The modern world was intended to be an isolationist individualism. All would be in their own worlds in pursuit of the same goals. All beginning on the same playing field. While this is an inaccurate measure as sociopolitical templates differ by race and region, what did not occur was the proper isolation. Existentialism sought individualism but was overshadowed by a collectivist repression. Individualism was an initial goal but in hindsight a deceptive tactic. To elevate surfs to compatible dignified people who were turned against one another. The isolationism is intended to cultivate competitive lower value citizenry. The neo-aristocracy held tight their groupies adding in new affiliates into their circle. Yet the irony was its lack of individualised faculty. The individualised program was a ruse and divided the local groups from a collective rebellion.
The lower groups have abandoned each other but not the idea of unification. Existentialism brought an undiagnosed individualism still harping on its group message. Without proper renunciation into the lonesome alienated, there is little room for salvation. Without absolute solitary existentialism is wrought with the wrong focus. The self is no longer properly animated on its own turf. It is imprecisely manifested in its tribalistic yearning. The self is still trying to fit in. Trying to be a part of a larger project. While this larger self is a beautiful ideal it is dejected in its minimalistic selfhood. There is low autonomy and rejected criteria. Society is fragmented and yet seeking community. A reminder of the longing for something existing in the towers of urban centrality. There is an interconnected web of elitist foundational sectionalism but little for rest of the order. It is a classist society but only one with cohesion. Modernity positioned the lower classes in direct competition to aggressively fight for a seat at the higher table. Work hard enough and that spot could be yours. Employers sit with other employers not with their employees.
Communitarian obsession is baked into media formulation. The media in its sociopolitical jargon creates nationalistic order. It facilitates a following of membership. We are a unified citizenry. We are a group, a united front. Commercialised propaganda seeks to unify under one banner but this is only genuine in times of war. When patriotism is necessary people stand up. Hoping to defend their families and values. Yet war after war has lied to its citizenry. Patriots fight wounded die and are not compensated. Veterans return emotionally burdened from the perils of the battlefield with little governmental aid. Those who did not journey to protect seem to stand idly by as their brethren suffer. Stealing their land and putting their countrymen on the street. Poverty is a stricken business for the returnees. Even the wounded are treated poorly by the institutions built to aid them. The “unadulterated” nationalism is pinched in the flexibility of its cause. Nationalism only matters abroad not at home. The media pushes these nationalistic paradigms abroad to preserve democracy but absolves obscurity in its homeland.
War-mongering is only a tool for wealthy defence contractors and investors to attain their materialistic goals, it is also has a political motivation. Salvaging the liberty woes of a destabilised country is a prideful instinct. Bringing the nation together on this issue sparks a nationalistic front. Yet the guise overlooks the struggling souls back home. It tarnishes the reputation of these groups by sadly misreporting on their detriment. The irony of this grave nationalism is that it only pertains on national soil for an instance. While it is clear in the mind of the public. When there is tragedy there must be condolence. There is mourning and then time moves on. Time leads to forgetfulness. News passes with each day. The tragedy will be remembered annually at times but that is the sole reminder of the event. It does not take into account the consequences of that event. Thinking nationalistically, we may take a moment of silence to recall the bravery but then we move on. It is the lack of unity. Unity is not some collectivist silence. It is not passivity. It is active attempts to combat the mistakes of the past. Gathering arm in arm listening to the blaring siren is the first step but it is insufficient. More must be done. Those affected must be compensated. A great example is the firefighters from 9/11. Every year the nation mourns the death of thousands of people who died that day but those courageous fire-fighters who entered the poisonous buildings have had their funding cut thrice causing severe health problems with no reconciliation. A nation that does not look after their own is an unpatriotic one.
Recently certain efforts to combat racial violence have been at the forefront of the news. Marches and protests to advocate for better lives. While this a great start, there are dissenters. The media frames the us-them scenario as one good group and one bad group. A systematic issues that has not been resolved. On the one hand a dire unity but on the other a fragmented one. It generates readership to the national stories. Making headlines of the same villain. The adversary did not matter in quantity, the media made the group to be an insignificant bunch. The nation was against them. No one hand their side. How this numerically executed by both sides of the aisle with the same propaganda stories is genuinely humorous. They paint the nation as a force against the faction terrorists. These grand narratives skip the nuances and grope at the jarring headlines berating the public’s conscious. While many of these narratives are verifiable many are over generalised in a dangerous manner. Each issue is placed in the public’s mind as a national story worthy of excess. Drumming up emotions to feed off of exaggerations is a weapon of derailed patriotism. Shunning opposing views in the pursuit of their clearest sharpest ideal.
The citizenry is placed in a puzzle of national confabulation. Though this is merely speculative. Media may be a pathological liar. The political goals are immersed in the segments. Nothing is authenticated without some hiccup. An embellished narrative for political pleasure. Such an ancient style of communication is bewildering to the honest folk. Watching the media’s use of group terminology. Narrativising the greatest threat to society and preaching its disaster. Group unity is the sole method of survival. This is not something new. The media never really lets people be alone. Even those who move to undisturbed cabins in the deep woods are followed by news trucks to interview them. Those wishing to be unbothered are consequentially bothered for entertainment. It is then broadcasted on live television for all viewers to consume. With the internet and everyone trying to mingle in everyone else’s life, isolation is improbable. Worst of all it is turned into a brutal game. Peaceful loneliness is not on the media’s agenda. They want to remind people they are interconnected closer than people may have wished. Pages upon pages of celebrity information as if one’s own privacy is anyone else’s business.
Governmental worship only bolsters these possibilities. The more governmental power, the more information they want from its citizens. Media now has that power. Tracing each’s likes and dislikes to produce an algorithm while still holding onto any history for “necessary purposes”. Privacy barely exists and it would not be shocking if the government had illegal cameras in greek trunks or telephone poles. We may all be in a collective Truman show. We must authenticate ourselves in many interactions. We are told it is for our safety. There may be a dangerous individual. The numbers do not back up the threat nor does the insurance analogy. There are some essential elements but much of it is an invasion of one’s own freedoms. We are group, a good people. Nothing to hide no problem. Ethics is irrelevant as long as the individual is upstanding. The lengths of spyware are an evil no matter how you slice it. Looking out for the nation is a ruse for a stable nation but the collectivist mind is reminded of the horrors. In its own reverse psychology, it should be unnecessary for a patriotic society. We have given up too many freedoms for a safety that is severely under-compensated. We are nation and that is the rule. Media rolls over these crucial questions. Bigger government is better whether federal or state. The libertarian is shunned for his cruelty and selfishness. Only governmental nationalism can save the populace. If some of its functions falter it will replace them “adequately”.
A heteronomous chain of brutality is imposed on the existential self. The inability to be truly free in a propaganda nationalism. Information consumption is communicated in pluralised recorders. The nation is addressed as a collective. People are seen within groups even if this mischaracterisation is simply no more than a caricature of society as a whole. The individual is misjudged for the collective stereotype. An ideology is part of a certain group even if its sectarian fringe extremists have a single questionable move. Generalised content is funnelled through nationalised plurality as an attack on a group. Dangerous groups are placed in the larger motif. There is no room for nuances. No measure of difference. It is all or nothing. A leftist is a triggered Karen screaming fascist at conservative students. A conservative is male white supremacist who has no legitimate opinion on anything. Typical formulations are not at all a majority of constituents but usually a smaller vocal group. The most attention is gained by the loudest voice. While this is an irrational method of evaluation, it is the media’s portrait which influences the masses of their beliefs. To a point where the polarisation divides amongst friendships. Disassociating from varying opinions. People are placed in a box without the possibility of autonomous redemption.
No comments:
Post a Comment