Word Up

This is a list of the Top 10 most looked up words on Dictionary.com right now.

1. Pretentious
2. Ubiquitous
3. Love
4. Cynical
5. Apathetic
6. Conundrum
7. Albeit
8. Ambiguous
9. Integrity
10. Affect/Effect

It appears that we are desperately searching for the words with which to describe our reality, but are not quite sure of their proper meanings. It appears to me that we are on the right track, if this list is any indication.

You Can Lead a Man to Reason, but You Can't Make Him Think

The word Kultur or “Culture” was first used in its modern sense by Immanuel Kant—who was thinking of Rousseau’s description of the Bourgeois—in an attempt to make up for the, supposed, deficiency in character of this new type of man. The Bourgeois was neither Citizen nor Individual, and his Self-Interest—even his Enlightened Self-Interest—it appeared, was simply not a sufficient basis upon which to unite a People and create a Common Good. After Rousseau’s critique, the new Liberal doctrines—based upon the early Enlightenment thought of Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu—had become insufficient, or at least too unattractive, to found truly Human societies upon. To “Enlightened” Europeans of the time, countries like America looked merely like an aggregate of Individuals, or disorderly marketplaces—dumping grounds for the refuse of real Cultures—where Individuals would simply bring their sellable commodities in the morning, and then at night return to the privacy of their own homes and enjoy, privately, the proceeds of their day.

These new Commercial Republics had as their foundations the pursuit of Material Well-Being and Self-Preservation and had stripped politics of its old imaginary goals—dedication to the preservation of throne, altar and country—leaving Man unclothed and unprotected in a new “civilized” War of All Against All. The idea of “Culture” was created as a way to somehow make up for the loss of these higher goals after the demystification of Religion by the Enlighteners—to preserve something like Religion without having to resort to superstition and myth; it was an attempt to give Morality and Art a place in the Modern World, in order to preserve the “Dignity of Man.” This new Liberal mode of Politics, with its Universalistic view of Man as Man—as opposed to the man of a particular time and place—ended up not being as attractive as was first thought, and the Culture Movement—which continues, although in a deformed manner, to persist to this very day—was created as a proposed corrective to Liberal Society or as a radical rejection of its new mercenary Morals and indifference to Art and Politics.

Plato, almost 2,500 years ago, in The Republic, gave an allegorical account of what it means to be part of a Culture—although he never actually used the word and there is no Ancient Greek word that can even be translated as “Culture.” He said, more or less, that the particular Cultures/Communities of the world are caves into which we are all born and are chained with our heads restrained forcing us to look only forward. We all stare at a wall in front of us, upon which shadows are projected that constitute the gods and heroes that are particular to our time and place that the Culture’s ideas of the good and justice are based.

There is, however, a steep incline that leads out of the cave through which the bright light of the sun shines blindingly through. “Philosophers” are people who have broken free from the chains, have exited the cave and can see the situation for what it truly is. And, for Plato, it is their responsibility to the Common Good to come back into the cave and to try and influence the politicians to rule more reasonably. But this does not mean the execution of the gods; it does not mean the empowerment of the People; it does not mean the multitudes be made capable of philosophizing. Only the Leaders—and the Philosophers who inform them—know the truth of what’s outside the cave but the masses, in the end, can at least profit from the insights of this blinding Truth. However, they are never to be told the Truth because they “can’t handle the Truth.”

Modernity changed all that. The Enlightenment philosophers didn’t necessarily think that the Masses could be made into Philosophers, but they did recognize a certain level of reasonableness of the People. If Man’s deepest motivating passion is Self-Preservation, it would be logical to conclude that Man could make rational decisions about what will help preserve himself the best—especially the type of Regime that would preserve him the best. Thus a conspiracy was born to shine the Light of Being into the caves—permanently dimming the images on the wall. The task was to rationalize all the old legitimizations of power—strength, wealth, religion, tradition, birth, age—to show that they were all simply Man-made, and hence not morally binding. Revolution became Man’s greatest and most celebrated act. The new Societies that would be created no longer would put a Socrates to death because his usefulness to Society could be made evident: Science can aide in Man’s pursuit of Self-Preservation.

But as I have said previously, at the very moment of its triumph a very large wrench was thrown into the gears of this modern machine. Rousseau’s critique of these new types of Societies was undeniable and it did not paint a very pretty picture for the future of Humanity. From this new outlook, the Culture Movement was born. For some, such as Rousseau and Kant, the goal was still the universal justice of Freedom and Equality implicit in the Enlightenment project, but the character of it was in need of some slight adjustment. The bland uniformity and universal homogenization that were to be the result of this overly rational, overly calculating mode of politics was rejected because it turned out to be only an easy fix for a very difficult problem and didn’t seem to take into account the full range of the human condition. It just wasn’t capable of accounting for the creative, artistic, or “Free” aspects of Man’s Nature and its deficiencies caused a backlash that continues to persist.

Today, in America, there are two different uses for the word Culture: 1) is as a description of a People or Nation—American Culture, Japanese Culture, Iranian Culture, Jewish Culture, etc; and 2) is everything that is created that’s opposed to Commerce—Art, Music, Literature, PBS: creations that aren’t merely dictated by the amoral demands of the Market. These two conceptions are linked in that 2 is what makes up the content of 1. The Art, Music and Literature shape the world-view of the American, Japanese, Iranian and Jew and are expressed through the customs, styles, tastes, festivals, rituals and gods that unite the separate Individuals into a community with shared roots and common goals. The Individual is sublimated into the collective, which allows a People to think and will generally for their Common Good.

“Culture” was originally conceived by Kant as the goal of our highest human aspirations—an attempt to synthesize our low brutish, animal nature with our noblest Human longings; to restore, on an even higher level, some sort of wholeness that was lost after the initial Social Contract that destroyed the perfect unity of our being that we had in the State of Nature. It was on a higher level because this new wholeness now included all of Man’s faculties and capabilities and attempted to aim them toward Man’s greatest ambitions in all the creative fields we have acquired in Civil Society.

But it soon came to simply retroactively describe the various and varied Human phenomenon that had resulted during Man’s journey from the State of Nature to Civil Society. It was transformed from Culture to Cultures, and it now has become Politically Incorrect to judge the content of the these manifestations despite these old “Cultures,” as Nietzsche put it, being nothing but “superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident.”

We are now told we must respect Others' Cultures and that we are not allowed to judge the Values of them; that we must worship and promote Diversity and Multiculturalism; that what separates us (Culture) is more important than what unites us (Nature). But there is this vast contradiction of internal logic that no one seems to recognize here. Liberal Tolerance—Classical and Modern—is completely debilitating to Culture—which was first created as a response against Liberalism. Although, we currently use it as a means of building a dam against the torrents of Capitalism and “Eurocentrism,” in the end, it will completely subsume them.

Liberalism has no respect for Cultures because it is based on Reason and Science, whereas the old Cultures are all based on the dictates of a god and the attendant superstition and myth. Liberalism is based on Individual Freedom and the Right of the Individual to decide what is right for himself; it separates us by allowing our subjectivity to take preeminence over the collective expressions of our Peoples’ particularistic historical journeys. If an old value—say, the status of Women’s Equality in a particular Culture—does not coincide with Liberalism, then the Liberal denounces it because they believe in the intrinsic Equality of all. But how do we determine which Values can and cannot be judged?

Once you take that first step and decry that even one single Value that a Culture holds is unethical, or unreasonable, or indefensible, then you open up the floodgates of the dam and eventually drown the entire village. Everything is then open for critique and nothing is safe from the cold, clear lens of rational inquiry.

We may wish all we want to protect other Peoples from the ravages of the Capitalistic machine and so-called “American Culture,” but, unless we can have an honest conversation about the history that has resulted in the present, then all we are going to have are incoherent, whitewashed, ineffectual attempts to do so—such as the new “Cult of Diversity Worship” that is the intellectual rage in all the major universities of America today.

If you open yourself up to other Cultures and look into their cultural practices, what you will find there is, in fact, closedness because Cultures are, by definition, insular. They have to be; that is how they create and sustain their distinctiveness and inner-connectedness, which is what makes the world diverse. All Cultures think that their way of doing things is the best, except currently for the West. There are a multitude of reasons for this—mainly, I would say, due to so-called "Liberal Guilt" for Imperialism, Slavery and Racism—but we must realize that our current incoherent Liberal Ideology is going to result in either a) an extreme Right-Wing Nationalistic/Race-based reactionary force, who will not stand for the destruction of their Culture, or b) in the destruction of all distinct Cultures into one Universal Homogenous Culture.

Is there a way to reconcile Tolerance and Culture, or are these mutually exclusive world-views; does Tolerance necessarily require a relativism that goes to the depths of our very souls?

iRobot

Individualism 2.0

Although we are still too close to the event—making it, unfortunately, still too early to tell—that hasn't seemed to stop people from making all sorts of projections, predictions, commendations and denouncements about what the Internet will mean for our "democracy" and for the world in general. Here's an interesting article about Facebook and other Web 2.0 interfaces and their implications for our Individuality and our future collective enterprises.

Also, below is a link for a book mentioned in the article about the impact of the Internet on Individuality and Society.

You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto
by Jaron Lanier

The Politics of Resignation

So, I keep seeing this commercial every time I watch an episode of The Daily Show on its website and I just don't get it. I mean, "I get it"—like I understand that she is suppose to be an Alt/Hip/Bobo 20-something (a typical Daily Show viewer)—but I don’t get the message Microsoft is trying to get across about their product.

From the girl’s reaction—to me—it seems as though she is completely under-whelmed by The Cloud, or, at least, the product really doesn’t impress her very much. I know she is not “allowed” to emote real feelings because a) the plastic world with which we are daily confronted is nothing but Simulacra and Simulations; b) all Corporate branded products must be approached with an indefatigable layer of Irony; c) feelings are passé—but I don’t see how this is suppose to make anyone want to buy this product.

And then there is the “joke” about what she chooses to watch: Celebrity Probation: Season Premier. Is this suppose to be a dig at modern American culture, or is it just suppose to be reflective of it? Is her under-whelmed reaction to the product or to the show? In an age where all recorded media from the last 100 years is available instantly, why would you chose to watch something that you are obviously not very excited about?

All Youth Culture is becoming based around this Self-satisfied language of perpetual winks: “I know, that you know, that we know, that you know.” It is this cooly ironic, self-mocking, phoniness exposé that if you are not hip to, then you may be rightfully looked down upon. It is The Simpsons multiplied and divided and blanketed across our entire cultural landscape, till all real sentiments and commitments and connections and feelings are exposed as the bald-faced lies that they truly are. But it is a tiresome pose, with little to no social rewards; it is a Self-defense mechanism, that treats the entire world as one’s enemy; it is a fulltime job, whose workload is infinite and whose payoff is lean.

Everyone might know that marketing is nothing but BS, but that doesn’t seem to help us figure out how to constructively deal with it, nor does it give us any alternative to it. This new Ironic Pose doesn’t just stop at advertising and has now come to take over our every interaction. The entire world has been unveiled and deconstructed, and our ability to have any sort of meaningful interaction with a person, place or thing has lost its grounding.

I would just like to take this moment to say, “It is not your fault.” You did not create the world that you were born into. You cannot necessarily be held culpable for resorting to what seems like the only way we have left to deal with it. However, we do create the world of the future and we can—and we will be—held responsible for the world we pass on to the next generation. This disconnected disillusionment may help you on an Individual basis to survive the day to day, but please try to remember that we are all part of a great continuum that, god-willing, will stretch on for eternity. Do we really want this to be our legacy?

The Tea Party to Restore Sanity

Over the weekend, I made my way down to our nation’s capital to attend The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The rally was an attempt to move beyond the “animus” that is dividing our country into the Two Americas—Red and Blue, Conservative and Liberal, Christian and…Atheist, Secular Progressive, Agnostic, “Enlightened,” Apathetic, etc. The message was not so much that we have nothing to be mad about and that it is irrational to be so, but, rather, that it is counter-productive to be so to the degree that we have been seeing recently; and that it is not so much the American citizens themselves who are being unreasonable, but the ones that supposedly represent us—in Washington and on the Cable News channels, the ones responsible for defining the national conversation.

I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time reviewing the show itself—because, to be perfectly honest, it kind of sucked: the jokes fell flat and the interplay of the various personalities was kind of boring and forced—but, rather, the message behind the show, which I thought Jon did an excellent job of conveying during his last monologue. I think, more than anyone else on television right now, that Jon Stewart is one of the clearest and most reasonable voices that we have, and it is a shame/pathetic that the only voice of Reason is coming from a comedian, with a negligible sized viewership, that is more than reluctant to play the role that he has created for himself. Although Jon is obviously a committed Lefty, he never shies away from calling out the Democrats/MSNBC on their lies, anymore than the Republicans/Fox News and performs a valuable function that I wish the mainstream media would take more notice of and imitate.

Over the last couple months, I have attended various rallies/protests from a variety of different groups and have tried to talk to the attendees to find out what exactly their concerns are and the reasons they felt it necessary to come out and make their voices heard. I’ve been to a Tea Party event featuring Sarah Palin, a self-proclaimed Socialist march, an anti-BP protest, and now, I guess what you could consider, a more Centrist (ok, slightly left of Center) type of event and have been able to make some comparisons and contrasts that I would like to share with you.

First off, at each one of these events, the majority of people that I have talked to have been calm, rational people, with legitimate gripes and justified reasons for their discontent. This is, of course, not how they are portrayed by their political opponents, who only focus on the fringe radicals—the Racists and Homophobes, and the Anarchists and “Peace-niks.” The meek voice of compromise always seems to be drowned out by the angry shouts of Commitment and Moral Indignation because Passion speaks louder thanReason—and has an actual agenda and game-plan for implementing its goals. Most Americans don’t really know what to do about the Financial Crisis, or Healthcare, or Social Security, or Immigration, or the two wars, or a Living Constitution versus a Fixed one, and so on; but, they do know that they are unhappy with those in power and feel betrayed by the apparent lack of competency and moral fortitude to meet the demands with which we are now faced.

And that was the ultimate message of the rally this weekend: how can we make this voice of Reason heard over the din and dint of our "country's 24 Hour/politico/pundit/perpetual/panic conflictonator" who make a living by purposefully dividing us? Jon used the metaphor of Americans driving down the highway, on their way to work, merging from an eight-lane toll plaza into a two-lane tunnel. “You go, then I’ll go, you go, then I’ll go.” A common purpose and goal enabled compromise and, despite a driver’s possible distaste for the “Values and Principles” of their fellow drivers, they were still able to civilly proceed to allow everyone to arrive at the necessary destination.

This is a nice metaphor; a working model of civility and rationality in action, but, unfortunately, an extreme over-simplification of America’s problems. Whereas, it is not in our Self-Interest to run someone off the road and pick a fight with them just because we happen to disagree with their politically charged bumper-sticker, the real-world political realm allows for a bit less room for compromise with those of opposing Principles. Although we do need some sort of compromise between the two opposing Ideologies doing battle right now in America if we are going to be able to move forward as a country, we can’t really do that until we understand where the other one is coming from. And right now, the two sides are at such polar opposites that to think that we could achieve such a compromise is chimerical, wishful thinking.

What we have right now doing battle are two completely opposing world-views and views of Man and his Nature. There is no room for compromise on any issue because they are built upon two completely different foundations. How can you compromise on the extent and purpose of a law, if you are not even talking about the same type of person for which it is meant to control? How can you find a reasonable middle-ground, if you are not even talking about the same world, let alone country? This divide goes back to the modern dichotomy of Locke vs. Rousseau, that I have mentioned before, although the way that these opposing world-views has been divided up in the American mind is quite an odd combination and may account for much of the dissonance of our current debates.

Politically and economically Conservatives would be considered to be Lockeans: Limited Government, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and a Free Market; Liberals, in this realm, are much more Rousseauean: Government should help to restrain Inequality—especially of wealth—and play an active role in limiting and regulating the Economy. But, in an odd turn of events—and the link that connects Classical Liberalism with today’s brand of it—when it comes to the Cultural realm, the roles are reversed and the Liberals become Lockean and the Conservatives side with Rousseau.

The very word “Liberalism,” of course, is derived from the root word “Liberty” or “Freedom.” In the tradition of the Enlightenment, Liberals today believe that everyone has the Right to say, think or do whatever they want—of course restrained from doing any sort of physical or mental harm to an Individual—unbound by any religious or “natural” restraint upon behavior, speech or attitude. It is still the idea of Reciprocation of Rights, or some sort of idea of Enlightened Self-Interest, that they believe in, but you would be hard pressed to find a Liberal today who would claim any sort of Classical Liberal defense for their Right to do so.

And this is where you see the Rousseau-side of Modern Liberalism begin to creep in. Classical Liberalism may have made a whole lot of sense on paper, but it was not nearly doctrinaire enough to compensate for the historical reality of Inequality that had proceeded it. It may have allowed for some people to move up the ladder—The American Dream—but it usually did so at the expense of Others and in general would result in the extreme Inequalities in wealth and opportunity that we have today. Therefore, they say, the government needs to take a more active role in the maintenance and distribution of wealth and power and even regulate access to certain products it deems bad for us.

The Conservatives are an even stranger and even more confusing combination of tendencies and doctrines that, as we can see, have resulted in an equal amount of dissonance in their theory and practice. Although they ostensibly follow in the Enlightenment tradition and the beliefs of our Founding Fathers—annunciated in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights—they do not believe that these ideas can be divorced from our religious tradition (i.e. Christianity) and that the lack of government—or limitation of government within a narrowly defined sphere—can be and must be made up for in the Civic realm by shared Cultural Values and Beliefs. This is where the Rousseau-side of their thought comes in: Freedom constrained within a homogeneous and binding set of Cultural constraints that provides continuity and unity within a State.

But for some reason, Conservatives are unwilling to admit—or are simply blind to the fact—that this continuity and unity is completely undermined by their unequivocal support of Free Market, Globalized Capitalism. This may provide a high level of prosperity for our country, but I can’t think of any force more destructive to any sort of national unity or possibility of real Culture. A merchant has no loyalty beyond the ground upon which he stands, and to think differently is a naive folly. Why else would Fox rail against the Left—its anti-family Values and lack of restraint and morality—and then have a Sunday night line-up of The Simpsons,The Cleveland Show, Family Guy, and American Dad: all of which are unapologetic about their ridicule and distaste for the very Values that the Fox News Channel promotes?



When it comes right down to it, though, I would say that the biggest delineating factor between Cons and Libs is what you value more: Freedom or Equality—which always seem to be at an uneasy tension with one another.

The Cons, obviously, value Freedom more, especially Freedom from government or, at least, more Freedom to participate in the government, which serves as the present basis for their discontent—especially for the Tea Party. Because, the more that things are getting done in Washington, rather than in the State legislature, the more removed the average citizen is from the political process and the less say they have in the decision-making process. Freedom of choice and diversity of choice are reduced and you become stuck with one monolithic, federal bureaucracy in which you have no say and no other option. Although, for some reason, they fail to see, or don’t care to see, how the same thing can be said about overgrown Corporations and the enormous power and influence they exert over the political process, take for example the recent court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Libs tend to take the side of Equality more, which is the reason that they feel it necessary to expand Federal power and its ability to interfere in the daily lives of citizens. Despite our so-called “Civil Religion” annunciated in the Declaration of Independence—as has been the case for Humans with every other religious doctrine—we have failed to live up to the ideals embodied in it. This Liberals or “Progressives” feel justifies and warrants the expansion of Federal power—in order to make up for the disparity between our stated goals and the reality that has followed them. Plus, the only body powerful enough to counteract the influence of corporations is the government, so the more corporations grow and expand their sphere of influence, the more the government is forced to grow to try and counter-balance it (although this is a bit of a chicken and an egg type scenario and I have had discussions with Cons where they claim it to be the other way around, but I completely disagree with that).

Jon Stewart very clearly, yet inadvertently, summed up the basis for the division in our country in a recent interview on his show with Senator Ted Kaufman, when he closed the interview with the insight: “So if I may sum up: the system is corrupt and broken, exactly how it was designed to be.” To which Kaufman, the Democratic Senator from Delaware, replied, “Exactly.” Whereas, Cons are fundamentally distrustful of, not only, Human Nature, but of concentrated power in the hands of any Individual, or a small cabal of Individuals (regardless of their stated aim), Libs/Progressives believe in the ability to use Instrumental Reason to overcome our problems and the ability of a small group of “Experts” to scientifically come up with solutions to conquer the Human Condition, or of some sort of Human Perfectibility.

This is a huge, huge, huge topic, and this post is all ready much longer than I would like it to be, so let me kind of cut it off and sum up what I see as a basic solution to our problem. The first and foremost factor destroying the ability of our political system to function is the fact that it is designed as a means for running a Republic, and, over the last century, we have grown from our humble beginnings into a mighty Empire. Hence, the rules and regulations set up by the Founders are no longer workable on this massive of a scale, therefore, Jon is right to complain about the inefficiency and inability of our Federal government to pass meaningful and timely legislation—it is purposefully designed to do just that. But, I would say that there is not a Liberal alive today—in theory, at least—who does not see the American Empire as a bad thing, especially not Stewart, so I think that his criticism is uninformed and miss placed. And this is really the crux of the whole thing. The general setup is just fine—with the exception of some fine-tuning here or there—it is just being misapplied and is causing massive frustration.

Most Americans agree on exactly what the problems are, but our world-views and the justifications for our beliefs dictate such differing solutions that it is hard to create a national consensus and the means of implementing them against the wishes of the minority out of power amounts to Tyranny (hence the Tea Party position). The Constitution, however, provides a very easy compromise to this problem. The reason it is so hard to pass Federal legislation is because America is built on the idea of Self-governance, the Right of a People to decide what is right for them. The Founding of America was completely un-Ideological; there were no ideas of Positive Right that were dogmatically unquestionable (as in Communism or Fascism), simply Negative Rights that the Federal Government was meant to protect. The States then had the legislative power to experiment with the enacting of any sort of Bill of Positive Rights that they thought necessary and sustainable, thus giving the citizen 50 different options for what type of government they wished to live under.

Today, whereas, the Liberal position may be morally justifiable as far as Human Rights go, it unwittingly leads to voter apathy, the Individual’s feeling of a disconnect from the political process, the shrinking of the Individual inside the selfishness of their own heart, and—as of now, the still distant possibility—of Universal Tyranny (not necessarily because of its ends, but because of its means). If we—the average citizens—want to once again feel like we have a say in our government and the decisions that most effect our daily lives, then our goal should be the reduction of the Federal Government within the smallest sphere possible—which could be the source of compromise that Stewart is looking for—and the reduction of US interests—economic and political—throughout the world. I realize that this is not an immediate possibility and a lot of work would be required to enable this, but we are obviously by-partisanly dissatisfied with our current situation. And, if we do not want to see this “experiment in self-government” be dissolved, then it is our obligation as Citizens to stand up and make the necessary changes to once again take control over our lives.

Even at Our Worst, We're Still Better Than Most

In the grand scheme of things, there is not a whole lot that the Individual can do to make change. Only the ambitious ever make it into positions of real power that can affect on a large scale, meaningful way the lives of a significant number of people. This, however, does not mean that an Individual's actions are meaningless and that the day-to-day choices one makes have no consequences beyond the narrow sphere in which one's daily life is centered. You're choices make a difference on a material level: the amount of resources used and the waste management required after they are consumed; and they also make a difference on a psychic level: the example you set for those that surround you and possibly look up to you. This is why I don't think one should ever simply write themselves off as powerless. Collective action is simply the result of an aggregate of Individuals acting or thinking in a certain way, which can eventually add up to a significant majority.

Below is an interesting article about the International Drug Trade and the Individual's culpability in the destruction and death that is the result of a seemingly meaningless, selfish choice that, on the surface appears to be nothing but a Self-destructive decision, but, when aggregated, grows to have world wide implications. I'm not trying to be preachy, just presenting the facts.

The Boycott We Need: Walter Russell Mead

Who Will Help Me Bake This Bread?

“There is no power on earth that can prevent the growing equality of conditions from bringing the human spirit toward searching for the useful and from disposing each citizen from shrinking within himself. One must therefore expect that individual interest will become more than ever the principal if not the unique motive of men’s actions…If in becoming equal, citizens remained ignorant and coarse, it is difficult to foresee what stupid excess their selfishness could be brought to…Enlighten them, therefore, at any price; for the century of blind devotions and instinctive virtues is already fleeing far from us, and I see the time approaching when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to do with out enlightenment.”
-Tocqueville: Democracy in America, vol. II, 1840

After the Enlightenment, Man had been stripped bare and all the loyalties that used to direct his interest had been rationalized and no longer simply compelled belief. Country, family, religion: everything had been robbed of its mystical force and all that was left was the naked Self. In the State of Nature, it was found that Man’s two most basic motivating instincts are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest and, despite all the exhortations of Moralists and Priests over the last two millennia against them, these two dirty little Passions in the end it seemed trumped all the others. An experiment was began that attempted to substitute for unrealistic Virtue a new doctrine known as Enlightened Self-Interest, or, as Tocqueville put it, Self-Interest Well Understood. The Enlighteners lowered the bar of expectations because it was thought that since it does not appear possible to make Man good, maybe we can at least make him less bad.

This idea is most simply summed up by Adam Smith’s (author of The Wealth of Nations, the Capitalistic handbook) famous dictum: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” It was an attempt to build a Society on a more “natural” foundation-—based on how Men actually act, instead of how they ought to act. It was a simple appeal to Men’s Reason that stated: “I will respect your Right to do and think whatever you want, as long as you can do the same for me.”

Enlightened Self-Interest, as opposed to Self-Interest simply, is a nuanced distinction. It requires a new type of education—it is not necessarily something "natural"—and, if not properly cultivated, it will be consumed by greed and Self-indulgence. As Tocqueville points out in the passage quoted above, this new type of Society is built on the precipice of a very slippery slope, and if Enlightened Self-Interest ever degenerates into pure Self-Interest, the entire schema will fall apart. If everyone begins acting only according to their own myopic Self-Interest, then we are right back to the Hobbesian “War of All Against All”—the avoidance of which was supposedly the whole reason Man contracted into Societies in the first place.

Rousseau however, did not believe that Man could ever exercise such a thing as “Enlightened” Self-Interest, and that the Bourgeois—his name for the new type of Man created by these ideas—was a despicable being caught between two respectable extremes: Natural, Self-sufficient Man in the State of Nature; and the De-natured, Moral Citizen of the ancient republics of Greece and Rome. The Bourgeois simply fakes public benevolence in order to further his own selfish, private ends. Man’s passion for himself can never rationally be overcome.

According to Rousseau, Reason would always lead the Enlightened Man to the conclusion that, “it is useless for me to try to reconcile my interests with that of others; everything you tell me about the advantages of the social law would be excellent if, whilst I was scrupulously observing it toward others, I could ensure that they would all observe it towards me. But what assurance can you give me on this?…Either you must give me guarantees against any unjust undertaking, or you must not expect me to abstain from similar actions in my turn.” His proof of this claim is that this is “precisely how any sovereign society reasons when it is accountable for its conduct to no one but itself.”

But where does that leave us today, in this world that has now become radically rationalized and radically individualized? Rousseau asks, “where is the man who can separate himself from himself?” But we can never return to that fantastic (as in fantasy, as well as fabulous) golden age that immediately followed the State of Nature, where Man’s needs were few and his desires simple; nor to the peace of Amour de Soi and complete Self-sufficiency and independence. We are inescapably destined for the chains of “Civil” Society and the burdens of inter-dependence; for the daily interactions and the “Hell,” according to Sartre, “[that] is other people.”

Tocqueville was a big fan of Rousseau but knew that what he prescribed was limited and most likely unrealistic. Rousseau knew this as well—at least the limited part—and explained that what he was advocating could only work in very small, homogeneous communities, with strict moral codes and complete abandonment of the Individual Will to the General. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville tried to apply the insights of Rousseau to the exceptional situation (now known as American Exceptionalism) that had resulted in America and give us some advice as to how to combat the problems of Self-Interest and Radical Individualism that could be a resultant of our system.

What kind of education or ”enlightenment” can adequately combat these forces and attenuate the purely selfish potentialities inherent in Human Nature? Or conversely, if you don’t even believe there is such a thing as Human Nature (which would make education even more important), what needs to be taught in order to direct the Individual towards caring about the Common Good? In Rousseau’s book on education, the Emile, he very carefully goes through, step by step, how he would go about shaping the desires of an Individual from infancy through adulthood in order to reconcile him to Society and attenuate his purely selfish desires—which he saw as innate. He never does this, however, through appealing directly to the child’s Reason. Instead, he plays upon the desires of the child and very carefully, and unbeknownst to the child, leads him to the conclusions and the lessons that Rousseau wishes to instill in him.

Although the Emile is a work of fiction, Rousseau very convincingly shows how it would be possible to achieve this necessary goal, but, in the real world, we could never have an educational system as thorough as the one proposed by Rousseau, nor enough educators as patient and clever as the one portrayed in this novel. I believe however that it is possible to do a better job than we are now and that what we are currently teaching to children exacerbates the problem as opposed to alleviating it. Yes of course creativity and self-esteem should be encouraged in kids, but above all what needs to be instilled in them is a sense of their responsibilities and duties to others. As I have stated previously, kids don’t need to be taught to be more concerned with themselves; they naturally will be so either by Nature—Self-preservation/Self-interest—or by Nurture—they are already the center of the world that everything in their life revolves around.

What we need is a new attempt at cultivating an Enlightened Self-Interest that can make Man realize his responsibilities and duties, while appealing to his love of Self to achieve it. History has so far revealed Liberal Democracy to be the best and most stable of the alternatives that Modern Political Philosophy has come up with, but, as stated earlier, this schema is always poised at the precipice of a slippery slope. Today it is in our own Self-Interest to stand up for our-Selves and make a lot of changes to our System, but I don’t see how we can do that if we no longer even believe in the goodness of having a "System." The world currently contains 6.6 billion people and is growing daily. We are therefore inextricably bound to live within the confines of Society, so how should we go about ordering it? Is a Rousseauean complete Self-abnegation necessary, or can Man be taught to be reasonable enough to rationally realize the extent of his own Self-Interest and be capable of putting Self-imposed chains upon his desires?

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their own fetters.”—Edmund Burke

A Disruption in the Normal Swing of Things

What is “Culture;” or, to put it another way, what is “a Culture?” It is another one of those words in the modern American lexicon that everyone uses, but seems to have lost its content and has strayed very far from its source. Everything seems to be a Culture these days: Online Culture, Drug Culture, Gang Culture, Rock ‘n Roll Culture, Sports Culture, Corporate Culture. We’ve even acquired the incoherent phenomenon known as “Sub-Cultures,” as well—which still participate in the “real” Culture, just separately…I guess. But what exactly does it mean to participate in a Culture and how does the Individual fit into this picture?

According to Wikipedia—an example of an “Online Culture” or Community—there are generally three different definitions of what Culture means:

1) The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group

2) An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning

3) Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture

As I have said earlier, Culture can generally be defined as “a shared set of assumptions that unites and binds a People.” It gives a group an inner unity of mutual ideals and a shared set of symbols through which they can outwardly express their beliefs. In the past, the foundation—the bedrock upon which it was built—of Culture was the gods that a particular People believed in and the specific “Values” that they prescribed. These beliefs, as Nietzsche puts it, were usually “superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident,” preserved by a tradition that it was considered “moral” to follow. And, if one did not strictly adhere to them, it was very dangerous for the Community because one ran the risk of angering the gods and thus calling down the vengeance of the gods upon the Community.

But the Enlightenment changed all that. It was a “conspiracy” that rejected all the Myth and Superstition that had defined all Societies and Cultures up until that point, in order to try and make a more rational and peaceful world to live in. To do this, the Enlightenment thinkers created the hypothetical State of Nature—a pre-historical time, before Man had contracted into specific groups, without any artificial cultural adornments—in order to look at Man as Man, uncolored by any human convention. Through this, they were able to show that all the loyalties that had constrained Man up till that point—strength, wealth, religion, tradition, birth, age—were all simply man-made, and hence not morally binding. They removed the veil that had legitimated the domination of one group by another and freed Man from the tyranny of dead ideas that had enslaved each generation to the “misinterpreted accidents” of their Fathers, and their Fathers’ Fathers, and so on. Or, as Jefferson said, “Every generation needs a new revolution.”

The new governments that were created using these novel ideas—such as the one in the United States—laid their foundations on the concept of Individual Rights, which sought to protect and uphold the Natural Rights that Man possessed which predate government. These Rights are the ones annunciated for us Americans in the Bill of Rights. The goal—in theory, at least—is to treat every person as an end, in and of themselves, and not a means, with a Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But it is their own, private Right to Happiness, not the Society’s or Culture’s overall well-being that is an Individual’s main concern—which is the general way people tend to choose to exercise this Right.

But how do you go about making a Culture and a Nation out of all these Individual Wills? Is the Social Contract still possible if there is no conception of a Common Good? Can there even be a shared set of beliefs when everyone has become a Cartesian and only trusts their own judgment?

Reason reveals that every Culture in the past was based upon the dictates of god(s). Nietzsche thus concludes that what we need to do is reject Reason on rational grounds because Reason leads to a dead-end, to an abyss. He thinks that you cannot rationally create Values and the new “civilized” War of All Against All unleashed by the Enlightenment arrangement is intolerable and its even worse, even more rational mutation of worldwide Socialistic Self-satisfaction is an even worse evil. What is needed then is a strong willed Individual who can create—a word formerly reserved only for God: The Creator—new gods, in order to create new Values that can take the place of the exhausted ones that are rapidly disintegrating because the old “God is dead.”

Today in America, we have taken the ideas of Nietzsche and his picture of the most idealized Individual, which he referred to as the Übermensch—The Superman or Overman—and now prescribe it for everyone and hold it up as the model of a healthy, well-adjusted citizen. We use these ideas to create children’s cartoons that casually preach to kids to “be themselves” and “that what makes them different can make all the difference in the world”—but that is only half of the equation. How are these radically individualized persons suppose to come together to create some sort of Community or Common Good? We don’t even think about what we are saying, nor the consequences of these ideas, because if we did we may think twice before so casually propagandizing our children.

At the end of Happy Feet, the Community completely reforms itself—in true Nietzschean fashion—around the new Values and Conventions of Mumbles, the free-spirited Creator. He is an authentic Individual, who refuses to compromise himself, who has imbued into the Culture new life and new Values. But, once the Individuals in the Culture become adapted to the new situation, everyone once again all share the same Values and beliefs and go back to living in harmony. But that is not what the true message of the movie is supposed to be. Its goal is to tell every kid that they are special and should only be them-Selves, regardless of the consequences for the Community, and magically everything will work out and there will be a nice, happy ending. Sure, you don’t have to worry about the wrath of the gods being brought down upon the Community for going against tradition—because now God is dead—but there are definitely consequences for only thinking about your own particular welfare above the Community's: that is the reality of Culture and Community. Movies like this only succeed in further complicating the problem that has been festering ever since Rousseau first articulated it 250 years ago.

If everyone is only doing what makes their Self happy, this does not lead to social harmony, it leads to chaos. It grows in the heart a selfishness that places your desires and the satisfaction of them above any concern for Others and will only exacerbate the War of All Against All that the makers of these movies wish to alleviate. This Selfism makes us slack in our duties and weak in our constitutions. It also furthers the Capitalist System, by encouraging people to indulge their Self. And what’s an easier way to do this than with all the beautiful, shiny objects that this system produces for their satisfaction? Whereas, the goal of the people who create these kids’ movies—I can only assume, and feel I am warranted to do so by the evidence—are most likely on the Left and are among Capitalism’s greatest critics, they are actually only succeeding in perpetuating and amplifying the situation.

Kids don’t need to be told to be Self-indulgent, they will naturally be so because the whole world already seems to center around them and bend to their every whim and desire. What they need are instruction and rules that can help shape them into healthy, well-adjusted adults and active members of Society. This of course, also requires that you have a Society that is worth participating in, which, with only some reservation, I would say that we no longer have (but that’s a whole other discussion altogether). This problem did not begin in the Sixties, however; it has been endemic ever since our Nation’s birth, but was below the surface, hidden, so not yet completely corrupted. It has been the object of constant philosophic study and speculation for over 200 years that so far has not produced very attractive real-world solutions that I would recommend our Society emulating. But our current arrangement is not only theoretically incoherent, it is manifestly intolerable—I could point to the high level of psychoactive prescription drug use, legally and illegally, as just one among many symptoms of its malady.

But there is no going back, nor can you just kill history and cross your fingers and hope for the best. We need some sort of creative synthesis that can balance respect for the Individual, as well as respect for the Community; that recognizes the Subjective, without discounting the Objective; that can somehow be Idealistic and Realistic at the same time. I know that this may sound ridiculous—but the extremes have been played out with some very scary results, and it appears that Liberal Democracy has emerged the victor from this battle of Wills—at least for now. What does this mean? Are we condemned to spiral aimlessly, or can we once again grab hold of the reins and steer it confidently into the future?

Personal Branding: 101

"You now have to decide what 'image' you want for your brand. Image means personality. Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or break them in the market place."
—David Ogilvy "The Father of Advertising"

We—average, Middle Class Americans—now live in an age of what has been dubbed the “Pretty Good Problem.” When we enter the Consumer Marketplace, we now find a vast equalization in intrinsic quality of the products that we encounter there—apart from increasingly minute differences in basic functionality—which makes it more and more frustrating to choose which Company actually offers us the most for our money and makes it more and more difficult for any one product to stand out. Unless money is no object, then the range of different features a car, a stove, a razor, a cell phone, etc can really have are limited to few truly unique aspects, and therefore, as a consumer of these products, it has become increasingly hard to rationally choose which product will allow you to maximize your purchasing power.



For the first half of the 20th Century, the Consumer used to navigate a world of shoddy, unsafe products, but now, thanks to a range of Consumer Watchdog Groups and the maturation of Industrial Capitalism, this no longer seems to be a concern. And this, of course, is a very good thing as far as health and safety and value and “bang for your buck” is concerned, but it has created a two-fold problem: 1) as a Consumer, it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the dizzying array of almost meaningless options; and 2) as a Company, it becomes harder and harder to differentiate oneself from the competition. Most products become invisible, thus necessitating a different type of approach to Marketing—one that no longer dabbles in necessary Innovation but, instead, in Novelty; that can engage people in a way that transcends the now meaningless Materialism and can capture their allegiance on a deeper, emotional level.

This act is called Branding. It is a way to add a distinct, unique value to a product, but it is a value that has no tangible quality to it. It is an Idea that is being sold that seeks to differentiate itself, not by what concrete benefits it confers to Consumers, but, instead, by how it makes Consumers feel about a product and about them-Selves. When all products become relatively the same, there is little to no actual value that can be added to a product, so, by necessity, Marketing has been forced to become more and more ambitious and elaborate in its approach to engaging Consumers.



Companies now sell Life-styles: outward expressions of inner commitments. They sell products that help us to express our-Selves and differentiate our Self from the Others. If a Brand can position their Self—see Corporate Personhood—in the minds of Consumers as expressing certain Values and these Values can be tailored to coincide with the same ones that the Consumer values, then you can create Customer Loyalty. But these Values have to be very carefully shaped, so as to create a consistent Story or Image that people can easily recognize and relate to. And these companies now spend hundreds of millions of dollars on Consumer Research, even to the point of hiring cognitive scientists to discover how their Brand Message will affect Consumers on the unconscious level of the brain.

And its not like most Consumers don’t know this or are unaware that Marketing is complete BS, it’s just that Marketing has become so omnipresent, we have given up on trying to fight it and now—embrace it. We use this knowledge to create our own Personal Brands—a culmination of our Values that are expressed through our Life-styles—that allow us to consciously shape our Image and the way Others “position” us in their minds. It makes us feel like we are in control and have power over our identities and the Free Will to create our-Selves however we see fit. We now market our-Selves through our Facebooks and Myspaces, on our college and job applications, and on dating and hook-up websites. We have become intimately familiar with the language of Branding and far from having any moral repugnance to it, we use it to our advantage every opportunity that we get. ( See the The 48 Laws of Power) We try to create clear and consistent Brand Messages that express who we are and want we want because “knowing what makes you unique and being able to communicate that in sound bites is vital.”

In 1831, an Aristocratic Frenchmen named Alexis de Tocqueville was sent by the French government to the United States to study the prison system of our young “enlightened” Republic. His exploration lasted for two years, during which time he took some notes for a project of his own as well and in 1835 and in 1840 published a two volume series of an outsider’s look at our emerging nation, called Democracy in America. It was an in depth look—about 700 pages worth—at our Political and Social institutions that celebrated and, at the same time, warned against certain trends that he saw endemic to the American Experience. Despite his well-to-do upbringing, he ultimately sided with the “Democratic Revolution” he saw as inevitably sweeping over the Western World, not just because he saw it as inevitable, but because he knew that it was the most Just. Overall, he was most hopeful for our nation and supported this, as yet, unprecedented experiment in human governance.

One of his main concerns, however, was the loss of a certain type of Aristocratic Sentiment that could disappear in the midst of Radical Equality and Material Status-Seeking. It wasn’t the Aristocratic “Class” that he feared losing, but the taste for “Greatness” that accompanied it and helped to train and refine the aims and goals of the Citizenry. Thomas Jefferson seemed to hold this same view when he expressed that, “there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.” For a sample of some of Tocqueville’s fears, one need look no further then the titles of a few of his chapters: Why One Finds so Many Ambitious Men in the United States and so Few Great Ambitions; On the Industry of Place-Hunting in Certain Democratic Nations; How the Excessive Love of Well-Being Can Be Harmful to Well-Being.

He predicted that what may result from these new Political and Social Institutions was the “Pretty Good Problem,” only not just with Products but, even worse, with Personality. He called it a “Middling Mediocrity”—”There are no Americans who do not show that they are devoured by the desire to rise, but one sees almost none of them who appear to nourish vast hopes or to aim very high. All want constantly to acquire goods, reputation, power; few envision all these things on a grand scale…They [goods, reputation, power] compel the soul to employ all its strength in doing mediocre things—which cannot fail soon to limit its view and circumscribe its power. They could be much poorer and still be greater.”

He also asserted that all Americans were Cartesians—although none of them had ever read, the philosopher, Descartes. By this, he meant that Americans were all Rationalists—they all relied on the power of their own mind to judge for themselves what was right and wrong, hence America’s strong disdain for “Elites” across the Political Spectrum that persists to this day. Americans never read Descartes, or philosophy in general, because they are too pre-occupied with making money; they are too “restive”—always distracted by some mad pursuit to better their life, but only on the Material level. Another consequence he saw of this now Socially accepted Individual Reason is a distaste for inherited wisdom or tradition/convention. But, the only problem is that since everyone is so distracted by the pursuit of money, they do not have the time or education to really think about the issues and decide for themselves and in the end just end up following Public Opinion. And this would eventually substantiate itself as a monotony of thought and become what he called “The Tyranny of the Majority.”

It seems that “when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other” because that is how, essentially, Democracy works: competing Ideas enter the Marketplace and the ones that are chosen by the Majority become the ruling Ideology. Rousseau saw this in his own time as well when he noted that the same Men who were Liberals in his day, 100 years before hand would have been Absolutists. It wasn’t so much that they had become “enlightened,” but rather that they were just Conformists. It is not even necessary in Democratic Society to coerce or force people to accept Public Opinion; by its very nature, it breaks the inner Will to resist because there is no alternative source of non-conforming principles and no sense of Individual superior right when everyone is viewed as Equal.

And now, just as we have the “Pretty Good Problem” with our Consumer Products, we seem to be having the same problem with our Selves, and the response to the problem has been about the same—we paint over a seemingly bland uniformity with Personal Life-style Brands. But, just as a Corporation’s Brand Image is a facade to mask the lack of Individual distinction, so too are the carefully crafted Images we create to mask the Middling Mediocrity that has taken over our citizenry. There are now countless books and websites and blogs to help you decide “what type of Personal Brand you would like to develop” that can aid us in our attempt to “acquire goods, reputation, [and] power” but, just as Tocqueville pointed out in his day, we “are [all still] devoured by the desire to rise, but one sees almost none of [us] who appear to nourish vast hopes or to aim very high.”

The whole goal of the Sixties attack on American Bourgeois Society was to try and move beyond the overly Rational, Materialistic, “One-Dimensional” conformity that they saw inherent to our system since its founding, which became solidified in Eisenhower’s stultifying, Pleasantville Fifties. The means of this revolution was through a negation of the past, which to them was inherently flawed, replaced by the free play of Creativity that would create the utopian future of brotherly love and diversity (I know it was more complicated than that, but I’m just distilling it down to what I see as its essence). But the only problem is that they didn’t do their homework—and why would they if they saw the past as completely flawed—and didn’t realize that they were playing with fire. Once one begins a free-fall into the Abyss, there’s no guarantee that there will ever be a ground upon which to land.

There is now no legitimate reason to resist Public Opinion and no reason not to simply pursue Material wealth and fame—through our greatly watered down “Will to Power.” All the things Tocqueville tried to warn us about have come to fruition, and far from creating the utopia that the Radicals hoped for, we have descended farther down into the circles of Hell from which they were trying to extricate us. We now must attempt to deliberately create our-Selves in near isolation, apart from Tradition, Community, Society, History or even Nature and can find no greater goal than childish Self-Satisfaction and fleeting Material fulfillment that so many great Philosophers warned us against.

And this, of course, plays right into the hands of the Marketers that even the most radical of us fails to resist. Instead of our Individualities being informed by the greatest Ideas that have been thought and written down for the benefit of posterity, we simply go to the Mall and purchase our identities from the limitless buffet of Consumer Goods and Services that America is so well known for. But being an Individual is more than just make-up and clothing, piercings, tattoos and Brand Logos; it is an inner conviction in one’s own beliefs which must be supplemented by tradition, teaching, and—God forbid—imitation or else one will inevitably become a slave to Public Opinion—which is necessarily formed around the lowest common denominator. This teaching should come from our parents and grandparents; from people in our neighborhoods and communities; from our primary-schools and universities; from high culture and from high-quality pop culture. And above all, it must come with rules and duties, not just smiley faces and boundless—thus groundless—freedom.

Just as Branding for a product is simply superficial cover-up for a lack of any real differentiating quality, so too is our Personal Branding. We now exist in a vacuum. We are discontent with the present, but lack the awareness of any real Alternative to it. The old writers may not have been perfect, but right now we could use a diversity of opinions more than ever. We have lost our sense of perspective, and, in this post-Nietzschean world, we no longer have the comforting thought that history is naturally progressing to some sort of rational "end." The future now looks bleak and indefinite. It is still ours to "create" but, without some sort of guiding principles, I can promise you that it will look no better than the past that we all, apparently, have such contempt for.

E Pluibus Unum: Out of Many, One

So, I’ve been thinking more and more about a comment made the other day on one of my latest posts. The comment was about the possibility of uniting the world through Metaphysical oneness as a way of over-coming our Selfish Individualized Subjectivity to bring about a more equal and just world. Everything in the world is composed of the same building blocks, therefore we are really all connected and our separate Individualities are really just an illusion, or something along those lines. I just wanted to explore this idea a little more and its recurrent manifestations throughout history and what implications it has for the present.

This is not necessarily a new idea. M-Theory may be the latest model of articulation of this concept, but it has been expressed throughout history in all parts of the known world. In Hinduism, which has been around since at least 700-800 BC, this idea is expressed by the word Brahman, in which the multiplicity of the world is really just an illusion and differs only in “name and visible appearance,” but ultimately all is united in this single unifying principle. The Chinese called it the Tao, the “Way” or “Path,” which produced harmony in the Universe. In Ancient Greece, the Pre-Socratics had as many names for it as there were philosophers who thought. Thales said it was “water;” Anaximander called it the “boundless;” and Anaximenes thought the source was “air” or “vapor.” Heraclitus called it “logos”—this “something” that was the essence of everything.

All of these things are just different names for the same thing, which of course is “God.” In the West, after the fall of Greece to Rome and the birth, death and resurrection of Christ, we were united under one of the strictest self-abnegating moral codes that had been imagined yet. We are all formed in God’s image and God is a part of all of us, i.e. we are all Brothers, thus we should “love our Neighbor [Others] as our-Selves” and “treat Others as You would like to be treated”—not that this was necessarily anything new, but the punishment that attended it was. Christ was the idealized model of love and compassion, yet, as Nietzsche put it: “There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross.” All those that have followed him have paled in comparison and not even the threat of eternal damnation has persuaded us to act otherwise.

Then along came Machiavelli, who looked at the scene before him, saw its evident hypocrisy, and literally dared Men to forget about their Souls, forget about heaven and the afterlife and metaphysical speculation—which had resulted in naught—and to reform the here and now. He spoke admiringly about those who cared more for their Fatherland than for the salvation of their Souls. Since millennia of philosophizing about what the Soul even is had produced no results and those that pretended to know—the Priests—held power and influenced and corrupted politics, what we should therefore do is stop worrying about the things we can’t know and instead focus on those that are actually within our control. Realism over Idealism; Materialism against Idealism.

What was the cause of the Protestant Reformation, if not the corruption of the church and the debasement of the Word of Christ by those who were sworn to protect and advance it? Martin Luther was absolutely shocked by the corruption of the clergy when he visited Rome in 1510. The Pope—God’s highest representative on Earth—was selling licenses for brothels, priests who kept mistresses were simply taxed, and even Pope Alexander VI fathered seven children by at least two different women, despite priests being forbade to have sex. And, worst of all, the sale of Indulgences as a way to get absolution from sin, instead of formal penance. All these men were supposed to be Moral and Spiritual leaders and be beyond reproach, yet they were just as bad as the lowest commoner, it seemed, when it came to Self-control.

So what Machiavelli did was simply to give us—the lowly commoners—equal rights to be just as Selfish as all our supposed leaders. If Man is naturally Selfish, and apparently no amount of exhortations or threats can convince him to be otherwise, let’s re-create Society on this basis and see how that goes. Hobbes and Locke, following in his footsteps, took up this dare and recreated politics on a purely secular basis, which attempted to engage Men through their Reason, instead of through Myth—and the attendant force and fraud that goes along with it—and win Men’s consent through a new set of loyalties. Hobbes said to imagine another man holding a gun to your temple and threatening to shoot you. At that moment one is a real Self, without all the alienating opinions of State, Church, or Public Opinion and then one can really decide what counts.

So, to get back to the main point, whereas Metaphysical oneness may be true and edifying, it doesn’t seem to be effective on the human level where Man interacts on a day to day basis. Man’s mass of conflicting emotions and priorities seem to trump any sort of base interconnectedness that is so self-evidently (due to its recurrent nature throughout history, religion, and science) true and not even the threat of eternal damnation could cause us to act differently.

But where does that leave us—the children living at the End of History, forced to deal with the realization that all alternatives have failed, that there might not be such a thing as “Truth,” and what little there is does not seem very pretty?

I think, if nothing else, we can learn that the highest crime is Hypocrisy. You might be able to “fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time,” and the Truth will prevail! And when it does, the inevitable result is that which you see today: Cynicism and Apathy. You cannot found a country on the basis of Reason and then rule unreasonably—it’s gonna catch up with you eventually.

After having swept away all the other interests that could engage Men’s loyalties, the only thing left for us is to look at the world empirically—through our Senses. And right now we can see a huge disparity between the way Men talk and the way they act, and unless our leaders are willing to dabble in some of the dangerous, failed alternatives to Liberal Democracy, then they are going to have to realize this simple fact: the so-called Machiavellian method of leadership—"the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct”—can no longer work. Unless they are willing to take away our Free Press and now the Internet and, not to mention, our power of Reason—which I would hope that we as a People would never submit to—this method of rule, simply can no longer work.

I will leave you with one more quote. A bit unrelated but just some food for thought.

“General apathy [is] the fruit of [radical] Individualism…What is important to combat is therefore much less anarchy [chaos] or despotism [dictatorship] than the apathy that can create the one or the other almost indifferently.”
—Tocqueville: Democracy in America