By Naresh Jotwani for the Saker Blog
From time to time, certain self-promoting “brainy” people come up with complicated theories about how the world should be organized and run. One imagines that such people dislike doing real work for a living – and grandiose theorizing proves to be an irresistibly tempting gig, with many perks.
Such a theory gets labelled as “something-ism”, such as “liberalism”, “monetarism”, “capitalism”, “Marxism”, “socialism” and so on. While our aim is to unmask the fraud of “liberalism”, a few comments about all such “…isms” are in order. In a fundamental sense, all these are birds of a feather.
[Note that “patriotism” is an honourable exception to the discussion here – because it refers not to a theory, but to love of one’s country!]
Any “…ism” should be analyzed critically. Why? Because, at some point, inevitably, the dictates of any “…ism” will be at variance with one’s own best judgement and even one’s own conscience. Any “…ism” becomes dogma even before the ink is dry, so to speak, on its first print. The dogma then becomes a weapon in the hands of self-appointed high priests of the “…ism”.
Why do “brainy” but otherwise unwise people come up with “…isms”?
The usual claim made by the “brainy” ones is that – if all goes as theorized, which of course it never does! – adherence to the dogma will be good for the society, or for mankind, or for the world … or something equally vague.
All such claims are delusional and/or deliberately deceptive. The proponents usually go to great lengths to pose as being “brainy”, but they are not wise.
By definition, an “…ism” is something other than truthful, deep-rooted individual judgement; therefore unthinking adherence to it deadens truthful individual judgement. It is that simple. Can the snuffing out of truthful individual judgement ever be good for anyone, or for the society? No! Never! Indeed it is fundamentally wrong, immoral. It is the murder of truth.
But, as we shall see below, the business of “…isms” is hugely profitable. More accurately, “…isms” become business tactics of greedy money-monsters.
The modus operandi of the high priests of any “…ism” involves non-stop propaganda. As long as the “…ism” can be drummed into the minds of gullible multitudes, the high priests can harvest the illegitimate fruits of their devilish cunning. In other words, the whole enterprise is that of exploiting multitudes by cruelly messing with their world-view.
Deng Xiao Peng was smart. He said, “It doesn’t matter what colour is the cat, as long as it catches mice”. The meaning is very clear: Our focus should be on real-world, sensible objectives – and not on what is being hawked vociferously but dishonestly as “the only means” of achieving well-being in society.
If a society makes the mistake of confusing “voodoo” means with sensible societal goals, then the high priests of “voodoo” – vultures in disguise! – will rob the society of its material wealth, dignity, self-esteem and culture.
A magician distracts his audience by waving one hand, while the out-of-sight other hand performs a deceptive “magical” act. The high priests of an “…ism” distract people with mumbo-jumbo of dogma, while sucking them dry.
The cry of “Suck’em dry!” is followed in time by “Alright, who’ll be next?”
A crucial point to note is that all such newbie “…isms” are malicious, deadly challenges to older, traditional faith-based cultures. Unless the culture in question perceives clearly the challenge, and devises a winning response to it, the culture is doomed; events in Ukraine are an example of the process.
[See the article by F. William Engdahl entitled “An American Oligarch’s Dirty Tale of Corruption”. The oligarch in question is George Soros; at Davos, he was very recently heard whining about “the end of our civilization”. The response can only be: “That is an end devoutly to be wished for!”.]
***
“Liberalism” is a perfect and glaring example of the processes outlined, and we shall now pick up the discussion from Part 1. In fact “liberalism” is only the latest mutation of the “…ism” virus that has been plaguing humanity.
The enterprise of “liberalism” requires copious amount of money. In any honest economic enterprise, the entrepreneurs put in their own equity. However, in the utterly dishonest enterprise of “liberalism”, the “high priests” contrive to seed the profitable business with the victims’ own money; that is, the hapless victims bear even the initial capital cost of the enterprise.
The above diagram gives a broad overview of the financial skullduggery involved in the “liberal” political/business enterprise.
Wealth must be made to flow from hard-working people – the true wealth creators – towards greedy money-monsters. The means employed to achieve these wealth flows must be made to appear “legal”, because the “high priests” use the cover of “legality” for their merciless deeds. Taxes, debt and liabilities pushed to future generations – that is, societal debt – are the “legal” means.
For every greedy money-monster, there are millions of simple, hard-working people in a society. These can be squeezed steadily, relentlessly – while non-stop propaganda tells them that what they are doing is good for society or country. Expenditure on PR, police et cetera is a tiny fraction of the money raked in; that is, the operating margins in this enterprise are huge.
***
So where does our typical drawing room / classroom, tousled-hair “liberal” fit into this political / business enterprise of “liberalism”?
We shall consider for the present only the well-meaning, truly deluded “liberal” – one who has swallowed hook, line and sinker the PR hype of the “high priests of liberalism”.
[The other kind of “liberal” is a cunning, cynical cheat, who has seen through the scam but plans to profit hugely from it, and even dreams of becoming a “high priest” himself one day. As we shall see, the puppet masters of all “liberals” know very well which puppet will dance to which tune.]
The typical truly deluded, well-meaning “liberal” is an academic, or perhaps a scientist / techie or physician, intelligent, with excellent “people skills”. Things are going well for the person. A “liberal” pose is necessary because, as he would say himself, “One must do one’s bit for humanity, you know!”. The “liberal” pose is needed as a finishing touch to the personality; one more feather in the cap, so to speak, to be used for self-promotion.
Truly deluded “liberals” are the best possible useful idiots for the “high priests of liberalism”. The rewards may be monetary, or they may take the form of fame, celebrity, professional opportunities and so on. These are the “liberals” one meets often, and even engages in well-meaning discussions – but only to discover that the discussions lead nowhere. A loose structure of arguments is presented stylishly, but sustainable understanding is absent.
I have felt the same way about “ism”s as well as “ist”s. Colonial Global Agenda. The “ism” or “ist” matters only for the use of division, while the pyramid awaits the final top stone placement, which in their delusions, is complete. Since I’m a fish, in the fishbowl, maybe it is complete & I’m the one deluded? Excellent article, thank you for posting. More to think about.
“Any ‘…ism’ should be analyzed critically. Why? Because, at some point, inevitably, the dictates of any “…ism” will be at variance with one’s own best judgement and even one’s own conscience.”
Yes, I agree. We (myself included) ought to look in the mirror. Below is an excerpt from the site’s “moderation policy” — just one of 22 rules. We should not hesitate to self-criticize. What we call a “moderation policy” is a censorship policy — “moderation” is a euphemism.
=====
20) I am now also banning any advocacy of the following ideologies: 1) National-Socialism (Nazism, Fascism) 2) Wahabism (Takfirism) 3) Zionism (rabbinical “Judaism”, aka “Phariseism”) and 4) Latin Christianity (Papism, including the propaganda of the so-called “Marian apparitions” including the Fatima hoax) 5) Wokeness in all its forms 6) Homopride in all its forms. These are all messianic ideologies with a fantastic propensity (and, I would argue, a proven record) for deception and violence.
/moderation-policy/
=====
“Zionism (rabbinical “Judaism””
As we understand here, Zionism is atheist
– In its early days Zionism came into fierce conflict with religious Jewry. The Zionists rejected religious submissiveness; the religious saw the atheist attempt to create a secular Jewish state as blasphemy.
A nonreligious Jewish identity is antithetical to a religious definition of Jewishness. This fact presents an irreconcilable contradiction between the religious and secular streams in the Jewish community. Theodore Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and many other leading Zionists were non-believers who actively sought to reformulate the basis for Jewish existence on race and territorial nationalism.
https://rense.com/general68/releig.htm
Zionism and Nazism may be two faces of the same coin. Eugenics and imperialism for Germans and Ashkenazi/non-semetic Jews. Hitler helped Rothschild establish a population in Israel by paying for relocation of German Jews to Israel in the Tranfer Agreement of 1933. Rothschild ever drummed up racial rension against Jews abroad to encourage settlement to his new vassal state. So yes. Ashkenazi Zionism has taken over Semitic Judaism. Just as Zionsim has destroyed Christianity. I am searching for a new church – Anyone know of a local “Church of Israel did 911?”
” What we call a “moderation policy” is a censorship policy”.
Not only.
It is also a the-moderator-knows-more-than-you-and is-qualified-to-“moderate” policy which is a widespread belief in coercive social relations such as “The United States of America”, facilitating their sustainability and lateral processes of unsustainability simultaneously.
“moderation” is a euphemism.”
and a euphemism is a misrepresentation, whilst misrepresentation is one of the facilities and purposes of blogs.
“all such newbie “…isms” are malicious, deadly challenges to older, traditional faith-based cultures.”
Now we see your own ‘ism’.
Great!
Now please do take the trouble to analyze it critically. Please do not buy into it just because somebody said so.
If one wants to know about how “social justice” culture and malfeasant governmental action destroy “ability” culture and societal and economic prosperity, onemust read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Written in 1956, it is much more prophetic about what is currently going on in Western economies and societies currently than when it was written. But beware — the novel doesn’t have a happy ending.
Regarding Americans today have little wish to return to low paid work – after 2 years of “pensioning”.
As Ayn Rand told us.
Engdahl’s article referred to above can be found at:
https://niek1953.wordpress.com/2021/02/10/the-hidden-puppetmaster-behind-the-2014-ukraine-coup/
In other words, a theory on ISMS may be a brainy conceptualism, a mere skullianism, and a last minute reductionism BUT all three of these latter “ISMS” of course is not comprised nor included within the author’s theory.
However, the rest of the isms in the world is.
But above all, r e m e m b e r that the conceptual construction of any idea about the nature of ‘ISMS’ is undoubtedly something I can call a Theoreticism.
A disingenuous take. Jotwani sounds like Marx. “Hard working workers” need to be told what to assemble. Many of the “elites” are actually entrepreneurs who started with nothing. There is no neat line dividing the two.
Stop blaming others for your ills.
There are billionaires who started with own money, but more billionaires who started with others money, and who don’t own their billions, according to Kameran Faily.
If you become a millionaire, and are independent of the elite, you are likely to be bankrupted, og just killed like John McAfee?
Nah entrepreneurs are counted among the workers, which Austrians would call the “productive class”. The parasite class are the too big to fail fat cats, politicians, bureaucrats and other negative sum ghouls.
http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/article.php3?id_article=161
Our real government has effectively been almost totally taken over behind the scenes by the prolonged triumphant application of the methods of organized crime. Deep State Shadow Governments, or fascist plutocracy, results after murder and fraud are added to capitalism. There is actually nothing remotely close to “free markets” in the real world, and all the other various ideologies, or “isms,” become nothing more than bullshit in the context of the reality of fascist plutocracy. The history of the funding of the political processes was domination by a tiny wealthy minority. The changes in the laws, in response to past scandals, have restricted that somewhat, but not changed what was already accomplished through those means in the past. The already actually established systems are runaway fascist plutocracy, while the continuing pattern is for a tiny minority to fund all the politics, while the overwhelming vast majority do nothing. …
Those trends of society controlled by professional liars and hypocrites were then astronomically amplified by technologies that have become a new kingdom of life, leaving human beings behind, since the actual systems are operated by numbers which are NUTS, since those numbers are the result of loop after loop of fraudulence, getting totally tangled up to the point where no group of human beings fully understand the systems that they made anymore. None of the old “isms” or ideological labels are useful anymore. Therefore, all of the theories of economics should be regarded with the same approach as archaeology, which can help understand how the current runaway insane systems were originally developed, but no longer are able to explain the absurdities that have finally resulted from automated fraudulence, backed by atomic bombs, etc. …
Thanks for posting my previous comment.
Here is a link to a one minute video, which was a campaign statement I made back in 2019. At the end, I stated that the single most dangerous thing being done by the Canadian government was demonizing Russia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJajknkF8cM
It is no fun being right.
Liberalism is basically the framework by which certain greedy people in the Christian world got around the previous prohibition on usury. And now usury runs the de-Christianized West.
First time I see Lenin characterised as a “Zionist”. Where is the justification for that, any sources?
The Bolsheviks are obvious Zionists. It is observed the old (wealthy) Bolshevik quarters in Moscow today are voting Liberal.
Something new to me was a Swede telling telephone company LM Ericsson worked together with the Bosheviks (to surveil political opposition … i.e. the Whites+). I would expect LM Ericsson to work against the Bolsheviks.
Howdy on June 01, 2022 · at 11:44 am EST/EDT
Lenin characterised as a “Zionist”. Where is the justification for that
kjell108 on June 01, 2022 · at 1:27 pm EST/EDT
The Bolsheviks are obvious Zionists.
‘Obvious’ is a suspicion word. Destroys the value of any argument and is beter never to use it.
Ontology versus epistomology
It was the Russian Khazarians who was the tool for taking down the Tsar … not that different from using minorities in Indochina against the Communists, or using the Kurds against the Syrian government / Iraqi government / Iranian goverment.
Lenin was a Khazarian according to Wikipedia – on mother side.
Lenin stayed so long in Europa he became a foreigner = he did not represent the Slavs, more Western interests. Trotsky is same type.
Substitute “Western interests” with “Western values”.
And Mao Zedong represents “Western values”. Isn’t that peculiar? We find the Maoists in West and CIA are also heavily Maoists (?)
The essence of Leninism is to organize a centralized political army. It has nothing to do with Das Kapital. Now we are into intelligence operations.
Many Zionists are atheistic secular or religious jews trying to fulfill the Old Testament cultural belief of establishing a kingdom based on Jerusalem (Zion) which their Messiah would elevate to be a world-ruling kingdom eg Isaiah 2.
Communism included many secular atheistic Jews and more Gentiles attempting to establish an atheistic man-made worldwide kingdom supposedly based on scientific principles. Marx and Engels were their prophets.They attempted to do this by their own brains and the gun and settled old scores with the Russian Orthodox church in the process. It ended in tears.
In this abstract !imited sense only can Lenin be called a “Zionist”, it seems to me.
The empire of “David Star” (the 6 pointed star used by Israel, that is not “David Star”)
http://halfapage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/640px-Khazaria750.png
Approximately between 650 and 1048, the Eastern European region between and around the Black Sea and Caspian Sea was home to a powerful empire called Khazaria.
This is Lenin’s ethnical origin
– Khazaria’s importance was also due to its strategic location. It controlled many important
trading routes between Asia and Europe. http://halfapage.com/khazaria-king-david/
Lenin’ background are the historical “globalists”. The early Globalists plundered Latin American for gold (they labeled themselves as “Knights Templar”).
https://www.surfertoday.com/images/stories/santamaria.jpg
Looking for Gold in Latin America
Sorry but even “patriotism” is an ‘-ism’ because it rests on the illusion/myth that you are what you are by virtue of your accidental birth circumstances. You won a birth “lottery” and are therefore to identify with arbitrary political borders that change ceaselessly throughout history? That is pure narrative as destructive as any other political ideological narrative. No, the truly free and independent man is he who also abandons this “love of country.”
George Friedman agree with Naresh Jotwani here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eovIYNFopgw
Party division will typical be Religion or own Profession (economy) or Ethnicity (nationalism).
People are of course loyal to those who pay their rent, that will be company or state. Then we have the alternative doctors, who have no company, and are not paid by state mostly. They are the freethinkers.
This whole conversation is a criticism of the activity of the spiritually (psychologically) un-situated intellect. For which the modern West is notorious. Another way of saying this is this whole conversation is a discussion of the distortion produced by the activity of minds unsupported by wisdom.
There exists in the modern “Liberal” West a funny belief that the rational mind is the highest organ of human consciousness. It is false. It is a sick Faustian belief that is based on denial. The highest organ of human consciousness is the understanding within the human soul. The human soul has the capacity to be illuminated by truth and receive wisdom. In this natural state it over lights and governs the application of intellect, or mind.
The real function of any healthy culture is to facilitate individuals inclination to bring this about.
However the rulers of the West can be noted for using all of their cultural resources to protect their over developed ego-minds from the truths that can be found in the human soul, and human natural life. Can we notice how in the modern bourgeois West the life of the soul is shoved into the background, denigrated and “scientifically” discredited? In the West the soul is “cancelled.” What is left is the pseudo supremacy of the mind. Which just loves to play all by itself with “isms’.
Entrapment within “isms” is a Western mind disease. It is bourgeois egoism. And it rules the universities.
There is a wise saying; The mind can be a great servant but it makes a terrible master. The mind’s true role is to be a servant of the higher wisdom of the soul and the natural life of the body. When it presumes to become the master life becomes out of balance, distortion ensues and much evil is manifest. What I see the author here as saying is that the disaster of ‘isms’ results from this collapse of natural wisdom into purely intellect. A Western disease if ever there was one.
Ism’s, in the sense meant here, refers to the unaided mind or intellect presuming to take charge of ideas, beliefs and interpretation of values and then promulgating them on a purely intellectual level without recourse to deeper understand in natural life and the soul. That is what happens when a culture is deprived of a functional working philosophical basis. Or a creatively working religion that addresses the real psychological needs of the people. The story of the modern West in a nutshell.
Capitalism is an “ism” and “liberalism” is an “ism” – it is from these two highly influential Western sources that the whole universe of pure ungrounded intellect (devoid of spiritual content) takes flight. So anything, no matter how sound, can be interpreted on a purely intellectual level and then distorted into an “ism.”
“Ism’s” are linguistic codes for minds talking to each other, and then thinking that all that is happening is just intellect. What naturally follows is accumulated distortion and then degeneration steps in as the mind traps itself into defining a thing by its distortion of that thing. Once that is done the alienation and hatred builds up.
So let’s get our magician’s hats on and manipulate and control every human by keeping them trapped in their heads. Then we have them alienated and fearful of each other.
This site has come up with a beauty that I find highly entertaining. And usefully to the point. “Marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals.”
Well yes of course it can be – if that person confines his engagement with the issue to purely intellect. But that is saying more about the posture of the individual involved than Marxism itself. There are other and far more productive ways to engage with social-“ism” than confining it exclusively to intellect.
Some here may even be tempted to condemn Feminism as just another wicked “ism” – Well again it is more a question of how one relates to it than the issue itself. It can be just an ego trip of someone’s mind or it can stem from a deeper and richer source – It is all really a question of how much of the human’s authentic energy is being brought forward, and how it is related to others.
Zan. Are you subscribing to Pop-Nihilism in saying your birth time and place and parenting was accidental? Many religions of the world stumble upon the same perennial discovery that we reincarnate and that this is a soul school.
The additional pop-worship of the individual and erasure of your culture is convenient – if you are an immigrant fieldhand.
Identity of any kind, whether derived from birth circumstances or from ideology, is pure narrative and contrived. The self is what it is by virtue of its relationships with ALL circumstances and beings. To fixate on place of birth is to exclude the infinity of factors that crafted you.
” No, the truly free and independent man is he who also abandons this “love of country.”
So an ” intelligent ” free Russian shouldn’t defend his country, shouldn’t care if it gets invaded, shouldn’t care if its economy is taken over by foreigners, and so forth. After all, him being Russian is an accident of birth and borders are arbitrary lines on the map. You must be the one world government type , correct ?
The intelligent and free man has no country to defend. His “kingdom” is of “heaven.”
After all, ALL countries and national borders/cultures die. All of them, without exception. The Nation is no more permanent than a sand castle. Nobody in his right mind would fight to the death to defend a sand castle….so to do so for a bundle of invisible lines (borders) is pointless.
Zan, The enlightened person has also to be enlightened to the fact that the vast majority of people on the planet are going about their lives with very different concerns weighing heavily on their minds. It is a long journey from point A to point B, and few are able to make it. Tips on how to tackle the journey are at least as useful as a description of the final destination.
I’m liking it, especially the introduction of the litmus test you named “sustainable understanding” at the end.
Like ideas which withstand deep analysis without requiring rescue or protection by dishonest conversational or literary warfare.
The space is flooded by intellectual terrorists, whose aim is not to win arguments for sake of raising insights, but by laying land mines to destroy any rational forum activity.
I like that standard, “sustainable understanding”. I look forward to more details.
I’ve always considered scientists and techie people to be socially awkward unless among their own. These people operate within defined structures, advancing age old tried and tested theories and get their kicks through a microscope. Half may strive for fame, knowing only a brilliant dedicated few will receive the plaudits. I’d say this is earned, well earned. The charlatans among them are the drug companies and the Theranos’ (Elizabeth Holmes; has that c*nt been sentenced yet?). I’m not talking about the chemists who make the drugs but the consultants and vultures who finance the ‘operation’ lobbying xyz cheap politician to blow their trumpet.
I’m from the IT culture. You are mostly correct. I’m particularly well read in terms a breadth and spend a lot of time pondering the nature of society, but from conversation with colleagues they are in general very limited in understanding, not just outside tech, but also within it. Very few people in IT even have broad skills in IT. They are often like cooks who specialize in peeling just potatoes.
The bulk of people in IT are not even big bang awkward \ misfits, in fact very few are. I grew up in tech. I could code when I was 9, and every step of the way was ahead of the pack. I’m now 50 and what I see is people in IT who must wonder why they are even there, except the money is good, and they probably can’t afford to leave. Try and talk about the relationships between sociology arising from psychology arising from reproductive necessity and you’ll be lucky to find 1 in 1000 who could even participate in the discussion in a meaningful way.
I’m utterly alone in IT. Don’t look to tech for any contribution to the article above :(
Very well formulated. I guess it can be expanded to many kind of experts, like military experts … btw. Big Bang is a favorite in my place
Liberalism is a variant of Marxism, i,e, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
The fundamental problem with that maxim is that there is far more ‘need’ than ‘ability’ in the world.
The able, who eventually tire of serving the endless needs of others, eventually give up and everyone becomes poor.
“It doesn’t matter what colour is the cat, as long as it catches mice”.
“The commanding heights of the economy”
Those two statements encapsulate my thinking on economic matters. Deng was correct in that what you call an economic structure isn’t as important as whether that structure is fulfilling the purpose it needs to. Which in China’s case was to grow the economy.And improve the wealth of the country,and the peoples living standards.
While Lenin was correct in that there are natural monopolies that the state must hold in an economy to make sure that those function well for all the people. Not just a few wealthy oligarchs.Such in my opinion are public utilities, natural resources, national transportation (i.e.highways,railroads,airlines),banks, communication,internet, and sectors relating to foreign and domestic trade. While the other parts of an economy,might be guided in the Chinese manner by the state. But in the main they can/should be left to private enterprise. Basically I see the Chinese system as a form of the early Soviet New Economic Policy (NEP),only with Chinese characteristics.
It’s my fervent hope that if Glaznev can convince Putin to allow Russia’s economy to adopt those principals. Then Russia too can see some of the huge economic advances that China has made by following a similar path.
Almost all communication is an attempt at moving your idea’s\thoughts in to another persons head. Thus, almost all communications are manipulations. Almost all manipulations are an attempt to get a person to act outside his natural moral compass of family\self.
The family is isms (including almost all of patriotisms) is an attempt to get other to do what is not in their own best interests, typically with an altruistic marketing’s strategy, but usually just as a system of power centralization where the centralization locus is on the people selling the ism.
Ergo, my view is that any information which is foreign to the self is either offered up to be selected as ‘best for self’ or has marketing attached and should be immediately distrusted. A key marker of all ism scams is centralized control. Even a rampaging mob usually has the loud voices.
I am a man. I follow my ethical instincts and exert control over my surroundings through willpower and hard work. I bow to no authority or god and subscribe to no political ideology or party. Imagine a world of people like me. Chaos or Civilized? You can have an opinion, but it won’t affect mine.
“Almost all communication is an attempt at moving your idea’s\thoughts in to another persons head. Thus, almost all communications are manipulations. Almost all manipulations are an attempt to get a person to act outside his natural moral compass of family\self.”
You describe a trend illustrating and predicated upon particular coercive social relations sometimes misrepresented as “The United States of America”.
“I follow my ethical instincts and exert control over my surroundings through willpower and hard work.”
Immersion in that illusion is a function of “socialisation” within “The United States of America” that there is no society, as asserted by a deceased ideologue of “The United States of America” – Mrs. Margaret Thatcher – “There is no society, only individuals and families”.
“Chaos or Civilized?”
These are ideological constructs – Chaos being a construct applied to things we do not understand akin to the construct of “infinity”, whilst civilised is a construct applied to those like “us”.
“You can have an opinion, but it won’t affect mine.”
The ignorance of opponents affords opportunities to others with facility to transcend these opponents with their complicity as force multiplier.
So let me thank you for your service.
Carl Jung once observed that “isms are the viruses of our age”
“By definition, an “…ism” is something other than truthful, deep-rooted individual judgement; therefore unthinking adherence to it deadens truthful individual judgement. It is that simple.”
Not really simple.
The confidence (belief) tricks lie in neither defining nor practicising the “ism”, thereby encouraging others to subliminally define the “ism” upon pre-judgements,then interpret this as being the definition held/meant by those evangelising the “ism”, and consequently criticise practices of the “ism” which diverge from their belief/interpretation of the “ism”, thereby practicing Mr. Rove’s We are an Empire routine – we are an empire, we create our own reality to which others react (emulatively/linearly), thereby hopefully not posing an existential threat to the “ism” since the critics are “engaged” in activities which facilitate the sustainability of the “ism”.
“The Soviet Union” used this routine in respect of “communism” – a component of why “The Soviet Union” was not sustainable facilitating its ongoing transcendence by The Russian Federation, partly through the telling of as much of the “truth” as is possible in context by representatives of the Russian Federation and the reactions of others in not believing them, preferable to the misrepresentations of others such as Mr. Brezhnev replacing “communism” by “present existing socialism” without defining it, and the reactions of others in not believing him, since his audience was “presently existing”.
In respect of “The United States of America” the “ism”’s relied upon are often deriviatives of “dumbism” predicated upon “we the people hold these truths to be self-evidentism” facilitated and sustained by “anti-intellectualism” which research suggests was significantly less prevalent in “The Soviet Union”.
This is an astute observation. What you write seems quite plausible. The “high priests” know very well that their public projection of the “ism” is no more than cunning means to increase wealth and power. Their focus is only on wealth and power, and they dupe believers, non-believers and bystanders alike. A clear definition of the “ism” may indeed become a hindrance to them. So why bother with clear definitions?
“So why bother with clear definitions?”
via
“This is an astute observation.”
“bothering” is a function of purpose and facility, as is research based on rigourously evaluated implementations, hence not restricted to “observation” or including “omniscience”.
” A clear definition of the “ism” may indeed become a hindrance to them.”
That has been understood by would-like-to-be-“hegemons” – hegemony being a state which can never exist in any lateral endeavour and hence being not precisely defined – since at least “the organisation” of agriculture, facilitated by the belief in “hegemons” as protection against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune through we the people hold these truths to be self-evidentness, to the hopes of we-don’t-have-to-worryness, trust me I’m an Americanism.
“Their focus is only on wealth and power”
You are mistaken likely as a function of your limited facilities in research/implementation/research.
To some power is the focus and always has been.
Wealth is the focus for those continuing to appear in Hello magazine; hence why the outcomes of the meeting in the Kremlin in Moscow in March 2000, including but not limited to the metamorphosis of some who held power to be their focus, into some who held wealth to be their focus, within a lateral environment where change is a constant whose variables include, but are not limited to, trajectectories and velocities.
– Group mentality is an integral part of humanity. It is so ingrained in our minds that it has been the driving force behind nearly every change we have ever made, starting from cavemen to the current early stages of a space-faring civilization. This group mentality has been bringing together entire nations and civilizations for millennia. It has also been bringing them down. One example of the latter, extremely negative group mentality, is taking place right now, …
It is not what you say that matters, but what language you speak.
Those politicians who try to greet their Latino voters in Spanish, but cannot get their pronunciation right … are foreigners to the group
1. A nation is basically a group, whereas a civilization can embrace multiple groups; mankind consists of many such.
2. It seems that “extremely negative mentality” is prevailing / erupting today between groups, not so much within groups.
3. How does a group respond to ideologies which create disharmony / discontent / violence within the group or between groups? Surely that does not result in a better civilization evolving.
“1. A nation is basically a group, whereas a civilization can embrace multiple groups; mankind consists of many such.”
Some would suggest that a nation is an ideological construct to facilitate the illusion that “we” are all in this together in furtherance of the purpose to sustain coercive social relations.
2. ” It seems that “extremely negative mentality” is prevailing / erupting today between groups, not so much within groups.”
Appearances/seeming can be deceptive, whilst aggregration/averaging is a tool of obfuscation enhanced by lack of definition and validation.
“3. How does a group respond to ideologies which create disharmony / discontent / violence within the group or between groups? Surely that does not result in a better civilization evolving.”
Posing a question then attempting to answer it yourself is a tool of obfuscation often resorted to in attempts at “perception management” and sloganeering.
So to the question and the observation (defining/describing a lesser standard of method/practice/rigour in efforts of research.)
” How does a group respond to ideologies which create disharmony / discontent / violence within the group or between groups?”
As a function of their purposes, facilities, and opportunities.
“Surely that does not result in a better civilization evolving.”
The resultant evolution/metamorphosis is a function of the interactions of “creators” of the ideologies and the purposes, facilities and opportunities of those seeking the transcendence of their interlocutors in an environment where change is a constant whose variables include, but are not restricted to, trajectories and velocities which cannot be adequately evaluated in advance, but can be encouraged in advance through evalulated and subsequent moderated participation, rendering efforts of prediction on bases of “big data” increasingly ultra vires, whilst maintaining some of the “profit” of doing so within a limited frame of time.
“From time to time, certain self-promoting “brainy” people come up with complicated theories about how the world should be organized and run.”
‘War is the father and king of us all”
End of philosophy lesson
“End of philosophy lesson”
An end of philosophy lesson, as is we the people hold these truths to be self-evident, conceived by “philosophers” to sustain their constructs including, but not limited to, “The United States of America”.