Distinctions - Part 2

Oh my. ... . Well, I have the time ... but somehow I forgot what I wanted to write about here. Somehow. Well, the thing is that as far as I'm concerned, this is a somewhat ... fuzzy thing. Hence I might ramble unhigedly on - moving from topic to topic with the occasional thing I want to get accross thrown in.

But - there's a seed of sorts. Something about German Politics has kept me ... in a state of tension, the last few ... weeks. And that sure is a tension that seems to affect a lot of people around me. I mean, to see a neo-fascistic party rise to influence ... ought to have that effect on us. I should hope and hence I think I can afford some joy over the fact that it does. And yea, having seen that happen in the US, while the sentiment here seems to have been thoroughly against that - has also given me some hope that ... there's hope. And yet as the years went by, and "the scourge" made its way over into our Zeitgeit, attracting followers among us - primarily focussed around the pandemic - and an overall rise in fascistic influence as pivoted by ... "Russian Geo-Political Ambitions" - next to whatever China and the USA are doing - that hope seems to be challenged around every corner.

Even more so as I've ... encountered what has here and there been dubbed "brainrot". I tried to address it in part one - or was it on reddit? - where there's clearly something akin to brainwashing that affects people. Greta Thunberg is there one of the main actors - or focal points rather - as the message that she sent in that "infamous speech" seems to just ... have flewn accross some people's heads at like warp speed. "Sending them into Plaid". Because, the issue is clear. Climate Change is happening, our economics become more and more unsustainable alongside - and which of the two is going to send us spiraling into a collapse first is ... like, neither here nor there. And the longer we take to address these issues, the more difficult it will be to do so. Which is where then the term "doomer" emerges. It pretty much expresses a kind of resignation based upon the realization that we've left the point of no return behind us - and that we seem to have done so at ... well ... warp speed.


And that's the thing. Listening to climate scientists and other vocal proponents for change: The problems are severe and require radical measures. So, political groups that try to propose 'radical' measures are doing the common sense thing in this instance. Effective measures OUGHT TO BE radical - and everyone who disagrees with that hasn't gotten the Memo yet. Or chose to ignore it.

It should be easy. The issue however stands to be that we waste a lot of our physical and mental resources on nonsense. I mean, what Russia does is eventually just a symptom of it also - as being the one dude in your average survival horror/thriller situation that looses their cools and makes the whole thing annoying for the rest of the movie. Like Cypher in the Matrix. Though I suppose that's a poor example.

I mean, "the economy" "still tries" to function as ordinary. And in that regard, Climate Change isn't the only issue we face. Ignoring Climate Change however seems to have the effect of amplifying the other problems. Or creating them in the first place. As - Climate Change imples that we have to change. And going stubbornly against that while trying to maintain things as they were - alongside a resistence to "getting woke" - seems to only proliferate the worse of what we got. Which ... is obviously ... not the 'best' we could do.

But what is the best 'we' could do at this point? Well, 'we' couldn't do shit. I think the reason why things got the way they did highlights that pretty well. That is - wealth and fascistic ideation seem to mingle and mix in ways that generate a lot more political momentum than we as individuals can effectively respond to.


Or, so it would seem.

I would also argue that it's some kind of trap. Getting wound up in that process ... where the levers of control are beyond our reach ... is like, pointless. But sure, sometimes you have to spring a trap to ... get past it.


Anyhow, things are the way they are. And ... generating political momentum is to some extent about getting people behind a cause. I've yesterday watched Dune Part 2 - the OV with/in Atmos (the Audio standard. It's just ... incredibly amazing!) - and it's kind-of "about" this very problem. I mean, the dude who wrote Dune meant it as an allegory or warning on ... leadership, authority and all that. And I suppose he had to realize that no matter how hard one tries, leadership and authority cannot be 'removed' from the ways a society functions. So is there Paul. The implicit "Kwisatz Haderach" - who however assumes that role in spite of the Bene Gesseret's planning. So, two realities collide. The religious lies that the Bene Gesseret have spread to pave the way for the Kwisatz Haderach's emergence; Wherever that might be - and the turn of Fate as taking shape through Paul Atreides.
The thing is ... as basic as one might be able to capure in words. Paul, via the Spice, has the ability to see the future. Possible Futures. And is therefore intrinsically equipped with the ability to foil the Bene Gesseret's plans, to lead the Fremen to Victory; And all that. Is however also powerless against the Forces that his actions summon. Such as the faith of those who end up believing in him. And so is the Holy War he starts - also merely a consequence of Paul becoming strong or influencial enough to challenge "the Great Houses". I mean, the situation is simply this: Paul, in an attempt to live his life with the Fremen, exists in a conflict against the Harkonnen; Something he also exists in as an Atreides. So, whatever he does to support the Fremen is in contradiction with the Harkonnen's ambitions to eradicate the Fremen. So, a war on that end becomes inevitable. In the end, where that conflict was won - with even the Emperor being brought to his knees - and the Great Houses not acknowledging Paul's ascendancy, more conflict is implicit. It's what some might refer to as a "Rat's Tail". The simple fact that the Fremen rose to reign over Arrakis gives enough concern to the "outer political parties" to oppose that authority. So would they be merely the next force of oppression descending upon Arrakis, such that the conflict that Paul is wound up in inevitably extends into that.

Chani is in that the part that basically challenges the lies of the Bene Gesserit - and along those lines the things that their Prophecy entails. We might equate that to "our hopes to live a peaceful life". Paul also tried to live that way, as he realized that doing as his mother wished would inevitably lead to death and destruction. Yet it was, as it's said, pretty much: Inevitable.


So, what this story then ultimately conveys; I think that's the consensus anyway; Is that we - the reader - should be weary. Not of leaders or authority - but our role within the events that unfold. I mean, the conflicts of Dune are one thing - and regardless of how inevitable the things are that take shape; A give throughlime through this is that "the people" are almost willfully ignorant and thereby a factor of a lot of the drama that unfolds.
But maybe Dune does a poor job at getting that accross.

And yet - as for the real world, the warning stands pretty well. We have ... "the choice". The means. We don't live in an interstellar civilization relying on spice for most of its functionality - and for the most part are pretty much "stuck in the mundane". We have, at least in theory, the time to communicate and think things through. To assimilate information and make good decisions on that basis. And it is when we lose that ability - that lines emerge in the sand that get us caught up into the conflicts between "the Great Houses" that are left to fend for themselves against whatever oppression or in aspiration of whatever opportunity they might behold.


Sortof. I mean, those lines in the sand - they emerge ... possibly one way or another. All it takes is one group to stand against the rest. And though neo-fascism claims to be in defense, what they take issue with are the conclusions that democracy has led us to so far. They take offense in science; At least where it disagrees with their sensitivities; While claiming that they are against indoctrination and destructive/authoritarian politics.
Allthewhile they also claim a desire for ... "leaving politics out" of ... 'Everything' perhaps. But they sure cannot make a believable claim for being non-partisan while doing so.

Instead it are those who try to find a non-partisan way of sorts, that somehow get caught up in the crossfire. ANd here the struggle seems to come down to what side you end up finding ... that "centrist solution" on.

And as the necessity for political extremism grows; That might take more and more people onto the side of neo-fascism.
So, in order to not be politicall extreme then, they'd end up adapting a form of political extremism that is against political extremism - which is however ultimately just ... the inevitable conclusion. One way or another.

So, let's remind us of what society is.
Or could be. Or should be.
In one sense, society is that abstract whole we find ourselves to be a part of - which we would resort to for matters of common sense. "Indoctrination" if you so will. But also rule of law and that sort of thing. While, depending on who views what from which angle the matter might be that it's the rulers that determine what that is - the way a society reacts to such rule still matters.
So, Society turns out to be this implicit "higher instance" - that exists due to our agreement with its code; And therfore perhaps also just as an abstract based on our own individual sensitivities. And this eventually has it, that society as an actual thing fractures into societies that maintain individual perspectives - then co-existing in more or less tense conflict with each other.

Society is here also what we infer some kind of personal right from, to claim something about what's right or wrong. Yet; Any such claim is ultimately just a request for support. Support that solitics political momentum to establish some rule. And in our current political climate - the two things that collide are 'what's best for our future' and 'wishful thinking'. So, Progressivism versus Conservatism. Sure, to the conservatives it sounds as though everyone in support of Trans-Rights is engaging in wishful thinking - but the wishful thinking emerges from their ignorance. Not only unto the scientific facts, but also unto our very existence. And similarly the matter of whether or not the earth is flat, whether or not vaccination is good, whether or not climate change is real, whether or not Biden/the Greens (German Political Party) is responsible for the global inflation or not; And probably more.

Here, the matter of correlation not meaning causation is also rather selectively observed. If it can be brought up to discredit some seeming inconsistence it's perfectly cool; But when it comes to recognizing the origins of our economic challenges - it's whatever discredits "the enemy". So, while "their" "chosen" rules - the economy can do as poorly and be raped as horribly as humanly possible; It's not an issue. It's when the consequences thereof fall upon "a Democrat" that they're then blamed for all of it.
And I'm not sure if we have heard of it - but Russia is currently the active party to a war that has a negative impact on global trade - so, how people can be sold on the idea that the consequences thereof are fault of the sitting governments is beyond me!

And what I'd have people do is to NOT fall for THE TRICK! Like ... first of all. Like, Rule 1: Don't be (that) stupid!


But sure. "We as a society must decide" - which way things are supposed to be going. It's possibly a very radical proposal; Given that it implies that we as a society do have the authority to change our political structures - including rule of law - to our heart's desire. The problem sure is that due to the tensions and polarization, it is a somewhat ... volatile subject. But it's difficult to see how the end of it isn't going to reside within the hands of one of the two sides involved.

And ... here's a thing: The part of Germany that's today most consumed by neo-fascism, is what once used to be east-germany. Along that I ever so often observe the sentiment, that apparently things were so much better back there. They then lament the state of our economy, liberal politics and what not - but it is yet first and foremost the liberal politics that made the German Economic Miracle possible that allows them to lament over something that they wouldn't even have, had Germany not united back then.

It's ... the same old story. Or in more detail: 'Liberal Germany' - though some might throw the focus on the Marshall Plan - grew in the wake of an utterly anti-fascistic sentiment. It's like ... finally ... the socialists and liberals could do as they pleased since there were no fascists to tell them that "it couldn't be done (so)". And in a lot of ways, Germany is one of the top Global Economies - and that consistently. So, if you want to make a case for what political choices work - you cannot glance past that. If you want to argue that politics has nothing to do with it, then SHUT THE FUCK UP TALKING POLITICS ABOUT IT!

So, sure - let's say it is more complicated/nuanced than that. You wanna know what else is more complicated/nuanced than that? The geopolitical reality (global)!

If you wanna see what Apartheid and Xenophobia would bring us ... yea, you might look at Russia or Israel. Which, yea, some are really in favor of, it seems - but, let's hope that most people aren't that stupid/blind!

But so it is. Apparently it's time for the fascists to claim the fruits of ... well, NOT THEIR labour. Obviously. For, Fascism I don't think ever has yielded aything but death and destruction. Give or take.

So, how do people think it ought to end "this time"? Sure, people might know how Germany - in hindsight - could have won WW2, perhaps - and yet I see little more, if any, hope for that to translate into a "next time", as Rabban had against Muad'Dib.


So, yea ... "if all of us stood united" is in that regard also just wishful thinking. It for the most part just means "Kill those that disagree" anyway. Or, yea, in as far as the governments, due to all being so enlightened, don't kill/execute political enemies anymore - allegedly - "to (make) Disappear" or "happens to have had an accident" would be the terms to use.

But yea. We could stand united. The question however is, if we ... hmm - no - but ... TO BE realistic, what can unite us?
I mean, fascism comes with a certain implicit worldview that requires us to adapt or perish. Basically. It so inherently ignores what we might call "democratic input" - to be in favor of some kind of "strong man". That effectively projects or mirros the desire of unity, which also allows for some "heartwarming" "I'm the good guy actually" nonsense on their part. So, playing the victim role. It however goes against the real question. The question for what THE unifying worldview is. And it may not exist. Not ... perfectly. I mean, as it is with lines in the sand. If we want to be tolerant - we are also inherently setup into not tolerating the intolerant. Does that then mean that we're no better?
To some that's a challenge to try. To tolerate the intolerant. Or as the Bible puts it: To not burn the weeds prior to the harvest. TO so refrain from judgment and condemnation - while trying to maintain a climate in which repentence and enlightenment can prevail.

Now, that wouldn't stop "them" from calling us authoritarian, "socialists" and what not - but, I suppose they're free to believe that. I mean, this is I think what happens to be "the Narrow Path".


It's narrow because it defies reason. And if there is a theistic component to the atheistic solution, as by virtue of there being a God, it is round about a matter of faith. Let it be hope - that we may in deed exalt our heads above the veil of history repeating itself. That we may believe in a better tomorrow; As to aspire greatness - for all of us, rather than being enslaved to the megalomania of but a few. Such that - or as - the divine merely points us the way; Such that what we might accomplish would not remain to merely be a hypothetical.