1) Ice hockey offseason 2024 and 2023 democratic capitalist society essays, made for laymen 2) Situations that think they're special
1) Treatises on not strictly *me* the Identitarian--it's on ALL OF US, the DCSers!
2024
Human Nature, as it Could be
Potentially Utilized, is on the Ballot
Commentary that rolls on through around 2K24, landing at the Trump-Harris debate
People, when it comes to election day, are making choices that involve other people—not choices that involve AI calling the shots. Irrespective of the need fulfillment a particular voter pursues via their selected candidate, political participation is still about relating to others. This behavior, coordinated by the marketing and media outreach of well-coordinated, slick campaigns, is as much a social function as tying the knot, attending a house party, or volunteering for a nonprofit. These are activities are all so, regardless if anyone is keeping score. Elections, like many bonding opportunities, are free for people to toss their hat into the ring. However, matters of raw geography can cut aspirants down to size. One example in 2024 was Nikki Haley, who secured a tenure as a governor and polled as actually being the more “electable” Republican candidate. When it came to the affairs of an entire nation, though, household names mattered more than her in the primaries. Similarly that winter, Texans had to bow down to the broad, federal law of the land—as interpreted by the Supreme Court--on the use of barbed wire on the Mexican border.
And this geographic principle extends to other side of the aisle, as leftists are loyal to a location. There’s no way around this, as to focus on working within a specific jurisdiction on Earth is the way to the cherished programs of Medicare & Social Security; peace of mind in retirement does not just drop out of the sky. From a different perspective, Vladimir Putin promoted the Russian motherland—the place—to further mobilize his citizens to the frontlines in Ukraine. To brainstorm politically, could there be a Suez Canal-type shortcut around these particular, interloping turfs, to a home all people can claim? Try claiming an emotion, which by itself, is a human universal. So if the very notion of feeling is common to people everywhere, then it’s an exactness—a science, a one world order to be shared. Yet it’s more art for mankind to get there, as you may take a horse to water, but can’t make it drink.
* * *
Getting people to personally reform may not always be there. Yet in half of the planet in 2024, democracy is on the public ballot. When it is time for either leaders or voters respectively to rise up to the occasion and exercise their civic role, the private side of a person matters. That said, in dealing with politicians at the critical hour, will he or she deep down inside, put party over country? How each figure perceives public opinion—the “opinion” as emblematically existing in their psyche. Such a mind may hold steady and not differ if it weren’t subject to so many pressuring influences. Yet the goods and services that define life in market democracies are oriented towards meeting quality—and thus indeed meeting a citizenry’s varying preferences. Variance is especially featured in this context, as a good’s high standard is what makes a customer pick from an iPhone or a Google Pixel phone. Or have voters select between the diverging makeup of a post-Brexit European Parliament. The process of producing quality has growing pains—during postsecondary education and a career full of experience—that leave a negative mark on how “public opinion” gets developed. In order to shape a crisis-beset politician’s symbolic thinking, could the general public--with accompanying norms and roles--be completely reshaped in its own right? This outcome may have limited prospects. Instead, let these leaders find themselves moved by everyday, ordinary moments that lack public opinion. Moments that one “looks closer” at, like prayer need not be subject to party nominations or debt financing for it to be relied upon.
Voters, though, still can give a harsh assessment on the state of their society. Joe Biden’s economy can show progress in the statistical numbers—just, as it is often the case, not progress in the opinion polls. Why would him, plus other incumbents like Emmanual Macron & Justin Trudeau, not thanked by their publics following the post-pandemic economic recovery? For these moderates, their Enlightenment-derived liberalism may be backfiring on them. As a case study, take Thing Y and place it before liberalism. What if you were make Y fodder for an even greater good, such an employee giving a bribe to further advance his or her position? Such a practice of the ends justifying the means cannot always be permitted in a liberal democracy. Thus in democratic capitalist society, Y’s value is on its bottom line; the direct benefit, without strings attached, when a producer serves a customer. Yet this “bottom line” attitude on conducting business has been so standardized, so reduced to symbolic communication, that such assent come telegraphically, like the “Approved” stamp. This subtle sense of ordinary citizens exercising their right to “free speech” extends to them voicing their political sentiment, for Biden as a mere brand in the minds of Republicans can so rub them the wrong way.
* * *
The president of the United States isn’t the only source of public arousal. Further controversy has emerged in the Israel-Hamas conflict, with global public opinion claiming their own horse in the race. Not even Bill Clinton presiding over a photo-op handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat could bring a lasting peace after generations of enmity built up by Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims. Yet, as a quick fix, both sides express their grievances through the press. Media coverage can help reach kindred spirits within a broad, global audience. However, to take one follower of the current events at a time, this practice lacks an equalizing effect: news access varies by income level. To bring up a hypothesized case within the Arab world, a Bedouin pastoralist may be less media savvy than an NGO worker in Dubai. Extending this global disunity to a grassroots level, divisions over Gaza persist—and this global spirit of discord has also found its way into the halls of Congress, where picking the Speaker of the House has become a battle royale. But what will it take to admit defeat? The Japanese and Germans in 1945, lacking echo chambers back then, were effectively brought to heel. This was the case, for they suffered a total defeat in a total war. Yet in a world so interlinked today, a total defeat sparked by the equivalent of Hiroshima or Dresden carries so many consequences—consider the mere accessibility of semiconductors tied to the status of Taiwan. Could even a further amount of slight instability be too much for the already gridlocked globe to stomach?
Of the bitter pills to societally swallow in the 2020s, inflation stands tall. It eats away at people's incomes--and raises may not be enough to make up for it. How is that when, according to the Economic Policy Institute, salaries for CEOs are up 1400% since the late 1970s rise of neoliberalism? Take the logic of the “imperial presidency”, with a potent leader before geopolitical challenges. Similarly, firms use that reasoning to compensate, in a likewise risky market, a strong executive. Pitted with this wage discrepancy, employees may not enjoy selling their labor power. Yet they’ll do so to remain middle class. Reversing, in order to correct the situation, how all people act on their needs is limited; such a topping of the GDP apple cart could risk more of a downturn. But people can reverse how they see themselves. As democratic capitalism is not really rested on being wealthy and free, but the potential of attaining that rank—the right to go after a sense of prosperous security. For the “potential”, whatever it may be though, is just a mental construct as self-regard—and stress and anxiety, as well. So, in the quest of an abstract dream, the door could be open by the latter two subtle factors to infiltrate one’s mental makeup, making the final product more uncertain. As a result, certain minds are less equipped for certain issues: entitlement programs in Western countries running out of funding, the target 2027 date for the invasion of Taiwan, and the anticipation of global temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees by 2050. What is certain, and what is not? The less modern unclarity that there is in particular mindsets, the more settled these psyches get. Correspondingly, with them spared of indistinct frustration, commercial interests can then exploit & gouge less. This may lead to concrete action for concrete problem solving--and an economy easier for all to bear, price wise.
* * *
The Trump-Biden rematch was not the epic equivalent to the Ali-Frazier series. As the winner of this Washington bout was poised to be the one who scares voters the least. It turned out that the fright got to the campaign within: Biden’s frailty and subsequent polling decline prompted social liberals to dissuade the 46th president to step down as nominee. To stem the panic, Democrats rallied around Kamala Harris to helm their party’s ship. But in the midst of all this, wouldn’t a society’s dynamism stem more from love, rather than fear? Such resilience of democracy during the 20th century world wars arose from the patriotic love of one’s country. Now the bad one in this political race is the one will make America crumble like Rome. Despite more at seemingly at stake this year, it’s still cut out for a candidate: act in an atomized society. One with people so on their own, that in having the free autonomy to formulate their political views, many have already decided whom to vote for. With so much preset in the electorate, isn’t it futile for democracies to carry on their billion dollar campaigns? Perhaps political races—and their politicians—might be less needed in a society made less complex. In that sense, more citizens’ disputes would lack authorities to intervene in—as it pertains to the latter, cutthroat black & white thinking that arises over the ballot can drop. Could we all share the same fate? If we are connecting the world economically, why not let go of strict decision making and do so emotionally?
Emotions, though, still get out of control, as it showed at an attack launched at a Donald Trump rally on July 13th. Seemingly, the attempt on Trump’s life showed that the cycle of partisan rancor had gone too far. As much as the Democratic opposition had a dire view of Trump in power, the scenario of the fallout from that event’s bullet slightly changing direction was to them an even worse course for the milieu to take. Yet the tight campaign ensured that the political “temperature” would remain high. Even more so, the whole systemic individualism in democratic capitalist society does not exactly intend for all of us to be in it together. To allow Trump, in this apparatus, to relinquish his fist-pumping “fighter” persona would mean also relinquishing the entire mass media so a leader—any leader—won’t be magnified. Political parties everywhere take on the spirit of systemic individualism, as to zero in on the voters’ desires is to play to this premise: telling people what they want to hear. It’s a drive made into routine by technology, as a Fitbit can read exactly what a person seeks in heart rate and peace of mind. But to fixate directly into that which an individual “wants to hear” is bound to exclude what’s not “heard”. Thus to take from economics, a “free lunch” is lost. To reach out amongst the many diverse peoples of the world, will this orientation towards the precluding particular make it harder to respectively win “hearts and minds”?
* * *
Winning citizens over is not how it used to be. For the American duopolistic sides were once neatly classified into being center left and center right. Hence by now for the 2024 election, modernity increasingly is where the line gets drawn: social liberals wanting to ride its train, and populistic conservatives that are balking at it. The progress that the former espouses can get boundless. But it’s different to “modernize” the memory & traditions that a Donald Trump voter holds dear. As well, a matter of honor is in play: a national conservative bloc likens the Biden-Harris theoretical program of woke globalism—and track record of inflation—as a throwback to Jimmy Carter, the leader the last time they felt America needed this must “saving.” Tap into the notion of human sentiment as an entity that never sleeps, going across borders—and throughout periods of time.
The sense of shame that the emotionally charged populist right in the West feels about establishment figures like Olaf Scholz can fill their minds like totalitarianism did in gripping in the similarly aroused citizens of 1930s Germany and Russia. Charting the future of that last autocratic ideology in Marxism-Leninism was an unsure endeavor, as Time magazine’s Person of the Year issue for 1981 had it that the people could brace for the Cold War to “escalate dangerously in the decades ahead.” One less hazy forecast to muse: another bloody transfer of power in the United States come January. That act may constitute an existential threat to democracy for some; such perpetrators of an act, though, may be teaching the opposition that “they won’t get away with stealing the election this time around.” Maybe there’d be lasting agreement on both sides, if such a people held lasting focus, lasting interests. Yet in a complex, attention span-starved society, where is one with a sole, un-distracted priority to pull off such an enduring task?
* * *
Both Harris’ Democrats and Trump’s Republicans believe that the United States is “the greatest nation on Earth”; the former specifically proclaimed this in her convention acceptance speech in Chicago. As well, it may be inferred that each candidate, deep down inside, does not enjoy being wrong. But to solve that problem, how to pinpoint what exactly is “wrong”, how has a belief gone bad? Problem is, that this idea may be buried in one’s mentality--and it can too hard for outsiders to ascertain the inner truth through surface-level observation. What Harris does outwardly show to others is the pushing forward of the agenda of an infirm Biden, but through her own revived persona of an energetic, determined prosecutor. Republicans who would control respective chambers of Congress may not find that character very entertaining. As arbiters of these antagonistic camps, elections can still hold fast. As Trump eventually gave up his office following the Capitol riot—hours after vowing that he “would never concede.” The naturally fragmented electorate, after all for Democrats, can be a check on the MAGA national conservatives representing a wide majority of the people.
But electorally confining a side like the AfD, Fidesz, or National Rally can also, when their leaders are further caught in a struggle, make them miscalculate. As the issues outpower the individuals, no matter what side of the aisle they are on; the issues assign human beings to play the parts in history’s story, not the other way around. And more than ever, these masses of individuals are intricately involved--and harder to reach--in the wage earner world. Instead of a clearcut, specific war against what Hitler, Tojo, or Mussolini set forth, today it’s an offbeat deal regarding abortion clinics, swarming migrants and how to save at the grocery store. To serve the array of people vaguely involved with the latter few situations, who can detect what’s all on their particular minds? And by playing this type of game, how long can people keep living in their heads? Perhaps what could conquer these topics en masse is people joining together en masse. Aiming for such a one-worldism may be aiming for mere symbolism, rather than focusing for what’s for substance. Yet for this “story”, life is done in one take; with one’s instance of behavior that suddenly becomes a mistake, there’s no immediate way to edit out the bad memories he or she may acquire. Instead, truly actualized global cooperation in the spirit of Henry George has a goal to Spaceship Earth-style stage the events we’re all actors in, for fun’s sake—and our security, too. In an election with miscalculating losers, looking up to this narrative can be rather a win-win.
2023
Freedom Remains Not Free
After free, yet fractured society split during the crises of the 2020s, will even further liberty get things back on track?
Choice makes democracy possible; what election with only one candidate to pick from can be called democratic? Yet the everyday ethos of democracy--having any given individual pick from options to make the best possible decision--is more critical than examining whether a country’s political system is fully democratic or not. It shows that while Jerome Powell did not earn his position from winning an electoral race, the choices he makes as Federal Reserve chairman has the potential to offer the most relief on the inflation crisis. Vladimir Putin also, as an albeit more malignant counterpart, is a public figure who also did not consolidate power from free and fair elections. But he too must make selections: how serious should Putin be, in regarding a possible defense of Crimea, of using tactical nuclear weapons?
It’s up to rest of the public to generally hold these figures accountable, to prevent them from miscalculating. Limiting bad options for these officials to select from has its shortcomings; eliminating a choice means eliminating another invested business or player. Neither may any leader find essential ideals in democratic capitalist society (DCS): such values in the United States have been remade and are contrasting. This is shown as the Democratic Party built a coalition by celebrating progress and the Republican Party, in a personal path to knowing itself, rallies more around nationalism. To offer the leaders a more reasonable course to chart, what could be most important for rest of the populace to understand about leaders like them? Deciphering their maturity levels may offer gains. That matter goes with how individual humans—and similarly, to industrializing countries—develop. Yet an exact clean break from a youthful person to an adult lacks. Better to approach such murky maturity by being comfortable with a world that’s discomforting—not panicking from both personal and political uncertainty but rather, to at least get more used to it.
* * *
That’s a lot of things to grasp that are unclear and happen by chance. Aside from death and taxes, what could be counted on as a certainty? By extension, an absolute in the United States and Western Civilization? Cultural relativity throughout that developed world may result in a lack of a political, economic universalisms that all would adhere to. Historically, the white Christian males that rose to the top as a global elite have it harder today to speak for all diversity in DCSer countries today. Even other ascendent trends haven’t fully cornered the market today; transhumanism hasn’t been wholly accepted by the scientific community like the periodic table. If, on the other hand, certain novel ideas start to be entrenched, detractors can’t vote out of office certain components of technology—artificial intelligence is more likely to displace workers than free trade, but when it comes to changing public policy, the former would be more untouchable. Yet with all this fragmentation that goes up and down, what could be a constant? A more unanimous agreement is the fear of the wage earner world--and all its socioeconomic dependencies--breaking down on everyone. The bank failures in the spring of 2023 were enough to stoke fears of a repeat of the late 2000s financial crisis, that eventually cascaded on the broader commonweal as the Great Recession. Elsewhere, the disruption of Russian fuel supplies in one corner of Europe had a ripple effect on energy prices throughout the rest of the globe.
Stemming from relativity, from things being in flux--and in response, social stratification being restructured and intensified--is inequality. To actually restore matters all the way to the egalitarianism of hunter gatherers may hinge on a precise equality in outputs of production and a precise equality in types of tasks. That may be a tall order, to reverse 10,000 years of developing civilization. Yet consider a way to push for ultimate across-the-board harmony, individual by individual: distinguish from types of liberty. Achieving “strategic” freedoms of affordable health care and quality education are worthwhile for all, regardless of political position or degree of autonomy allowed to pull off such outcomes. As well, differentiate that broad way of “strategic” liberty from its supplemental and more necessary form to retain, “tactical” liberty. Here in tactical liberty, when in a task, one must secure enough personal breathing space in their own respective endeavor to overcome past personal, mental baggage and subconscious memory. This is done for the sake of better navigating each intricacy of specialized relativity; a central government cannot make every choice here. Instead, citizen initiative can avert the “cascading” and “ripple effects” before they can materialize.
Wishes exist for people to come back in time to prevent calamities like the Holocaust and Holodomor from happening. Instead, the world was confronted by powerful Nazi and Stalinist autocracies that seemed at certain times to be too monolithic to overcome. But freedom—the democratic human spirit—proved to be an even more an intractable force for these totalitarian countries to vanquish. A spirit that is so unbowed that there lacks any convincing force in the twenty-first century marketplace of ideas that could dethrone the notion of liberty. Now freedom is ever more in demand for one citizen to hopefully handle complex economy, health care system, and political bureaucracy that is furthermore is beyond that of one person’s entire understanding and control. In confronting this social-political labyrinth, professional politicians are seen as those who can do something about it. Thus, at the ballot box, liberty comes in. So as long as the planet is modern, free will remains sought for. Beyond freedom, what might give an extra edge to cope with modernity? Managing the social intentions that one’s volition is guided by. Such social goals drive organizations, as they were present and striking in both at the early grassroots and federal-policy influencing stages of the American civil rights movement.
* * *
And, by extension, politicians as whole have social goals—make bread and butter concerns easier for their constituents. Yet for individual citizens, such an overall barometer of the economy is ultimately not the most important thing in life. As an overarching force, consider the driving force of necessity as paramount instead of the current levels of inflation—that is, as long as fundamental needs get met, consumers may eventually put up with expensive eggs. Plus stomach worker alienation, as employment in a shoe company often is to not be a cobbler but to work in sales, IT, or marketing. To feel byproducts, rather than feeling the finish of one’s firm's sneakers.
Needs in a society move ever so fast—could a hierarchy pick which one is of first priority? Or is it better to focus on transporting a completed need than make a new one? Such is the invisible hand at work, wearing its “supply chain crisis solver” glove. And in dealing with the problem, the amount of resources available can’t keep up with needs out there. It also doesn’t help as much as the innate capitalist competition pits one person’s need against another, fracturing professional solidarity, which can all result in on more people fending for themselves. But depending on one’s own well-constructed, comprehensive, and altruistic economic identity, may do more than mere self-reliance in coping with a need-restraining recession.
A diversity of interests allows for more complexity—and seemingly, more for leaders to worry about. Yet components of diversity can serve as potent societal checks and balances against a single entity, particularly against an ambitious one emerging. Shows socialism, to play by the rules in a more consumer-meeting, voter-empowering Western Europe, had to lower its sights as social democracy; elsewhere, societies unacquainted with developed Western life lacked the inhibiting norms and institutions that would curb socialism from hardening into Marxism-Leninism. Successful countries in the former have left other more neoliberal societies on the outside today filled with “Denmark envy.”
These states may have successfully developed capitalist democracy to be socially compassionate—or is there an impression of it all being done? Might citizens complying to a given political platform and government policy have them actually fearful of it? It is true from one perspective, fear of disease has spurred the growth of medicine and life expectancy. For other solutions, though, the world is more attuned to dealing in fear than asserting effective control. The European Union, in being geared towards a carrot and stick way to bring its members in line, is a tempered global example of the former. What if this pent-up fear among global peoples were to explode one day? Technology, like that of a cell phone camera capturing the death of George Floyd, may only hasten the day when this happens.
* * *
In the meantime before such crises can unfold, democracy is seen as the best bet for resolving problems. As this system is justified by many for its fairness. Like, in a classroom, a show of hands to pick the location for a field trip. But consider an instance when one's sense of justice can get challenged when, as a result of democratic capitalism developing an entire society, bad news then proliferates on a mass scale. Is it frowned upon for news article-suggesting algorithms to shield citizens from critical viewpoints, and keep them locked in echo chambers? Further technology has given rise to smart homes, complete with digital safety measures enacted. All this effort, however, to make an entire household financially secure isn’t the exactly same as making all individuals in DCS psychologically secure—mass shooter suspects included. As fast-paced society can’t manufacture respect like it assembles gadgets; it can be elusive for a certain producer to fully understand the other customer or client’s essence. Comprehending their essence--and having respect for it--comes in handy when such respect can be flipped into politics. As a climate of dignity would transcend whatever ill feelings the loser has towards the winner, in the outcome to the 2024 election.
As for the authoritarian fallout from developed world elections in the decade following the financial crisis, so many, have wanted to cut down to size Francis Fukuyama's original "End of History" thesis. Yet history can begin--and then end again. At one check, it can be measured at somewhere between start and conclusion. As the world’s most powerful country now is led by Joe Biden—who rode a wave of pro-democracy backlash, gaining the most presidential votes against an incumbent in ninety years--a champion at home and abroad of the liberal democracy Fukuyama put forth. What might be more crucial than the state of "history” is the speed of modernity, how it can change the sociopolitical calculus so rapidly. That said, the values of DCS should not be strictly seen as leading to unity and order.
Rather, it's about a life in a country that’s marked by rapid social pace--and fewer second chances. As result, the actual situation ends up when the political climate plays it safe and opts for the familiar: an anticipated 2024 sequel to the baby boomer bout of agitator Donald Trump and Thermidorian Joe Biden. Amongst his most recent controversies, Trump was indicted while as a private citizen. But more than his statuses as a businessman, a possible convict, or even an elected politician--the one most impactful role that he exercises is that of a fighter. That's endearing Trump to his followers, transcending electoral politics. Trump serves as a proxy on behalf of his adherents, taking on what is decried as a pervasive wokeism--something that can't be vanquished alone at the ballot box.
* * *
Today’s battles polarizingly narrow down to democracy versus populism. But the former already had a victorious notch on their belt. Previously, it was only in the modern era could there be advances in communication and technology that could enable Bolshevism and Nazism to take root. Inversely, only from the legacy of modernity’s Enlightenment could there be an intellectual alternative to flourish—democracy—to counter that totalitarian threat. This was demonstrated by the 20th century’s world wars against autocracy were fought—and won—in the name of liberty. But with the two paramount menaces of the 21st century so far--COVID-19 and climate change--what “freedoms” did these struggles arouse? The free will to belittle threats as fake news?
Struggles may be meaningless or not. But people’s dreams carry powerful weight. They are contagious, as the success from clearing one small hurdle generates hope that a bigger problem will be next to go. Since not one person can control such all "bigger" visions in the world, an authority comes in to manage the dreams citizens yearn for. Complicating the situation is how these malleable dreams get reshaped to fit the diverse places that 2020s people find themselves in. Yet for this authority, reform follows crisis, rather than the other way around; the Sarbanes-Oxley policy that altered auditing could not have arisen without an Enron scandal in the first place. It was under mass democratic capitalism allowed these problems to slip through the cracks. But, as Winston Churchill first quipped and Margaret Thatcher later insisted upon, there’s really no changing the broad system in order to better tackle these specific hardships.
While DCS permits an entrepreneurial spirit that allows new fresh starts & freedoms—yet, this penchant for incentivizing mass opportunity is not the same as mass prevention of problems. For an impersonal DCS—too busy in reaching compromises and consensus to take in consideration in what’s ideologically over the top--is characterized by non-intervention. So not every demand can be met. Thus, a solution-inhibiting uncertainty envelops the human existence. Such an experience of disconnection has been depicted over the years in works such as Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”. Perhaps taking all peoples, now tied to an economic market, and also coordinating them under a sociopolitical umbrella could be more self-correcting of global suffering before they can seriously materialize. In a BBC documentary on Karl Marx, the narrator remarked that “if capitalism can’t work for everyone, then it may not work at all.” The same could be said, on a similar scale, for politics.
* * *
Such sweeping economic changes arose from the Industrial Revolution, still lacking a universal agreement on how to properly respond entirely to it. It was a given prior to this 19th century rise of machines, that an average African was as poor as a typical European—or anyone else on the globe. Now since then, it’s been a new a recurring pattern to address about the inequality brought out by that Revolution. Yet the interest for one to secure a living for oneself often upstages the urge to make humanity unified in a sense. This occurs in a certain entity, in concern over another threat, allows another power of unequal standing to act as a protector. Entrenched Republican activists may continue their partnership with a beleaguered Donald Trump, a registered Democrat only fourteen years ago, if they feel he’s the best to prevent the country from a "radical left" onslaught in 2024.
A similar mindset is for NATO arms exporters serving the non-member Ukraine, as Brussels-tied commanders seeks where fiscally possible to impose punitive damages on Vladimir Putin's future ambitions. To ensure protection once and for all, moderation can lack. In addressing the Taiwan question, such a mitigating spirit is also absent. As it is quite uncharted territory to merely test the waters on how initial direct fire between China and America would eventually end up as, given that both are amongst the globe’s dominant nuclear powers.
The experience detailed in this essay came courtesy of the modern world---the one we currently tied to, for better or worse. Where in such struggles, so much is mobilized, and so much can be at stake. While modernity as a whole is rigid and monolithic, the arbitrary outcomes of its struggles are not. Consider Germany in World War I, with the millions of casualties that it put forth—and still, the industrialized effort felt like it was in vain. Added to that, modernity’s way of intellectually re-defining groups had a new media-driven manifestation of a scapegoat for the Germans’ misfortunes. Specifically, what had fundamentally changed about Jews per se in 1918 as opposed to 1718? Or any ethnicity on Earth in that time period, for that manner? The Jewish people, at the rise of a new tyranny in Europe, were especially at the wrong place at the wrong time. Who will be next to capriciously fall under the direction of the leaderless modern world? The “tactical freedom” specified here would help give room to maneuver against contemporary agonies like being laid off, hit in a traffic accident, or being an aspiring homeowner faced with high interest rates. Yet market capitalism and its effects like the ones stated are fundamentally here to stay. In comparison though, political democracy is now more variable as populists will not sit idly by with market capitalism concentrating wealth in elites. The future then rests on how we are each “politicians” in our own right, making decisions on a day-to-day basis. By doing this and carefully choreographically our own character, successful outcomes can emerge to preempt the politicizing of the economy by those who would get stuck with the short end of the globalization stick. Thus, in pushing the envelope with our own personas, living life can overcome the inevitability of time.
*
And one to grow on:
--"Our days might not be any longer, but they can sure be better."
--"The match ... fans, we gotta go to a break. I have no idea of what to say. Stay with us."
2) When Identitarian living gets ad hoc-ish
I
+ Talk about something to rule itself? Like the Constitution rules the United States?
Identity gets to the core of it. As it gets invoked for both an individual person or a entire nation.
Since I use--confusingly so, to others--countries as a metaphor, this identity thing...
...sounds appealing to name my "Identitarianism" after.
But see what identity is NOT. Like don't deeply heed ^the unknown^ into forming your sense of self!
Building your life around the Kosovo model helps. Here, when ^the known^ is found, it gets subordinated to the aim of...
..of further action.
As to mobilize against the ominous air raids, a thing just can't be an end in itself.
Plus connect one known to another--alike with the Latin idem "the same", as the root of identity.
And get uplifted to face the fear of guerrillas--experience is knowledge!
+ The laws of chemistry make for an ^inevitable^ synthesis.
Why not expect similarly, for the rest of life, when thing A ^inescapably^ encounters thing B?
Bring up, from the last thread, of conventional war--and that the technological power tends to prevail.
What can you as...
...the Serbian role player, REALLY react to NATO infantry liberating Kosovo by force?
Do nothing about it and like it.
Well, here's the "liking" part: go down swinging. When inevitability (will) back you into a corner, psychologically take yourself to the history of urban..
...warfare--its fortifications!
See the 1990s Chechens: ^contact is finally made with a stressor^?
Immediate cue for idEnt tips to pop into your head. Like ^a booby-trapped door going off^ in a Grozny building.
"Everything that was meant to happen does, eventually." -- Angela
+ "The world is simply too varied... for even the most knowing leaders to control everything effectively." -- Time mag, 1986
But telling #AsCon combatants that time’s up for "controlling" is hard.
Ask that to Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam. Conventional wars, though, have clear...
...clear victors. And DRAW from them: some crises in life come *straight at you.*
No deceptive surprises, like with guerrillas.
Like my certainty of an agitated flight. Or a nervous first day at a new job.
So play out a ground invasion thru this:
Invading Kosovo: A Battle Plan
https://www.newsweek.com/invading-kosovo-battle-plan-166880
..IRL Serbs, rightly so, succumb to NATO's high tech mobility.
But similarly 🎮, YOU will succumb to the power of the high tech material world.
Yet sustain ^your identity^!
"(Lester) may have lost everything by the end of the film, ^but he's no longer a loser^." -- Roger Ebert
II
+ What is key in pursuing dreams? It's about ^believing in yourself^--or a lack there of.
That you say on the public record can be, through cognitive dissonance, can be dismissed by the state of ^inner faith^.
And at the core psyche, is big ambition to make up for big loss.
...Tell me about it, when I apply grand goals to ordinary behavior. See this: I earn a necessary salary for my work.
And I also add the aim of my production to help the E.U.S. 🇪🇺🇺🇸.
Yet similarly offering an act that has one purpose to Person A, and another purpose to Person...
...B may be lose-lose. Each person wants their own need met!
When this individualizing of niches halts ... is when no more streaming platforms get added.
But take "these added goals", even unrealistic ones, and see how they are CHANNELED.
Have you hit life's center of gravity?
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.