Facts
A claim about reality that may be true or false.
Like evidence, it is not proof of anything.
Frequently employed to make absolute claims, which are always false except for two.
Something we believe to be factually true today may be factually false tomorrow; each of us experiences this thousands of times throughout our lives. Despite this, we still hold steadfast that the things we believe today are true because we claim to know that they are true.
Behaving as thought certain facts are true is generally enough to make it through life if we live in a system that is stable enough to manage a plurality of thoughts and actions. This means that, for the most part, our beliefs do not need to be accurate with any precision, they just need to approximate something real in a general sense over time. When our beliefs are sufficiently estranged from reality, we will generally be punished for this.
A pluralist system is often able to soften this blow because diversity and variance are commonplace. It is in systems where certain facts are considered unacceptable that we are far more frequently punished for the imprecision of our beliefs. There is a huge difference between deviations from orthodoxy and complete ignorance of reality. However, if reality can be prescribed in a practical sense through the moderation of public discourse, then even minor deviations shall be categorized as HERESY.
Because facts may be true or false, and because they suffer untimely demises on an ongoing basis, a system that punishes its citizens for any position they hold informed by their own set of beliefs has lost its way. Far too frequently are we encouraged to take out our pitchforks.
Let reality punish us for our ignorance, we do not need to punish one another.
We need to bring our own facts, and see if a conversation can take place.
What if one more conversation is all we needed to change our minds?
Posted: 26 Mar 2023
Evidence
Synonymous with facts, which illustrates that there is an unlimited number of facts that may be used to support an unlimited number of claims.
If we look hard enough, we can always find at least one piece of evidence for any claim.
Once this is acknowledged, we are encouraged to bring our respective evidence forward, and debate over their quality. This is not fundamentally a numbers game. The number of facts we have and the number of people who support them is logically inconsequential. Popularity and power do not convey legitimacy. One high-quality piece of evidence will demolish the lesser rather quickly.
This is unacceptable for those with illegitimate power. This is why the classification of INFORMATION has become paramount, even in the wake of the Renaissance.
If an idea is supported with the best quality evidence, then it will be adopted by the largest number of people over the longest period. This is because most people are reasonable most of the time; moderates comprise the largest proportion of citizens in most categories.
Classifying or dictating which ideas and evidence may be discussed is an indication of foul play by those who recognize that they would lose in a fair fight.
See: FACTS
Posted: 26 Mar 2023
Pride
The most subtle and deadliest sin; the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one’s own importance.
The nemesis of merit.
A quality present in the offspring of devouring mothers.
The gatekeeper of all other sins. Once we have discovered our capacity to justify out thoughts and actions – irrespective of content – then all is permissible from our perspective.
Historically considered as the sin that sits atop the throne of all human shortcomings. Now it is disguised as self-acceptance, self-esteem, and self-love, which are obsessively discussed as we are encouraged to acquire more of each. This is assuming that any of these were laudable, real, and that there are no limits to their utility beyond a certain point. More is always better. Criminals, who have among the highest recorded opinions of themselves, agree wholeheartedly.
There is an ocean between pride and humility, and occupying a spot on either shore is likely to cause harm. We ought not be ground into dust, but accepting unearned accolades is beyond the pale. Currently, we reward those who demand unearned attention, position, or rewards, for fear that if we do not, someone may kill themselves – or worse – they may become unpopular. The fact that this diminishes the accomplishments of those who earned their stripes is inconsequential to the army who believe they are in a war against low self-esteem. Unfortunately, their battles bear no fruit, because their maps do not match the territory.
The prideful believe they are entitled to something simply because of who they are.
Pride breeds narcissistic justification.
Participation trophies were the alarm bells.
Posted: 26 Mar 2023
Content
The space between symbol and substance.
The essence of something; what it simultaneously contains and is contained by.
The natural enemy of fallacious arguments, which are specifically designed to obscure or circumvent dealing with the subject at hand with any clarity.
Deliberately avoided by most people in most situations because it does not conform to our narratives, it is too challenging, or it is trying to sell us something. It may also be that we do not possess a toolkit robust enough to assess it accurately.
Juliet Capulet understood content, even when the majority conspired against her.
In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, this fictional 13-year-old girl defended her beloved against the presumption that all Montagues are to be reviled.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
Juliet ‘gets it.’
It matters not if Romeo is a Montague, he should be judged by the content of his character, intentions, actions, dedication, and his reverence for her. He is a Montague to be sure, both in name and bloodline, but do these factors manifest destiny? In some ways they do, but in others, they do not. Romeo, by any other name, would still be himself, albeit framed somewhat differently. The language we ascribe to him may change how we perceive him, but reality is not a plaything of language.
This argument sounds a lot like many that are common these days, where it is claimed that language and categories are insufficient at effectively parsing things, including humans. As a result, we are bound by arbitrary labels and we are permitted to identify as whoever or whatever we would like. This is not the same argument at all, but it does an excellent job tricking people. It confuses the essence of something with how the essence is perceived.
Here is a basic breakdown of the Juliet’s logic:
‘If Romeo is categorically kind, then being kind means something in particular. It includes certain things and excludes others. If he behaves in all the ways that kindness is described, and avoids behaving in all the ways that are unkind, then he is kind. Once we establish these as sequitur, describing him as cruel and deceitful is false.’
This is cogent logic that also happens to be true because each of the premises are true. Each one is simple enough and does not make additional unverified claims that need to be examined separately. Juliet accepts that labels are not arbitrary, Romeo is indeed a Montague, whether she perceives him this way or not. She is simply claiming that, despite the fact he is a Montague, he is still an individual, and his own unique combination of qualities and traits should be considered equally worthy when we assess his merit. He is not merely a collection of prescribed Montague traits.
While they share some of the same premises, the arguments put forward these days are engineered in a radically differently way. The logic is something like this:
‘If Romeo is categorically kind, then being kind means something in particular. It includes certain things and excludes others. If he believes himself to be kind, and others perceive him as kind, then he is kind. If he believes himself to be kind, and at least one other person does not perceive him to be kind, then this demonstrates that there are intrinsic and irresolvable differences between perception and reality. As a result, it is impossible to claim that anything or anyone is something in particular, because language and categories fail to coalesce in all circumstances in the minds of all people. Therefore, categories and the language we use to discuss them are arbitrary because perception is the assessment tool. Once we establish these as sequitur, describing someone as something is arbitrary, and so we are given primacy to dictate who or what we are due to the agency we have over our own body and mind, regardless of what others claim.’
This is the tricky part - this is cogent logic, but it happens to be false because one or more of the premises are false. PERCEPTION is not a substitution for truth or reality, and so it is not an effective assessment tool. Disagreements about who or what someone is does not eliminate truth as a description of objective reality – it does not recognize differences of opinion. Language does not convey truth, it conveys information. And elevating our subjective interpretation of the world above all other considerations is pathological narcissism that is unlikely to remain consistent with reality. Many of the claims are convoluted, possess foregone conclusions, or contain additional unverified claims that are never examined. These are not the same argument at all. It assumes false claims to be true while disregarding claims that we have discovered to be true.
Juliet’s claim can be further dissected to exemplify the accuracy of her epistemology.
She describes Romeo as a rose. A rose is a thing that possesses many qualities within a specific variance: it has a root, a stem, leaves, and petals. It has a particular shape and petal arrangement, set colours, and a sweet aroma that Juliet highlights, and these are just the more obvious potential characteristics. It has a season of growth, a specific set of reproductive parts, chromosomes, and unique genetic material. Additionally, a rose is not just a thing with these traits, it is also defined by what it is not. A rose does not sprout wings and fly, it does not hunt buffalo, it does not breastfeed its young, and it does not do a million other things. Knowing or establishing what a category includes and excludes assists us in identifying its essence.
Will a rose still smell as sweet if we were to give it another name? It depends on which standards we are applying, and whether it is the name or the thing to which we are applying them. In this instance, Juliet is referring to the thing, because she feels the name is simply a word used to describe the thing so that we can communicate effectively. This is why Romeo should be treated as an entity with his own traits and his own worth, not merely a Montague. If the thing is what we are referring to, then any name you give a rose will not eradicate its ‘roseness’, that is, the essence of that which makes it a rose.
It may not be called a rose, but the thing itself is not a plaything of human language, it cares not for what we call it, the configuration of its unique traits makes it what it is, regardless of any name by which we refer to it. Essentially, to be a particular type of thing is to embody that which makes it what it is. Describing a rose as a ‘shitlily’ would invite curious remarks about why such a sweet-smelling flower has such a foul name – we would not begin to believe it smells like feces. We know how to distinguish between smells.
Even once this is acknowledged, arguments persist about how the categories are established, what they include or exclude, and according to which methodology. This is the point where different epistemologies clash, each attempting to usurp the established categories so they may dictate knowledge. The scientific method was established precisely to address these situations, where universally-accessible methodologies that are reliable and reproducible can be used to formulate a picture of reality that we hope we can build on over time.
The traits of a rose were not perceived, they were discovered using modest tools of observation and verifiability. SCIENCE is an approach that brings us closer to the space between symbol and substance – the content of reality.
If Juliet, a 13-year-old fictional character recognized this, then what is your problem?
Then again, maybe it is because she is fictional that she ‘gets it.’
Posted: 25 Mar 2023
Effective Altruism
Utilitarianism pretending to be pragmatic and wise, which makes it like every other philosophy.
Do not trust philosophers.
Posted: 24 Mar 2023
Blank Slate
A concept conceived and adopted by those who fail to notice everything in reality simultaneously at every moment.
See: INTELLECTUALS
Posted: 24 Mar 2023
Anti-Fragility
The state of being human.
We are not all equally resilient, but none of us are fragile.
We become increasingly robust as we are challenged, tested and forged.
Fragility is a lie we tell ourselves and others to avoid having to be responsible for our emotional state.
Posted: 24 Mar 2023
7
A prime number of great symbolic significance that we most closely associate with gambling.
Prior to this annexation, the number seven was more commonly associated with religion, mythology, and various superstitions, often in ways that are compelling, regardless of whether we believe or not. We value stories, and they may be meta-true, even if they are not true in a literal sense.
Among these conceptualizations are the seven capital vices (also known as deadly sins) and their oppositional virtues. It is believed that we are all susceptible to the careless whispers of vice, and that humanity is defined in a sense by a struggle between the two. Traditionally, it is thought that the virtues were inaccessible to us without the assistance of God, hence the need for guidance from an orientation towards a transcendent object. The virtues are remedies for our tendency towards sin.
Whether we believe this or not, there is something to be acknowledged about the human proclivity to fall prey to self-destructive conduct that we rationalize and justify as normative. Even if we doubt the validity of the aspirational virtues, or if we believe them attainable irrespective of God, recognizing their value as countervailing precepts is a worthwhile endeavour. The seven vices and virtues are a meaningful attempt to articulate the Aristotelian position on happiness using religious ideals. This a perfectly valid approach because the substance of the claim, if we consider it worthwhile, remains fundamentally intact. It is a matter of debate whether we can achieve a state of virtuous embodiment, but this is unnecessary for the story to be meaningful. They need only compel pause by inviting an alternative to wayward conduct so that a balance may be struck.
The vices and virtues have historically undergone some changes, but the most commonly circulated list in modern times are as follows:
Lust – An intense desire for something, most often associated with sex.
Gluttony – The over-indulgence and over-consumption of things.
Greed – An uncontrolled longing for an increase in the acquisition or use of material gain.
Sloth – The habitual disinclination to work.
Envy – Lacking another’s quality, skill, possession, or position and desires it, or wishing the other lacked it.
Wrath – An uncontrolled anger in response to perceived provocation or harm.
Pride – The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one’s own importance.
It is interesting to see how many of these are not only prevalent in the modern technological era, but that they are actively encouraged, even celebrated. The celebration of pride in particular makes room for the others. We are pushed to engage in an unrestrained state of existence because we deserve it, apparently, because YOLO.
We appear to view limiting our indulgences as anathema to a good life at exactly the same time we are experiencing unprecedented levels of mental health disorders. All the crises of identity, self-harm and suicide must be caused by something else, and not by our completely unhinged, boundless, and obsessional self-perceptions. Surely.
All of these converge around a general theme: an absence of purposeful discipline. We do not need to be religious to respect the value of discipline, which is often misconstrued as obedience. Obedience is an occupied state where we follow rules because an authority deems it prudent, discipline is a regulated state that we impose upon ourselves to restrain our humanity because we respect the harm it can cause ourselves and others. Discipline drives individual adaptation.
The often-unexamined remedial virtues are:
Chastity – A demonstration of sexual restraint.
Temperance – moderation or voluntary self-restraint.
Charity – the love for another as we may love ourselves.
Diligence – carefulness and persistence in effort.
Kindness – acts of generosity and concern towards others without praise or reward.
Patience – the ability to endure difficult situations; to persevere.
Humility – a sense of unworthiness that recognizes the value of others above our own, freedom from pride and arrogance.
These are rarely discussed in modernity, and when they are, they are made POLITICAL. Each of these acts in direct opposition to special interests that demand hedonistic liberation without restraint. Many of these do not come naturally to us, but what were previously considered measures of voluntary discipline are now described as tools of oppression.
A more concise explanation for their lack of popularity in modernity is that people who embody these virtues are unfriendly to markets. If we control our sexual urges, if we temper our need for social acceptance, if we give more to others than we give to ourselves, if we control our impulses during difficult times and build resiliency, and if we do not perceive ourselves as worthy of everything without earning it, then industries make less money. They want us as undisciplined as possible so we will give them our attention and throw our money at them in hopes that they will make the pain go away. They encourage maladaptive behaviour by exploiting the vulnerabilities in our humanity. Governments dabble in this as well.
We need not believe in a God or gods to find value in a story about balance and equilibrium. Our struggle appears to be recognizing where we are on the spectrum.
In assessing our position relative to virtue and vice, if we have doubts, we need only look inside ourselves and ask: do my actions make me feel comfortable, stable, and in control of my happiness?
If not, then reduce excesses and increase discipline.
Moderation is adaptive, excesses are not.
See: INTELLECTUALS, PRIDE
Posted: 18 Mar 2023
0
The threshold between existence and non-existence; a special number.
Regardless of what we are measuring, there has to be a point where a deficit becomes surplus and vice versa. There is also a point where neither exists, or that they are at least impossible to measure or notice from our perspective.
The significance of 0 + 1 relative to 1 + 1 cannot be overstated. While it is true that one is being added in both situations, the former represents a transformation from nothing to something, while the latter is a doubling effect. Continuing to add one to subsequent numbers will produce increasingly smaller effects due to the diluting effect of a large pool, but all of these represent growth in a sense. But none of them replicate the existential distinction that occurs when zero is involved. Subtracting one until we reach zero has the opposite effect, except for now what previously existed has disappeared.
Systems where zero is common are environmentally unfriendly to us, because if we do not have options, then we cannot exploit a niche. Having even one niche available compared to zero is the difference between survival and death. The more options we have, the greater our capacity to find a niche that we can occupy in order to flourish. This is why freedom is so important, because the more options we all have, the greater the likelihood of success. Perhaps, it is for this reason that many seek to dictate the number of options we may access, and redistributions of ones and zeroes are frequently sought to balance equality, as though abstractions were commodities and abilities were transferable.
Regardless of how many options we have, none of them are as profound as zero. It represents a complete absence of opportunities, which weighs heavily on the soul, leading to demoralization and hopelessness. It is worth mentioning that simply because we perceive zero does not make it real, and we should be careful that we are not making justifications for our failure to exploit a niche because it is difficult or inconvenient.
Simply adding one changes everything, and this is especially true in competition. A complete absence of opposition or competition is considered a monopoly or tyranny, and both are actively sought by those who enjoy, or at least believe they can justify, dividing and conquering. Dividing by zero is generally not an option, because the armaments necessary to achieve this would produce a whole host of other problems that may compromise any temporary nullified state. Instead, ones are subtracted over time to get as close to zero as possible. This is not the same as being the most competitive business or effective government, as these entities do not actively interfere with the natural emergence of competitors, products, or views; they do not desire zero.
The stakes are extremely high when governance is involved, and lobbyists actively persuade representatives and bureaucrats to shape law and policy in the pursuit of zero. Authoritarians will direct centralized planning models to subtract ones over time, so ordinary citizens cannot embody their rights in a manner that competes with government orthodoxies. Consolidation and coalitions are welcomed by both public and private entities, because acting as a single interest expedites the math. These are not descriptions of competition; they are corruptions camouflaged as strategy.
If a system has reached zero, then ordinary citizens have no recourse. If we cannot freely enter the market, speak freely on any forum, move freely within our country, or make free choices about how we live our lives, then to whom do we file our grievance? The arbiter that hears our concerns shall be none other than the great subtractor. Unsurprisingly, they enjoy making it impossible to relieve them of their calculator until the next election, which they may considering subtracting as well.
We can learn a great deal about the character of elites be simply observing their math.
Addition fuels freedom, subtraction feeds slavery.
See: FREEDOM
Posted: 18 Mar 2023
Questions
To be avoided at all costs.
Exceedingly rare now that everyone knows everything.
There are two general types of questions:
Honest inquiries designed to illicit a useful or relevant response
Theatrical antecedents to formulated answers
The first has the potential to generate doubt to the audience, the latter does not – it is purely performative. As a result, the latter is preferred, especially by technocrats, who view honest inquiry as inefficient, especially when they already know the answer. Why ask questions when we have EXPERTS to guide us through every situation?
Currently, most questions are introduced so they can be eliminated and therefore removed from the realm of concern by someone who is paid to pretend they have all the answers. The availability of unlimited facts that can produce an unlimited number of absolute answers that may be claimed is all the technocrat needs.
In such civilizations, memory is not highly regarded. Right answers which turn out to be wrong are simply replace with a new formula. The result of these sequential truths is an assertive or declarative society which admires neither reflection nor doubt and has difficulty with the idea that to most questions there are many answers, none of them absolute and few of them satisfactory except in a limited way.(1)
The free exchange of ideas that inevitably produce doubt and unanswered questions is unacceptable.
We would rather have a wrong answer than an dangling question.
We are addicted.
Posted: 17 Mar 2023
(1) Saul, John Ralston, 1994, The doubter’s companion: a dictionary of aggressive common sense, Penguin Books Canada Ltd
Fried Chicken
Ambrosia that preserves our mortality and humanity.
The most delicious unifier, it is consumed wherever fowl are found, spanning many countries and most continents. While it may be prepared in various ways, the desired outcomes are identical: crispy, crunchy, juicy, and flavourful.
A humbling dish that requires getting our hands dirty to consume it properly, as we bite, scrape and suck around bones in plain view of our guests.
When we eat fried chicken, we permit others to glimpse our true face: greasy and vulnerable.
See: MODEST
Posted: 17 Mar 2023
YOLO
A motto for mundane conduct.
Often uttered and yelled immediately before doing something risky or self-destructive, as though these are the sorts of experiences that define a live worth living.
‘You only live once’ is meant to infer that this journey is singular and fleeting, and as such, we ought to dedicate our lives to pursuing the most meaningful experiences that permit us to justify our existence to ourselves. This wisdom is at least two thousand years old, however like many things, it became a pop cultural product when a rapper turned it into an anachronistic novelty. As a result, it is most frequently used as a justification for fleeting and mindless conduct, like spending money on things we do not need, following trends, or consuming far more food or alcohol than would be wise on a given day. Something has clearly been lost in translation.
What was once an invitation to disperse existential dread and regret has been replaced with whatever reduces our anxiety or makes us feel good. These are not comparable modalities.
Instead of welcoming the difficult challenges that define a life worth living, we seek to remove difficulties, because why should anyone need to do hard things when easy alternatives exist? Instead of conquering our fears, we have fallen victim to the mistaken belief that the world can be made free of threats, and we characterize everything as harmful to justify its elimination. Instead of overcoming odds, we seek to flatten all curves while we pretend that we accomplished something meaningful after we are handed it. Instead of pursuing greatness, we settle for compulsive inadequacies. Instead of making noteworthy accomplishments, we catalogue our benign activities in the hopes that their totality will count for something in the end. And instead of leaving a lasting impression of warmth and inspiration in the world, we compete with one another in a race to the bottom of human ingratitude and guilt.
Those who live their lives to the fullest because they genuinely believe ‘you only live once’ are busy pursuing greatness, whatever this looks like. They seek to be consequential.
Those who claim ‘you only live once’ to justify their maladaptive proclivities have given up on life, and are encouraging others to do the same. They revel in their inconsequential existence.
“We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that the Devil will tremble to take us.” - Charles Bukowski
Do you give the devil pause? Or do you welcome his hand?
See: HUBRIS
Posted: 17 Mar 2023
Thought Reform
Sanctioned re-education mandated by those with authority and facilitated by school boards and human resource departments.
The intention is clearly marked by the fact that they are always mandatory, never voluntary.
Explicitly anti-pluralist.
Designed to converge minds into homogeneity, despite what is on the box. Looking different may be welcome, but different views are not only unacceptable, they are hateful.
A social engineering project famously utilized in Maoist China that victimizes individuals, who are assumed dissident, to promote an ideology that is assumed morally superior and necessary.
Includes awareness and unconscious bias training, environmental, social and governance schemes (ESG), sustainability plans, and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. It is worth noting that each of these are minor conjugations of socialist and fascist orthodoxies.
The implications of such courses are that our current perspectives or states of existence are either insufficient or unacceptable, and in order to become an acceptable citizen or employee, it is necessary that a half-baked ACTIVIST condescendingly espouse ideological talking points to a room of adults. Our views are outdated or obsolete, and we run the risk of being left behind when the progress train leaves the station (it is often sold in this way). We are being done a courtesy, a favour.
In truth, it is a direct assault on free thought and expression; an act of war on the individual, and in war, there are casualties.
Unsurprisingly, these tactics are prevalent under every authoritarian regime. The consequences for disobedience are different, but the methodology is identical. Instead of being killed outright, we are shamed by proponents, and our peers are encouraged to distance themselves for fear that our sin of free thought become contagious. In lieu of physical violence, character assassination and employment ransom have become the tools of leverage. Authoritarians have learned that they do not need to bloody their hands to be effective - ruining someone’s life is just as easy.
The logic is that everyone is already guilty, and their purpose is to have us recognize our guilt. It is functionally different than original sin, because it does not accuse us of being innately guilty. Rather, it is the fact that we exist within a particular system that has condemned us. During these courses, participants are expected to acknowledge or confess their crimes against the ideology. This can include mere complicity in a system that is antithetical to the prescribed social or cultural ethos, according solely to the ideology, of course. We have participated in the system by default, and so we are guilty be default. It is often lost on the speaker that they have also participated in the system, and so it is common for an incredible amount of contrived language and argumentation to emerge as a justification for their position as the bearer of the good news.
Thought reform is designed to supplement education that ideologues believe was insufficient to produce an ETHICAL and progressive citizen. This re-education attempts to change us so that we can change our communities, workplaces, and eventually, the world. Participants often feel demoralized after attending these courses, because the purpose is not to understand one another, rather it is to change us based on the inference that we are not good enough. Purveyors of such courses are aware of this outcome, and it is generally acceptable in regimes that force its citizens to participate. If we do not adopt the faith, then we will at least be compelled to pretend as though we do, while we live in fear of challenging it openly due to the possible consequences.
Discussions may arise during such courses, but these are simply to give the illusion of an honest brokering. The speaker may even invite disagreement, but it never seriously considered. This is because these courses are not designed to investigate claims, they exist to educate us about them, so that we can better.
We are urged to be part of the future, or else.
Whether through faith or through fear, the outcome is achieved: obedience.
Posted: 16 Mar 2023
Lorax, The
A fictional character that claims to speak for the silenced or unheard.
Essentially, a grifter.
A variety of allegedly altruistic ACTIVIST who pursues the interests of others over their own. They have ascribed themselves sainthood, looking after the downtrodden and marginalized. This renders them immune from criticisms of self-interest, albeit human motivations are often more complicated than they appear. What is it that compels someone to fight on another’s behalf rather than their own? It is often the case that those who speak for others end up far wealthier and more affluent than those they profess to speak on behalf of. What a strange outcome for those who claimed self-sacrifice over self-interest.
In the original story by Dr. Seuss, the Lorax speaks for the trees - immobile organisms absent a voice but who are ultimately an integral part of a complex ecosystem. This is a poignant message; however, trees are inadequate proxies for humans. In 1971, when the book was published, this was a far more relevant commentary. In the modern technological age, especially in the Western world, we have never been louder.
Many people are still in need to be sure, but who is better at advocating for our interests: us or someone else? It is tempting to permit others to speak for us, especially if we glean some benefits in the wake of their crusade. We are gaining advantage while contributing nothing ourselves; this is a good deal!
The fundamental issue with this concessional arrangement is that we have become a bystander in how we are perceived by others. Due to our implied support of the saint, we are reduced to a supporter, not an individual with their own mind and interests. We shall become associated with whatever the speaker proclaims, whether we like it or not. Our silence will be perceived by others as complicity for whatever our representative advocates. We are no longer autonomous; we are part of a collective.
While some may accept this strategy, it will not generally guide us towards a life defined by accomplishment and a sense of purpose - these have been co-opted by the Lorax. They will achieve notoriety and luxury while our hope and obedience is leveraged. If the Lorax is the only voice heard, then they will receive the spoils - they are not known to share.
If we can speak for ourselves, then we should never let another do so on our behalf. We are our best advocates, and if we do not believe ourselves capable, then we should find ways to improve.
No one has our best interests in mind but us.
No one should think or speak for us.
No one should be our Lorax.
Posted: 14 Mar 2023
Useful Idiots
Collectivists that are available for purchase at discount prices.
The first ones executed after they have served their purpose.
The opposite of a REBEL.
See: ALLEGIANCE
Posted: 13 Mar 2023
Xenoglossy
An accurate description of most conversations in the internet age.
Generally used to describe a paranormal phenomenon; the supernatural is no longer necessary for its incidence.
We are bombarded with academic theories, buzzwords, novel concepts, obscure references, ideological rhetoric, jargon, trendy slang, and political correctness daily. We want to be perceived as having something to say in an era where everyone is expected to have an opinion on everything. As a result, we enthusiastically integrate these terms into our discourse in the hopes that others will find us relevant and informed about current affairs.
It is as though the words inexplicably entered our vocabulary out of thin air followed by a compulsion to share them.
Most exchanges involve the use of terminology that we do not understand, but that we may know enough about to use correctly in certain contexts. Because others do not understand the phenomenon either, they nod their head in agreement so that both parties can continue the charade.
Stringing prescribed terms together and using foreign language has replaced real knowledge. There are more conversations taking place now than in any other time in history, and less is being said. This is because words alone do not convey something real, rather, it is their deliberate and carefully considered context, purpose and substance that send a meaningful message.
Words do not speak for themselves, we do. Words are merely catalysts.
Sophisticated language does not magically imbue us with expertise – it is the prioritization of style over substance.
See: INFORMATION
Posted: 13 Mar 2023
Xenogogue
Someone who tasks themselves to keep us apprised about things we already know.
A burgeoning mind who basks in the novelty of their own self-discovery yet remains confused about the fact it preceded them.
These tour guides believe that prior to their adoption of a view, it did not exist, and so it is imperative that they share their pristine knowledge through dictates and scorn.
Extremely common in the modern technological era, where the internet has convinced everyone that they know everything.
Everything was foreign to us until we heard it from you.
See: HUBRIS, SMARTPHONE
Posted: 13 Mar 2023