Although I concluded the last part with the idea of (and that was truely very Machiavelli of me) "Give them what they want and they shall give you the power you need", there is more...
First, let's accept the text in quotes as a mathematical equation;
You are X. (Leader)
You want A.(Power)
And in order to get A, you have to give Y (Society) a certain amount of B (What They Want).
Even though my mathematical skills are seriously questionable, I can easily see that if you can control B, you can gain serious amounts of advantage in order to get A. Because most of the time the agenda of X collides with the desires of Y, X can't really give B to Y all the time to get the desired amount of A. But if you have control over B, you can eliminate that factor of collusion.
If you can determine what society wants, you can get all the power you need. And how can you control the desires of the society? Well, society thinks that the state exists to protect them. Although they don't know they are seriously mistaken, (because they are not really familiar with the 'Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force' concept, but that's another story) you can use this to your advantage.
So I quote someone who had no reason to lie;
"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." *
But the things I discussed so far represents only the one side of the coin. But things have changed;
Unlike the oldschool leader, leader today is merely an icon or a symbol. Who definently is not the brains/decision-maker of the orginization we call 'state'. That goes for strong states for various reasons and strong states use icon leaders for various reasons.
Weak state leaders on the other hand, are usually puppets of stronger states. They are condemned to get under influence of some strong state. But now with the Soviet Russia gone and the superpower being U.S, it's usually the U.S who influences the weak states. If a strong leader appears in a weak state and struggles to make a change, and if they fail to buy him out (which makes him even a stronger leader), chances are either the leader gets assassinated or a coup is arranged against him. (Further reading; Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins)
I can't think of any better example for the 'strong state's icon leader of our era; George W. Bush.
He looks dumb and acts dumb, that we know. Perfect choice for invading other countries on false accusations.
9/11 attacks, so called terrorist organization Al-Queda, weapons of mass destruction, war on terrorism. These are the incidents and reasons caused U.S to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (I seriously don't want to mention any false flag accusations, so let's just leave this here.). Leaders have presented those causes to society and to the mass media to legitimate an act of self defence.
After they failed catching Bin Laden and finding weapons of mass destruction, most Americans thought "Dumb president, what can we do?". But they were partially right and completely manipulated.
As I mentioned before, he was an Icon Leader. So who's fault was that?
No ones.
In a system where leaders are merely icons and symbols, it's only the men behind the curtain who makes the decisions. And ofcourse people who intended to do those things (such as causing more than 300.000 children casualties in Iraq) never considered these actions as mistakes, but as profit. Result of this so called 'failure' caused U.S to make billions of dollars of profit and established military bases in Iraq. Not to mention the oil reserves, U.S installed puppet goverment to Iraq too. Selling weapons, profit, sustaining conflict, profit, Americans dying, profit, Iraqis dying, profit. And so forth, so on...
Americans were told that they were under attack and leaders got the support they needed.
They waged war against terrorism, the eternal and ethereal arch-enemy of us (never mind the dot or the capital letters). The boogey-man of our age, it can be anywhere, anytime. A war that is most profitable, for it can be controlled and sustained. While you think the leader of your societies choice made a mistake, the men behind the curtain made profit.
While the richest %20 of the world population controls %82.7 of the world's total income, people still believe in equal rights,
While people still think that they can choose their leaders,
While people still think that their vote still counts,
While people still think they can govern theirselves,
While people still think there is an external enemy,
While people still think that the state is there to protect them,
While people still think it's the mugger that robs them,
They roam in the endless fields of Illussionary Democracy...
*: Oh I almost forgot, Hermann Wilhelm Göring said that. Who was found guilty of committing; crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war crimes at the Nuremberg trials. As a result he was sentenced to death by hanging, although he committed suicide the night before his execution.
19/11/2008
On Language
Language, the very thing that helps to us communicate. Some even call it alive, which I certainly agree.
Usage of language is crucial, the way one speaks can attract or repulse certain individuals. It can also point out one's personality or even the level of intelligence. It can give clues about social position, culture. Which is quite impressive because if you are a little analytic towards people, just by speaking to them you can get vast amounts of information about them. On vocabular basis; the more sophisticated the persona, the more sophisticated the language. Ofcourse the richness of words does not conclude this argument, they way one speaks is a crucial point too, after all speech is one of the most powerful forms of language.
However, language exists in an even more critical point, in our minds.
And just like Lacan, I too think language strongly effects the way we think, reckon, judge, cogitate or contemplate. Try thinking without words, if you can't (which is obvious), try to decrease it to a more primitive level, you can name objects 'this' and 'that', you can store their image in your memory and recall them by the way they look, but that only works to some point.
You can only think and reckon about the material and the concrete without the language, to go beyond that, which is the abstract, you need language to form your thoughts.
I don't think we are that different from the rest of the animals but, advanced form of language is the thing that separetes us from all of the other animals.
Although, there is one thing I do not understand completely and that is people whining about degeneration of their language. How the youth pollutes their language or how the minority dishonours it etc. As I mentioned before language is concept which is pretty much considered alive. Because is changes over time, even may become completely different than the way it was. Language too, just like organisms, evolves. And that change, that evolution can't and shouldn't be judged. We don't see animals complaining about the way they became, giraffes whining about their long necks or a platypus protesting it's awkwardness. But then again the discontent about the usage of language is a reality. And it's a reality because of the speed of change increased drastically in recent years.
But, if one has to judge this reality, and needs to point a finger to blame the other, one also has to be aware of it's the fault of previous, current generations. Ergo 'everyone's fault.
Usage of language is crucial, the way one speaks can attract or repulse certain individuals. It can also point out one's personality or even the level of intelligence. It can give clues about social position, culture. Which is quite impressive because if you are a little analytic towards people, just by speaking to them you can get vast amounts of information about them. On vocabular basis; the more sophisticated the persona, the more sophisticated the language. Ofcourse the richness of words does not conclude this argument, they way one speaks is a crucial point too, after all speech is one of the most powerful forms of language.
However, language exists in an even more critical point, in our minds.
And just like Lacan, I too think language strongly effects the way we think, reckon, judge, cogitate or contemplate. Try thinking without words, if you can't (which is obvious), try to decrease it to a more primitive level, you can name objects 'this' and 'that', you can store their image in your memory and recall them by the way they look, but that only works to some point.
You can only think and reckon about the material and the concrete without the language, to go beyond that, which is the abstract, you need language to form your thoughts.
I don't think we are that different from the rest of the animals but, advanced form of language is the thing that separetes us from all of the other animals.
Although, there is one thing I do not understand completely and that is people whining about degeneration of their language. How the youth pollutes their language or how the minority dishonours it etc. As I mentioned before language is concept which is pretty much considered alive. Because is changes over time, even may become completely different than the way it was. Language too, just like organisms, evolves. And that change, that evolution can't and shouldn't be judged. We don't see animals complaining about the way they became, giraffes whining about their long necks or a platypus protesting it's awkwardness. But then again the discontent about the usage of language is a reality. And it's a reality because of the speed of change increased drastically in recent years.
But, if one has to judge this reality, and needs to point a finger to blame the other, one also has to be aware of it's the fault of previous, current generations. Ergo 'everyone's fault.
On Manipulation of Our Nature (Intro)
We, humans or people, born in to different environments, habitats, societies and cultures and adapt to them. It's all about adaptation when it comes to the basics of life and survival. We adapt, and we adapt faster any creature on earth. We can now survive and live almost anywhere on the face of this planet. Regardless of the climate or other enviromental means.
But, an Eskimo in Kalahari Desert sure will have a hard time to adapt there, and even may not survive. Bushmen on the other hand, residents of the desert Kalahari is living and had lived for thousands of years. Both the Eskimo and the Bushmen have adapted to the extremes and survived successfuly.
However, if we are to investigate the social aspects of adaptation the process is much more different. First of all it's much more faster, if an Eskimo couple moves to New York, they'll sure have a hard time adapting such culture and social environment. But their child on the other hand, adapts quickly and becomes a New Yorker in no time. And we don't have to give extreme examples like Eskimo's. The Chineese minority in U.S is still a good example, so are the adaptation problems of the teenagers in high-school etc.
So we can say that we adapt to the conditions we were borned in to, accept them as the reality and move on. That is how easy it is for us to change and take shape, from birth.
What kind of environment we born into? And what does all this have to do with Manipulation of Our Nature?
But, an Eskimo in Kalahari Desert sure will have a hard time to adapt there, and even may not survive. Bushmen on the other hand, residents of the desert Kalahari is living and had lived for thousands of years. Both the Eskimo and the Bushmen have adapted to the extremes and survived successfuly.
However, if we are to investigate the social aspects of adaptation the process is much more different. First of all it's much more faster, if an Eskimo couple moves to New York, they'll sure have a hard time adapting such culture and social environment. But their child on the other hand, adapts quickly and becomes a New Yorker in no time. And we don't have to give extreme examples like Eskimo's. The Chineese minority in U.S is still a good example, so are the adaptation problems of the teenagers in high-school etc.
So we can say that we adapt to the conditions we were borned in to, accept them as the reality and move on. That is how easy it is for us to change and take shape, from birth.
What kind of environment we born into? And what does all this have to do with Manipulation of Our Nature?
29/10/2008
Political Power, Ideology and Society #2
I think that societies should be examined in two categories: those with and without classes. Some of you might feel the urge to point out how this is a simple and basic separation so on and so forth. Nevertheless, this will take on dire importance as we advance.
To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:
“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)
Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.
I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.
We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.
To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:
“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)
Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.
I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.
We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.
28/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader' (2)
After some critical thinking, I noticed it's mostly the fear of responsibility that creates the need of leaders. Carl Jung too studied the types of personalities, and it is quite obvious most of these types rather follow a conventional way to do their jobs/errands/projects generally. Rather than experimenting new ways or to try and see different aspects of different situations.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
People who rather follow the methods they've got used to, are mostly the ones who choose following over leading too, so it's not so hard to see that they are relative facts. Leading and originality are more then parallel, because in the end, leading too means walking paths that has been never ever been walked before (in a way).
Although I do think people never completely comprehend the goals and the vision of their leaders most of the time, they choose to follow them, because it is the best option they have. They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader. Such as their unawareness about the leader's source of power; just like Samson gets his power from his hair, leaders get their power from their followers (numbers), and so if you eliminate that factor, no matter how strong the individual may be, individual will become utterly nothing in the eyes of the society.
As Montaigne too explains, most of the society can't burden theirselves with the responsibility of the others or others lives. Therefore it's only natural for a society contain few number of leaders, and even fewer number of them are (any) 'good'.
However, I think people who have such skill (Leading) care little about their responsibility to the others. They care, and they are responsible, but not in the exact way the followers think so. Ofcourse leaders care about their followers, ofcourse the state cares about the people/nation/community. But there are limits.
Such limits causing leaders to become aware of their need of followers, in order to sustain or increase power they have to make do everything in their power. But there are facts crossing those facts too. Such as greater good. In order to achieve the greater good, sacrifaces has to be made, sacrifaces can end up with a huge loss of influence. But when done properly, recovery is easy. In the end, if I have to quote myself, "Society: They care only about their own benefits (human nature, can't blame them) and they care only a little about the consequences of following such leader."
So, as long as you give them what they want, and we all know they are after superficial benefits, they'll start loving you again, no matter how you offended them, they'll start giving you the power you need to do your bidding as you like again.
18/10/2008
A Small Step: Deconstruction of the concept 'Leader'
This will be a tiny entry for some ideas to spark.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
- There are over 5000 kinds of Mammals on Earth, most of them live in packs or families.
- Some of them are considered as 'Social Animals', such as gorillas, wolves, and humans.
- In the group, the 'Social Animals', always contains an 'Alpha Male'.
- The strongest, and perhaps the wisest of them can become an 'Alpha Male'.
- 'Alpha Pair', consists of the male and female Alpha.
- 'Alpha Female' is the choice of the 'Alpha Male'.
- Therefore, we can say 'Alpha Male' appoints the 'Alpha Female'.
- There is always a conflict between one Alpha and the other, not to mention the candidates.
- If an 'Alpha Male' dies, he gets replaced instantly.
- If he gets overpowered by other males, or gets defeated, he loses the statue of 'Alpha', and gets replaced.
- In some cases, after the defeat, the old 'Alpha Male' exiles himself.
- If he does not, the old 'Alpha Male' is forced to leave.
Ask the right questions and you might be getting somewhere. Try questioning statues like: King/Queen, President/First Lady. Try questioning the immediate need for appointing a leader after ones fall.
Try questioning the T.V Series 'Lost', even though their plane crashes on a desolate island which is completely free of juristical concepts such as law, order and punishment. Which means they are completely free to do whatever they want. Leaders come up even before they are needed, and people start to follow them. Leaders clash with each other for power and for followers.
13/10/2008
Political Power, Ideology and Society #1
When debating different forms of political power, we have the tendency to immediately assume that the State should be separated from the rest of them. This assumption could be argued to be well placed, if we were to separate different forms of political power according to the sovereignty problem.
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
The sovereignty problem is basically the question of where the political power claims its right to rule. Before the modern State that has its roots back in the fifteenth century, this problem was overcome with the notion of divinity: the political power (the ruler or the ruling class etc.) would claim that it is God(s) incarnate, or the son of God(s), or the messenger of God(s) or yet (s)he who speaks the Law of God(s). This would basically mean that the political power claims that the right to rule over the people belongs to some sort of divinity, and the political power represents that divinity whereas the modern State overcomes this problem with an idea that is much more appealing to our minds today: the society. The modern State claims that the people have the right to determine their own Law and that the political power represents the society.
In short, the difference between other forms of political power and the State is the mere difference of where the political power claims its right to rule from. This shift in the source of sovereignty, combined with the humanist thought that places man as a centre for all values brings forth one of the more basic problems with modern societies: what is the difference between the individual that placed his/her faith in religion and obeyed the so called Law of God(s) that was enforced by the political power and the individual that placed his/her faith in humanity and the people and obeyed the so called Law of the people that’s being enforced by today’s political powers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)