I’ve been told by some of my more eclectic acquaintances that Saturn gives them weird looks when no one is around, and that furthermore it is a projection of a very dark entity, whose objective is to deceive us in an effort to use us. This entity goes by many names, Satan, Unconscious Consumerism, Absolute Liberty, but to those who know that computers don’t make errors, it is best known as The Beast

   

Ok, @tviscard from the future here, quick disclaimer before we get going, as this is a long and especially preachy post, even for me. This was written by me when I was an undergraduate, and yes I am aware that a lot of it is cringe. I can honestly only ever hope to be as cringe as I was when I wrote this post, that was peak cringe. I honestly can’t remember what my disclaimer was even about, anyway enjoy.

While I understand that computer networks are in fact susceptible to legitimate error, the reality of The Beast is undeniable. We understand  the world in two very distinct ways: through the vision presented to us by others, and through the visions we present ourselves. Trusting in the visions presented by others is very dangerous, yet it is the primary way in which people in modern society live. The danger lies in the basis of the world you are presented with; the reasons it is formed as it is are not completely arbitrary. Those who preach visions of the world, our politicians and dignitaries, create versions of the world to suit their own desires. One would not be a priest if they did not want to see the world as it is defined to them by their church. In promoting ideology we have to accept that our opinions are inherently dogmatic, but not evil. The institutions of religion and the state exist to realize the visions of specific groups of people. The benefit of a culture, a way of existence, is that it assists those who promote it. 

It has been said, the human race can be described as a population spike destined to hit a natural, physical barrier to their uncontrolled growth. We assume our cultural and political leaders will lead us away from the apocalypse we have brought upon ourselves, but they will not. Should the select few actually gain access to technologies or methods of escaping the inevitable destruction of our current habitat they will not extend a charitable arm to nearly 10 billion others, assuming predictions for maximum population hold true. Some things are easy to see and understand, but sometimes eyes can be deceptive because they make the other senses lazy. There is much more to this world, both human and otherwise, than electromagnetic oscillations. Remember to listen when things begin to look strange. And furthermore, remember that strange is often defined as perfectly normal. 

But here in lies the danger. No state nor religion truly serves to help the entirety of the world, at least none in their current forms; although almost all of them present themselves as though they would. Those that are in power wish to remain in power, in some cases this is greed, but in most cases it is because those in power believe their ideology helps others similar to themselves. These similarities do not need to be physical, despite the blatant racism that exists unchecked in many societies; these similarities are tied more intrinsically to philosophy and individual value systems. 

The principle of Pacifism is a prime example of this duality. Pacifism preaches non-violence, both in the inciting of it and in its use in self-defense. Sounds great right? Well, while it appears to be in the best interest of humanity, Pacifism denies its place within societies based in Legalism, which describes most Western Society. Legalism, more specifically the application of laws unto people who do not directly voice their consent to said laws, is an indirect application of violence. Laws are threats. Many people have submitted to those threats and rationalized their submission as being a good citizen, or maintaining their morality, myself included; however, I pose a question: Would you kill someone if the Law did not forbid you, or even made it compulsory? I’m sure many of you would say no, and I’m sure a few of the more troubled readers probably had to give it some thought. That’s perfectly alright, this is human nature, or at the very least it has been for most of our recorded existence. 

One might say that Pacifism and Legalism together form a solution to our inherent violence; however I argue that they do not. Pacifism and Legalism work together to forcefully incentivize us from harming one another, but it does not remove our tendencies towards violence, nor does it fully prevent us from harming each other anyway. This combination of ideology form “the rule of law and order” where ultimately it is the violence of the ruler that is absolute. I argue that these two ideologies serve to protect those in power within a given society by instilling docility within the people they seek to use. Pacifism is what we teach to livestock so that they don’t bite us, and Legalism is the cattle prod we use to teach them. 

It is only in defying the violence thrust upon us that we are able to be liberated. Morality means nothing if you are not in a position to define it, and until you escape duress you will always be beholden the definitions you are handed. We do not have to hurt each other if we don’t want to, but as long as there are people declaring that their vision of the world is valid for others, the collective will have the need to hurt one another thrust upon them. The individual will feel forces acting upon them to fight should the structure of the world as defined by the acting group of power force them to; we take from others because others have taken from us. In this sense, the divide between those that have and those that do not, that is those that are favored by the leading ideology and it’s institutions and those who are not, is the a primary source of strife within all society.

I do not write this to prop up Marxism, nor condemn it. People with unbound freedom are likely to abuse it. If people attempt to enforce decisions that benefit only themselves and ignore the needs of the rest of humanity, there should be repercussions; people should not be at liberty to sentence humanity to death or to bury others underneath them without their consent.

If we can learn to stop killing each other, not because the law threatened us not to but because we are inherently the same and we don’t want to hurt one another as we don’t want to hurt ourselves, then perhaps we will have finally ascended. Empathy has the potential to save us, not libertarianism, neo-liberalism, absolutism, nor any other brand of consumable political ideology. The dictatorship of the proletariat led millions to their death, but currently the dictatorship of the free is leading the whole world. We must strive for our own, individual freedoms without sacrificing the needs of the many. The freedom we need as individuals is primarily contained in the control of our own minds. Freedom to control what we do and do not believe. Freedom to draft our own visions of the world without fearing for our safety or our sanity. We have to strive to respect the bounds of where our opinions are fair to impose and where they are not. We have to be free to help ourselves, but be also concurrently inclined to help satisfy the needs of others, specifically others that seek the best not only for themselves, but for the entire collective. From each their ability, and to each their necessity. Or not, I just write the blog posts.