have raised the slightest eyebrow among the population at large, even at that time, citizenship still was not and could not be based on the merit of race alone, as evident by the existence of non-white freemen that lived and worked in various sectors of American society, and were still considered American citizens. Despite the widespread (socially acceptable) discrimination that existed against them, and despite the fact that there were a multitude of legally binding social obstacles that prevented them from enjoying their full citizenship rights on equal terms with the white American populace, the one fundamental right they could not be deprived of was their status as a citizen of the country. They were still American, and were identified as such by the highest courts of the land.
Perhaps there will be alt-right supporters who read a post like this and say, “Yes, well I don’t care what you say, I’m still in favor of a white ethnostate.” Rest assured that my goal in writing this prolonged screed on your screen isn’t to convince you to give up your views. It’s simply to get you to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that when you say you’re fine with a white ethnostate, you are by definition saying you’re fine with revoking the citizenship rights of nonwhites, even if they are native-born and law-abiding members of society. And you further support this policy, even if it means using force against whatever percentage of these now racially undesirables refusing to give in and surrender their rights to the nation they were born under–essentially endorsing a policy of ethnic cleansing in the region you wish to carve out only for yourself, and people you wish to racially identify with. Furthermore, it would go a long way to your credit if you could do so under your real name, if these are the convictions you honestly hold. Because if you do it solely behind the safety of an online pseudonym, where no one can tell if you’re being sincere or trolling for the “lulz”, you can’t turn around and expect anyone to be willing to waste their time and energy engaging in argument with an opponent whose honesty cannot be reasonably deduced.
Moreover, the real reason I bothered writing this post comes down to the fact that those of us who look at the alt-right and see the absurdity of what they are saying need to stop with the near-apologetic way we talk about these people. Yes, the alt-right is fascist by virtue of the very goals they outline, and the means they are willing to resort to accomplish them. Don’t allow yourself to get derailed arguing about free speech and free expression by a group that’s literally talking about wanting to strip away the citizenship rights of people on account of them having been born the wrong race. How can you say you support free expression, when you don’t even support basic rights of citizenship? By definition, you cannot subscribe to this view, and still maintain to be an advocate for either individual rights, or any sort of enlightened values. The only word for this line of thinking is authoritarian. And pointing a finger at what the authoritarian, anti-white leftist/progressive “cucks” are doing, doesn’t negate the fact that while the ideological goal may be different, your the intent and ideological methodology is identical.
Because authoritarianism, by any other name, from any other side, still smells just as rotten. And the alt-right was rotten at its core from its very inception.
Parents who bear the financial luxury of having the conversation, may eventually find themselves weighing the advantages and disadvantages of sending their children to a well-respected private school, over what has been described as the more lowbrow settings of many public schools. Full disclosure: I spent some time pursuing a career as an educator in a public high school, so I can attest to the shortcomings of its structure personally, if need be. I have also been associated with a good many private schools over the years as an academic tutor, so I can also verify how much of their oft-heralded academic superiority is greatly exaggerated by its enthusiasts.
It’s true that many private schools have higher test scores and graduation rates than their public school equivalents. It’s also true that private schools, being primarily funded by the parents who can afford to send their students there, are not obligated to accept every child looking to enroll into their institution (having parents whose income can meet the financial demands of a private school education is also not always enough, since many private schools reserve the right to dismiss any student whose academic performance or personal views fall short of their satisfactory standards). Public schools, being funded largely by the state through taxes, are normally prohibited from being selective about their student body (hence why it’s called public education; if you’re under 18, you’re pretty much guaranteed a seat). However, it is also true that private schools are often better at promoting an engaged and interactive learning experience in the classroom, as opposed to public schools where preparing students on how to pass standardized tests reigns supreme.
I present all of the above not because I want to argue one educational system over the other. In fact, if I wanted to, I could probably convincingly argue the talking points for either side, without ever injecting my personal views into the discussion. What I really want to address here is the libertarian argument I often hear in my part of the country, which insists that public schools should be completely replaced in favor of private schools in order to increase the value of America’s education system. The reason I don’t support this view is because its proponents use questionable criteria to argue against the value of public schools, and because the entire argument appears to be accepted by individuals whose real goal is to satisfy their already existing political or philosophical ideology, rather than an actual desire to provide a better educational model for the students.
Eliminating public schools will by definition exclude certain people from getting any kind of education–primarily people who need it the most–because there will always be someone who will not be able to pay the tuition, or meet the academic standards of the private institution. And these children also need to get a basic education if your goal is to truly have an educated populace and be economically competitive on the global market (if it’s not, then disregard this whole post and go about your day). A proponent of the private-school-only model might argue that private schools come in a variety of forms, and several could be set up where private tuition and high academic standards will not be decisive in enrollment. To which, perhaps, individuals can donate of their own free choosing to contribute to the basic education of those less affluent in society. The problem with this line of reason is that it sets out to resolve something for which there is already a solution.
There is in fact already a model in place by which education is provided to those who cannot afford high tuition rates and whose scholarship is not exemplary, and it’s called the public schools system. What motivation is there to create a complicated set of arrangements within the private school model, when the public schools already serve the function to meet those arrangements? Essentially, I find two reasons at the heart of it offered by private school proponents, neither of which has much to do with increasing the value of education:
1. “I don’t like taxes, and big government.”
2. “I don’t approve of what the state is teaching my child.”
Point number one is popular with libertarians and fiscal conservatives, who feel that government involvement in the marketplace (be it of goods or ideas) and taxation is harmful to the system as a whole, as it leads to over regulation, a lack of productivity, and a stifling of the individual’s liberties in favor of providing communal welfare. We can debate the validity of these economic points all day if we want, the bottom line as it relates to the public schools is that because public schools are funded by the states (through taxes) they are an infringement against the rights of citizens who may want to opt out of their requirement to pay the taxes which fund institutions they get no services from (either because they have no children, or prefer to send their children to private schools). The issue I see with this is that while it would make for a compelling sociopolitical discussion about the role of government and civil services, none of it has anything to do with invalidating the notion that public schools serve a needed role in educating citizens who otherwise would have no access to formal schooling. If your contention lies with the process by which public schools are funded (i.e. taxes), then you have to first voice your concern with the supreme law of the land (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8).
Whether you agree with the efficiency of it or not, the government (both federal and state) has the constitutional right to collect taxes, which it can in turn use to fund social services; education being one of those services on account that it provides a positive benefit to society. Thus, the whole justification taken here in favor of private schools over public ones, seems to stem from the fact that the existence and funding of public schools doesn’t align with one’s political beliefs. But this is unsatisfactory in convincing anybody outside of your mindset in the objective worth of your position, since a socialist could equally argue that private schools ought to be eliminated because they foster a sentiment of elitism and class segregation, which will lead to long-term economic ruin. The problem with both approaches is that the topic at hand is being used to support one’s predisposed political opinions, instead of letting one’s political opinions rationally derive from the topic at hand.
The second point is, to me, a testament as to why public schools are necessary. Speaking primarily as a former educator, it needs to be said that when I sought to teach students verifiable, testable, reliable data, I owed it to them not to let their (and their parents’) biases deter their learning process. There is not doubt that the public school curriculum is at times undermined and dulled by the school board that overseas it, which can have negative affects on the education standards presented to the students. But ultimately the teacher is still not held accountable directly to any parent or school administrator who may take issue with the philosophical implications of a particular topic raised in class. Teachers are held accountable to the set district standards, whose authority lies independent of the administrators running the campus and the citizens whose taxes fund the district. And as long as they can demonstrate that they have not violated said standards, no parent or administrator can dictate the information and content that make up the teacher’s lecture (try as they might at times, they will by necessity lose in every attempt, as they very well should). Therefore, to promote private schools over public schools as a means to ensure the promulgation of your personal ideals and values in the classroom, is to me a position that is almost pointless to refute, because I guarantee you that there are a number of demonstrable facts, across various academic disciplines, that negate many opinions near and dear to your heart. Once again, trying to make reality conform to whatever ideology you have chosen to accept is by definition incompatible with providing students with a thorough and comprehensive education.
It is worth mentioning that I am in no way arguing that private school should be abolished, or even that public schools provide a superior education. I know that there are private schools that do exemplary work, whose curriculum is completely devoid of political or theological considerations, where the primary objective is to give its students a proper education based on good scholarship and proper critical thinking skills. Hence, I take no issue with there presence in the greater educational system, serving as an alternative to parents who are considering it as a viable venue by which to educate their children.
My main point here is to argue that public schools are necessary as a social service. Furthermore, my aim is to counter the view prevalent in my neck of the woods (conservative, libertarian-leaning America), where people are inclined to argue against public education because they feel uncomfortable with the way they are funded (i.e. taxes), or don’t like the lesson plan being taught.
If, for instance, you are a parent who prefers for your child not to learn about evolutionary biology, or analyze a work of literature you find vulgar, and opt out for the private school route to avoid the implications you think such things will have on your child’s greater thinking, you have the right to do so without considering my feelings on the matter; nor would I even try to suggest that you in anyway ought to take my considerations on the subject seriously. However, if you come to this conclusion, and therefore insist not just that other parents should follow your lead, but that the educational system needs to be designed in such a way as to undermine the existence of the public school model, you have essentially forced me to engage you on the matter.
My position does not stem from a desire to satisfy the axiomatic precept of my political or theological identification, but from a recognition that many members of society benefit from–and are dependent on–the existence of public schools to educate their children; in hope that a decent education will provide at least some chance of letting them rise higher in the economic hierarchy than their parents. I see no reason why I should stand in the way of this hope, or concede the argument to those who aim to do just that.
Just to get the main point across allow me to start this post by simply stating, there exists no such thing as the economic model from which we can impartially derive any sort of self-evident conclusions, policies, or values. By which I mean that there is no purity test to determine which economic model is somehow more objectively “valid” than another.
For example, take two modern economic models that stand on completely opposite sides of the spectrum: Marxist communism and laissez-faire free–market capitalism. [I’m aware that different people have over the decades attempted to give varying definitions within both these models, thereby making an overreaching analysis on my part impossible; hence, I will primarily be addressing elements that are agreed upon components by almost all professional voices in the aforementioned fields.] Putting aside what Marxism has come to mean to the layperson through the various revolutionary forces that carried its banner in the 20th Century, at the core of the economic model is the proposition that societal development is best understood as the process by which humans–as a collective–produce the necessities of life (often referred to as historical materialism among Marxist scholars). While the nuances of the whole thing can get very convoluted from here on out, the basic framework Marx was working off of, within this scope of historical materialism, is that human society is better served if the workers who physically produce the products necessary for the life of all of society retained economic control over said products. From this he further postulated the emergence of a commune like market of commerce, in which production is owned and distributed equally among all sectors of society (i.e. communism), as a historical inevitability that human development is progressively heading towards in the modern era.
The theoretical problem of course in the Marxist economic model is that the validity of historical materialism is dependent on the notion that we accept the validity of historical materialism; this is otherwise known as a tautology (or circular argument), and is fallacious by definition. The practical part being ignored in this model is that the perception of human progress as developing towards one specific sociocultural norm or another is only evident in hindsight, and any economic/social course that ends up developing can in retrospect be rationalized in terms of its preceding events; this is true even for identical situations that yield contrasting outcomes. Not to mention, if we are to approach economics from a historical perspective (as Marxism claims) a decent case could be made that human nature (even in modern, industrial time) seems to be more conducive on creating hierarchical social structures, rather than collective communes.
Before any free–market advocates who might be reading this start handing out congratulatory “Likes” to my dismantling of Marxism (I’m looking your way libertarians and self-styled classical liberals), it needs to be said that the reasoning underlying laissez-faire free–market capitalism fares no better than its socialist antipodes. The premise that economic sectors perform at their best when market forces are allowed to compete unmolested by non-market factors (like the government), rests on the idea that little to no regulation will in itself create an environment in which all the various forces that make up the marketplace will have to compete against one another; theoretically leaving the final word on what products/serves are to succeed in the free–market to the consumers (i.e. all of us). In theory, this sounds great; in practice, just like when it comes to Marxist economics, historical data casts a few doubts on the extent to which laissez-faire capitalism holds up.
First, the proposition that the free–market is something akin to a self-sustaining, self-correcting organism ignores the fact that the free–market is–above all else–entirely man-made. The free–market, as an economic plane in which human beings exchange commerce, is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, anymore than a locomotive is a naturally occurring phenomenon; we purposefully invented it to serve our economic needs. Thus, to argue a “hands-off” approach to an entity whose very existence is owed to primarily “hands-on” interests, can be argued to be more than a bit narrow-sighted.
More than that, when we look at the era in which laissez-faire free–market capitalism thrived unmitigated in the U.S.–the late 19th and early 20th Centuries–instead of seeing a marketplace of robust competition, driven by the needs of the consumer, we see a gradual concentration of market power in the hands of a handful of conglomerates. The reason being that, economically speaking, the initial surge in competition experienced in a newly emerging market, left to its own devices, can in time have a minority of businesses surpass their competition to the point that they are virtually the only option on the market left for the consumer. In this historical scenario, the presence of a laissez-faire free–market did not create a healthy competitive environment, nor did it have any means to correct the centralization of commerce powers in the hands of the few over the many. (In fact, in this case the government actually did have to step in and implement anti-monopoly laws to try and introduce competition back into the market.) Therefore, the unanswered (or unanswerable) question concerning laissez-faire capitalism is the issue of–given the proposition that faceless, easily corrupted government agencies cannot be trusted enough to interfere with the business operations of the free–market–why faceless, easily corruptible conglomerates ought to, for some reason, be seen as more trustworthy in this regard?
Although this much should be obvious by now, the point of this post isn’t to convince anyone to accept the superiority of one economic theory over another. Even as far as the two (admittedly more extreme) examples cited above, I’m sure that given more time and interest we all could go back and forth listing all the sincere benefits and advantages of both Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism. Acknowledging this, my greater point about economics remains the same, which is that while the historical study of economics can produce viable, scientifically tangible, insights about some aspect of human societies (primarily developments in the commercial and fiscal sectors), proposed economic theories themselves lack this level of scientific rigor. All economic theories (be it Marxism, laissez-faire capitalism, or anything in between) by necessity begin with an assumed conclusion (“human society is naturally moving towards a collective communal state”, “the free–market operates best when left unregulated”, etc. etc. etc.) and then go on to selectively interpret all socioeconomic developments through the lens of whatever situation is more conducive to the promotion of the favored economic conditions already accepted by the economic theory in question.
From this it certainly does not logically follow that all economic theories are equal in their outcome (whether for good or bad). Or that any one economic theory couldn’t be claimed as more preferable for any specific society (I think most reading this can agree that feudalism would generally be a horrible model for modern society). What it does mean is that there is no such thing as an all-encompassing, omniscient economic system deduced through unfiltered objective reality, as opposed to individual, subjective human preferences. In light of that, I think perhaps talks of economics from opposing viewpoints is due a bit more humility and reservation about one’s own pet theories, than what is currently on display in public discourse.
Just some food for thought, savor it as you wish.
Some words die in the course of their usage; others before they ever really get a chance to experience life. It can be presumed how at least a small fraction of these aborted etyma possess within them the potential to contribute to the greater understanding and advancement of human expression.
Of course, this sentiment certainly does not possess universal application across all fields of study. As, for instance, when it comes to fields like politics; where words are very much meaningless to begin with. Add an -ism; concoct a series of phonetic abbreviations; maybe combine some neutral sounding words to disguise egregious breaches of national and international law as passable acts of justice (e.g. “enhanced interrogation techniques“, “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same“). The notion of allowing concrete definitions of terms or phrases into their diction would be toxic to political agents, as it would force them to speak and obey the same language as the rest of society. A move counterproductive to their career interests, since it might serve to give the impression of accountability for one’s words, and the subsequent actions they bring about; a cruel demand on a group of people whose professional existence consists of purposefully rendering words unintelligible. Among such personnel the only Gospel is “Babel”; the walls of which shan’t ever cometh tumblin’ down, for they stand too high for those from-out to look in, and for those from-in to look out. In this context, it’s foolish to expect people who don’t occupy the same stratosphere to hear one another’s voice, yet we still insist on debating endlessly why there exists this loss in understanding between man and statesman?
And what is there to understand, really? Why must there always be either some deeper meaning to a system, or an ominous conspiracy? Why isn’t it enough to simply acknowledge that people who reside in the same atmosphere will have their perspective shaped by similar interests? And in such a situation, what need is there for anyone to conspire about anything when everyone who reaches the same elevation already understands the nature of things just by virtue of having climbed the path?
In a kratocracy, where governance (both political and its financed-proxy) rests with those who are strong enough to seize power through force or cunning, the primary order of business that is expected of every person is to understand who it is you stand under, and follow rank accordingly. In a kratocratic system, words must remain elastic in their meaning, so that–whenever convenient–the word of law can serve as a mere compilation of semantic loopholes (at least, when applied to the kratocratic lawmakers and financiers themselves). Anyone who actually makes it up the ranks in this system will understand all of this by fiat; conspiracies and secretive motives are pointlessly redundant in a political order where sabotage and manipulation are not corruptions of the system (hence calls for reform carry little pressure), but inherent attributes of it that get openly rewarded with wealth and power.
Consider the following: Everyone says they hate the smear ads put out by politicians against their opponents, just like everyone says they “hate” the obscene tabloids that litter the magazine racks of every store. In other words, the majority of the people who say they detest gossip and mudslinging are obvious liars, on account that if such underhanded antics were truly as universally despised as people claim them to be, this sort of behavior would have fallen into disuse long ago. But it hasn’t, and it won’t. Because sabotage and manipulation, as long as they are not pointed out as such, are perfectly decent kratocratic virtues. Virtues that only become indecent at a lower atmosphere, where the oxygen is too dense to support them. Up on higher elevation, however, where the gravity of things like ethics and moral conduct don’t appear to weigh a person down as heavily, a different mode of reasoning applies. None of this is devious or deceptive, as we all passively sanction this disparity for those who occupy seats of authority (both political and by its financed-proxy). Partly because (as mentioned) we know our rank and don’t really bother to inquire too deeply into the matter, and partly because Babel is much too high up for any of us to strain our necks far enough to really care about what’s going on up there anyway.
The true cunning that sustains a kratocracy is the relatively little effort it takes to sustain it. Simply draw a few lines in the sand, throw out a few provocative token issues around and behind said lines, and–voila!–watch people preoccupy themselves with these “life or death” topics, and whatever narrative is needed to keep the engine running smoothly will pretty much assemble itself (with the occasional minor tuneup here and there). Again, no conspiracy needed, since even the people who get caught up in the small-scale politics of the whole thing notice that there is something more important operating around them. But they don’t care, because as long as they focus on the pet-issues they have adopted as their personal identity, they can say how they’ve done something. Whether or not its something relevant to challenging and eradicating the source of their cause’s woes is anybody’s guess, because what really matters is the comforting feeling of taking action it gives them. Thereby, the beauty about a kratocracy is that it allows a person to feel both powerless and powerful at the same time–creating inner dichotomies is the mainstay of cunning authorities.
The Dichotomy of the Martyr and the Satyr:
It’s easy to be oppressed. In fact, to a growing number of people, this appears to be their primary goal in life. Observe a group of individuals some time, and watch how–sooner than later–the conversation will descend into a pity-fest of grief and sorrow. It starts with one person retelling a great trauma in her/his life, and how s/he overcame it. Which, of course, will cause another person to quickly improvise her/his own tale of painful woe. Then a third will jump in to match both of the previous life stories with her/his own dose of personal despair. And around, and around, the self-deprecation goes [where it stops nobody knows–if it ever stops at all, that is].
The assumed purpose in conveying one’s trauma to an audience of equally pitiful (in the sense of being full of pity) onlookers, is to humble oneself by demonstrating the extent of one’s suffering before the cruelty of life, and voice one’s opposition against the systemic source of one’s miseries. The actual purpose is to elevate one’s sense of self-importance not through any positive accomplishments achieved, but through the sympathies and pities of one’s failures and setbacks. And if that is not the intent, why go out of your way to rehash matters that are causing you so much apparent pain? Why would you wish to publicly place yourself (even if just mentally) back in such a situation, unless you gain some–perhaps subconscious–satisfaction out of doing so? Why would you want to aggrieve others through your anguish, when they cannot feasibly remove your distress for you? Then again, is removing the trauma really the goal in this mindset?
I may be out of the loop here, but as a general rule oppressed people don’t have the luxury to freely voice grievances about their oppression. (If they did, how oppressed could they possibly claim to be?) If they speak of it at all, they do so with the intent to reform, or revolt against, their oppressors, and possibly replace its authority with something more desirable. People who merely speak (freely and without any evident restraints) about their supposed oppression as a means of gaining acknowledgement for it, are not in the business of either challenging or changing any wrongs in society; what they seek is to attain recognition through metaphorical martyrdom.
Naturally, this martyr complex cannot go wholly unchallenged among the greater public. And the most biting reaction it will bring about is–what I would call–the Satyr effect. People who use their past grievances as a means to promote a self-righteous indignation about their person will emit two leading responses: 1. Pity (the desired reaction by the would-be martyr), and 2. Ridicule (i.e. the Satyr effect). The Satyr sees her/himself as a counterbalance against the overblown austere tone of the martyr. So, s/he mocks, and ridicules, and uses sharp wit to get the message across that the martyr’s concerns are due little more than a jolly laugh or two. For her/his part, the Satyr sees her/himself as a hero who speaks the hard truth to the world, and puts a humorous check on the antics of both the authorities and the martyrs of society.
In reality, the Satyr serves the greater purpose of empowering both, by giving them a tangible source to validate their dubious claims of oppression (in the case of the martyr) and benignity (in the case of the authority; who else but a benevolent power allows itself to be mocked mercilessly?–is the popular adage here). The Satyr can’t admit this, as it would be an acknowledgement of the fact that s/he is simply a byproduct, who exists strictly in reactive form. And reactions by definition only respond to the products that create them, they do not operate independent of them. Thus, the Satyr’s image as a hero for truth, and voice for real change or reform, is as unfounded the the martyr’s claim of oppression; and just as self-aggrandizing.
The dichotomy of the martyr and the Satyr are linked together by default. Where the first appears, the second will follow, and with the advent of the internet age, the rate at which these mindsets spread increases tenfold. In recent time, they have also become the desired responses by which the modern generation has decided to combat the ills and injustices of the world; unaware of just how helpful this is to the very authorities they claim to be challenging. This is why, together, the martyr complex and the Satyr effect will ensure that the 21st Century goes down in history as one serious joke.
In a kratocracy, you are not oppressed–not really. If you are among those who fit the personality type, you will be made to feel the wholly illusory role of the oppressed martyr. Not for the purpose of inflicting any unnecessary pain (or any real pain, for that matter), but to keep you content and docile by giving you the exact dose of self-righteous persecution you crave in order to make your person feel important enough to be faux-oppressed by a “greater” power. Having tied your self-worth to the “oppressive” system you whinge about, removing this system will be unthinkable as your martyr identity (which is your whole identity) is dependent on its continued existence. Additionally, you will be too preoccupied with your own unresolvable issues to bother caring too deeply about anything else going on around you.
In a kratocracy, the Satyr–the cynic, the comedian, the witty social commentator–is neither combating nor undermining the governing system by ridiculing its unjust, hierarchical structure. As the Satyr, you’re actually having the (unbeknownst to you) effect of desensitizing people to the wrongs of the power structure you’re working so hard to mock. Humor breeds comfort, and comfort breeds content. It is true that, in feudal days of yonder, it was the Jester who could only speak the brutal truth to the ruler. Yet, can anyone name a single jester who has ever overthrown a single ruler by virtue of possessing this great privilege of critical commentary? No, and no jester ever will, because–no matter how much the Satyrs of the world wish it to be otherwise–jokes, even intricately insightful ones, do not have an iota of influence on an authority structure’s hold on power. (Disagree?–Name one Bush joke in the previous decade that actually had the effect of countering the man’s unwise policies. Or, for that matter, a single insightful jab at Trump’s lack of qualifications for high office in slowing down his presidential election. Can’t think of one? Exactly.)
Kratocracy: governance by those who are strong enough to seize power through force or cunning. What could be more cunning than a system where even a presumed defiance can be utilized and converted back into the service of the authority being defied? Now, at least, it has an identifiable name; a most acidic move against an entity that depends on the elasticity of words and definitions to survive and operate.
Post-election ennui is a foregone conclusion for most sane people (like junk food is for the intestine, there’s a limit to how many bumper-sticker slogans and dimwitted soundbites our collective psyche can handle before the floodgates open). But the results are finally in: Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the next US President come January, and the Republicans will hold a majority of the seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. To say that some segment of the American public is caught off-guard is an understatement.
A year ago I wrote a post on Trump that summarized my views on him, vis-a-vis the average American voter:
Simply put, the man is an asshole, and people can better relate to assholes than straight-arrows. They forget about the fact that nothing about Donald Trump is actually relatable to them personally. You weren’t born rich. You don’t get to walk away happily from one bankruptcy after another, after another, after another, and still be called “financially savvy”. You don’t get to insult people on a deeply personal level, and still be seen as anything other than a sour old crank. You are, in every way imaginable, living in a different reality than Donald Trump. And, no, by associating with his name–his brand–you will not be granted access to it, either
To some members of the public Trump is a vicarious personification of how they wish that they, too, could behave (as they please, without fears of consequences). To this segment of the population no deeper reason really needs to exist to convince them that Trump is the man to lead the nation. There are a multitude of other reasons people voted for Trump, of course (worries over immigration trends, worries over big government, distrust or dissatisfaction with Democratic policies, etc.), but a too-thorough analysis really isn’t necessary since–whatever the underlying reasons are–Trump managed to actually appeal to enough members of this society to sell himself as the worthy candidate.
This brings me then to the losing side. With the many confusing factors that made up the 2016 election, explaining why Hillary Clinton never enjoyed mass appeal is the easiest thing to pinpoint. Again, allow me to re-post what I wrote last year:
In the past decade and a half, [Clinton] has been foolishly hawkish when she backed the Iraq war for as long as public opinion could stomach it; she currently speaks out against corporate greed, yet seems to forget that she sat in government, not proposing or supporting a single piece of legislation that might have curbed the coming market crash in 2008, or reformed the financial sector in this country in any way whatsoever; she has never given more than passive support for the rights of gays, low-income families, the labor class, or anybody else for that matter, until she was absolutely sure that such stances polled favorably with the electoral public.
In short, the conundrum that faces the Left in this country when it comes to electing Hillary Clinton is similar to the one that faced them in the 90s with the first Clinton. Namely, the Clintons have no ideology, political or otherwise, to propose, stand, or even fall on: the sole purpose on which any Clinton campaign is fueled by is strictly the unyielding need to get elected. All other concerns are secondary, if nonexistent to this guiding purpose.
The gamble the Democratic Party played was the hope that the American public would look past these obvious flaws in Hillary Clinton’s character, and instead galvanize around the fact that Donald Trump is an incompetent, thin-skinned, pompous, insulting, crybaby, bloated simpleton, wrapped up in a narcissistic package of a special kind of clueless buffoonery. The problem with this line of thinking is that it blatantly illustrated a disregard for their own potential political allies (i.e. moderate and liberal Americans), as if they hoped for the average Democratic voter to be too stupid to realize when a candidate (and her entire Party leadership) were unwilling to afford them the due respect to at least acknowledge the gaping flaws surrounding their candidate’s record, and just rely on the flaws of the opposing candidate to carry them through to the finish. While there may have been a time not long ago when this was true of political campaigns, it simply isn’t any longer. Technology has afforded us too much access behind the veil, too much data at our fingertips, for any perceived lack of sincerity to be brushed aside as irrelevant (Trump may very well have lied about everything he said during his campaign, but the Clinton campaign’s history of trying to downplay any blemish in her political record is what disenfranchised people who may otherwise have been inclined to vote Democratic).
The core lesson that should be gained from this election is the fact that Americans no longer just believe that the political system is corrupt, but that corruption is an innate part of the system. And when these same people say they demand change, rather than settle for hogwash establishment rhetoric, they will go out and choose whatever real change they can find–given the option, they will even choose bad change over the same old “business-as-usual” candidates. Whether this is a lesson that the Democrats learn remains to be seen, however. Lest we forget that the shallow brilliance of political minds lies in the infinite depth of their stupidity when it comes to deducing the reality around them. And if you disagree with that, consult the accuracy of the political experts and pollsters leading up to this election, then revisit how my previous sentence hardly went far enough in explaining their ineptitude.
In America (and, presumably, most other democracies), the act of voting is valued as both a right and a duty. We respect and uphold this great privilege we currently enjoy, granted to us through the efforts and sacrifices of past generations. The right to vote is a virtue we all cherish, as it binds us together in a greater community. Yet, despite all of this, the fact still remains that roughly half of us in America (who are eligible) don’t vote. Implying that, while nearly all of us give lip-service to the importance of voting, a good 50% don’t actually bother to do it. Here, it is not uncommon for the politically active to dismiss their inactive counterparts as bullheaded, affirming how, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” However fine a byword this might be to rally the voting masses, it does little to address the issue at hand; nearly everybody values voting (or at least claims to), but only half of us see the endeavor as worthwhile.
Moreover, I find it relatively shocking how few dare to engage this issue through any measured scrutiny. How often is the question raised about whether or not voting is truly a viable virtue? Almost never. It is assumed to be self-evidently true, and to question it as such would be insulting to out national consciousness. But haven’t half of us already decided that voting is not worth our efforts? So, why bother being offended by a matter that is removed from an equal number of people’s concerns?
Additionally, is it really true that we cannot complain about circumstances we choose not to take an active part in? Does this apply to other situations besides voting? Is it worth for a Democrat to vote in the presidential election in a predominately Republican state? Is it worth for a Republican to vote in the presidential election in a predominately Democratic state? If you are a liberal in a conservative town/city, how much influence will your vote have on the candidates who will be your representatives? In the same gesture, if you are a conservative in a liberal town/city, what influence will your vote have on the candidates who will be your representatives? Does this mean that the value of voting is arbitrarily determined by the place you reside, and the type of election being held? And why are these questions brushed off as trivial by those who want to increase voter participation?
A commonly endorsed, egalitarian-sounding, feel-good-sorta sentiment that people throw around to respond to the above concerns is to explain, “Well, it’s not important who you vote for, just that you do vote.” But doesn’t this undermine the whole point of the process? If this nonchalant take on the matter is to be taken seriously, then elections are nothing more but a means to get the public to participate in a common gathering every 2 to 4 years. Such a sentiment holds the implication that the results are meaningless, because what’s really important is that you just take part, with no weight given to the consequences. How is that an argument in favor of a valuable duty responsible citizens should strive to maintain? If you care about the voting process, it should matter to you who people are voting for, otherwise we might as well just randomly pick a name out of a hat prior to casting our ballots.
Let me clarify that I am not trying to talk anybody out of voting in the next election. Far from it, I want those who care about the votingprocess to reflect and seriously consider the reasons for their position beyond the foolproof logic of cliche bumper-sticker slogans. And for the other half of the citizenry, who honestly don’t see much value in voting, to openly admit it to themselves and not feel as though they need to hold something as virtuous simply because it’s expected by cultural mores.
If the values we hold matter, then we shouldn’t fear defending them. No matter how basic we may think them to be.