blob: c456870f21084b6e9d8f1ebe70ef25678986fb6d (
plain) (
blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
<article>
<h2>Syme</h2>
<p>
No no sillyo. I am not talking about revolution vs reform. Talking about
something quite different. There is the stereotype common people who
willingly uphold the power are stupid. The idea is anyone who can reason
would conclude the power is a purely narcissist force that only aims for
control. Stereotypes indeed rarely if ever hold up when put to the test and
this is no exception. In a quite well known book there is a character named
Syme. Syme is one of the people behind creating newspeak. Syme is a very
intelligent person and sees right through the party yet he is one of the
most orthodox and loyal followers of the party. He constantly talks about
how his work is helping the party limit the range of thought. With every
cell in his body he supports and actively contributes to a system that only
aims to control him. The party ends up vaporizing him for knowing too much
even though he was one of the most loyal and orthodox people around.
</p>
<h2>Where is the totalitarianism?</h2>
<p>
The conclusion of many more traditionalist beliefs in theory seems to be
totalitarianism as we know it. Traditional has a prerendered concept of
what society should look like and demands it conforms to that shape no
matter what. It demands leaders who have these views ingrained into them
and demands power gets exercised to enforce this image. Laws exist only
for the reason of upholding this image. To pass bills the only available
framework is arguing for how it will contribute to upholding the image. How
come is it that the traditionalists would bother to even make pricy jails
when their supporters would be perfectly happy shooting the unemployed? Go
ahead and search up morals. Morals has a quite bending meaning as it only
aims to define what is right and wrong in the context of any given
system. So many people who bluntly only support the demands of
traditionalism at the same time will preach freedoms and liberties. These
freedom and liberties seem to fundamentally clash with everything
traditionalism stands for. And that is because they indeed dont support
freedoms and liberties. All they need is to do the bare minimum to keep a
appearance.
</p>
<h2>The comprise</h2>
<p>
Every system feels the need to frame itself as the good side. When the
system fucking sucks there are two options. One: Use fear and demonize
opponents to scare people into upholding the system, two: do things to
appear slightly less terrible than what opponents say making the system a
relative good in the minds of many. As much as the system wants to just
kill anyone they dont like they need to do the bare minimum to avoid being
caught in a blunt enough manner for the indifferent people to get
radicalized. The supporters will uphold no matter what but the
indifferent people can tip the scale if they wake up. The system needs to
act like it tried and failed and "there is no other way". <b>Often
times the issue was caused by the system in the first and nearly it not
existing anymore will fix the problem. No need for a mass fix it effort
when wounds heal with time when no longer getting stabbed at.</b> In the
same book old Syme came from the party never just flat out killed its
opponents. It would get a genuine confession out of them first. They take
the time to convert thought criminals into moral citizens and only once
they are good orthodox citizens and upholders of the system again does
the party kill them. This way no one is left dying a hero and the party and
its supporters can sip their victory gin with a bloody smile.
</p>
<h2>We all know one</h2>
<p>
Syme's arent the types to actually be able to talk about this type of stuff
with. They are about crushing their opponents and keeping the high ground
as the moral (even though it doesnt mean much) heros of the world. In their
minds they will have always had to do anything they did. Every
<i>necessity</i> just so happens to also enable narcissists to control. The
concept of not doing something is unthinkable. The concept of not having
rulers is unthinkable. Its so mind twisting hearing bright people only be
able to think within this framework. A intelligent mind will only be able
to produce thoughts within a given framework if limited to it like how a
video game is limited to the resolution of its monitor no matter the
graphics card.
</p>
</article>
|
