Who needs politics

No matter how much they may hate them, people cling to jobs like their lives depend on them, as if planning and foresight can’t exist in parallel with stepping into the unknown in search of destiny.

If cowardice is defined as failing to do that which you know must be done, then the majority of mankind is made of up of such cowards, because doing what is right is supposed to be obvious and easy. It is not, but you can explain it to them in simple terms and still they will do nothing.

Liberalism and conservatism are two sides of the same weak coin. Conservatism is slightly better because it espouses traditionalism, or in other words veers toward maintaining traditional values — that which has existed through all times — but the methods it promises for obtaining these are ineffectual and intellectually dishonest. Liberalism as a whole is hogwash, but its pie in the sky ideal points to what free spirits want: the unknown. It also points to self-entitlement and excuses for failure. These are the broadstrokes of mainstream politics. The do-nothings won’t even admit this to you, but instead will say: “Liberalism and conservatism are your only options. Pick one. Idiot.”

Equality is the idea that we give up on competition while pretending to still compete. If we share the wealth with those who are deserving, we first need to define “deserving.” Going back far enough, the wealth of nations stretches back to the idea of “wealth” itself. What is wealth? Someone was always in power, until we reach the man who invented the idea or discovered the ideal. Wealth is an outward display of power, yet you cannot “buy” power, and in the cases where you can, capitalism is the illusion that you can do so unequivocally and indefinitely.

Politics is the science of controlling people by treating them like numbers. The crowd, the mob, the rabble. Why not the people? For every 99 unruly, ill-disciplined, brainless vessels, there is one gifted person whom you can call “genius” but whom you might as well just call “human.” We do not need to raise ourselves up by pushing them down. They degrade themselves of their own accord. They walk into crevices of ignorance where knowledge is attained in the middle of a maze but with no record of how to return, nor any instruction on how to proceed to the exit. If they merely stopped they could see the answers are obvious, but they cannot stop. They are zombies of lethargy and excess, competing with the corrupt and morally bankrupt. This is classical liberalism and libertarianism, or POLOTIKS for short.

A science by definition proposes an observation on reality, a claim to describe that which exists in and of itself. Progressivism says, broadly, that the technocracy is panacea, that progress itself will drive the social climate, and technology is the vehicle for that progress. “Technocrats will rule because technology is the future.” It is and it isn’t. It is because people get progressively lazier and want to outsource their work to robots. It isn’t because artificial intelligence will never overthrow the might of natural design. The goal of artificial intelligence is for it to better itself without human intervention, yet it owes its very existence to this human condition. Returning to the metaphor of the maze, (post-modern) progressives chase an ideological dragon, as opposed to liberals who chase the dragons of materialism (like sex and heroin).

This is the point in the missive where it’s customary to point out that there is a populace, controlled by the media, distracted by a joke of an election that promises more than it will deliver. The comedy gains momentum as people discover that the traditionally redneck side of the argument, headed by a clown, is starting to make too much sense. “The world is going south because materialist civilization is in decline, so it’s every man for himself like never before.” Guns, God, and Rock ‘n Roll. Both sides call each other corrupt and both are right. Voting has become a game of chicken, and outliers have more reason than ever to abstain.

The conclusion, and the answer, is not fascism, nor totalitarianism. It’s Eliot’s big whimper. A big noise over a common event that repeats itself throughout history. The opportunity for revolutionists however will present itself best in the form of divination. What could these fools really tell us that the stars can not, from proxima centauri to andromeda and beyond? And then what of the worlds from whence these stars arose, and the new worlds they now serve?




August 21, 2016