Boys Playing Cops and Robbers

By: Jonathan Seidel

Neo-feudalism consumerism and ultra-capitalism/corporatism: bending the knee to organisations over the state (Fromm, Being, 27)

The rise of globalisation and international corporations has challenged the authority of the state. While in the past government’s could meddle with monopolies, with companies moving overseas local governments have lost that power. Instead corporations have become more powerful. Some even believing that the most notorious run the world. 

The term neo-feudalism has been used throughout the recent decades. A demonstrating of corporations exceeding the might of the governments they reside in. A corporation seeking profit will expand its eligibility. If governments protest they will ship their resources away. If workers strike, fire them and hire new ones abroad for cheaper. Globalisation did not only mean more conversation between countries but also the malleability of travel. Corporations could move their bases and find a new home quickly. Their success was beloved and beholden. No nation was safe if the corporation decided to just up and leave. Luckily many of these American-based corporations feel more at home as well as recognising the economic supremacy of the US. Then again, sometimes the workers are highly trained such as Apple. The tax benefits are super worthwhile as well as training thousands of novices over again would be a tremendous loss. There is a rationale to stay even with the overwhelming critiques. 

Yet, the tax benefits themselves are offered by the government. The US court cases making corporations people only solidified their power. Rising corporate power is the fault of the nation itself. Given the capitalist freedom of America it was only natural that privatised groups would rise in every sector. Yet here lies the problem. The issue is when the government intervenes at the behest of the corporation. For example, big pharma is the only one who is allowed to deal medicine. If you wanted to start an ambulance company you would have to be licensed by big pharma’s standards. Since they do not want the competition they will obviously refuse your request which they’ve done multiple times. Governmental members have also provided favours for corporations instead of assisting the people. A congressmen gave a chunk of land to a crony businessman to build a factory when a good samaritan offered to build a park instead. Weapons contractors have their own lucid consequences. 

With governments afraid of corporations there is much pleading and kissing up for their own needs. To some degree it may keep them in state and hiring working but at the same time much of their nefarious operations intentionally go unnoticed. Even more so the consumer turns a blind eye. The consumer power of the US prevents many from moving overseas. Whether that be continuous taxes or lost revenue. In other counties like Singapore and Hong Kong the cost is even higher. Taxes are even greater. The potential benefits are outweighed. While the government may have them grounded it doesn’t mean they have control over them. In many ways, nesting in Silicon Valley is perfect for them. If the government is going to provide them a sweet deal to stay they why move. The government hasn’t prohibited them from moving abroad just their headquarters must stay put. Apple is global so is Starbucks yet their main base is in the US where privacy is much more provided. 

Given, the state-backed assistance to corporations in cultivating monopolies and awarding privileges arbitrarily to those they wish deserve. The issue isn’t so much the market economy but the governmental intervention in the economy. University tuition didn’t rise from corporate greed but governmental welfare. Governments began giving out loans more frequently so the universities assumed they were paying for tuition. As the loans increased so did tuition. The irony is that if loans are given to everyone then universities will just raise their tuition. There is no ceiling. The government has opened the floodgates and cares little to solve their mistake. While there is debate about unequal competition. In the early 1900s, established companies just ate the smaller ones, shoving them out of business. Still, the biggest issue is the government batting for the other team. They aren’t on the side of citizens but corporations. A majority of congress had increased stock in weapons contractors with each passing year of the Afghan War consistently campaigning for the war’s continuation. While they were making millions, citizens were losing their children for green paper. 

In many situations, intervention which is intended to assist the citizen is actually to assist the wealthy. Beating down the citizen more. It is worse than the mid nineteenth century. At least then, the government wasn’t helping anyone. Companies were killing citizens with government turning a blind eye. Laissez-faire dominance kept governments a bay while employers destroyed the spirits and body parts of employees. What changed ironically against libertarian advocates was governmental intervention to an extent. This isn’t all true. What really caused the shift was unions. Workers unions shot back at the employers. Without any aid from the government ceasing their protesting, they kept marching on. Laissez-faire applied to both sides. No aid for anyone. Unions grouped together. The early attempts failed but the AFL succeeded in achieving better conditions. There is a degree to where unions brought the government involved leading to many reforms in the early twentieth century up to WWI. It was the interventionism that leads to the considerably better conditions workers live under than before.

Factory work, as deadly as it was, faired better than other domestic jobs of its time. More flexibility and freedom. Given the advances, it was a healthier life than medieval peasantry. Though to be fare the question is unfair given the advances in medicine since the Middle Ages. Side by side farming technically may have been healthier but there was still freedom to be fired or quit though the choice was more forced to make money to pay for homeostasis. To some extent the issue is looking at the picture with short lenses and assuming causation. Indeed, intervention eventually provided better conditions but it didn’t necessarily need to. People struggled but so have many throughout history. The first generation was bound to suffer but unlike the gruelling static linearity, the industrial revolution provided the access to better quality life. Many would suffer but that is life. Take the case of D-Day. In order for the siege of Normandy to be successful the first line would have to punch through the enemy defences. Most of the first wave perished. A necessary evil in order for the later units to overwhelm the enemy. Conditions presumably would’ve improved inevitably with better technology and more worker hounding. 

Even Libertarians may accept the positive contributions of the governmental apparatus to make workers lives better. People were demoralised and the government came in and saved them. Yet what government ever does anything without an agenda? What government actually helps out of the purest intentions? The answer is nearly zero. The government was eager to help as much as they were eager to provide the welfare state. While the first interventionists may have been well-intentioned, their successors used the ideology to broker deals and snuggle close with other elites. The government was the one who kept slavery alive, it was the revolution that overpowered its will giving moralists the much needed passion and safety net to eradicate it. Moreover, the issue isn’t so much with federal officials but with state officials. The greatest lie of conservatives is governmental interventionism. Conservatives do not want less government, they want less federal oversight but plenty of state immersion. The creation of Jim Crowe during the industrial revolution just shows the manner of governmental intrusion to alter the lives of people. 

Governmental intervention did aid workers but only those who were white. Woman and African-Americans were not aided in the quest. Minorities were shaken with grief. Only a few years later, Jim Crowe made its debut. The era of reform was selective to a certain privileged group. While growth is gradual, it seems interventionism had its own intentions that only fuelled discrimination instead of solving it. The same thing happened with the welfare state. Blacks were gradually growing and then reliance on governmental aid as well as a few other nuances deconstructed the entire push forward. Interventionism studied their rise and pushed them off the cliff. They were so close to Everest and given a participatory trophy for playing before being cut off. Much that hides behind the curtain is the congressional imprint on the suppression of liberty. Just recall the Dred Scott case which legally determined his forced return to slavery. The government upheld a discrimination of ontology and discernible biology. While without abolitionism, slavery would’ve continued, the industrial revolution presumably would have ended it at some point. Despite that, it cannot be under-appreciated how much the government’s policies created the inferiority of blacks. 

The great reforms came with a catch. Not only did governments gain attention and Jesus-like salvation tropes, it also placed the government more deeply in bed with the wealthy. Technology boomed which made life easier not regulations. Regulations were helpful but also did what they always did kept people at bay. Recall in the Middle Ages it was canon that workers status was inferior and competed to work for a master. The argument isn’t even if governments should ever intervene but that there are negative consequences to their intervention. The good that comes may be outweighed by the evil it leads to. Reforms can be quite positive: outlawing slavery, better conditions, women’s suffrage, same sex marriage and so many more. The question is does this result end up causing more issues than it intended to solve. Take a controversial claim like same-sex marriage. The government is protecting those that are disallowed to do so but who is disallowing them. Many times federal approval is from dissenting state opinion. The state bans it and then the federal government overpowers it. None of this is economics. The poor reality is the insertion of cultural nonsense. Stupid emotions clouding the market.

Overall the government’s job is to protect its people. While inquiries of the extent intervention or the need of its presence is justifiable, it is always taken to the extreme. The War on Drugs or on Terror has only hurt more than it has helped. Running on some neo-christianised salvation, the public’s coercion into the state’s affairs has muddled their trust and destroyed their reputation. How many blacks were incarcerated for ounces of weed, how many poor teenagers were killed in Iraq. Black markets spring up, communities impoverished and society tarnished. The era of reform sought giant leaps in corporate interests while citizen interests were struck down. There are a few giant leaps periodically but over two hundred were struck down following the creation of corporate personhood. The fourteenth amendment progressed civil dignity yet also was used to capitalise on the corporate greed. Then at the height of the sexual revolution, corporate power was extended. Just as citizens were gaining their freedom so were big businesses. One could not go without the other, apparently. Even when intervention can be helpful, politicalising corporations has enabled legislative victories debasing attempts to make workers' lives better and destroying the market fashion.

The gradual intrusion of corporate might from money to persuasion has only furthered their rise. This is the height of corporate greed. The height of feudalistic themes. The government is beholden to the corporations word. The king needs the nobles’ aid. The government acts as the corporations demand. The vast money and lobbying executed to bribe officials to their side is monstrous yet so deep. The citizens live in a republic run by aristocratic greed. An illusion prevailed. It looks like a republican system. People are elected. Congress is diverse. We had a black president. Democracy must be working. The machine is operating. Deceiving the public into submission. Well-intentioned youngsters fall in line with their older contemporaries. Aspiring ideas fall flat on their face after their first term. They became the evil they attempted to overcome. Following the elitist mantra they turn into the new nobles. Just look at January 6th for a great example. While they didn’t care for the destruction of cities. No protection nor salvation for the assault. Democracy was still in full force because elections still were in effect. Yet when they get attacked for their appalling hypocrisy and elitist life styles. Boarding people up in their houses destroying their businesses while not following their own rules. While making millions in the process. That is when democracy ends. When corrupt officials are shaken to the floor decrying the rebellious anger. 

Despite the rise in corporatism, their hold is not necessarily a bad thing. While moderns string assaults on feudalistic nobles and cinema characterises them as evildoers, it isn’t necessarily the case. There is a lot more embellishment than is genuine. There were obviously bad nobles and bad monarchs. Noble taxation caused many merchants to seek out the monarchy to take control and protect them. This may have assisted merchants in ridding noble power but led to absolutism. Absolutism famously was the catalyst to democracies given the disaster that was that era. A pious king meant a good life and psychopathic king meant a bad life. It was all dependent on chance. This was the same for nobles. Unlike absolutism, nobles had rules and principles. Their own pride was on the line and any publicised wrongdoing would doom their household so even they had to be careful. There were sketchy corrupt ones. They had power and they exercised it. Laws were bent in their favour yet it would be untrue to claim that this made them evil. They had a duty to manage their household like a modern CEO though less complexity but potentially more pressure. 

As awful as feudalism was, it had certain benefits. Social determinism meant obligations and connections between one another. This social interactiveness further enhanced the communal aspect whereby people worked for another. Products were passed along as all was in the service of the communal cause. The static society ensured that the communal payoff was much quicker than the profit achieved in the following century. Not too pretty but it had some perks that are lost today. In that regard, to some extent it follows that corporations may occupy a similar hub. Whereby the noble is stronger than the king and the corporation is stronger than the government. Whether or not this was applicable over a century ago is irrelevant. Change may be more possible by corporations than governments. The ability of governmental reform was startled by the citizenry in response to the mechanical shifts in society. The transformations unfolding forced the government’s hand. Without the technological progress in the private sector, the static interventionism may never have reached the civil liberties applied all over. It was businesses that put extended civil liberties on the map. 

There are terrible issues with corporatism. Yet interventionism may not be the solution. Just because the media discusses it endlessly does not mean it is genuine. It is pandering slogans to viewers more than legitimate news. What is the better option. Faith in the angelic government that promises to intervene all the while screwing over the citizenry. Corporations may be contributing to climate change or tough factory conditions. Yet this is something that people can protest without governmental intrusion. Once the government intercedes, it attempts to control the situation. Like a parent taking over the fight between two brothers. Corporations have done less damage than the CIA. American led democratisation has contributed more evil than Amazon exploiting its workers. At least people can push back against corporations, they cannot do so readily against the government. When was the last time a government official was sent to prison. They cover up their own faults and blame the citizenry. The government has never been responsible, corporations have never been given that chance. The government has given them privileges but then publicly calling them out. It a straw man to make it seem they are on the citizenry’s side, they are not. They are unfaithful liars. 

Laissez-faire may be a tad too much. Yet the governmental attachment to corporate greed is truly remarkable. There are insertions that companies such as Blackrock and Vanguard are behind governmental orders. This synthesis of political and economic centrality is heavily dangerous. Yet be aware of the political corruption involved in submitting the citizenry. More than trusting politicians alone is that they are already in bed with these businesses. May as well take your chances with corporations without political might than those immersed with political butt-kissing. For many it is their intervention in the public sector that created the recession. While recessions may be an inevitable part of the economic cycle, their magnitude is directly related to the policies legislated that drown citizens in poverty. When Blackrock is siting with congress members on the future of economic policy during a pandemic, there is something devilish brewing. Many of those politicians who were ousted for their insider trading with respective companies. The government always blames poor people and immigrants for the disaster. They never take responsibility. The reversal of governmental intrusion would leave wealth more democratised instead of centralised. Homes wouldn’t inflate as clearly but they would have homes. 

This age is similarly feudalistic though lacking the social arsenal. Exchanging the social obligation for individualistic immunity. There are clear reservations for corporate power. Just as bad nobles were extremely dangerous so are unchecked corporations. Unlike the past, people can stand up for themselves in many degrees. Just because, it isn’t obvious or it is difficult does not mean it isn’t possible or shouldn’t be done. Recovering the social obligation would be a novel start. To this degree the humanistic prioritisation in place of religious affection must be empowered. The ethic of responsibility must revive itself in light of ethic of rights. Rights are significant but they are foundational. The citizenry as a whole including the wealthy ought to see themselves as part of the whole. All working for a singular clause of prosperity and salvation. Philanthropy goes along way, Carnegie and Rockefeller despite their faults donated millions. It must go beyond donations and behavioural assimilation. Profit is the most important thing and with lackadaisical aid from the state, it is the people who must rebel, protesting for care. 

Corporatism is more than just the workers themselves. It is the influence and their users especially social media. While the general purview is the employees working at these factories and the conditions they suffer under, the massive impact of media imagination is strong. They are indeed platforms but they also harvest information. Regular media projects information to the public. Conveying and manipulating the audience. It is a play honing on the prey. Social media platforms invited audience members onto the stage to play characters. By indulging in their website you are feeding into their system. Users facilitate the crony levels of demonstration. Advocates fight for higher wages for workers because they don’t want to lose the service. People wish to aid the struggling worker but they also do not want to lose the quick transferral of their goods. There is no recommendation for another Amazon to rise but for Amazon to just give in so consumers can continue to benefit for the company. There is also a level of influencers especially on YouTube who utilise the platform to make themselves big. Users participate in the algorithmic sensationalism while other users export their ideas in video format. Influencers in their entrepreneurial spirit hope to capitalise and make more money than the salary contracted workers. Corporatism is bought into by users whether to enjoy entertainment or to enrich off popularisation.   

Much of the literature on semi-corporatocracy is filled with supreme technological advancements. The cyberpunk genre fills the void of corporate power by the leash of supreme technology with extensive poverty. Sci-fi alongside the cyberpunk nexus involves incredible inequality. The dystopian nature of cyberpunk demonstrates the incredible progress of technology met with greed. Nueromancer wows the reader with futuristic amazement yet backstabs with an oppressive oligarchy. A nihilistic hell hole with all the technology present. It is not paranoia or megalomania but cruel corruption. It isn’t too far off in regards to the possibility but is concerning the tech availability and corporate thug namesake. The genre fits the nightmares of liberals and denounce the laissez-faire advocates. One thing that must be acknowledged is that without choice there is little possibility for change. Without sidelining the state there is little hope for moral aspirations. Corporations will never change if they are tattled on at every turn. There are mishaps and those to be pointed out but relying on the state to mend every issue will only stir more division. The humanist hope will be a foregone conclusion. Corporations will persist, hierarchies still in place. Yet the communal enterprise seeks to veil such differences. Yes they exist but are merely a cog in the machine. A face of reality with no less dignity nor ontology.  

The People's Compensation

By: Jonathan Seidel

Blue collar degenerates and white collar proletarians: a case in student loan forgiveness and business ethics 

Student loan forgiveness has become a hot topic lately. Students eagerly take out thousands of dollars and upon graduation cannot pay back. Debts are piled up paying over the next twenty years. Student loan debt is not new but the absurd numbers and members is crazy. My father has student loan debt. His parents were against university education so he paid for himself. He has paid it over twenty years. While I have not asked my dad what he thinks about it, I could see him going both ways. Erasing the yoke off his shoulder and principle of paying back what is owed. While this has been a contentious case it recently hit centerstage when the Supreme Court ruled against Biden’s bill. Was this warranted? Does this reinforce a stereotype?

There are two main points against beyond the political polarization: ethical and economical. While these two are intertwined the latter delves into the historical development of student loans and university tuition. It is important first to reject the right wing agenda that conservatives are out to hurt minorities or are against liberal efforts. While this may be true, the bias does not overrule the insidious immorality of student loan forgiveness. The media will have a frenzy that republicans are hurting young people. They are destroying their future. Yet it fails to actually debate the inherent issues of student loans. If anything it is a political attempt to whitewash the issues with a discriminatory agenda. Predatory disgust to demand all dissenters. A strategy of ad hominem attacks to devalue their credentials.

Student loan forgiveness means the government pays for it. How does the government make that money? From taxes. Once some people are doing it everyone will do it because why would anyone pay for university. This cost will be incredibly high forcing taxes to increase dramatically. Who covers the burden? Anyone who is not a student. This includes adults and non-students alike. Is it fair to force other people to pay for your schooling, especially when this is a choice? Seemingly not. Not only does it teach irresponsibility but it also lacks the transitional mature notion of attentiveness to one's decisions. Though the biggest issue isn't so much the adults paying but the other teenagers. Those who paid off their debt by going to community college or trade school or no school. Why should the dropout working at 7/11 pay the exuberant amount for someone else?  

What forgiveness does is fail to reward students who responsibly financed as well as prefers university over trade schools and community colleges. Trade schools are notoriously cheaper but just as valuable. Everyone needs an electrician. Should the electrician graduate suffer for not attending a normal university? Even if their loans were forgiven it is proportionally unfair. For dumber students who weren't able to get into big universities they are punished by paying a high tax for smarter people. Is our society discriminating against dumb people? The electrician worked hard to get to where she is and is now forced to pay for someone else to enjoy a big campus and get a bigger degree. It is immoral to demand people pay for another's schooling at the price it is right now. The electrician should not be punished for choosing a noble path. 

University students also spent four years out of the workforce. Is it fair for a dropout to fill the void for their learning? School isn't for everyone, and this is only forcing people in that situation for a free ride. People who need to work to help their families are placed in a starling disposition. They have toiled in the workforce to gain a mediocre salary but work they do. The university student is living off of other people's money. Enjoying the highs of college at another's lively expense. The university student graduates and makes a higher salary than the dropout. Where is the dropout's compensation? The student gets a free ride and gives nothing back. The dropout who has worked very hard is punished and never compensated but the student is given handouts and never has to compensate anyone else. If only university graduates were taxed that would change the metric, but it would also then discriminate against those who worked during the school year. The government is advocating for universities with other people's pennies.

Ethically, it is problematic because the government is using other people's money for the student's university enjoyment. While university is free in other countries it is not in the US. Globally, college is public, not private. The imbalance generated by the blue-collar efforts versus the white-collar efforts already highlights a damaging oppressive precedent but what is even worse is that it is all the government's fault. All this does is scapegoat conservatives for a liberal mistake. Why is university so expensive? Why has it risen ten folds in the last twenty years? Maybe it is not greed but idiocy. University loans started small in the 80s but then the government started giving them out like candy which alerted the universities that the government could cover. Since they are private establishments, they raised their tuition given that the government was helping students out. On the other hand, community college is cheap because it is public. Even state schools raised their tuition because of this but not too much given the public inflexibility. State schools are registered to the state laws but if out of staters want in, they can charge whatever they want because the reduced tuition only applies to local citizens. 

Already, the rise in tuition was a governmental failure and not the fault of the people. So, the government is trying to cover its tracks by forcing the citizenry to pay for something they screwed up. If those politicians pay, then that is cool, but they won't. If they were public universities like in Germany or Israel then it would be different. It would be cheaper already and less taxable. This bill also does not stop universities from lowering their prices. If the universities are already raised because the government would pay in loans without these handouts, they for sure will charge more. Harvard may be 100k if this went through. There is little evidence they will lower prices but much evidence they will raise them. They are private universities and they can do what they want. Create public universities and then there won't be a problem. At least then, people can choose for a normative affordable caliber school. Until then, do not force people to clean up your mess. Stop giving handouts. Force colleges to reduce their tuition. Do not incentivize raising tuition and screwing over everyone else. As jobs begin to look beyond degrees, university should not be advocated but an option. This is not the way to go.  

This option only furthers the middle class into demurring blue-collar workers. It creates new segregation and a new supremacy focus. Only exposing the governmental/societal viewpoint that college is a necessity. Anyone who does not attend college is somehow inferior. Not only does this contradict the growing trend of companies overlooking degrees but it demeans those who do not have time for college. The issue is not so much the price insofar as other variables plauging struggling families. Some individauls may have to aid the family due to a sick parent or single parent. Saving money for university does not change the equation, they were not going because basic necessities needed to be covered. Yet these are extreme cases and society could aid these individuals. College is not for everyone. A degree that covers sometimes absolutely nothing but a piece of paper acknowledging classes completed. The focus on college retention muddles educational excellence. Many leave university to pursue their own careers since university is the problematic choice stifling their progress. Should they be punished for entering the workforce early and contributing to society? 

University degrees topple trade school degrees. The former pay more for university but are also rewarded with higher salaries. University is supposed to be a gateway to a prestigious profession. The university hype has deformed this prospect but it is not in vain. Companies maintain a strong belief in a degree. Given this inherent advantage, a trade school graduate is unlikely to receive a job that requires a bachelors in business or science. Yet, the divide is apparent even without debt forgiveness. Academic universities struggle with high graduation rates. For many, its another four years of school and chilling. Learning theoretical layers over practical skills. Nevertheless, the prestige given in its expense and the white collar professions subsequently pave a desired path to a higher part of the food chain. Debt forgiveness intends to permit lower class individauls into the elite corner but this only broadens the divide between the white and blue collar workers. Blue collar workers are not all poor suckers who could not pay for university. Many have a passion for machinary, uncle worked on cars or grew up on a farm. This hands-on effort is pitted with scorn. It is low level dubious labour that anyone can do better to make the bigger bucks as a clerk or administrative assistant.

Logic also applies to diversifying the governmental system. While it is good to have more diversity in the government to account for all people it does not mean that such individuals are ethical. Promoting diversity quotas may increase perceived reprensentation but may not actually represent. The same goes for this debt forgiveness that attempts to permit more impoverished into white collar sectors. Good move but at the expense of blue collar workers. There is a certain ethos to white collar professions. Less manuel labour and a slightly bigger salary speaks to a varied appearence in style. Yet, their educational value and necessity to society diminishes in the face of an individual who tirelessly harnessed their craft to a single purpose. Maybe they are only good at fixing lightbulbs and air condition units but they are more efficient and consistent than an accountant who has a little polysei knowledge on the side. In the productive realm there is a nice living for a tradesman. It does not always add up monetarily to the white collar individual but it does reflect a skilled need in society. Debt forgiveness only allows the already percevied social elites to get an easy ride to a higher paying job with little compensation to the tradesmen. 

Tradesmen are an critical asset to a society, building homes repairing roads  troubleshooting power grids. The reality is that these jobs may not be worth a four year college degree but they do require mentoring. Knowledge must be known. There is a bike guy on the street over that fixes the broken knots in the bicycle. It is an outrage to demean their character by what the market value of their work is. Yet the demand is there. The lack of salary and hourly service creates a continuum that leaves their profits in the dust. They are paid per hour not per project. This obviously hurts their profit numbers even if their performance is adequate. There is a supply and demand axis to take into account but there is also the hourly dissent. Nonetheless paid per project may be the optimal move whereby whether it be five minutes of five hours the nature of work is tailored to price instead of a fixed price for limited time. Right now this is not in the books across the board so the blue collar inferiority is real in price as well as in manuel application. While someone may not need a handyman for everything, there are aspects that require skilled knowledge that the average joe is unaware of. It is this apparent reality that society must review. Blue collar workers may work more physically demanding jobs and may not sit in air conditioend offices but the work is skilled and essential. 

Society's goal is to remain cohesive. Giving one group a way out due to a governmental failure and apparent agenda is ruthlessly obnoxious. The ethical and procedural issues precede the issue with a lack of accountibility for their failures. Still, this also further divides the academic university from the skilled trade schools. The suits from the overalls. This decision enriches the former folk as well as displaces the latter. Forcing their depleted hourly wages to censored higher taxes for someone else's kick-back vacation. University is a place to grow but stealing money from hard working americans for the dubious nature these days is ridiculous. There must be more thought into this deal than simply wiping the debt clean. Congress should pay out of their pockets not the working class. Stop diminishing their worth from the ivory towers and be elected officials amongst the blue collar folk.   

Citizens United

By: Jonathan Seidel

The modern world was intended to be an isolationist individualism. All would be in their own worlds in pursuit of the same goals. All beginning on the same playing field. While this is an inaccurate measure as sociopolitical templates differ by race and region, what did not occur was the proper isolation. Existentialism sought individualism but was overshadowed by a collectivist repression. Individualism was an initial goal but in hindsight a deceptive tactic. To elevate surfs to compatible dignified people who were turned against one another. The isolationism is intended to cultivate competitive lower value citizenry. The neo-aristocracy held tight their groupies adding in new affiliates into their circle. Yet the irony was its lack of individualised faculty. The individualised program was a ruse and divided the local groups from a collective rebellion. 

The lower groups have abandoned each other but not the idea of unification. Existentialism brought an undiagnosed individualism still harping on its group message. Without proper renunciation into the lonesome alienated, there is little room for salvation. Without absolute solitary existentialism is wrought with the wrong focus. The self is no longer properly animated on its own turf. It is imprecisely manifested in its tribalistic yearning. The self is still trying to fit in. Trying to be a part of a larger project. While this larger self is a beautiful ideal it is dejected in its minimalistic selfhood. There is low autonomy and rejected criteria. Society is fragmented and yet seeking community. A reminder of the longing for something existing in the towers of urban centrality. There is an interconnected web of elitist foundational sectionalism but little for rest of the order. It is a classist society but only one with cohesion. Modernity positioned the lower classes in direct competition to aggressively fight for a seat at the higher table. Work hard enough and that spot could be yours. Employers sit with other employers not with their employees. 

Communitarian obsession is baked into media formulation. The media in its sociopolitical jargon creates nationalistic order. It facilitates a following of membership. We are a unified citizenry. We are a group, a united front. Commercialised propaganda seeks to unify under one banner but this is only genuine in times of war. When patriotism is necessary people stand up. Hoping to defend their families and values. Yet war after war has lied to its citizenry. Patriots fight wounded die and are not compensated. Veterans return emotionally burdened from the perils of the battlefield with little governmental aid. Those who did not journey to protect seem to stand idly by as their brethren suffer. Stealing their land and putting their countrymen on the street. Poverty is a stricken business for the returnees. Even the wounded are treated poorly by the institutions built to aid them. The “unadulterated” nationalism is pinched in the flexibility of its cause. Nationalism only matters abroad not at home. The media pushes these nationalistic paradigms abroad to preserve democracy but absolves obscurity in its homeland. 

War-mongering is only a tool for wealthy defence contractors and investors to attain their materialistic goals, it is also has a political motivation. Salvaging the liberty woes of a destabilised country is a prideful instinct. Bringing the nation together on this issue sparks a nationalistic front. Yet the guise overlooks the struggling souls back home. It tarnishes the reputation of these groups by sadly misreporting on their detriment. The irony of this grave nationalism is that it only pertains on national soil for an instance. While it is clear in the mind of the public. When there is tragedy there must be condolence. There is mourning and then time moves on. Time leads to forgetfulness. News passes with each day. The tragedy will be remembered annually at times but that is the sole reminder of the event. It does not take into account the consequences of that event. Thinking nationalistically, we may take a moment of silence to recall the bravery but then we move on. It is the lack of unity. Unity is not some collectivist silence. It is not passivity. It is active attempts to combat the mistakes of the past. Gathering arm in arm listening to the blaring siren is the first step but it is insufficient. More must be done. Those affected must be compensated. A great example is the firefighters from 9/11. Every year the nation mourns the death of thousands of people who died that day but those courageous fire-fighters who entered the poisonous buildings have had their funding cut thrice causing severe health problems with no reconciliation. A nation that does not look after their own is an unpatriotic one. 

Recently certain efforts to combat racial violence have been at the forefront of the news. Marches and protests to advocate for better lives. While this a great start, there are dissenters. The media frames the us-them scenario as one good group and one bad group. A systematic issues that has not been resolved. On the one hand a dire unity but on the other a fragmented one. It generates readership to the national stories. Making headlines of the same villain. The adversary did not matter in quantity, the media made the group to be an insignificant bunch. The nation was against them. No one hand their side. How this numerically executed by both sides of the aisle with the same propaganda stories is genuinely humorous. They paint the nation as a force against the faction terrorists. These grand narratives skip the nuances and grope at the jarring headlines berating the public’s conscious. While many of these narratives are verifiable many are over generalised in a dangerous manner. Each issue is placed in the public’s mind as a national story worthy of excess. Drumming up emotions to feed off of exaggerations is a weapon of derailed  patriotism. Shunning opposing views in the pursuit of their clearest sharpest ideal. 

The citizenry is placed in a puzzle of national confabulation. Though this is merely speculative. Media may be a pathological liar. The political goals are immersed in the segments. Nothing is authenticated without some hiccup. An embellished narrative for political pleasure. Such an ancient style of communication is bewildering to the honest folk. Watching the media’s use of group terminology. Narrativising the greatest threat to society and preaching its disaster. Group unity is the sole method of survival. This is not something new. The media never really lets people be alone. Even those who move to undisturbed cabins in the deep woods are followed by news trucks to interview them. Those wishing to be unbothered are consequentially bothered for entertainment. It is then broadcasted on live television for all viewers to consume. With the internet and everyone trying to mingle in everyone else’s life, isolation is improbable. Worst of all it is turned into a brutal game. Peaceful loneliness is not on the media’s agenda. They want to remind people they are interconnected closer than people may have wished. Pages upon pages of celebrity information as if one’s own privacy is anyone else’s business. 

Governmental worship only bolsters these possibilities. The more governmental power, the more information they want from its citizens. Media now has that power. Tracing each’s likes and dislikes to produce an algorithm while still holding onto any history for “necessary purposes”. Privacy barely exists and it would not be shocking if the government had illegal cameras in greek trunks or telephone poles. We may all be in a collective Truman show. We must authenticate ourselves in many interactions. We are told it is for our safety. There may be a dangerous individual. The numbers do not back up the threat nor does the insurance analogy. There are some essential elements but much of it is an invasion of one’s own freedoms. We are group, a good people. Nothing to hide no problem. Ethics is irrelevant as long as the individual is upstanding. The lengths of spyware are an evil no matter how you slice it. Looking out for the nation is a ruse for a stable nation but the collectivist mind is reminded of the horrors. In its own reverse psychology, it should be unnecessary for a patriotic society. We have given up too many freedoms for a safety that is severely under-compensated. We are nation and that is the rule. Media rolls over these crucial questions. Bigger government is better whether federal or state. The libertarian is shunned for his cruelty and selfishness. Only governmental nationalism can save the populace. If some of its functions falter it will replace them “adequately”.

A heteronomous chain of brutality is imposed on the existential self. The inability to be truly free in a propaganda nationalism. Information consumption is communicated in pluralised recorders. The nation is addressed as a collective. People are seen within groups even if this mischaracterisation is simply no more than a caricature of society as a whole. The individual is misjudged for the collective stereotype. An ideology is part of a certain group even if its sectarian fringe extremists have a single questionable move. Generalised content is funnelled through nationalised plurality as an attack on a group. Dangerous groups are placed in the larger motif. There is no room for nuances. No measure of difference. It is all or nothing. A leftist is a triggered Karen screaming fascist at conservative students. A conservative is male white supremacist who has no legitimate opinion on anything. Typical formulations are not at all a majority of constituents but usually a smaller vocal group. The most attention is gained by the loudest voice. While this is an irrational method of evaluation, it is the media’s portrait which influences the masses of their beliefs. To a point where the polarisation divides amongst friendships. Disassociating from varying opinions. People are placed in a box without the possibility of autonomous redemption.