Hotel California

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Liberal cities and straddling otherness: more progressive yet more governmental      

Urban areas are strikingly liberal while smaller towns are more conservative. Diverse exposure and governmental assistance may be the solution.

Liberal ideology classically promotes plurality and revolutionary paradigms. While conservatives endorsed civil right they are not too keen on progressive attitudes though that does not make them bad people. They have different values. Their opposition to newness rests on historical merit. There is a clean tradition that is undeterred. A linear methodology that pervasively consists of a singularity theorem. Tradition holds deep value. That consistent way of life is incredibly value and deeply immersive. Values are entrenched in the archaic Stonehenge. A symmetrical allegiance daunting on the forbearers to educate to their children. Children exposed to the liberal alterations. In medieval Europe liberalism was far short the minority. Today conservatism is. Diversity or not, the central statement of the capital will hail to those surrounding. The farther from the centre the more malleability to diverge. Nuances in thinking and practice arise with little oversight. 

A liberal state will promote their agenda in the public. The cities are the most vulnerable to their starring advocacy. Denser population with more attractions. The city is not only a centre but a flow of information. The city is the heart of the state’s function. It is where the officials reside and legislate. While rural areas may have centres they are a drive away unlike cities that are next door to the citizenry. Putting an agenda on display to the public is democratically efficient in the promotion of liberal values. Marches do not take place in countryside Albany but in Manhattan. Location is evident for impact whether for national or international response. It is a spotlight not just for the citizenry but the state as well. It is the core of infrastructure and development.  

The state’s agenda may also confirm the audience’s message. Cities are less homogeneous. Cities are the centre of employment. If the goal is to work then the desire to find community comes second. Immigrants looking for a new life will gravitate towards the cities with more opportunities. There are immigrant communities in smaller towns which may be due to location. The duration of diversity culminates in varied cultures interacting. More exposure to otherness slowly funnels other ideas into daily routine. Cultural overlap is bound to happen. A sense of liberalism perpetuates in a city of difference. The workplace is a facet of variety jumbled together to excel. Yet, is this diversity a notion of pure workforce regulation or state propaganda? Jobs are in the cities. The city centre is a miraculous exception for labouring duress. Shaped communities open up to the optimal citizenry. 

Yet the state’s decision may be more nefarious. The state’s power rallies in the open cities. More power to enforce on the public. It is a public section for all to meet but it also centralises a joint effort of governmental oversight. The more citizenry regulated in the public eye the more exertion the higher ups can have. Cities provide an area to travel to do. They are designed for specified labour and yet people reside in them. There is something to be said of living close to a job but it is also of meshing diversity. People live in small apartments conjoined in skyscrapers. In this societal construction there is much exposure. A point for the government to procure diversity yet also a mode of producing their desired intent. Incidental communication between different individuals does not always lead to the best outcomes given the differences. Authorities need to step in to ensure the peace. Coming for a job does not mean that baggage stays at home. The meshing of diversity idealistically seems relevant but can be a ticking time-bomb. 

Clashing of cultures may eventually lead to brotherly love but not at the beginning. The close proximity will endeavour brawls and other menacing acts. The need for extra security is provided by the state. The state ensures safety for its its citizens. Living in a democratic metropolis, needs more governmental assistance. Do not worry, the state will ensure serenity. It begins with good intent but then it becomes more nefarious. Clinging to the money grabbing elites over the common man. Shady deals for more celebrity status. Cities are immediate cages. A prison realised after some time. Proximity to others is too near but state exertion is more felt given the magnitude of its eliteness. It is a city. Jobs and a lot of money made in the area. Polishing culture wars with poverty quenching to derail improvements for the constituents. A close place but not necessarily a good place.

The ideal of progressive politics is urban warfare. The state is more conservative than progressives but more liberal than right wingers. A liberal count solidifies a push for more revolutionary programs. To provide diverse safety legislation is encumbered to protect minorities. Power is consequential. Wishing for minority excellence at the expense of the discriminatory public needs a reform to standardise public behaviour. Discriminated individuals are now provided the same access. Though ironically it is overturning a past legal exclusion. Protections for the perceived downtrodden is noble as long as it is a favour not a springboard for control. Governmental control slowly engulfs every facet pushing its own paradigm. Doing just enough for re-election but fairly inactive throughout. Progressive politics ideally is a beautiful sight but realistically a power grab. The more reliance on the government the more power it exerts. 

Losers Losing?

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Loserdom: affection, attention and ascension/attention attraction and attribution 

Being a loser comes with a status symbol. A loser though has some variety between adolescence and adulthood. Yet there is still a common theme of perception and expectation. Those who do not fit the mould are ostracised actively. It is a childish tease from the lacking result. At the same time is more a repressed entrenched social desire than an ontological problem.

Losers in high school are generally the un-athletic nerdy kids. Cinematic reprisals based on binary generality constructed two archetypes: the brains versus the brawn. One either has one or the other. Stereotypes mingle into appearances and abilities. In the high school model brawn beats out brains. The cool kids are not the smart ones. While there is much more of a spectrum in this regard, there is an association given capabilities. The goal isn’t to psychoanalyse but to recognise social trends. Cinema may resort to black and white constructions but this isn’t far from society’s contemporary presentations. From boomers anti-communist agenda to gen z’s social justice supremacy. Both groups look at the world in good and evil. There is overlap but the lack of grey and middle ground is less a polarised policy and more an ideological monism. Cinematic portrayals are not entirely incorrect. Nor are they sentimental propaganda. Influential but there is a generational feeling that is only boosted by cinematic exposure. 

This popularity contest is not a modern phenomenon. It is an age old measure. It is a nefarious attempt to passively exclude those different. The out-group was intuitively disbarred and actively persecuted. Yet the in-group is not entirely uniform. The in-group has certain laws but maintains the peace for the national identity. Meaning if we are both American or both religious it is improper to oust said individual but to ignore them is customary. A devilish exclusion due to missing the mark. The custom of the land is for the in-group to suggestively follow. Yet the suggestion is very much an expectation. Given the immaturity of children their decision-making is more verbally abusive than physically tormenting. This is not a universal rule but demonstrates a non violent passive deterioration. A way of curtailing authority trouble with constructing a cult. Easier to leave out an individual than shove him aside. 

Loserdom is a reminder to the recipient that he is unwarranted. Constant barrage of his lower status. There is little positive attention displayed. Just flurry of insults to their character and general appearance. They do not fit the perceived mould. It is the outlier in the pack. The pack cannot rid this individual so they tease to remind him of his place. He is at the bottom of the pyramid. His antics are irregular to the general public. It is all about being different than companions. Whether that be appearance, orientation and religiosity. It mightily attacks the person for who they are. A loser not necessarily of what they did but for who they are. Since they are unable to meet the social standards they are passively ostracised. The loser remains in the school as the prey of the more popular students. A deer in the jungle of lions. Defenceless against the myriad attacks from all sides. Unable to fit the social standard they are repressed into a hierarchy. A social standing that is decided by a student-wide acceptance of places in the school’s hierarchy. 

It is completely insidious the apparent necessary credentials to be considered popular or higher up on the hierarchy. So much so that there is a term for becoming popular deceptively coined a social climber. Cinema has aided in depicting the popular attributes but there is an acceptance generationally of brawn superseding brains. Even in the social mould, the popularity pyramid would fall if people objected. Hierarchies only persist because people buy into them. Yet there is a difference between accepting a larger power and allowing that larger power to obtain more power than intended. It is not a blank check, there is accountability. Just because something exists somewhere one way does not mark it as the correct model elsewhere. A frame is systemically imposed by the students. It just is. Thinking about the star quarterback dating the lead cheerleader. There is a common trope that demands social adherence. It is an inherited status. 

Power here is a social status based on looks and ability. Power creates the matrix. There is destiny involved and better to accept position in the social ladder. While it may get better after high school enduring the torment is part of life. There is a need to escape the difficult dilemma. Bullying and verbal condensation will not be easily avoided. The biggest problem is not only the popular jokers but the bystanders. Those bystanders are somewhere in the middle of pyramid. Unwilling to get involved avoiding hurting their own self image. If the popular go after you, you are in trouble. Your reputation is at stake. Even if one tries to change themselves, the bully may find an alternative route of hurling insults. One solution is to take the fight to popular authority. Defeating the matrix is accomplished by deserting it or overhauling it. Finding the skeletons of the popular drama can give the loser an immense advantage. While popular kids may spin it against the loser, the loser holds the cards. 

Yet the other way is to ignore and build one’s own model. Attacked for character, motivates a new direction. A way around the daring systemic intro. A newfound vision away from the systemic order. It may be the bullied are unable to attain the bully’s status and thus opt for a new version. This is akin to Nietzschean master-slave dialectic. The creation of slave morality is due to the latter’s inability to attain the power of the master. The haunting reality culminates in a reversed vision. Revolution seeks to mete out all the disorder. A way out of the matrix and into a coordinated uplifting future. 

Whether through violent revolution or escape, both discharge a loserdom unfit to meddle with masterful intent. The top-down order is critically overpowering in its deeply underrated powerful stump. The loser is not only ignored by the popular but also the bystanders remaining in the middle ground. The greatest threat is not the peakers looking down at the stragglers but the fifth place finalists punching down. The popular group stand their ground in their exclusivist paradigm while everyone else falls in line. The popular kids generate an imagined community. One that preexists the incoming freshman year. The paradigm is in place. People need fill into their sections. Funnelling into their spaces in the hierarchy is dominated by connections and capabilities. If attributes mesh with others whether from loyal pre- schooling or unique charm. Loserdom may incur from displaced attributes or from distanced exposure. Clicks emerge and group ever tighter. There is a proactive access to entering the popular group late, the exclusion may have less to do with personality and more to do with connectivity. 

There is malleability to move between the groups. Influencing the exclusive group to accept is more or less a connection whereby skills are showcased whether in sports or chemistry. There is no one size fits all. There are common traits of humour built and extraverted but it is not uniform. Someone of that caliber may be excluded due to his newness or social awkwardness. Sometimes it’s a feeling or jealousy. A crew consists of contingent continuous experiences. Even a new member from the first look may seem like a good fit but after a few hangouts may be undesirable as an additional member. Those who were initially rejected may fail to retry to enter the group. Even with growth through high school. An indifference or a dogmatic denigration. The popular group may not care for the changes still regarding the former loser as an eternal loser. 

To be rejected for not meeting standards to need to fit those standards is the reason for newly devout groups. While other groups may be considered at the bottom of the totem poll, sufficient alignment with the group will encompass new self confidence. External pressure is irrelevant. Accepting place in the pecking order has its faults and its goods. Preconceived models will persist but the loser can undoubtably be the maverick hybrid. The nerdy individual may bolster his basketball skill and women’s skills with little acceptance. Yet he can live his life without concern for others. His novelty is outlawed. Even his former friends cannot understand his escape. He is a loner finding his footing. While he may find peers. He may have friends and excel but fail to entrench himself in any group. He is alone in his own inner world even if externally fondled over. It is a measure of socially constructed otherness. Escape is genuinely through an inverse intersectionality. Becoming a pluralistic attribution. Able to ace tests, drill threes and get girls. 

Becoming part of the cooler group is a trek but it is ever more difficult to rid the old club. Solo loserdom is trying to eclipse introverted entertainment while group loserdom is abandoning other friends. Pressure from the popular gang will endorse a new recruit if he deserts his primal friends. The classic chick-flick from loser to stardom. The former friends feel betrayed and when she finally realises her mistake and tries to win them back over. Her brush with popularity impassions acceptance losing her true diversity. Folding into their frame requires denouncing the diversified credibility. Standards much be met. Slowly she habituates to the popular style away from her own identity. They snatch her up and attempt to bring back in line through high-class privilege. The former loser must resist their advance. All her work to be her own woman of many talents will be for nought. To be her true self she must remain a loser. 

One man’s loser may be another man’s hero. The multitalented ethos may diverge a new trend. The old may colossally fall into oblivion. He may lead the new group. Yet even at the top of the hierarchy will he be the rule legislator or a beacon to adore. His new trend may be followed by many cultivating in a nuanced paradigm shift. How he handles it will muster a shift in future progress. It is possible to break from the hierarchy of popularity. Are the innocently passionate good-willed founders liable for future abuse? Trendsetting is a highly accountable position yet it is the staple of not just one man but his followers that is necessary. Forethought to the potential stumbling blocks ahead. He will endorse a new perspective, a novelty from the cruel exclusivity but will his defection garner a shifting standard with the same demerits? The more valued experience will hopefully overrule the structural affinities. Just because one simpleton eclipsed the binary does not mean others will, unfortunately.   

Secular Surveillance

By: Jonathan Seidel

Secularism’s success is its non-ideological pull while its ties to liberalism have deflated its excellence 

Secularism is noted as a non-religious movement. Yet this is a misnomer. Secularism is neither a movement nor an ideology. It is an ideal. A methodological practice transcending the restricted ideological access. The great secularists are not those who pinned themselves to an ideology but those who moved away from one. The greatness of Spinoza and Newton was for secularism yet one was a religious outcast and the other a spiritual devotee. Secularism is the middle ground of extending beyond the limitations placed. 

Secularism is freedom from, not freedom to. It is an attempt to escape the subdued borders cornering man into submission. Rules and policy limit his range of capability. Caging him like a rat in the dire solitude of despair. He must remain in the lines. The capacious area is an illusion. The red lasers are diametrically intersecting awaiting the fool to attempt to enter the seemingly safe space. Making all sorts of threats to maintain their numbers. Coercing conformity through fated desires. His movements are monitored by the hidden cameras. Spying on constituents to ensure no deviation. He assumes he has room to manoeuvre but he is just a dog in a backyard. Permitted to leave the house but still on the property closed off by the white picket fence surrounding the house. The grassy area is a taste of liberty but is a limited privilege.

Secularism is a public deviation from the norm. He does not bear to continue living a lie inside the city. He must escape. If not by choice than by force. He recedes from the universal for his reasoning. He is unable and unwilling to live a hypocrite devoid of honour. It is a prideful moment whereby he excuses his comfort for controversy and confrontation. He gives up serenity for struggle. No one knows his blasphemy until he reveals it. If he keeps it in his head, there is no trouble. No animosity nor ill feelings. Upon opening up his arrogant mouth, the problem begins. Protesters lay their arguments at his feet in a shield wall. They raise their spears in unison melded together to fend off the adversary. They play their spells to expunge his devilish ideals. His public display is a shot at his former clan. He is raising inquirers that are frequently swept under the rug. Questions prohibited to speak of. Silent acceptance is the way of the group. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Secularism relinquishes such disgusting arrogance. It powers through in confident motoring. The dogmatic nightmare is overpowered with a tranquil exit. While city officials place fire pits on the outskirts of the city to preserve its holiness, this action is restricting. The enflamed walls cutting off an exit to the outside world is generally recklessly ignored. The individual’s momentary lapse in judgement questions its merit. For a moment, a dramatic change in his perception is riddled with stressful overhaul. He begins to fret and anxiously covers his head with hands swaying panting in disbelief. Delusional, he shouts instinctively at the false dud in front of him. His momentary madness alters his visual excellence to illusionary trickery. As the moment passes the figure disappears and he gathers himself quickly. Looking sideways to ensure no one has seen his mistake. Apologising for his outburst to concerned eavesdroppers. It was an accident in a moment of weakness. He takes a deep breath calms his mind and rationally deduces the societal need. In his socratic ingenuity, he approves of this legislation and returns to the fold. 

Secularism is the gnawing growl in the night sky. The whispers frequent in the ear. His societal immersion salvages his sanity. He is shielded from this dangerous attack. His doctrinal belief protects his mind in narrowly fuelling a walled echo chamber. His cyclical logic aids in ignoring false ideas. He can overcome the blasphemy with sheer will. His conviction creates a forcefield. This forcefield is empowered by the sun’s rays. The light bolsters his shield’s might vanquishing the whispers. They cannot survive in the pure light. They shrug off the shield melted by heat rays. At night, the moon reduces the shield's energy. The shield is not impenetrable. His tiring brain and loneliness decrease the shield’s power allowing the whispers to seep through. They try to overwhelm his will to follow their ideals. The whispers are coercive but his convictions and phobic uncertainty enable him to manage his confidence. He strengthens his shield in fearful consequentialism. Yelling no to the whispers actively pushing them away. 

Secularism haunts the innocent. The individual pure of heart is immune to the whispers but not everyone is angelic. The whispers peck at the weaker spots. Each day marking a bigger dent. His shield is strong and he prepares for the dreadful evening. If he is not careful the whispers will overwhelm him. His shield only revives in his conviction. It is entirely on him. If he is negligent the whispers will seep through the crevasses infecting his mind. Once they have planted their seeds, they cannot be easily removed. The shield can exterminate the seeds internally but he must be aware of their existence. He must stop them before they grow too large. Once they are inside, their impact is much stronger. He begins to ponder more and more, questioning himself to a dangerous degree. Focusing too much on the incoming whispers forgets those who have made their way through. He must examine if they have penetrated the shield. Growing irregular thoughts is a symptom of their development. He must seek a witch doctor to save him. Undergo therapy to purify himself of this disease. 

Secularism is a disease in need of medication. Divergence is the key realisation of the wound. Terrible aspirations of disassociation and harmful jargon hurt his heart. Why is he thinking of such terrible thoughts. An isolating mentality decrying unity. He desperately wishes to end this travesty plaguing him. He opines to mentors and friends to rescue him from this torture. At the same time he fears to open up in fear of judgemental neglect. Will his friends sympathise or scorn. He anxiety flares in this heated unknown. Uncertain of which step to take. He may be able to forcefully overcome this disease with his own will. It is possible but not simple. A difficult trek but a possible one. Yet while he may avoid external scowls he is battling alone. He is trying to self medicate. He is a novice and uneducated in this matter but his fear of alienation pushes his solo recovery. If he decides to confide in another, the confided expects his advice to work. The confided will work tirelessly to ensure the confider is compensated but there is a limit. Some patients are beyond medication. Some are doomed. Will the confided keep his mouth shut in sparse confidentiality or spill the beans ruining his reputation. 

Secularism deceives well intentioned people into devious actions. An individual may fend off the whispers attacking in their fluid form. They have yet to penetrate and control an individual. Yet he is vulnerable to others. He wishes to be included and respected. To accomplish this feat, he converses with his neighbours. An infected friend will turn the conversation south gradually. Out of nowhere throw a sucker punch knocking him on his back. The surface level quality dialogue transitions to deeper valued speech. In respect of his friend he responds in kind. Words become emotionally charged in their qualitative fluidity. The punches increase in their force pushing him back. Turning the conversation to a merited avenue intensifies but also opens him to a sympathetic retrieval. His infected friend turns on a dime from the accepted norms to irregular ideas. His convictions brush off these punches easily. Security is tighter but he has also welcomed his friend into his bed chamber. Into his intimate vulnerable area. His power is centred but it also can be infected due to its proximity. He may ignore the irregular claims right away but it may linger in his soul. 

Secularism plagues society in a preordained epidemic. A contagious curse spreading from one person to another. An infected person can infect others by talking to them. Passing on the message subtly or bluntly. Even the rejectionist does not escape unharmed. He may flee immediately ensuring any further damage but the damage is done. The infected has breathed on him. The vicious idea is latent in his mind. With more exposure will blossom, it just needs more water to bloom. Once it is planted in the mind it cannot be undone. Medication is the sole remedy and still may not be enough. In a word, he may be screwed. The infected will devilishly continue to engage with innocent others infecting them. Gaining their trust and deceiving them to their doom. The infected are zombies. They have no control, it is not their fault. It is a danger that if not stopped will destroy the kingdom. The masses must be protected from this deviating insight. Satanic whispers cannot be expunged but shields can repel their penetration. Zombies must be dealt with. An unfortunate reality but once fallen, beyond the pale of recovery. Drastic measures must be executed for the sake of the kingdom. 

Secularism is the devil’s work in need of purification. The ideological castle maintains its sturdy walls fortifying its defence. Fearing a Jericho repeat, the walls are installed with extra power to repel the inevitable impact. These whispers are not brute force but the slow knife that happens upon the individual without notice. The assassin and his silent killing. The attack is subtle but disastrous. A polemic swiftly manoeuvring through the city infecting person to person. The soul is tarnished and there is little room for recovery. The sword cannot stop the invisible swipe. The infected are sidelined in their mania. Exile or death are the two possibilities. Isolating them to a secure facility where they cannot hurt others is the solution. Marginalised for the greater good. Speaking out of line calls for therapeutic cooperation. The devil entered his soul and coerced him to speak ill. The saint may be powerless. The infection capturing his soul is beyond saving. Breaking the ideological hold is a big no-no. Order is maintained for a reason. Without, chaos will run rampant. Chaos must be contained for the betterment of society. The devil cannot be allowed to win.

Secularism is the transitional stage to a new movement. Deviants are shunned and exiled for their ideas. Their successors infected by these ideas compile and organise the ideas into an ideology. The pioneers once punished for their insolence are championed as saints. The fearful order resents the deviants’ dissent polarising their ideas into an enemy. They create the monster they wish to expel. At first, it is mere fragments questioning certain aspects but in tormenting opposition, it organically develops into a monster hellbent on surviving the ferocious firepower. Successors build it up hanging on for dear life against their former group. In memory of the pioneers, they construct their own order diametrical to the former group. Systematically formulating an exact replica with philosophical modifications. The devil in hell returns to his angelic form on earth. He is purified finally accepted for his good intent. Yet the former group still sees the devil’s face unable to adjust their eyes to the new reality. The purified devil shines a light to mould a new order. A modified version of the old. 

Secularism decays in societal formulation. The momentary liberty to venture into the unknown produces new results. It then abruptly halts in creating an imperfect painting of the pioneer’s plans. They sanctify the pioneers with godly influence and march a profanity into the abyss. They create the monster they wished to escape. The former ideologues recreate a novel ideology. They have simply switched teams but have yet to relinquish their monolingualism. Without realising, they become an identical replica of the old. They are a replicant unaware of their own hypocrisy. They share the same policies as the old, albeit developed. Deviants will emerge in this society as well. It is an inevitable consequence. The imperfect society cannot accept its faults. The deviants are hunted like they were in the past. The nod to deviation is outlawed. There is never permission to go against the grain. Once a system is constructed with its beliefs, dogma is inherited and applied abrasively. A few will breakthrough and suffer the punishments. They will then be martyred and their ideas codified in a new society. It is an endless cycle of ideological monism, hating variance.     

Doing my own Thing

By: Jonathan Seidel

Threat of otherness in the midst of passive non-conformity 

People struggle with non-conformity. While many lash out at preaching deviants. Passive monks are also dismayed. Doing nothing at times is consequential. 

Unknowingly annoying someone through passive harassment is uncontrollable. It is asking people to be self aware of doing nothing. The passivity is going against the grain. Reading a book in conversational crowd is one such example. Reclusive from the group on a park bench meters away from the social scene. Opting not to engage the norm is abnormal. While it does not account for animosity the discomfort felt by excluding the self from the group is perceptively dangerous. The group’s synergy is hallowed. Upon realising they cannot forgo what they have internalised. Once the problem staring them straight in the face is accepted it is verified as a problem. Where is the unison, why the separation. 

It takes one’s arrogant individualism to mess up the entire dynamic. There is a time and place for everything. Norms people are expected to follow. A failed expectation brings uneasiness and frustration. The higher the expectation the greater the anger. Frequent deviations may warrant unrested animosity or calming disregard. Either choosing to rebuff or repudiate. It is a fine line depending on the speaker and situation. Circumstances generate varied responses. There is a way to act and a way not to act. The monolithic vision creates binaries on how one should act. Acting out of line requires a lesson in discipline. The level of offence determines the offended’s next step. If he approaches and if so how he formulates his rebuke. 

Ironically, the deviant is not acting any malice. He is doing what he wants. What he finds comfortable and enjoyable. He may be an impersonal introvert. Shy with bad people person skills. While this person may escape the wrath of the offended, the extraverted outgoing individual choosing to do otherwise hurts more. It is analogous to the good person who does good naturally and the wicked person overcoming his nature to do good. It works both ways. We praise more for a greater accomplishment and scorn more for a greater disappointment. The expectation is a measuring stick circumstantial and factorial. The principled individual, the upholder of norms will be the first to retaliate. He will perceive this irregularity as an attack on societal address and not a fluke. Its consistence will batter his head with needless shame lacking admiration. 

Postulated norms with no listing, more or less arbitrary are sanctified by such folk. There is a consistent way of acting since youth. If this is the theme, it must be correct. It also intuitively seems off. To sit in the corner reading while others are conversing is suspicious. It is its own call of rebellion. The sidelined reader hopes people will stare at him and mess up. He hopes to shake up the norms. To mess with the codified order with his blasphemous alteration. He need not say anything. Actions speak louder than words. His actions are screaming watch me and follow me. As the only irregularity in the scene he is painted as rallying a new cause. To confuse everyone and dismantle the progress made thus far. He is perceived in a negative light, vermin out to bring chaos. 

Ill-will is forced upon him. His difference speaks magnified volumes of disgusting evil. That is the only possible answer to breaking from the norm. Surface examination is the final analysis. Preconceived cinema stalks the offended’s brain constructing narratives concerning the reader’s intentions. He must be clouded by false hopes. While most will simply ignore him seeing him as a nuisance, some will build vile feelings in their hearts. Feeling a need to make comedic or nasty comments. His peace of mind is breached by snowflake egomaniacs. He is unable to live as he pleases. His deviation is a stain on the normative portrait. He must concede his own comfort for another’s sanity. His deviation bothers them and is his fault for his insensitive lack of conformity. He wished to be left alone but instead of agreeing to his wishes they trample him with emotionally stressing sensations. 

Deviation is breaking away, forming a new world. A reality embracing adaptation. They despise change wishing for things to remain the same. Accepted norms are not easily altered. They are so embedded in the collective psyche. Each person matures with the same list. It is the irregular who is the outlier. The outcast trying to force others to fit his lunacy. He sits there quietly doing his own thing. He is happy in his own world. He cares little for universal norms. This positivistic formality is nothing short of propaganda. It is mere accepted opinion. He feels no need to comply. He disagrees and that is that. There is no scientific conclusion nor objective methodology. It is a way people do things but there is meagre justification. He displays his disagreement in choosing to do otherwise than what the situation calls for. Yet he does not perceive the binary outlook capturing the offended’s mind. He does place things in boxes. It is not a child’s game where certain blocks fit into certain holes. He embraces the complexity.

Resisting conformity angers the proponents. Pushing their dogmatic agenda on others. Dissenters are not beloved but benign. He does not wish to be accosted for his actions. He has acted in a way that suits him. He does not see the box so he acts in his comfort. He is not infringing on anyone else. The offended should ignore instead of reacting ferociously. Their childish stampede is unconvincing and ungracious. The offended see a war to defend while the reader sits in tranquil silence. When he is pounced upon, he merely ignores them. If they bother him, he will move. He does not feel the need to be threatened by immaturity. He is not hurting anyone so he should not apologise. His passivity is his choice. If that bothers others that is their problem. They need to strengthen their own convictions and mature a little. A youthful attire baked in disgruntled harmony is weak minded. You do you as long as it does not infringe on the other’s liberties.  

Elite Tactics

By: Jonathan Seidel

“Claiming my time”: the use of monistic narrative to dismiss hearings.

In the recent congressional hearing, Congresswomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz questioned Matt Taibbi with one liners refusing him the ability to respond. It was only due to the succeeding congressman that he was able to explain. Wasserman used her prestige and access to smear his character rather than discuss the topic. This was a blatant use of institutional identity to derail opponents.   

I am not entirely aware of the rulebook concerning these house hearings but it is clear there is a big problem. Congresswomen Debbi Wasserman Schutz demonstrated this by her line of questioning and her anecdotal insulting. She spent more time concocting a narrative about Taibbi than actually asking him questions. She had six minutes to ask him questions and she spent that time giving her own perspective. She uses ad hominem attacks as a legitimate. A good rule of thumb: anyone who uses insults over argumentation is wrong. This was an egregious use of time. Time she did not use productively. Instead of figuring more about the situation she called him names. 

The second issue was she would carefully ask him one liners inserting her own explanation of his response. Whenever he would try to explain, she would cut him off. She would cry “claiming my time”. Such a stupid response. He is unable to properly assess your question because she would not let him. She manipulated the time rule to shove questions and then follow them up with her own narrative. He would begin to explain she would cut him off and then give her own explanation. The hypocrisy and ill-willed move is disorienting. She fails to listen to him. Yet she spends little time asking depth questions only surface yes or nos intentioned to throw him off. She never owned him she owned herself contrary to liberal twitter handles.

This problem goes much farther than simply being a dick. The hearings are for the truth not her truth. If he cannot explain then there is little to explain. If a lawyer asked the witness a question and when he began explaining said you're claiming my time. It is not your time it is his time to owner. You asked him a question let him answer. It is a lack of respect and dignity. This use of power is dismantling and disheartening. Sitting in her ivory tower she paints her narrative with little care of the truth. For an obvious alternative. Backed into a corner she argues against his character. She asks dubious one liners which need unpacking. The gotcha moments are so obviously mishandled. Anyone who listens recognises her error and irrefutable unethical presentation. 

The use of power to silence others in democracy is ironic in its own right. Using one’s own position to demonstrate their use of force. It is the biggest hoax in democracy. Positional status does not diminish hierarchical arrogance. This exploitation of the rules of the game to promote a selfish goal. Given five minutes, she takes that time to craft her opinion with little factual data. Only asking him to weaponise her commentary. She is preaching an illusion with little evidence. Yet technically she is allowed. It is only the generous gentleman after her that allows him to properly respond. If not, his reputation would have been smeared with no rebuttal. To openly smear without counteraction is deplorable. This is also on a national stage. A governmental stage infringing on people’s dignity. Representatives demonstrating their lack of concern for the public citizen. Dictating without actually internalising. 

Democracy is hierarchal. Its goal was not to equalise the people. Not to empower but “impower”. To diversify the elite. While this is ironic given the diversity in ancient cultures, it is severely dishonest to the public. Anyone who is able to reach the elite whether through hard work or no work is disconnected from the public. They are cared for not the citizenry. Democracy has slowly included others. It is feudalism expanded. In order to maintain power they extended their reach into the middle class. With minorities in the elitist world, people are content. Yet they shouldn’t. The elite circle is an uncaring unsympathetic world. Even the people’s party is slogan to garner support. The government has done nothing to gain the people’s trust. Voting is dependent on who the worser candidate is. Democracy allows others to have the American dream but it does not aid the citizenry at large and they know it. 

This episode is a perfect portrayal of democracy working. A woman is in congress. She has reached the elitist stage. She managed Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 putting forward corrupt allegations and her punishment was firing. The Russiagate liars are free to continue to live without liability. If you are in the elite circle you can get away with anything, as long as you follow the rule book. If you are at the met gala boarding a spectacle while the masses suffer under your tyranny its all good but if you are Andrew Tate who opposes the elite then you’re attacked. None of Joe Biden’s illegal activity has been brought to light, none of the Epstein buddies have been accused. Bill Gates was divorced that was his punishment. There is a different standard. It is the same feudalistic hierarchy that existed a millennia ago. Little progress has been made beyond giving more people that opportunity to oppress others. 

     

Understanding democracy is recognising power. Democracy has willingly left the hierarchy in place. Representatives treat themselves as better and smarter than the citizen. Despite citizen election, there is a superiority complex evident. It is possible to maintain the various positions without placing a superiority complex on it. Representation attempted to fill that void. They are picked to lead not divinely chosen. Yet once picked they are given power that they regularly exert for their own agenda. The US’ biggest blunder is its lack of citizen deflection of the government. With the exception of rights there is little for them to do. Separation of powers does not work when the elite is working in tandem. There is little oversight in a politically charged formula. Though the court may be the more impartial just due to their loyalty to the law. They remain obtusely related to the law. While politics seeps into their position there is less power embodied orchestration than politicians. More citizen power would lessen political tyranny. They would need to be kept in check less the public impeach them. 

The current model has allowed politicians to commit offences without remorse. Leaving little accountability or concern to the public. It is less a human nature thing and more giving them the opportunity to be selfish and spin their narrative. It is hard to say whether power always corrupts but it is clear that the current political model gives unwarranted authority to uncivilised individuals. The power enlarges the ego and posits them as superior to their constituents. Demonising them if they push back. How dare those paupers challenge me. Such disgust enrages in their lungs. They weaponise their motive to keep their hands clean or at least keep themselves out of jail. Their underhandedness is so blatant. Their failures so clear but are given a pass by their fellow elites. No little accountability or admitting to fault. When caught redhanded it is a twitter apology with no jail time. Getting off scot-free while the rest of society suffers for their mistakes. They punch down and keep the power for themselves. Not wishing to share unless one has reached their circle. 

Abuse of power is common in democracies. People unconsciously turn a blind eye. It is a bipartisan issue. The disgusting mobilisation of authority over others is crude in a representative democracy. You were chosen to lead be gracious not ungrateful. You work for the people not for yourself. Calling constituents names is childish and petty. A representative ought to be unbiased and honest. Not swirling her own stupidity. Master morality flourishes in the democratic system. Even with the systematic foundation in place corruption is inevitable. Greece fell to corruptive actions. The same goes for the US and other democracies. Backsliding democracies are becoming more common. While democracy watch does not track political corruption honestly, it is clear that covid opened our eyes to their dishonesty and egocentrism. Social climbers with corporate enslavement. Unable to think independently nor aid the citizen. Basically a non-non representative. 

This use of force will only be curbed with valuational imposition. No structural model can compensate. It is here that the religious values have merit (though it is deeply ironic that Wasserman-Schutz is probably Jewish). Forgetting values for one’s own agenda is seriously problematic. Ethics are the bloodline to systematic coordination. It is an intuitive recognition of the right thing to do. Not to smear for one’s own prideful idiocy. her actions were disrespectful and demonstrated a sheer lack of care for Taibbi. He was an adversary. He was coined a Musk follower as that must be terrible. Somehow Elon Musk who has done more for the world than many people in two lifetimes is a terrible person because he unblocked Trump’s twitter. He says things people do not like. He speaks back to power. Ironic how the people who have all the authority choose to insult instead of defend. Punching down is not a winning strategy nor respected. While in this polarised society it may be ignored, for those independents will see right through her intent and deplore her.