Monday, January 20, 2014

The Ethics and Necessity of Vanguard Intellectualism

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, what I will proceed in writing may be the most important concepts for the Left – and philosophers who have a thorough knowledge and understanding of basic intellectual principles – to exercise and one of the most important pieces I could write if they – The Left – began acting with an understanding of the contents of this essay in mind.  When I use the term “Left” or “Leftist” I’m talking about one who properly understands, and holds with legitimacy and consistency the virtues of individual freedom and relative egalitarianism in the confines of a materialist Utilitarian framework – which is to be contrasted to idealistic Utilitarianism which seeks to create a world where everyone magically begins to act as Rational Agents in an irrational society, treating people with respect and dignity when the institutions of their culture promote otherwise implicitly if not at-times blatantly.
Most Leftists, whether politically active or not, fail to retain the proper mentality and understanding of reality essential in increasing the demographic and “democratic power” of the Left; two entirely different things in a society where information and opinion is funded by those consciously unwilling to have anything left of a centrist’s views be disseminated.  Since the inception of the Era of the Bourgeois, Liberals have always – that is in Capitalist Republics, Monarchies which isn’t truly Bourgeois haven’t transformed to the Liberal Democratic model of Capitalist rights and form of Governments necessarily.  The distinction is important if for no other reason that Liberalism was illegal under Monarchism, while in the early twenty-first century being a Socialist was essentially illegal (being a Communist or Anarchist certainly was) due-to those campaigning against the Capitalist first World War were penalized – functioned as the barrier of acceptable opinion in society.  When there is debate what does it consist of?  Idealist Progressives – at best – against Reactionary Christian zealots, Libertarians, or some other strain of the Right-wing.  Conventionally however it is between Democrats and Republicans, which at their most diverse is essentially an engagement ‘tween the Left of the Centre-right and the Right of the Centre-Right.  Perhaps forty years ago the average Democrat was an effective Centrist with some of the ideals of the Centre-left, but this returns to the Idealist Progressivism I mentioned, and typically tainted with the Reactionary medieval psychology of Christianity, making any true and consistent preaching of Progressivism impossible.  The Democratic Party will always be a slightly less reactionary, pro-censorship and anti-intellectual (that is lesser in racism, xenophobia and religiosity; though lesser in anti-intellectualism in its “pure” form as-well) version of the Republican Party, if it cannot cast-off the Shadow of God.  Religion is not a problem amongst Socialists, but idealism in various ways is.
One thing you can never say about the Right is that they are disorganized and irrational in how they affect political change.  The Left lacks political power systemic of strategic and systematic exclusion from the Right, this is clear, but the Left doesn’t do itself any favors.  There seems to be a certain form of flabbiness and lack of intellectual and ideological conviction on the Left.  Being more intelligent and psychologically stable, they are less prone to the zealotry of fundamentalism that persists in worshippers of Jesus and Reagan; a type of delusional obsession that has produced a form of ideological Doublethink where one believes the two are not only congruent but compliment the other while to the objective viewer stark contradictions would immediately come into view.  It’s a very rare thing to see a sane and intelligent zealot, one that pontificates without preaching and who produces propaganda (that is direct political or philosophical material with a conscious evocation both simply and elaborately put – if done well – to sway thought or move common opinion) without seeming propagandistic; that is biased without being deceptive or a petty pamphleteer.  For even a dullard can sense the insincere and saccharine babble our political, business and religious establishments produce.  The TGI Friday’s waitress with the fake smile, the Politician with the “Morning in America” or “Hope and Change” message and focus on superficiality over substance and the Priest telling lies to the simple and desperate.  When I say “insincere” I do not mean that most people who embody – except the TGI Friday’s employee; if she has two neurons to rub together she doesn’t actually concerned if you enjoy your meal, I suppose I should’ve mentioned the bullshit in the Capitalist class of the nice suits and false smiles that they force on their employees in a different form – these appearances do not believe in their “ideological product.”  Quite the contrary, these people are typically devoted followers of their creed, but they have in them a type of forced interest and feigned perpetual passion for their daily propagandizing which must grow dull and repetitive even to the most dull and single-minded.  The priest somehow manages to convince himself that he can with purpose speak about a book that has been around for centuries to an audience who have already by showing up to slaughterhouse of the soul showed their commitment to either the faith, or simply having faith in faith.  That is drinking a certain flavor of rat poison, or believing in drinking the Kool-aid just for the value they derive in drinking it.  Leftists seem to lack this type of commitment due-to intelligence and a psychological dislike of Populism, which is their intellectual and moral triumph but sadly due-to human nature and current conditioning a main source of their societal defeat.
We must not wish to become a different brand of Populism or the essence of the “Church Goer” either in the role of priest or flock.  On the later point, the New Atheists have in-a-sense tried to create a new “Church” or community of ideological idealists who are zealots about something that is supposed to be the antithesis of fanaticism.  They speak about the human need for community camaraderie and closeness – which I disagree about its existence, there are primal human attributes and impulses, and they are molded by society to become various things for various people; and the need to be part of a cult or flock is one reaction in-part to a certain human essence I won’t elaborate on now, and partly due entirely to social pressures and the psychology of suffering or some form of weakness – but this is something I feel is something we should wish to do away with rather than emulate.  Of course there is the need for social interaction, stimulation and the feeling of being needed, wanted, or admired in some capacity, but this is satisfied in a healthy and functional way potentially with among friends and family.  However, the need to be a part of something, what essentially amounts to Existential junk food, the idea that we are given purpose and value through a type of gathering is a type of neurosis that’s dangerous to critical though as well-as to integrity.  A common person’s immediate reaction to Ron Paul Libertarians proves this point immediately.  Humanity grows both materially and intellectually (the second largely being slave to the first tragically) when the need for “community” dwindles.  This need is in-part society-based, and in-part the remainder of petty tribalism and the need for people to have non-economic incentives to cooperate – though of course these motivations were always superficial smoke screens behind material or economic incentives, like the Hebrews and Christians believing it was not only their right, but duty to slaughter other groups of people, steal their land and convert them to the Borg.  Intellectualism is, and if any intellectual movement is valid and sincere must be, the antithesis of a church, not the redesign or alteration of it.  Instead of a hierarchal organization where all must be silent during Mass, we must surpass this stupidity by creating halls of humor and serious discussion, where intellectual, passionate and earnest men and women gather for entertainment, action and growth.  While Church is the greatest time Man has ever yet discovered for himself, for it is both boring and unproductive, our philosophical halls of thought and laughter must above all else aspire to be the antithesis of this.
And on Populism, I dare say it is one of the most dubious and devious of mentalities and approaches to politics as well-as life.  Pandering to the lowest common denominator is of course a common essence in Capitalism, business, and religion alike, and if the Left wishes to maintain its dignity and self-respect, it must not fail into this trap but at-all times purge elements of itself which have said illness.  Populism may seem to be focused on democratic virtue and egalitarianism – but I don’t think that such a misconception of terms could be stated asides from Christianity preaching mainly love or Islam being a religion of peace.  Populism is the spoiling of children, rather than educating them, giving them what they need and telling them, “no Johnny, you can’t have ice cream, you had some last night.”  It is in-part anti-intellectual and is a type of at-best collectivistic wishy-washy mentality of gratifying immediate demands of short-sided and typically uncultured people who don’t have a systematic or comprehensive view on things.  Populism is an anti-thesis – if not the anti-thesis – to egalitarianism because while true egalitarian ideals would have everyone educated and given the resources to have relative equality in a meaningful way, Populism is the demands and management of uneducated people who can’t manage their own lives very-well let alone a political movement.  We mustn’t pertain to the lowest common denominator’s materialistic demands of simply increasing wages, instead, we must be materialists and insist on increasing the education and livelihood – and yes wages is a part of this, but just as importantly as the increase of wages is the expression of why it is just and what is preventing a society where everyone gets their deserved earnings for a livelihood which is a fundamental human right.  A child might want to simply hear “violent video games don’t make you more violent and are therefore ok to play,” but we must express and teach them why and how these conclusions are made so they can make well-made conclusions of their own and work with intelligence towards a world where all violence exists merely in fantasy – of the masses in a meaningful and complex rather than simply the binary of whether or not they have money to waste on toys or booze – though of course that’s not even a problem for some, who can’t even afford bare living expenses, partly because they spend money poorly living in a consumeristic society; though I of course don’t mean to blame the victim for his lot in life.  Overall, we must not simply give people the resources to satisfy their base, counter-productive and often destructive habits but give them the tools and attributes to create cultured beings that crave and strive for higher rather than more pleasures – that is pleasures greater in quality not in quantity.
So while Socialist movements should not relinquish grass-root tactics from their repertoire, I do think that there is a dangerous type of either naivety or anti-intellectualism in having hostility towards the word or sentiment of “Elite.”  Now if by “elite” you refer to the simple hierarchy of political leaders, businessmen and priests, then of course it’s not only healthy but a requirement for a completely healthy psychological and existential make-up to distrust and dislike the sort.  What I refer to is a dislike of the skilled, knowledgeable, intelligent leader personality, who is bold and capable and who is not only willing in esteem but capable of moving a movement at-all.  These issues are things we should all be able to agree on, but more-than this there are aspects and necessary traits of an effective worker’s movement we must be willing to collude on as-well.  For there is a knife edge between these virtues in a unvirtuous world, ones that I feel none other than George Orwell (in what Winston is willing to do to the Inner Party and even to random bystanders if it meant defeating and destroying this ultimate evil) and Machiavelli describe perfectly, at-least to my limited knowledge.  The former being firmly against these moral regressions, and the other encouraging them as necessary if not believing they possessed a type of moral strength, dexterity, and fortitude that have value in-themselves.  You see this in-part with the Christian Right talking about homosexuality and demonizing young people even though it’s a turn-off to everyone whose age isn’t above sixty or there IQ below it; and in the Business-orientated Right in them being the manipulative populists I talked about earlier.
Though we must at-all-costs be wary of the type of leader worship of Machiavelli, it is also essential to remember his genius in remembering the reality of human beings needing a central figure both paradoxically characterizing and defining the ethos of the time who can guide them both in motivation, zeal and in appropriate and rational action – if reasoned action is what they desire which is seldom the case.  Essentially a motivator as well as a teacher.  Machiavelli knew too well the human need for role models and exemplary figures, and understood the baseness of human motivation and their supposedly grand incentives as-well; though far too many films, particularly Disney films, are based off his thought.  There is a certain genius in being different things to different people – Dexter in his show and Walter in Braking Bad are fine representations of this genius; I would mention House, (or rather mention him as an example rather than why he isn’t one) but he’s more the character who somehow manages to manipulate everyone while them having a basic knowledge though perhaps poor understanding of who he is, which is quite different than what the other characters succeed in – that which those who pander to the ignorant and anti-intellectuals have achieved while Intellectuals in their intellectual honesty have not.  Something which the Republicans have become as skilled-at as almost any Political Party can, what with the synthesis of Capitalism and Comrade Jesus of Nazareth as I’ve mentioned earlier; the only other group in history I can recall that have done this better is the National Socialists, formerly known as the German Workers’ Party.  Who made far-leftists believe they were a secular group of anti-Capitalists; and Conservatives and Business men believe they were a group of deeply devout Catholics who would Christianize the country and defend the property rights of rich people against Communists – unfortunately I have no need to inform of which narrative is more accurate.  We mustn’t be schizophrenic or deceitful, but we must know what different demographics of the populous want, and attempt to demonstrate without denigrating or betraying our values that we are this, while telling them they should always be critical and striving for more.  Much of the population will have a part of themselves, a defeatist, apathetic and worse Nihilist part of their psychology that will not wish to believe in virtuous qualities and noble characteristics they have been trained to not believe in wholeheartedly, either because they have given up or given in, but there is still a remnant of ethical purity and a yearning to believe in absolute justice and righteousness, in something grander and greater than crass and base hedonistic desires, though its either left to lethargy or given to religions, cult figures and political parties for their own further misappropriations.
We must not pander to the masses, and pretend that all potential elements are equal in a struggle.  Just as there are different rankings in the military, hopefully based upon performance, ability, and character, while all those who struggle in the common effort receive some level of appreciation for their sacrifices (though in a military the lowest ranks of soldier are usually expected to make the largest sacrifices, in political organizations it is somewhat the opposite, especially when one considers the sacrifices that men like MLK Jr. and Lenin made in their respective struggles) we must acknowledge rankings based on commitment, basic and specific fields of knowledge, character, and political effectiveness either in persuading demographics or showing effectiveness in some other outlet or capacity.  The Slovenian Philosopher Zizek tells a story of a Marxist going to a factory and telling the workers there that “Just because I’ve been to college and am well-educated and intellectual I’m not going to do what most do and talk down to you.  I’m sure there is something we can all learn from one-another.”  I’m paraphrasing but that roughly was his attempt at sounding “egalitarian.”  A worker retorts by standing up and in a tone signifying his irritation and saying:  “Don’t give us that ‘we’re all equal, and we all can grow from one another bullshit’.  You know things that we do not and have a number of opportunities and advantages that we never had.  It is your responsibility to help us teach us so we can be to your level of abilities and intelligence.  Not to say, ‘oh we are all equal la dee dah’ when we clearly are not.”  This perfectly reflects the essence between phony hippy-dippy egalitarianism which can be associated to a type of Liberal or Right-wing egalitarianism of all endeavors being equal in a “free society” as-long as one person doesn’t harm the other person, who is to say that a delivery man’s life is less than a surgeon’s or writer’s life?  And this form of egalitarianism could be easily asserted into Communist psychology if the moneyless element of said system is taken to mean ethical equality.  Just because a janitor is necessary, as are bacteria, does not mean that a germ or street sweeper is morally equivalent in both regards to a man of intellect ability and character.  We should always be wary of anyone using the term ‘egalitarian’ in such a foolish way, or use a different term to describe what we mean by “equality” if the term is unsalvageable which I do not think is the case since so few people know what egalitarian means while the term “cynical” or “Cynicism” on the other hand has been bastardized almost beyond redemption.
We of course can speak of equality in a political sense between those of different attributes and abilities, but in the sense of virtual equality, there will never be complete equality in objects or beings who are not the same in identity.  If two things are different than logic and definition necessitates that there are traits that keep the two apart.  One possesses one thing that the other does not and very-likely vice-versa.  Just as men and women should of course be political equals, though studies have shown that the male and female brain are wired quite differently, and therefore statistically one gender is more-likely to gravitate towards and be skilled towards fields the other will or is not. 
We must remember the moral obligation of intellectuals whenever possible, and to make Socialist or Progressive Egalitarianism a reality, rather than “moral”, Liberal and Libertarian egalitarianism of negative liberty whose reasoning has overstepped its bound into characteristics of being it is not fit to address or benefit.  The moral obligation of intellectuals today is to, without being dull or propagandistic, educate, enlighten, and aid whenever possible those who have been not-only made ignorant but forced a certain frame-of-view or narrative into their mind.  The Bolsheviks who would replace one pair of glasses for another are not our friends but other closed-minded fools to be against.  If humanity is to grow and virtue and dignity flourish, the first thing we must be against above all else is small and closed mindedness; the second being a subcategory of the first.
Another thing that the Left is inept in is having knowledge of or utilizing knowledge of psychology effectively.  This has to do with a lack of understanding of the subconscious mind and that a cultural zeitgeist towards ethics and culture must change before the ideological definition of a generation changes which isn’t a necessary outcome in-the-slightest.  America in many ways is a “Liberal” country, and yet the majority of Americans psychologically refer to Liberalism in a derogatory manner.  The cultural atmosphere towards a number of topics as-well as overall political, ideological and existential atmosphere have changed but political terminology remains almost stagnant due-to the influence of the corporate elite and the Right consciously controlling the atmosphere to the extent that it can.  By Right, I mean of course the Republicans and Democrats who play a game of cat and mouse or Good Cop/Bad Cop back-and-forth where The Republicans give one narrative, and the Democrats give a slightly less ignorant sounding and right-wing version of said mentality and political action.  For all those who aren’t staunch Conservatives, the Democrats are the Good Cop that will still send you to jail for five years to smoking pot, but will be kind and say “it’s okay, it’s okay” as he does so.  He is the innocent frail mouse being battered around by the mean-old cat, when in actuality Democrats are rodents who at-times enjoy being gnawed on and swallowed into the Conservative make-up which they’ve always identified as home; perpetuating the mentality of legitimate Leftism being dead-and-buried – or overall invalid through being utterly ignored – and to be cleaned up and vomited on (or is it the other way around?) by the Republican Vulture.
To defeat Conservatives politically, we must beat them existentially (or psychologically) as well as in ways of basic societal standards which are political, but not necessarily in an explicitly ideological sense.  Both are a form of Utilitarianism utilizing the mentality of Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism that must be implemented before we can move towards something ever resembling a Socialist State – unless violent revolution is to be performed, but even then there must be a change in the material and intellectual factors of society before a ideological reformation and revolt is to occur.  We must play the role of New Atheists at-times, and as Progressives at others, but never limiting ourselves to these political movements and somewhat narrow ways of thinking; always keeping Marxism and Scientific Socialism in mind while playing the role of someone who is correct yet small in mind, like a child who needs to change his understanding of basic grammar, ceasing to call wolves “wolfs” before he can move onto a larger and complete understanding and utilization of grammar.  Society is still using the word “wolfs” and we must tell them why this is wrong (though it does seem completely arbitrary in the English language, so perhaps this isn’t the best example) and although this is a essential step to make, never telling them this is the entire Universe of thought that is before them.  We must always promote Secularism, Empiricism and Progressivism, but never stop at a basic or passive understanding of their meanings.  Also in regards to Utilitarianism, we must focus far-more on Existential, philosophical and literary essences to Man, and instilling a sense of ethic and value that the Right whether with its Religion or Market and consumption based elements have thoroughly campaigned against by ignoring, speaking out against, subtly removing from society through encouraging their own ideals through various methods as well as tacitly discouraging Existentialism and Virtue Ethics and of course there are examples of flat-out blatant punishment of those expressing and exemplifying the ideals and virtues we as Humanists and Leftists strive to further and embody.
A thorough and drastic change of societies ethical and other existential perceptions is necessary for what I mentioned earlier, but also because it is perhaps the only thing asides from education and basic material conditions that penetrates the core of who a person is and how they’ll live their daily lives and make crucial decisions making the people they are and will be.  Firstly we must reject the Christian premise that either obedience to God or love is the essential essence of ethics.  The concept of “sin” having nothing to do with ethics and virtue I find fairly self-evident so will not flesh-out, but the notion that love has almost nothing to do with morality is something I feel should be explained.  Though the ethical compulsions of compassion, sympathy and empathy are a major and primal source for moral action or the prevention of selfish and morally nihilistic deeds, love itself is not the major fulcrum of the moral universe.  It is rather reason, seeing what is right and having the courage and conviction to see justice, freedom and opportunity extended to all citizens of all nations – the universalization of what we want for ourselves to the extent that we are the same as others.  Many a parent has beaten their child or in-general treated them very badly either in the sense of harming them physically or psychologically or in-terms of depriving them of an essential variable in healthy human development, and yet most of these parents would claim to love their children, and I don’t think that the majority of them would be lying.  The Golden Rule is a fairly great moral principle (so much so that Epicurus and Confucius have mentioned it before Jesus supposedly did) though not a complete or all-encompassing one in-regards to ethics and virtue.  It does not for example encompass the essence of neither Aristotle nor Nietzsche in giving either a general or particular account of biological or existential Virtue Ethics.  It doesn’t describe what is superior or inferior, what is great or noble, only what we want to have or receive and understanding that we aren’t exceptions to moral rules or standards however strong the Narcissistic and Solipsistic compulsion to feel so is at-some-times in many if not almost every human on the planet. 
Another reason why love can never be the ultimate source or code on ethics is that it prevents violence against the unjust and corrupt.  One could argue that one could murder someone about to beat his wife out of love of the wife, but such feelings aren’t typically felt during the entry of a knife in the batterer’s neck, nor is it something that should be on the surface of one’s mind while planning the tactics of short and long-term strategy whether it be regarding Revolutionary or Reformist Socialism.  Love slows and weakens the mind, and like happiness is an overrated emotion, an obsession of the desperate and psychologically frail who do deserve our sympathy, but not by this trait alone respect.  If you doubt my proposition of love being a main form of surrender and happiness a concern for the infantile of mind and juvenile of spirit, consider the highest moment of your life in-regards to functionality, when you were capable of doing and being more than you ever were before or even descriptively imagining yourself.  Is this synonymous with the happiest moment of your life?  I’m thoroughly convinced that most people will say “no” the question and consequently say “yes” to the notion that prefaced the question, that is if prowess and strength are things they value over pure happiness or contentment; if not then frankly I have nothing more to add for nothing more is necessary to discredit those who are the most lowly and petty of life forms which is the average Hedonist.
But also we must not focus on force for force sake.  Or allow ourselves to focus on violence when a nonviolent solution is possible or preparation is necessary.  Essentially force is – at-least to some extent especially in the broad sense of the word – necessary but never enough.  This should be a major tenant and interpretation of Dialectical Materialism if a proper understanding of it is to be attained.  One should always keep in mind the essence of the Intellectual Delinquent, the young person and revolutionary of spirit who commits crimes against the State or common order and standards of things, not for small-minded self-interest such as drinking or drug use, but acts based on a existential dissatisfaction with the world around them that so many young people feel to varying extents without the intellect or knowledge to interpret these feelings which are seldom given opportunity to transmogrify into convictions that will consequentially grant one the opportunity to increase the amount and form of opportunities that society as a whole will be privileged in sharing.
This Philosophy, which I have described as “Vanguard Intellectualism” but is also a more-than superficial understanding of materialism is one that truly understands what it means to be an “Intellectual” the moral responsibility of doing so, and how a intellectual truly needs to act to increase the material and intellectual floor of society which is said moral responsibility.  Therefore, I suggest we steal the word “Brights” from Dan Dennett and the rest of the New Atheists who have tried to brand their movement with the word, though many of them to my recollection – Christopher Hitchens in-particular – have either rejected the term or simply ignored it as something not particularly useful or interesting, instead accepting and utilizing the term New Atheist – though I also agree with Professor Dawkins overall when he said that there really wasn’t anything new about it besides from the fact of Atheists culminating and organizing for secular and anti-theistic interests and approaches to life as well-as a type of Idealism that I address in another essay.
And our first pronunciation as “Brights” should be the immediate unification of all effectively Leftist Parties into an organized Socialist Party that stands for the ideals of the Left and wishes to implement them via Dialectical Materialism and Scientific rather than Utopian or Idealistic Socialism.  Marxists should accept all Democratic Socialists and Anarchists, as well-as some Social Democrats into this realization of common struggle as long as they on-the-whole wholly reject Capitalist Economics which fewer and fewer Social Democrats do it seems.  We should make allies with the Green Party and even the Libertarians on issues where they conjoin us on fighting for individual liberty both legally and culturally – economically and in some ways existentially (especially if they are Objectivists) they still of course have miles to traverse and therefore should still be considered on-the-whole ideological enemies who we work with temporarily in a effective and friendly manner for the common good of furthering our goals and mentality.  We must always keep in mind the backward, counter-productive, innately idealistic, and narcissistically na├»ve essence of sectarianism, this and this alone is the most obvious trait of someone who fails to understand what I’m speaking of, and is the embodiment of the worst thing the Left can do to itself while still being somewhat legitimate to itself and ethics.  Sectarians aren’t immoral; they’re simply incredibly simple-minded and useless as Leftists.
Knowledge is power – which is why the powerful (but usually educated only in academic terms if that) wish to keep the world ignorant.  We must first encourage to educate the world not only factually but in the most drastic, or rather ultimate sense of education in its largest and truest essence, namely in fundamental perspective.  This is impossible in many, at-least in large degrees, but this only shows the need for improvement.  A mentally challenged child is not tossed into the gutter due-to his handicap, he is given additional attention and resources which is what we must do for the most backward sections of the country and globe.  In-fact the most backward parts of the globe show revolutionary potential which most of the West does not.  Why do Leftists only in word squander this!
And above all-else comrades, we must always never fall into the Religious and Liberal forms of stupidity and ultimate ineffectualness – though I don’t think the former will be a problem – which are respectively praying and crying.  There is neither greater waste of time nor any more activity more stupid and dulling than praying to a God for change in the world, or bitching or otherwise bemoaning the fate of the world rather than at-the-very-least discussing ways of changing.  “Oh the gays on Modern Family can’t kiss because of Christian bigotry – though this clearly isn’t the only reason – I’m going to sign a petition and lie in saying I wouldn’t feel slightly put-off by gay men kissing as much as men and women do.  Because petitions and mildly irritating an entire demographic of people will do so much!”  God, how pathetically ineffectual and idealistic can you get?  I know it’s a different kind of thing at-least in-part, but do you think minorities struggled for racial equality by insisting black people get their own TV shows or kiss each other?  Actually, mixed-race couples are still deemed “outside the norm” and that should be culturally altered through media in-part; but more importantly by on-the-whole breaking the divide of races both socially and economically which is the main reason why the problem persists!  Having an episode of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where Will’s mom dates a white man (gasp!) isn’t going to do much if anything.
However, Liberals, particularly Liberals who are so weak and stupid they still vote for what they routinely refer to as “the lesser of two evils” are enemies that can very rarely be counted on for cooperation of common political and intellectual goals, because of how often they white wash our Socialist heroes and give-in to Conservatives and other vermin.  The perfect example being the supposedly “Liberal” Al Gore saying we should teach the debate of evolution and creationism in science classrooms, or the conservative nature of his snake of a wife Tipper, who any true fan of the Dead Kennedys does not need a description of and anyone else can blow their heads off but before doing so listen to some DK because you’re missing out on something worth living before you die.  The whitewashing of MLK Jr. is the most obvious example, and considering it is the celebration of his birthday (which isn’t always celebrated on his actual day-of-birth for some idiotic reason) one that was intending on doing an in-depth description of.  However, almost everything I had to say is put quite-well by The Young Turks in the following clip.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Cfi1DfZqI  I was expecting Cenk to make the caveat of being Anti-Marxist or a defender of Capitalism which he does almost every time he’s critical of the system in a fundamental or meaningful way (that is not just criticizing a random rich banker, businessman, or politician who is typically only a minor representation of the overall problem which in-part he does understand) but this time he refrained from doing so perhaps to respect MLK’s Socialist essence and not only its historical legitimacy but ethical and intellectual validity.  The only real error in the video is its title “What Conservatives Hate this Fact about MLK” when in-fact many if not most Conservatives still refer to him as “Martin Luther Coon” or “The Nigger Liberator.”  It’s Liberals who will hate this fact about MLK because it shows that on-large he didn’t buy into the Liberal mindset of simply making everyone equal in a Classical Liberal way that was revolutionary and innovative in the seventeenth century when preached by John Locke – who overall was a pro-establishment figure – but is now the preaching of the institutions except in third-world countries and some churches.

In conclusion, Bolshevism is the natural application of materialism in the world we encounter.  Egalitarianism is crucial, and we mustn’t repeat the mistakes of the USSR, but that does not change the fact that the masses will never organize or educate themselves, they require intellectual and ethical camaraderie of a sort that will not only aid them financially but at the fiber of their being.  We mustn’t be “Christian Crusaders” for Marxism or Bolshevism, but instead be dignified prophets who instruct through organization, not fanatic zealots who wish to recruit through proselytizing.  We of course need to express our ideals, but we need to do so in a political outlet where we can effect change.  We must be a party not a church.  A philosophy not a religion; a school not a cult or military academy.  A source of liberation from idealistic propaganda and branding rather than just another brand with its own idioms spouted by useless – or even worse dangerous – idiots.

No comments:

Post a Comment