Smooth Sailing

By: Jonathan Seidel

Roller coasters and rafting: bumpy and pictures-hyperreal coordination 

A roller coaster is a high speed mechanical ride. It is the enjoyment spinning around in loops and drops. The entire ride is exposed and coordinated. Put your hands up and scream as the cart speeds up and loops around. Raft rides are not of the same amusement. Slowly wandering through the forest. Only at the end was the roller coaster realized.

Raft rides are single carts moving at their own speed. One conductor per raft. Sit back and relax. Enjoy the ride. Yet there is no time to be passive. The slow glide is only the beginning. It is only preparing the riders for the unexpected. The conductor expertly guides the raft. Pushing off rocks on each side of riverbank. Oscillating side to side. The ride is relaxing but the water begins to feel heavy. The raft swaying jumps a little. It becomes bumpy. The passengers grab on gradually for dear life. The once chill flow has risen to a different wavelength. The passenger is alert. He has stopped conversing with his friend. He looks straight ahead holding the bamboo tightly for his own sake.

The ride is bumpy. There is no drop yet but it’s gotten real. The passenger startled is aware and ready. He is trying maintain his balance. Afraid the conductor may slip up. It resembles more a ride at a state fair rather than an amusement park. Safety wise he trusts the conductor but he must take initiative. There is no helmet nor life jacket. He is fully exposed. He holds on lest he fall off. The conductor ensures his safety but skepticism has him rethinking. Just a grip on the bamboo. He is only human. He may slip up no matter how professional he is. The water is bumpy but still calm. There is to fear but rest assured this is only the first half. It is only preparing for the bigger twists and turns. The awkward menacing of a tightly cleaned uneven ride is ambitious yet left remaining stiff.  

Sailing along the river blue happens upon rest stops. For anyone who needs a break from the ride. Offering beverages and a seat to relax after the bumpiness became nauseating. Clenching tightly has overburdened. Whatever the reason there is time for comfort, only for the ride to restart. Though rejecting the rest stop is preferable as well. Continuing along the river, the bumpiness ceases as the rocks spread out. Then an observer waves and the passenger waves back. The observer quickly pulls out her camera and the passenger eagerly accepts. How sweet of an observer. She is interested in the rafting. Then moments later the raft pulls under an aching bridge with more observers waving flags and flashing their cameras. The passenger is overjoyed. He is entertained by the ride and observers. They both think it is cool. 

After the bridge, the slow steady ride quickly increases in speed. The conductor swiftly moves back in forth like skiing with poles down the mountain. Moving ever faster over the rocks. What seemed like a nice somewhat relaxing trip has transitioned to a high speed ride. Bouncing off rockets the passenger grips tighter. Screaming scared he may fall off. The water rushing and the raft flying. A few minutes of turmoil cools into a calm pace only to revert to the small drop off and twist around the corner. This outing has exceeded the passengers expectations. The shift is quick and sharp. No longer birds chirping and smiling at the beautiful green nature around him. Surrounded by natives working the land. Nothing to worry about. Yet instantly, the raft is a full blown roller coaster. Up and down and round and round. 

A treacherous episode of breathtaking gasps. Unexpected but enjoyable. Confused at the situation. This is a nice raft ride. What happened? What changed? When did the raft become a roller coaster? He doesn’t have anytime to fully analyze these inquiries. The peace was momentary. Just enough time to catch his breath before taking a nosedive into the rocky terrain. The current carrying the raft with immense speed. Such force shoving the raft ahead. He desires to put his hands in the air and cheer. Afraid if he does so he’ll fall off. In a moment of sheer risk he puts them up for a second before quickly yanking them to the bamboo to remain aboard. His heart jumps and he is swooned by the swinging raft. An accidental tailspin heaves a heavy sigh of relief as he regains control. Phew he mutters a curse under his breath and a silent prayer of thanks. The conductor smiles. All according to plan. 

Bliss rolls in. The final loop passed. The raft slowly makes its way to the final stop. Reaching the end with a nice steady beat. The conductor pulls up to the side aiding the passenger off. The passenger thanks the conductor and makes his way to the to the street. Looking for his friends and a bathroom. En route he is confronted by the observer. She shows him the picture. How sweet he thinks. She hands him the picture and says five bucks. He continues on to the restroom he runs into another observer hurrying to pee to avoid him. On his way back he picks up a bottle of water and behold another observer is the cashier. He realizes the ruse. He’s been duped. It is all interconnected. Not locals or natives. It is only a bamboo raft ride. Sailing through nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet it is not the case. 

The bamboo raft ride is the interconnected enterprise. The houses he saw on the side were for the workers. This is an amusement park. A theatrical assessment. The raft, the rest stop, observers and convenient store. All are pieces of the same brand. The capitalist brand. Enticing participation for more money. While a little dissimilar from average roller coasters. Combining the slow Hershey ride with the unsecured county fair is the bamboo ride. The Hershey ride is chill but unexpected. Able to receive treats but has infrequent out of nowhere twists. Adding the elements of the unsettling anti-safety and explosiveness gives the bamboo raft a nice synthesis. Yet it doesn’t seem like a roller coaster nor expected. It is shocking for the rather stumbling twists and devious observers. Yet that is the ruse. 

This isn’t a ride but a roller coaster. This is blindfold roller coaster. A space mountain where one can’t see where the road is headed. Unsuspecting but yet freedom and fun. The entire system is a web of linked characters. Instead of a mechanical system driving the cart and taking the picture, a person does it. It is unsuspecting because it is foreign. Roller coasters are machines not people. A person who becomes the mechanical energy ought to also equate other variables in the same vein but it is not obvious. Only afterward is the realisation an epiphany. Of course that was their role and the goal. It is not devious nor devilish. It is the rules of their game. It is the humanized instead of computerized roller coaster. The right mentality would have easily solved it and expected the unsuspected. 

A difference between deception and ignorance. Comprehension is simple for the normative but not when visiting a foreign nation. The passenger is not aware of the style of rafts nor of this place. The expectation is shattered when bumpy becomes sliding. When pictures become portraits. It is illogical to the foreign passenger but evident to the native. Understanding the frame is undemanding the variables. If observers are locals they are not perceived as workers. The mechanical is devolved into human exertion. Yet this is precisely the agony of the advanced. The inability to see the interconnected web due to definition. 

Nothing But My Truth

By: Jonathan Seidel

Post-truth and hyper reality: lies and relativism 

The biggest issue of the contemporary age is not the absence of truth but subjectively objective truth. It’s not the decay of truth but the reinforcement. The power of perceived truth. Relativism is reactive rather than proactive. Each trying to derail the other’s truth. It’s just the continuation of modernity. From dual truth to multiplicity truth. From collective banners to smaller guerrillas. It is an illusion for ideological masochism.

Everyone lives in a hyperbolic chamber prideful in their own hygienic purity. Stopped in an endless echo chamber with zero tolerance for otherness. Changing the radio at the song they don’t like. It sounds off putting. It sounds sharp and eerie. There is little signal. Little connection to reciprocate. They cover their ears and shout back. People are exposed to other ideas through screaming battles. Yelling matches of the supreme degree. Everyone raises their point while overwhelming the other. There is no listening only speaking. Yip yapping with an endless vocabulary. Recycling the same jargonist hyperbole. It isn’t receptive nor instrumental. The slogans bounce off the other and back on the speaker. Listening to their own words into a dogmatic salute. Each sector screams charming their own base but with no recipients. 

Post-truth doesn’t mean no truth but my truth. Truth was objective now it is subjective. It was ideological and still is ideological. There are no rules except one’s expression. The meta-narratives have been retyped and lines redrawn. Thematically it’s the same world with a few new rules. Each truth is vying for candidacy as the biggest bully. Who can annoy the most people. Who can convince those to join their cause. So many lackeys placed at the hip. So many sympathetically duped into nonsense. Don’t think for yourself join our tribe. If you don’t you are this bad word or this mean word. Who can you scare the easiest. Who can you manipulate the easiest. It is all a game for supporters. Who can whip up the most empathy for their cause and vile for the opponent.  

Truth as it was half a century ago has splintered into more groups. Yet these groups are not isolated. They find commonality. Different groups that would seem worst enemies are bffs. Though many of these are one-sided. It is more an endorsement of another. Truth is important but only partial truth or a specific truth is accepted to be an affiliate or a friend. The Islamic world detests the LGBT community and yet the latter consistently promote their cause. For the latter it is the anti-colonial rhetoric. Libertarians promote pro-LGBT liberties and yet the latter criticise those anti-social care. Overlooking the deafening discriminatory ideology. It is an interesting pairing because one side advocates while the other side surely fails to reciprocate. The principle remains no matter the inadequacy.

What guides truth is general precepts in their absolute. Truth is splintered into personal expression but such is a false presentation. Truth isn’t subjective but projected. Subjectivity only matters in the accepted jargon of sexual or racial orientation. Limits are imposed. Yet not everyone is equal. The personal expression does not identify with external world. It’s called subjective but no one is saying Russia is entitled to their truth. The Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to their truth. Everyone wants to engage on one side or the other. Israelis are Nazis. and Palestinians are terrorists. Occupiers or jihadists. Each person is inserting their will onto the conflict. That is not subjective truth or relativism. A century ago, communism was hated upon but supported by others. The same is today. Splintered ideology is a different frame rather than conditional truths.

If anything is relative, it is the multiplicity of narratives. The various frame games. The debate today is mostly ad hominem attacks and screaming. Strawmanning and slurring. When there is debate one side takes the progress narrative and one takes the inequality narrative. One is the rebel and the other the revolutionary. The ideology isn’t necessarily minted into an ontological view of reality. Rather it is merely situational reflection. A conservative sees the world as human initiative and the liberal sees the world as institutional initiative. Can man solve issues on his own or does he need help. Even many conservatives concede to communal-state assistance. Especially in light of religious ideas for the latter, it is through guidance they can succeed. Yet this is different than federal assistance. The impact on the federal level is not only farther reaching but more compromised. Intending to salvage all under a single rubric.

People themselves are incapable of fostering the greatest good therefore institutions need to intervene whether domestically or internationally (it is no shock that numerically democrats exceeded their republican counterparts in warfare). This view of citizen v institutional  programming is a hot issue in many debates concerning medicine and schooling. The claim is that the right of such liberties is the state’s responsibility for the citizen. While whitewashing market criticisms may at times be fair it also demands human excellence as well as human duty. Yet this is parcel of the issue. Take immigration, those who wish to increase it do so on rights. High octane responsibility while limiters do so on duty to country folk. The liberal mind is concerned with all man while the conservative mind is concerned with fellow man. If all man is to be considered then it is the responsibility for each person to partake in the governing issues of the world while if it only some responsibility then only fellow men and even just the environmental surroundings are to be concerned.  

This inevitably leads to the Marxian view of good and evil on one side and the realistic proposal of good v evil on the other. To take a domestic example, CEOs are oppressors for profiting from their workers’ profit. Yet the capitalist will say the CEO hired the worker and provided him the opportunity, his interest and risk labels him the profiteer. Unlike a king, the worker is only a temporary worker who can climb up the ladder to be the CEO who profits. There is a progress vs. stagnation argument. To be fair Marx’s reality was a little more bleak but avenues have opened up since then. Opportunity has been provided, yet contemporary marxists will assail the opportunity as unequal. Lacking all different kinds of variables that ensure certain people do not get a leg up. Institutional intervention levels the playing field. If everyone gets the same medication and the same schooling everyone is equal (though this rarely ever happens due to the communal conditions). If the privileged are taken down a leg then the underprivileged can reach the same level. 

The capitalist sees this as sheer dubious intervention. People need to pull themselves up from the bootstraps. Try their best and then they will succeed. The capitalist has blind faith in achievement via hard work. It is a metaphysical truth while for the Marxist societal oppression is a metaphysical truth. Fate and destiny are the typological binary of the human condition. Either fate is the determining factor or destiny can be carved with engagement. Can he exceed the limitations imposed on his youth. Can he supersede the detrimental implications undermining his rise to stardom. Fate is a deal nobody asks for. It is spawned onto man. Yet once man is formed he can make choices. He can decide his future. Yet to what extent that is possible is under scrutiny. The debate is continued from a century ago. Only in a progressively democratic world can both points diverge. 

In a world of diversity both can staunchly adequately present their image. Progress versus stagnation is representative of human cultivation. The Marxist is the enemy or the capitalist is the enemy and no one is losing their head. To a degree this is the relativistic assault. The ability to finally have open deliberation. Communism is no longer dreaded nor decried yet neither is willing to give in an inch. Theoretically the opinions of the adversary can be held but practically they cannot be applied. To be a communist without blackballing and exiling. Though while communism in version areas is more acceptable, capitalism isn’t or privileged folk have no say. The previous argumentation may be muddled but the debate surrounding beliefs continues. In place of capitalism and communism you have a traditionalism and intersectionality. The same binary persists. Institutionally it is permissible but manifesting said belief is forbidden. The permissibility of adversarial opinion is not witch hunted but it is frowned upon. 

Heresy hunting is admissible but it is less institutionalized and more civil. There are examples in Assange and Snowden but this was the government against one man. While there is suppression, it is far more on the citizen level. Repressing voices is the style of the politically acclaimed townsperson. Deciding the truth by his own ideals. Orienting himself with a newfound tribe of protected hegemony. The civil doctrine of suppression is a far more daring sin. For the government to supersede the national ethic is to betray the people’s trust but for the people to do so undermines the fabric of the social order. It negates the principles belying the democratic ethos. The democracy part is tainted by beliefs in institutional structures but not ethical values. To insist on a monolithic doctrine no matter how noble is to usurp the label of democracy. It is to crush liberalism with a shade of tyrannical fright.

Relativism can only exist in a horizontal society but such a framework is subdued by false prophets and perennial advocates. The illusion of democracy in its strictest sense is the complacency of theoretical possibilities with the realistic insufferable rejectionist fragmentation. To mold a system of checks and balances that is readily colluding against its promised objective. An idealistic aspiration for divergent positions that is cross examined with criticism without scrutiny. To acknowledge otherness and revere it. To respect rather than tolerate opposition. Such a reverence is foreign. Each side at the other’s throat. There may exist two sides or more but its lack of approval is staggering. On the face of it there is multiplicity but its acceptance is a matter of reality rather than desire. People believe different things and are permitted to do so despite opposition and rejection. 

Medievalism rarely permitted difference. Politically, difference was a matter of death. Socially, difference was tolerated. The king’s law was the law. The project of ideological monism pervaded. The norm was a byproduct of state legislation. Different communities were regarded as second class citizens or even worse. A Jew couldn’t seek to override his exclusion no matter his wealth nor his charisma. Protesting was futile. Modernism has permitted diversity by virtue of its code of ethics. Not only could Jefferson and Hamilton disagree but they could debate it. Previously disagreement was either a conversation or non-starter. There was rarely any openness for otherness unless in its comical destitute form. Jews can reside in the country if they are stripped of their dignity. If they are excluded and hounded for their deviance. To be reminded as a living example of treachery. 

Modernism finally opens the floodgates for speaking one’s mind. Rebel in protest. Revel in the privilege of disagreement. Your protest will be condemned. Challenging norms is always a flaunting charge of inexplicable insolence. Yet one of courage and moral vision. Pushing the boundaries. Fear has continued to deny the disagreement. Freedom of speech and expression as notarized in the constitution, is but a selective phenomenon. It is selective to the side that believes they are correct. Silence a disagreement. Either the founders were idiots or prestigious. Intervention is by each side’s cultivation. Abolitionists compelled slave owners, McCarthyism denied communism and the mainstream purged anti-war callings. Today there is the hormonal therapy and abortion battles. How far is freedom of speech? Screaming Nazis? Burning the flag? Mocking the president? 

Unfortunately, most deny others that which they do not like. It’s not even about theoretical but practical. The plurality allows different people to do different things. The law doesn’t establish various laws but instead legislates permission for others to abstain. Abortion is permitted but those who disagree abstain, gender reassignment surgery is permitted with dissenters abstaining. It is not entirely permitted as a prostitution and drugs are still illegal. The law isn’t even about not affecting others but the person in their own vicinity is prohibited. The law itself is not about impact on others but rather what is deemed permissible to do to the self. The law intrudes where it believes it can curb the social practices. When it believes politically the dangers are strong. The state was complicit in deriding change in the sociopolitical exchange. 

The greatest emphasis of the power of the relativism is the acceptance of otherness to some degree. The government has more or less stayed out of sociopolitical elements. On the surface that it is. Mainstream sources turn groups into far right fanatics. There is a stronger liberal push that highlights the comfort with duality yet the threat of radical proportion is complicit in a cabal revolution. The state has limited some of its immense taboo orchestration. Yet the sociopolitical discomfort is wayward. It isn’t as horizontally implicit. The people argue of these issues and the state responds like a parent deciding the punishment for her kids. Who is right and who is wrong. At times arbitrarily deciding depending on if mom or dad is punishing. Each parent favors a different child. Each side teases the other hoping the parent will find favor in their side and punish the sibling. Siblings who despise one another. The parent doesn’t try to resolve tension only heightening it by consistently choosing each side to make their favorite child happy while angering the other. 

The state is not absent from sociopolitical controversy. The brunt of the debate is civil but the state does engender a more poignant force in fanning the flames. Cursing the child for disagreeing with her. How dare you. Your brother will be praised while you shall wallow in a timeout. For your insolence he will get an extra candy and you nothing. Yet this is but parcel of the insidious state monstrosity. The state was always perceived as the threat to the people. The premise of revolution is to overthrow the problematic monarch. Democracy has promised through elections to be a horizontal society but it isn’t. Ideally, the system enumerates a chain of coherent equality. Elections create self-interested elites who deny the normative principle of democratic peoplehood. They create their own neo-aristocracy. They feed off the horizontal cultural war only deepening the conflict. Each side appeals to the electorate to help them against the even adversary. Never realizing that there is more unity in the chambers of the elite. Colluding for self interest rather than the people. They are necessarily friends but their self interest overrides solving the people’s grievance.   

The irony is the explicit distaste for hierarchies and yet appealing to them. It’s akin to Bill Burr’s joke about feminists curling their pigtails in a fire or hostage situation. Only against the system when it doesn’t impact you but when your back is against the wall, deriding all principles for the easy way out. Liberals promote more government to quash others’ freedoms while conservatives promote more local government to enforce their ideals. One advocates equality as long as it for their side and one advocates liberty as long as it is for their side. Hypocrisy is evident. The government eats it up. Happy to intervene.  The enemy is the state. This isn’t an anarchic proposal but one of scrutiny and suspicion. Unchecked power is dangerous. Each side is building their own nuclear weapons to topple the other side. Each side of the horizontal society is ignoring the problematics of the electorate. When
Such inquires are raised they are shot down in favor of the culture war. The are perceived commoners playing dress up are not pretend. They are given the nuclear codes and they can use them. They may be imbeciles but even a toddler can push a big red button.

The horizontal society is a the semantic reality but truly it is a vertical society. There so much jargon but none of it is genuine. The truth is the governmental intervention most of the time well intentioned. Great ideas with terrible execution. Theoretical results with impractical impacts. A dubious society unaware of the detrimental consequences. Deriding the dangers posed for their own victory. What happened to democratic diversity. So we reached a point of political acceptance of communism but whiteness, masculinity and other apparent normative features are evil. On the other end only traditionalism is acceptable. Only government can instill this truth. Screaming are the minority of libertarians waving their hands. Let people be. Stop with the authoritarianism. Stop with heresy hunting. Accepting one feature and moving on to accost another. None of this is democratic. It is institutionally employing an ultimatum. That is tyrannical. That is devilish. 

Modern day democracies are a binary of opposites with the same resolution. Deploy institutional pressure. Deploy the nuclear codes. Scare them or even coerce them into submission. A truly scary time that fails to live by its democratic model. The preoccupation on Trump fails to assess the congressional evil. Their lack of democracy. Worse, is the people’s tyranny. Democratic backsliding is the institutional aspect but the people have been doing so for some time now. Outlawing otherness is the tyrannical spirit. The monistic undemocratic side. If only the people united under a common enemy—the state. An “enemy” that is to be pressured and assessed. Criticized and judged. 

Philanthropic Profit

By: Jonathan Seidel

NGO’s and philanthropic businessmen: Mr. Beast good or bad? (Sowell, 57)

Mr. Beast, aka Jimmy, the most popular YouTuber was railed for healing the blind. Charities created to do that job took to twitter to shame him. CEOs of these groups chastised the YouTube for clout. Yet is this even fair?

Mr. Beast may be doing it for the clout. If we were to accept the nefarious or even agenda driven narrative, that Mr. Beast is looking for views, is that so wrong? Ought we to shame someone who is making himself famous by helping others? He makes a buck healing someone? These NGOs would have you believe Mr. Beast is a villain. He is extorting the helpless for his YouTube channel. He is extorting them for personal profit. Yet none of the blind actually care. The NGOs may care but the victims do not. The victims are now blind free. They can finally see. It took a flashy profit-driven YouTuber nefariously paying for their medication to make more money. For people to see him as a saviour of the people. Evil man he is. The formally blinded are overjoyed. They hug him kiss his cheek. They may even recite a prayer for him or to him. He has blessed them and saved them from torture. He has committed a beautiful deed but apparently such a deed brought of profit is devilish. It ought to be shamed and censored. I do not think the cured care nor see it that way. 

Mr. Beast has used the ill as an example to show his philanthropy. How terrible. He has exposed the cruelties of the world and aided the downtrodden. He has given awareness to hundreds of millions of viewers to this dire cause. Again how awful a man. These people are unnoticed and even if Peter Berger aspires for people to give charitably to Africa it doesn’t happen. Even more so to a cause incredibly remote from them. People aren’t flocking to aid those downtrodden because they have no connection. NGOs attempt to raise awareness but the funds are insufficient. Seeing this gaping hole, Mr. Beast took it upon himself to travel and show that this is an important cause. Maybe Berger would be satisfied with such selfless aid. Did he make a bunch off the video? Probably. Does it matter? No. Since the people he helped are ever grateful. They are being exploited for his pride. So let him show off his grace. At the end of the day, thousands of people will see. That is a win. Whether or not he is such an angelic figure is of little relevance. What matters is the results. 

Is it so wrong that he is publishing this content online? While he is making a profit he is also exposing the dire circumstances these unfortunate people are living with? How much more can you ask? Profit-driven or profit-induced good is still good. It doesn’t need to be non-profit to be good. To be marked as sacred and pure. Such a belief is idiotic. Why can’t money and fame bring goodness? Why does it matter the motives? So Mr. Beast is trying to win the heart of a young maiden or he is trying to grow his channel or he wants people to like him. It really doesn’t matter. His ulterior motives are saving so many at the time. His ulterior motives are not subjecting anyone to harm. They are not distorting nor undermining the treatment. All he gets is some more love and coverage. If the video does really well maybe he’ll do a second trip or use the profit to finance a different trip for a different cause. What a mensch. What a selfless person. Yet all the chatter is how horrible, how selfish and dishonourable he is. 

The haters seem to forget how money meshes with morality. It is no coincidence that slavery ended at the behest of the industrial revolution. Once machinery was profitable those anti-slavery could push back hard. Not only is slavery evil but is unnecessary. This is a devilish act that needs to be abolished and it can be easily replaced. Then the abolitionists in their financed esteem set off to globally push abolitionism. They returned to the shores of Africa to which they first participated in the slave trade and sought to end it immediately. Just as the Europeans forced natives to end ritual sacrifice here they did for slavery. With the economic prowess to thrive in a technologically developing world they were able to “realign” their values. The abhorrent evils were dealt with. The same can be said of the democratic universalism. Democracy was not only promoted as the most economically viable option but then was battled for its expression. For other countries to enjoy the splendour of free markets. The imperialist threads of the 1870s and 1970s were heavily morally induced. Capital enabled ethical restoration. 

This has been the truth throughout America’s short existence. Slaves, women, blacks and then all races and types to equality. Once it was economically viable it was morally possible. A great contemporary example is going green whether veganism or renewable energy. The anti-group is heavily against due to its ineffectiveness. It’s impractical and poses more torture on the individual. It is economically inviable. Technology hasn’t reached that point where vegan food and renewable energy provide the necessary comfort and necessary quotas. They are both super expensive and unhelpful in the world. The same goes for electric cars. The greatness of Tesla is its sleek supercar type ideal. While it has its faults, it is a good car. Yet it is expensive so for the average person there isn’t an option. Until then people roaming the streets halting traffic for the sake of the earth are just making people more annoyed. Most people know of the issues, there just isn’t an economically viable option absent the advocates own hypocrisy at times. 

The power of technology produces like Tesla newer better models that aid people in aligning with necessary good. Advocates have a better job convincing people with a new product than halting the streets. It does nothing but annoy and only creates more hostility. While that may be cruel and unfair, that is the way of people. This is the way of the consumerism world. There is endless competition (ideally) and endless opportunities to reach the pinnacle. Want people to go vegan make it more affordable and delicious. Want people to stop using fossil fuels make better electric cars and stop politicians and Hollywood stars from doing so as well (it can’t be a commoner thing). It is not that people do not care but the options presents are deeply asymmetric. By this lousy electric car that costs a ton to charge and only lasts a few miles. Eat this fake burger that costs double the price and is utterly disgusting. It isn’t that people are immoral freaks but that the options are between delicious and disorienting. 

Alarmists have also caused scepticism to wreak havoc but that is beyond this short piece. Better facilities, better possibilities for all have been provided because someone invented something and made a profit out of it. The consumer market cannot change on a dime to the idealists do it for the sake of whatever. It is just not how the (post/meta)modern man is hardwired. What is attractive is that which is beneficial. Go out and make something that is useful. Spend time working instead of shouting. Morals outshine with cash flow. When an option is better and bolder it will win out. Until such an option is readily available to the consumer it will not be heeded. The question isn’t spare a few bucks, it is upend a lifestyle and pay and extra few thousand at least. It is too early. Yet no one is too entrenched to give up when the better option is safer and better. People love to drive but self driving cars with their superiority will probably win out. Capital has the power to build bridges and mend fences. The opportunity needs to be willing and up to the task.

Mr. Beast has all this money and he with all this capital invests in helping others. Does he win? Absolutely. Do people love him more because of this? You bet. Does that make him evil? No way. He has the funds to do something to help others and he does it perfectly. He waltzes into the area and sets up everything needed to fulfil the ill’s long awaited hopes. He does it because he wants to. He is able to. He pays for everything and makes a return on his investment. His return on investment pales in comparison to the value of sight. The people would pay anything for their illness to be cured. He does it all for free. He does it all for them. So what if it is prideful and selfish. He has saved thousands and intends to do more. Why should we stop him because some NGOs are unhappy? He is helping and they scream menace? They are just upset that he is doing their job smoother and more efficient. He has done what takes them so long to do. He got off his ass and paid instead of running around gathering funds. 

Why are they so mad? NGOs have their own drama and internal issues but more so they are inefficient. They are non-profit organisations that struggle to raise money. People don’t always want to give to causes they know little about. Yet if Mr. Beast opened a gofundme the next day, he would be able to do their job a few times over. His influence and his popularity exceeds their capability. So it is a show. Who cares. They can see that is all that ought to matter. For NGOs to be upset is either because he is ruining their business which is then a good thing since if he heals them all and they do not exist we’ll have a healthier planet. More so he did it better than them. They’re upset because a boastful twenty something year old who makes crafty funky videos on YouTube saved thousands of lives. He is the better model. He doesn’t exist to serve the ill but he is willing to help out. To be angry is to be selfish. If all the NGOs cared about was healthy people like their mission statements say then they would be overjoyed. They would be promoting more people to do so. They just want to be relevant at best and profit at worst. A true charity would be elated that someone else is taking the mantle. 

Mr. Beast’s actions deserve praise not ridicule. He has brought better attention to some issues the intended organisations couldn’t. Whether people like influencers or not, they help. Mr. Beast is healing people. That is all that matters.

Trustworthy Messaging

By: Jonathan Seidel

Between the oral and aural: immediacy and hearsay (Postman, 33)

Orality has made a comeback but quite uniquely than its ancient style. Orality is not a certain person but a certain message. Not close relatives but foreign populists. 

Orality was the way of old. The entire society was commenced by the oral order. A model bequeathed by word of mouth rather than documentation. Law was orally understood by the community. It was a shared comprehension of the interconnected society. Yet as a societies grew more complex and non-communal members joined the system, documentation was ordained to assist in facilitating this shift. To compensate those not privy to the internal chasm. Yet this was more so internationally rather than nationally. On the tribal level the oral was the epitome of expression. Orality demonstrated a deeper link and devoted knowledge to the community, to one’s identity. Orality bound the people under the knowledgeable lens. People by virtue of their tribal counsel rather than tribal council would know how to act. 

Orality offered a cohesive model. Literacy embedded norms in documentation. Eternalising the truth in encoded form. Despite literacy’s use for religiosity and legality, it didn’t impact the common man to the same degree. It was seen as an esteem model of knowledge. A method for the elite to inscribe and transcribe their will. A way of genuine foresight and utility. The common man did not have this opportunity. He was poor and illiterate. He spent most of his time in the oral world. The text world was an aspiration, a holy sphere above the conversational spectacle. Mostly they were taught to read religious works. They were taught to read at times in a language they didn’t understand nor would it translate to their own language. This was the argument against the Danes. Learn to read and write but this was of a specific style. To read latin rather than danish or middle English. Latin happened to be a purposeful medium but most importantly a religious understanding.

The Renaissance brought back the books of old. The publications and translations offered the Italians to indulge as their islamic counterparts had done so half a millennia earlier. For the most part it didn’t reach the masses until the birth of democracy. The reformation inspired more personal engagement with texts. As more commoners began to read, more began to write. With writing hitting an all time high in the nineteenth century. Authors not actors were celebrities. What they wrote was the truth and was scared. The word of the text transitioned from world of mouth to the text. From religious texts to novella to newspapers. The text was the word. Just as it had with the religious community it had with the political community. Writing as a way of conveying truth. Instead of saying it, writing empowered the self to revel in the words. The word is definite and eternal. The word is unmistakably a seal of approval. Imploring the truth with words. It doesn’t need a preacher but a journalist. A scribe drew treaties now a writer conveys events. The status of writing was in high esteem. The textual overpowered the sages of old. Their world was irrelevant to the zeal of daily national coverage.

Who needs biblical stories when you have a whole slew of genre. The realm of fiction and fantasy, thrillers and humour. Books for all ages, written for men and women. Catering to each. Instead of an ancient text these were promoted by the newspapers. They would feature in a column bimonthly. Encouraging the readership, encouraging the entertainment. It was contemporary stories. A way forward from the ancient cultivations. These were at times more realistic and pressed on the struggles of the time. Narrating the issues through fictional creations rather than preaching from a pulpit. The reader was amazed and engulfed in the experience. It was sheer reflection. It wasn’t mere words but an experience. Not imposed by the sayer but internalised by the reader. The reader never met the author but words cut deep. The reader reads them as if they are a reflection of the true reality. They are embedded in the times. They are an illustration that follows a more realistic person rather than the supernal epics of yore. Even if the modern age turned away from religion they didn’t from texts. Texts were the replacement from the archaic old. The text was the holy aspiration but now it was in their hands. They had conquered it and they would enjoy it. Recognising its prowess.

The textual stint was short. Advanced technology began importing inventions. The radio became an alternative to the newspaper. While the latter has remained in business, they slowly died out. The only reason they are still around today is due to rituals, advertising and preference. There is something to be said about reading a newspaper like reading a book. There are e-books but they are not the same as the physical text. The smell and composition are original. Watch a video on Kant or read Kant. Reading is a personal endeavour. Textuality has lost its edge but it is still powerful. That being said television has become increasingly popular. This does not deride newspapers. Only that television more than radio gives a face to the voice. Radio revived the oral preaching but there is a difference with television. There is an extra layer to the oral. It is not just a voice but a visual. It is not just a story but current events. The newspaper is written but the television is verbal. It is more trustworthy because it is straight from the mouth. It is on display live. It is hyperreal. 

The text while covering events fails to fully imbue the emotion and emphasis. It is lacking in its connective aspect. News networks fill in this gap. The preacher is back at the pulpit. He is relaying information rather than instructing but it is a model of Sage related ideals. The newspaper is the text that speaks truth without divulging a face. It is a text that determines one’s opinion. The author is irrelevant. The author is but second rate to the writing. While it does matter since the author may be inconsistent, the writing is challenged not necessarily the person themselves. Alternatively, for the news network the person themselves is challenged. Their words are held against them since they said them live on air. They are beholden to their preaching type style. The newspaper is a medium of information while the network is confrontational and direct. The preacher has been re-ordained as a news anchor. Just as the religious trust their priest so too the viewer trusts their anchor. The Sage reappears in the oral sense. Blindly followed for his information. He provides values that are readily accepted by the viewer. The voice is calm and clear. Happy and wilfully accept. 

It is easier to critique a book than a person. The book has no feelings and nor respect. It does not reciprocate nor sulk. The reader dislikes what he reads and writes a review about his distaste. It is the terminological play that is disorienting and vague. There is little emotion and little influence. The film may be disliked and scorned but the pieces of visual art impact the viewer. The message of the film resonates more whether in rejection or in acceptance. A book is an active experience but is an imagined construction where the plot and its consistency are deliberated rather than the content and personification. The film projects its ideology on the viewer compelling them to soak up the ideals. The fervent rejection or acceptance is based on the film's coercion. The film like the news outlet asserts their visual competence. Their words are gospel. They are lecturing the reality of things whether fictionally or realistically. The presentation of humanity reflects the normative behaviour of people despite its falsehood. The visual is stimulating while the book is dull. The book is a private endeavour while the visual is a fluid internalisation. 

In the same way, television programs have a stronger pull than their book counterparts. The visual puts the entire frame into perspective. The trust of the oral is mixed with the visual. The oral lectern is invisible. The book is but a product of imagination while the program is a product of visualisation. A projected assault of truth. This is no pastime but the present moment. Documentaries do this also as they relay the picture with verbal undertones. The oral is more profound with visualisation. It is only further elevated. Dickens and others did place images in their works but was quickly recanted later on. Nonetheless, the interest, the reliance on the visual is mixed with verbal altercation. The oral is the knowledge internalised mainly by seeing it. Projected to the self. Lessons are taught on television. Just as books these are on full display. The viewer can dissect the oral transparency clearly. It is not imagining the dialogue but watching it in real time. This is how life works. The director like the actor has taught a lesson. Yet unlike the novel, the visual distances the director. Who cares, what matters is the actors. The characters and their expression. The visual is the truth. The characters are imbued with life force and dangle the novelty.  

How much more for networks to pass on their message. Even with networks losing their touch and many upset, podcasts have taken their place. Oral messaging from elsewhere. Newspapers haven’t regained popularity but new oral agents have. From mainstream gurus to podcast gurus. Influencers selling their workouts to follow. Digitised formats to watch and repeat. Listening to their every word and then buying their merchandise. The Sage is some guy on television. Some successful individual parading his knowledge whether he has a big house or big biceps. The visual authenticates their prestige and the message is fluidly accepted. Unlike networks that work on the viewership trust, this works on viewership seduction. Viewership aspiration and viewership desire. It is not sitting in for current events but for sage advice. While television sales have decayed, influencers have risen. The modern Sage is a jacked guy in the gym teaching his technique. Requiring more payment for more advice. A facade eating at the gullible. He is speaking to me. His video is legitimate and his words prophetic. Such insolence and ignorance. Yet it is the model of trust to those who can be seen and provide. 

The new oral has overtaken much of the literary world. New sages are received and aspired to. Yet maybe the oral needs a reevaluation. Maybe more books need to be read. Maybe the textual needs a revival. More engrossment in literature for more knowledge. Using the text to decipher patterns and decide for oneself. The text acts as an aspirational piece but also enables the self to decide for themselves. The old prophetic-priestly era was imposed by the Sage. The Sage and the contemporary influencer presuppose knowledge on others. The textual enabled the brilliant and the passionate to delve into the texts and add their nuance and their perspective. In a world of literacy and opportunity such a return to the text can elevate critical thinking. A person is taken at their word but not a text. Oral is necessary in a trustworthy community but that is not the case. The virtual-oral is a facade of hope and dreams. Promises by new sages that hold different values and seek to impose their values. This is not the world of the ancient oral. The ancient oral was communally tied. Today orality is used to attack one another. This word beats on that world. At the same time, no one is trustworthy and testimony is misconstrued for personal privilege. 

Perjury is another day at the office. One’s word means almost nothing. Eyewitness testimony is an inaccurate as well as agenda driven assault. Today it can even be modified. The post-truth world is a matter of choosing the value. Yet that value is in arbitrary means that seem to be the sole way of enjoyment. People spend so much time looking for random others for advice. What about one’s parents or friends? They are smarter than you think. What about a community scholar? Someone in the neighbourhood that can be easily talked to? So often the easier solution is the better one. What does the old geezer know. This guy is rich or this actor said that. The values are projected by the visual to then be receptive aurally. The digital needs to be regressed just a little or internalised as junk. A time of relaxation with little personal impact. The textual needs to resurface for personal engagement but that ought not replace the local scholar/sage to speak to. Religious communities still have this but this exists everywhere. Someone to confide in and ask for direction. Someone who has experience and can guide. This is the oral world of necessity. Not some virtual guru but a friendly voice answering the call. 

The oral and textual can live side by side. The textual of the other can be scrutinised. Harmonising efforts for truth. While advice can be found amongst the locality. Orality is important but it is a central facet of intimate connection. The lesson from a friendly voice can be the change. Textual can override the influencer orality to then redirect the oral to its ancient roots. 

Well Intentioned Intervention

By: Jonathan Seidel

Imperialism and abolitionism: the original universal attack (original Vietnam) for a moral good and its contemporary consequences (A day in history, African slave trade)

Europe engaged in the slave trade on a massive scale but the hard truth is that they weren’t the first nor the last to do so especially in the African arena. Yet in a twist of events as quickly as they came they began resenting the system ferociously and persuasively. 

The modern world is rife with global attempts to impose morals on others. Even today, we have yet to reach a point where people can do as they wish. While there is some debate about others do in their countries though this is hotly debated, the nationalistic paradigm is not as much. For example, the classic point is that communists can do whatever they want in their countries but not China nor Islamic countries. Alternatively, due to the inclusion of Islam in the progressive victimisation, the islamic jihad may be okay in other parts of the world (maybe even in east London) but not China’s exploitation or another’s. To some degree many liberals are sympathetic to other regimes like communist ones so that is okay but not another. The same goes for Muslims and Jews. Everyone wants everyone else to get in line with their foreign policy. Where they see human rights violations they wish to get involved. Few people are motivated by isolationist thinking. It is the duty of the west to enter the rest of the world. Whether you are a fan of Russia or you are a fan of Israel. To be a modernist is to believe it is the job of the west to ensure peace in selected biased countries. 

This kind of thinking always has a laugh at Lyotard. There has not and will not cease the pursuit of a single truth. No relativism just monism unless relativism means my way is correct therefore hold to it or else. Yet the prevailing themes of western participation in the global world is frequented by all. Those anti-colonialists believe in partaking in the the rest of the world to rectify the errors of the west. For their imposed imperialism. For civilising those areas. The west did partake in the slave trade and did take their colonial efforts a little too far but their case was just. Their cause was moral. They freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. They used force but the African nations were not going to do so nicely. While the west’s war on communism can be debated, the erosion of slavery shouldn’t. Unlike illiberal Arab or Asian countries it wasn’t religious, it was economic. The imperialists in their rabid abolitionism took to the nations to dispel the horrid practice. To end such a defiant practice. Some lefties may oppose such an action since it is invading another country. Another country can act as it wishes yet when two countries act as they wish, they ought to also do as they please. Deciding where to side is generally on whomever is the smaller group. The invader is not always the devil, it is the perceived problem. Standing beyond the practice is the status. 

In this regard, lefties today may decry the actions of the imperialists. Even if the imperialists rid slavery and moved on it would still be a problem. This is not to say that the imperialists did right by the nation but they did try to rebuild. They eviscerated the economy by ridding slavery. Just like the southern states without slavery inflation robbed any plausible attempt for proper institutionalisation. There was exploitation and conflict rising but it was of freed people. At times inferior status but not slaves shipped off to other areas of the continent. They were limited but free to live. This did give the imperialists a superiority complex which they wove but forgetting the liberation cheapens the growth and stabilisation of the area. Going as far back as the Roman Empire helped bury conflicts and engender prosperity. The idea of an expansionist territory wasn’t always terrible. If a smaller group was being mauled by a bigger fish, the whale came along and swallowed them whole. As a part of the empire the small group and the big groups conflict died and instead provided  privileges as members of the Empire. It wasn’t all good and stole autonomy but assisted the downtrodden which the abolitionist did in the Africa. It destroyed their empire but saved lives.   

A westerner must contest with the issue of slavery. Whether it was handled adequately is a separate story. It is interesting where contemporary left leaning liberals weigh on the Russia-Ukraine war. Those who wish to give foreign aid because of democracy or big bad Russia does sound similar to the anti-communist plunges of the mid century. Those who support Russia against anti-expansionism seem to permit Russia to conquer a freedom seeking people. This push for Russia has little to do with the moral failings of the other and a reflection of the national spot. Maybe some lefties are quite alright with Ukraine and muslims in China situation. Though most liberals and even conservatives find their footing in the western assistance locket. Even these lefties are not isolationists but support staff. The question then becomes what about the good parts that seek to route out the devil. If slavery is highly practiced ought it be eradicated? If China is placing  Uyghurs in concentration camps ought we step in? The reason for not doing anything seems to be not moral but political. If China was not as powerful maybe intervention would be approved. Yet there is much verbal protest by leaders and the citizenry. People care what happens in the world even if there is no actual military invasion. 

The imperialists saw that nothing was going to happen by complaining and crying so they took action. Much of the grief is to the morbid ramifications. Yet the end of slavery entered an occupation. Is slavery worse? Uncertain but it is an important measure to remember. It may have been wrong but it was ethically charged. It was not in search of exploiting at least not the first thing to come to mind. Instead it was to rid the evil slavery and then potentially be the new master. To take over from the horror for a lesser horror. Whatever the take on the intervention it was a noble thought.

It Goes Both Ways

By: Jonathan Seidel

Easier scoring and personal vitality: the league’s concern for the player

Ben Taylor from Thinking Basketball made a video concerning the NBA’s continued ease of offence. Taylor argues that players kept pushing the boundaries and referees altered the interpretation of the rules. The rules are still there without any language change. The nature of these changes boils down to an emphasis on the offensive player. For more mobility and autonomy, for the subject against the object. Cases include: dribbling, gather step, in the act of shooting, flopping and of course lowering the shoulder and fouling. The first four are liberations from rules while the last one penalises the defence. In the end the defensive player not the rulebook is neglected for more offence. 

The mark of NBA development is offensive autonomy. The rules have been on the books but the referees ignoring them. Before moderns argue that contemporary players are so much more athletic and better, it is important to recognise the inherent advantages they have over the plumbers of old. Using dribbling as an example. Up to the seventies, if one’s hand moved from above the ball, they would be called for carrying. As players pushed the rules in the eighties moving their hand to the side of the ball, it provided more leeway and more protection of the ball. Not only would the referees call a carry but it also exposed the ball to the defence. If the player was a subpar dribbler, the defence could press and concentrating on ensuring his hand was firmly on the top of the ball, the dribbler would lose sight of the defence and lose the ball. As the hand was able to move from on top to the side, the dribbler was able to control the ball better and also cross over easily. It wasn’t that they only had one hand or were too green for crossovers, they couldn’t. It was hard enough dribbling with one hand. Yet once the ball could be palmed a little more, the dribbler had more leeway to exploit the defence.

Today, players can palm the ball. Placing their hand under the ball and carrying it. Able to palm it and switch hands instantly. While their non-dominant hand is inadequate for dribbling, by holding the ball they can protect it even in their weaker hand. The rule still states that one cannot move their hand from the top of the ball but referees do not count it. The custom of palming has overruled the codified rule. Yet this isn’t only a disregard for rules but an advantage to the offence over the defence. This has enabled the offence to move ever so quickly as if travelling since he need not actually place the ball down. He can palm it and hold it close to his chest keeping it away from the defender. While it makes the defender work harder it also placed him at a disadvantage. By the rules of the eighties today’s actions are a travel+double-dribble+carry. Breaking these rules enables the offensive player to get a leg up on the defender. He can hold the ball where the defender can’t reach it. Possession is in the hands of the offensive player and the defender is reaching for nought. This isn’t only about the rule book but even the disposition of the defence. 

The gather step is another which has given the the offence an advantage. Any slight awkward movement would be called a travel back in the seventies. While they may have been overtly strict, they played by the rules. In time the rules became lax and referees swallowed their whistle more often. An extra step to the basket would enable the offender to travel. In the motion of scoring. They have an extra step or two to gather their momentum toward the basket. Like a game of handball were the momentum of firing the ball into an empty net. The player is able to lift himself toward the rim ever quicker and can manoeuvre with ease with his feet. The step back has also gotten this gather step. Where players do a step back pick up their dribble and then more steps backward. The offensive player doesn’t need to gather the ball from the floor to his body to his shooting form. Rather he already has the ball in his shooting pocket then steps back ready to fire. The defender has to contain a player who can fire with space and ready motion. Back to handball how many times does the defender block the offensive players throw, not many so too here despite the ball being bigger. 

The biggest change is contact. Previously, lowering one’s shoulder or any intentional contact by the offence was called an offensive fall. This may have been a little too far. The balance for many years was a no call. Maybe sufficient leaning in to draw a fall would warrant an offensive but not anymore. Offensive initiated contact has been called a defensive fall. Defenders can’t play defence if they cannot touch the offensive player. Long gone are the days of hard fouls and hand checking. These days players place their hands behind their backs. They sag off in order for the referees to not call a foul. In the previous cases the referees ignored the penalty but here have shifted the burden. Calling dubious falls that are manipulated by the offence. Cases of lowering elbows, rip throughs, and leg kicks. Players have flopped on both sides of the ball but exaggerating contact receives every call but no punishment. The game becomes a theatre. Flopping on the defensive end seems to be a way to rebalance the offensive might. Offensive contact has crippled the defence making the opponent inoperable in his purpose. 

Referees/the league did provide offence more leeway. Making the game faster and more exciting from different areas of the field. They may not have scored as many points but they could do cool moves. They could be more lethal from various parts. It made scoring a more plausible possibility. It made playing the game easier and giving smaller players more advantages. The league never changed the rules instead deciding not enforce the ones they had. The offensive player was seemingly handicapped by the rules. It wasn’t enough. Leeway and flexibility were necessary. Yet this came at a price. While placing the offensive player against the rules, it effectively demoralised the defence. The defence was crippled by giving the offensive player an endless supply of power ups. At least with hand checking, the defensive player could keep up. In a more physical game, less flopping was honourable. There is physicality in the game but it has aided the offensive player more than the defensive player. The defender is forced to play with his hands and body off the offensive player. 

The defender is playing by the rules while the referees are playing by an agenda. The defender should have nothing to fear. He is following the rulebook but only he is. The offensive player has exploited the rules and the referee policeman say nothing. They allow it. They promote it. When the defender does the best he can, he is penalised. He can’t catch a break. He is a law-abiding player that is penalised while the criminal is permitted. The league has allowed this rampant insolence to go on for too long. Defence is but a rarity. While some point to the talent, it should go both ways. If you can shoot really well you can defend really well as well. There are still players who can shoot but not defend, not many on the opposite end. Dennis Rodman and recently Tony Allen are of the few that come to mind. It is not about how many points you can put up but how well you can defend. If you score ten points and your assignment scores twenty you are -10 but if you score 8 and he scores 2 then you at +6. Talent works both ways, especially with the apparent athletic advancements of the age. 

All this to point out how the rules codified are cemented in law but are mere lore. The referees run the show. The defender is but a nuisance. More offence so penalise the defence. Chain him and watch him squirm. If he prevents a score punish him. The agenda has been more offence but that comes at a price of defensive capability as well as competitive enjoyment to watch. A high scoring game is enjoyable if it achieved not if it is given freely.