On Subversion
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:25 pm
Let us consider two groups, and call them X and Y:
Anti-intellectuals who are stuck in their ways, and obsessed with ruggedly individualist work ethic of conforming to norms for the sake of practical simple-minded, closed-minded folk community common sense...
...and libertine, hedonist, nihilist, emotivist, relativists who are about equality before everything else while denying objective morality and reason in order to get something for nothing through social democracy.
Clearly, these two groups are one and the same. The only difference is semantics. The context is different, but the relationships are the same. Both groups prioritize external society before internal individuality, and neither cares about the autonomy of humanity but rather both believe in power politics.
However, that isn't the real point to be made.
Let us also understand that there are two other groups, and call them A and B:
People who recognize heritage, narrative, story, custom, culture, and tradition for the sake of honor...
...and creative thinkers, problem solvers, idealists, imaginers, visionaries, and rational thinkers.
Both of these groups, despite appearing to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, are actually rather similar in that they care about being abstract, and realizing those abstractions while protecting those who realize abstractly.
The problem is these two groups are divided and conflict with each other because the first two groups divide them. The first two groups do not want the latter groups to unite because if they did, then they would have the solidarity required to discipline them. In turn, the first two groups divide among themselves, each identify with one of the later two groups, and when the later two groups focus on problems in the opposite side, those who are problematic reflect their problems on the non-problematic in order to portray them as problematic.
This might be confusing, so here's a picture:
B correctly identifies X as wrong, but X picks up on the identification. Therefore, in order to prevent A from being persuaded to join B, X portrays B as Y. If X didn't do this, then A and B would solidify and discipline X.
X and Y don't solidify because if they did, then it would become apparent what they're doing. On top of that, A and B once solidified have the numbers and principles to be powerful enough and motivated to discipline X and Y. If X and Y did unite, then they would have to centralize and/or destroy communication and information flows in society so much that society itself would implode. After all, X and Y are abusive and parasitic. They are not productive. Without A and B, they simply shrivel up and die.
The problem is why are A and B so easily manipulated by that portrayal? If they care on a universal basis to make sure that abstract realizers are treated with respect regardless of particular context, then why is it that when the subversives portray the other group within a particular context that they get distracted and don't solidify with each other?
Anti-intellectuals who are stuck in their ways, and obsessed with ruggedly individualist work ethic of conforming to norms for the sake of practical simple-minded, closed-minded folk community common sense...
...and libertine, hedonist, nihilist, emotivist, relativists who are about equality before everything else while denying objective morality and reason in order to get something for nothing through social democracy.
Clearly, these two groups are one and the same. The only difference is semantics. The context is different, but the relationships are the same. Both groups prioritize external society before internal individuality, and neither cares about the autonomy of humanity but rather both believe in power politics.
However, that isn't the real point to be made.
Let us also understand that there are two other groups, and call them A and B:
People who recognize heritage, narrative, story, custom, culture, and tradition for the sake of honor...
...and creative thinkers, problem solvers, idealists, imaginers, visionaries, and rational thinkers.
Both of these groups, despite appearing to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, are actually rather similar in that they care about being abstract, and realizing those abstractions while protecting those who realize abstractly.
The problem is these two groups are divided and conflict with each other because the first two groups divide them. The first two groups do not want the latter groups to unite because if they did, then they would have the solidarity required to discipline them. In turn, the first two groups divide among themselves, each identify with one of the later two groups, and when the later two groups focus on problems in the opposite side, those who are problematic reflect their problems on the non-problematic in order to portray them as problematic.
This might be confusing, so here's a picture:
B correctly identifies X as wrong, but X picks up on the identification. Therefore, in order to prevent A from being persuaded to join B, X portrays B as Y. If X didn't do this, then A and B would solidify and discipline X.
X and Y don't solidify because if they did, then it would become apparent what they're doing. On top of that, A and B once solidified have the numbers and principles to be powerful enough and motivated to discipline X and Y. If X and Y did unite, then they would have to centralize and/or destroy communication and information flows in society so much that society itself would implode. After all, X and Y are abusive and parasitic. They are not productive. Without A and B, they simply shrivel up and die.
The problem is why are A and B so easily manipulated by that portrayal? If they care on a universal basis to make sure that abstract realizers are treated with respect regardless of particular context, then why is it that when the subversives portray the other group within a particular context that they get distracted and don't solidify with each other?