#being supportive but also critical of modern society & wanting for change can all coexist | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

scripturehomosexuality · 7 years ago

Text

Neoliberalism and Modern Sexual Philosophy - An Impediment to Economic Progress

At present, neoliberalism is considered the dominant economic philosophy of the Western world, especially in the United States. It has spurred related developments on the world stage, such as globalization, austerity, and “trickle-down” economics. It has created a world economy that is centered on capitalism.

Unfortunately, this same philosophy is also being perceived as a problem. It has been blamed for creating worldwide economic instability. It has also been cited as causing political and social upheaval, such as the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. It has also been accused of generating levels of inequality that haven’t been seen in centuries. As a result, more people are looking for an alternative to neoliberalism.

However, as it turns out, neoliberalism has also affected how we think about sex. Within the United States, neoliberalist principles rule in our bedrooms, and guide how we conceptualize our sexual dealings. It permeates every aspect of our modern sexual philosophy. As such, this philosophy threatens any serious effort at economic change.

Do you feel skeptical about such a statement? Read on, and you will clearly see how neoliberalism has affected modern sexual philosophy, and that might affect moves for financial overhaul.

First, it must be noted that a recent post focused on neoliberalism and militarism. To make it clear, this one will exclusively focus on the former, and how modern sexual philosophy will affect experimentation with new economic philosophies.

Also, as you read, keep in mind the definition of “modern sexual philosophy”: the body of ideas, concepts and beliefs that enforce opposite-sex behavior as the only normal and natural expression of human sexuality, and thus holds that same-sex activity (penetrative or non-penetrative) is inherently abnormal and should be conceptualized and treated as such.

Neoliberalism Vs. Homoeroticism

At its most fundamental level, neoliberalism is a philosophy of unrestrained (or nearly unrestrained) capitalism. Investopedia defines it as “a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector”. It says further that neoliberalism “takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.”

CorpWatch, a San Francisco research group focused on countering corporate power, says that neoliberalism hinges on the following principles:

Rule of the Market: The “invisible hand” of the market must be as unencumbered as possible.

Cutting public expenses for social services, like health services, education, infrastructure among others, to reduce the role of government. However, government supports for business are desirable.

Deregulation: Government regulations must be kept to a minimum

Privatization: All government functions and services (banks, railways, highways, health care, schools, water supply, etc) should be handled by private interest

Eliminating concept of “public good” and “community”: Only “individual responsibility” exists, where the poor and disadvantaged must find their own solutions for education, health care, and social security. If they fail to do so, they are “lazy”.

This ideology first became dominant during the Reagan presidency of the 1980s, as Mr. Reagan helped strengthen big business in America. It also motivated business decisions during the 1980s and 1990s, as numerous businesses exported their operations to other continents, taking advantage of lower wages and looser regulations. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 eliminated most regulations that previously limited the movements of neoliberalism. However, for the first two years after that, neoliberalism was rather unambitious in its expansion. In fact, from what can be seen, criticism of neoliberalism was steadily mounting.

All that changed on September 11, 2001. The attacks done in New York and Washington left the United States in a profound state of shock and delirium. In that atmosphere, it was felt that to spite the attackers, the United States needed to clutch to its “freedoms” as never before. As such, the philosophy of neoliberalism was considered a huge portion of those “freedoms”. Thus, for the first time in its short existence, and with full support of U.S. society, neoliberalism was given unprecedented “carte blanche” to do whatever it wanted. After all, as the logic went, if the attackers were truly attacking freedoms, those same freedoms should be more expressed in response.

To be sure, the unleashing of neoliberalism helped create an economic boom between 2001 and 2007, though it was mainly felt in corporate profits. However, the chickens came home to roost after 2007, as the spectacular economic crash between 2007 and 2009 brought down the U.S. economy, and the world economy with it. However, in governmental response to the crash, neoliberalism was allowed to root itself deeper. Thus, its philosophies continued to operate, which has created inequality unseen in the U.S. since the late 19th century.

Because of its incredible power, it has been suggested that in embracing neoliberalism, the United States has become a “free market society”. In a free market society, principles made to govern the market also rule over social interactions and political decisions. People become products, and social and political relationships become business transactions. Economic language and thinking is used to characterize social interactions. For example, as noted in a 2015 Huffington Post opinion piece, “we used to ‘nurture’ our children and prepare students to be responsible and productive participants in the democracy we claimed to be. Now we ‘invest’ in them and prepare them for the workplace.” In this, there is a growing concern that “market values crowd out nonmarket values worth caring about”. Nevertheless, the growth of free market society can only help neoliberalism, as it becomes more ingrained in everyday life.

Now, this is how unleashed neoliberalism impacts modern sexual philosophy, and its stigmatization of homoeroticism. Neoliberalism (and by extension capitalism) tends to thrive on division. It not only sustains the basic division of capitalist class versus working class. It also works at sustaining many divisions within the working class, such as skilled worker versus unskilled worker, mental labor versus manual labor, native versus immigrant, light skin versus dark skin, etc. Furthermore, as stated above, neoliberalism works against fostering any sense of “community”, since that could reduce future profits. For the sake of its own survival, ever more division must be fostered, because new ways of making money are thus invented.

Uncontrolled, unbridled homoeroticism stands in the way of that. Homoeroticism has an uncanny way of fostering a spirit of community, in a way that heteroeroticism simply can’t. Such can be readily seen in Ancient Greece, where same-sex love was the bond that held the society together. For example, in studying same-sex love, Phaedrus said that “...if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of [same-sex] lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor...” Meanwhile, the Sacred Band of Thebes, which consisted of men erotically bonded to each other, were repeatedly successful on the battlefields. In studying homoeroticism, South African writer Siya Khumalo said that “heteronormal society fosters a thousand times more brawls than kisses”, while homoerotic societies like Ancient Greece yielded the opposite. Neoliberalism prefers men to be enemies instead of lovers.

Indeed, it’s no small matter that periods of mass worker revolt in the United States - the late 19th and early 20th centuries, along with the 1930’s and 1940s - were also periods when same-sex activity was a majority fact of everyday life. These were periods where men were unashamed to display their intimacy in photographs, and were nude with each other on a constant basis, which of course fostered homoeroticism among them. To me, these interactions fostered a sense of common cause among these workers, which made it easier to band together against their employers. Their bravery and cooperation yielded all kinds of benefits that we still enjoy today. Their example highlights a special truth in this quote from Athenaeus: “Hieronymus the Aristotelian says that love with boys was fashionable because several tyrannies had been overturned by young men in their prime, joined together as comrades in mutual sympathy.”

It should be noted that the homoeroticism practiced did not match that in the modern LGBT-identified community, which pivots on anal sex. In that homoeroticism, anal sex was an extremely uncommon practice.

Thus, for so many reasons, neoliberalism and unrestrained homoeroticism cannot coexist. For neoliberalism to flourish, homoeroticism must be either suppressed, or shaped into a form that supports its growth. That’s precisely what neoliberalism achieved with modern sexual philosophy

Neoliberalism’s Influence in Modern Sexual Philosophy

To fully understand the role of neoliberalism, it’s necessary to briefly review history of sexual concepts during the late 20th century.

Before the 1980s, the concept of “homosexuality” was not so strongly linked to same-sex behavior, though that link was strengthening throughout the 1970s. Before then, same-sex activity was being enjoyed by both “straight” people and “gay” people. The “homosexual” (or “gay”) identity was defined by gender inversion and sexual preference (where one was primarily attracted to the same gender). However, during the 1980s, many factors came together to change the definition of homosexuality.These factors were

the AIDS epidemic, which was mainly spread by anal play in the “gay” community. People not previously perceived as “homosexual” were among its victims, and the fact that anal play drove the epidemic was apparently lost on the general public. Thus, “homosexuality” became strictly behavior-based in its definition

Remnants of Red Scare attitudes reactivated by the AIDS epidemic

The growing strength of the Religious Right, who ramped up their criticism of “homosexuality” during the AIDS epidemic, even as the concept was transforming into something new.

The changing definition of sex. It shifted from one strictly defined by penetration to one that included non-penetrative acts. This cemented the emerging behavior-based definition of homosexuality.

Thus, by the 1990s, “homosexuality” was defined as same-sex behavior, with anal sex considered the supreme act, and with gender inversion now an important but secondary characteristic. It was also during that time that modern sexual philosophy (and the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy) emerged in its initial form.

Remember that during all these changes, neoliberalism was the dominant ideology, though in a much more tame form. Thus, the basic dynamics of capitalism gave the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy its top-down management, where rules about being “straight” or “gay” are formed and enforced by more influential figures. These rules trickle down through various levels until they reach the individual. The individual must then conform to the rules of their identity, even as they change unpredictably through time.

As such, during that time, the basic rules of the dichotomy came into existence. If you’re straight, you must never sexually interact with your own gender, or at least enjoy that interaction. If you’re gay, you’re expected to buy completely into a “gay” culture of anal play, gender-atypical behavior, and drag. Whether one is “straight” or “gay”, they must never engage in bisexual behavior.

The problem was that in the 1990s and very early 2000s, there wasn’t much to enforce beyond that. The philosophy and dichotomy ruled over explicitly sexual (and particularly homoerotic) phenomena, but not much else. “Straight” people still felt unashamed about adoring “Top Gun”. Bands like A-Teens, N-Sync, the Backstreet Boys and S Club 7, which were all popular in 1990s “straight” life, put out content that’s sometimes labelled “gay” today. Furthermore, those bands were like by “straights” and “gays” alike, and such a situation didn’t pose a conflict to anyone. “Straight” same-sex friendship were allowed a level of intensity that’s unknown today. Thus, in most areas of life, the lines were much more blurry.

This is why the events of 2001 were so important. Following the tragic events of September 11th, neoliberalism was stronger than ever and ready to rumble. Now fully unleashed from its chains, neoliberalism seized upon modern sexual philosophy, and developed it into a behemoth to achieve its own ends. At present, there’s hardly an area in life left untouched by the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy.

Aspects of its mindset permeate throughout the dichotomy, and the history of its evolution.

Signs of Neoliberalism’s Influence

Remember what was said before about neoliberalism after 2001 - that it was focused on creating ever more divisions among the working class. To achieve that goal, it made the cultural lines between “gays” and “straights” much more rigid. Whatever “gays” liked couldn’t be done by “straight” people, lest they be accused of being “gay”. Whatever “straights” did couldn’t be done by “gay” people, since it seemed to contradict what their identity stood for. As a result, for the sake of identity purity, more “straights” and “gays” felt compelled to avoid what they would otherwise do.

There’s an additional factor to consider. In cooperation with another dominant force in post 2001 America - corporate militarism - what was considered “abnormal” (or “gay”) continuously grew in scope. As a result, what was acceptable in “normal” (or “straight”) life progressively shrank. Things that were previously independent of the dichotomy - musical theater, theater in general, dancing, pop music, purple and pink clothes, light physical contact - acquired the spectre of “abnormality” (or “gayness”). It would also spread to sports, as individual sports like swimming, figure skating, gymnastics, and others steadily gained a “gay” connotation. Even such things like being somewhat intelligent, smiling too much, or listening to classical music are considered signs of “abnormality”. As such, truly “normal” people are increasingly expected to keep away from all of this, and the list of prohibited things only seems to grow.

That’s not all though. The unrestrained philosophy of neoliberalism also influenced how “straights” and “gays” would view sex itself. Remember what was said about the emerging “free market society”, that it views all people as products, and social and political interactions as business transactions. In such a society, it encourages people to view more topics through the lens of neoliberalism, and to use its principles to govern their daily lives. As a result, the evolution of “free market society” would also influence how people would view sex.

As such, a “free market” mentality characterizes sexual dealings of both “straights” and “gays”. Both don’t view sex as a bonding agent that ties two people together, and thus something to be considered with some sensitivity. Instead, they view it as a business transaction between buyers and sellers, who must harangue and negotiate with each other to leave mutually satisfied. In such a transaction, the parties involved are mainly looking out for their own interest, with the interest of others being a small nuisance. Thus, sex simply becomes a reflex for instant gratification, without necessarily seeking to give equal pleasure to one’s partner.

This can easily be seen in the “hookup” culture dominant in the “straight” world. Sociologist Lisa Wade summaries its gist well, as described by broadcaster NPR: “In today's hookup culture, developing an emotional attachment to a casual sex partner is one of the biggest breaches of social norms.” As such, people involved in that culture “have to prove that they're not emotionally attached to their sex partners, and in fact that they care less than the other person.” Thus, “straight” people might increasingly seek “friends with benefits”, sexual partners with whom they resist any emotional connection. After the deed is done, there is no need to develop their interaction into a relationship; they got together only for sex and nothing more. Thus, they move on to the next person, having sex with ever more people without creating any emotional connection. Indeed this is considered ideal, particularly with “straight” men, who may pride themselves with having several notches on their bedpost for its own sake.

This is doubly so in the “gay” world. The “gay” world has been well known for its promiscuity, where “gay” men and women may connect with each other only for sex. The conga line of sexual partners runs noticeably faster in the “gay” world: while a “straight” man might have 10 sex partners in one month, a “gay” man might have the same and more in one night. In like manner, there’s no expectation that such interaction should lead to a relationship. Instead, it is viewed as ideal to get maximum sex partners in record time, which makes emotional connection completely impossible. As such, given what’s just been discussed, it’s quite telling that the “gay” scene is sometimes nicknamed the “meat market”.

To be clear, these kinds of conditions are unprecedented, even when considering the 2000s. Apps like Tinder, Grindr, and Pure exist only because a “free market” sexual mentality dominates the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy. At least during the 1990s and 2000s, web services like EHarmony and Match were designed to create stable relationships, even if they were used to facilitate casual sex.

That’s not all though. Neoliberalism not only permeates the sexual dealings of the “gay” world, but also influences virtually every aspect of life within it. This was in full display during Pride Month 2017, in which new levels of corporate influence were reached.

For years, it’s been reported that Pride parades have taken on an increasingly corporate face, to the distress of increasingly more LGBT-identified people. However, during 2017 the relationship between corporate America and the LGBT movement became much closer. U.S. retailers like Nike, Target, Levi’s, and others put out LGBT Pride merchandise, with all kinds of sassy logos and slogans. The ride-sharing app Uber released a special ad for Pride month. Beer company Smirnoff put out rainbow-colored beer bottles. For next year, corporate coopting will probably increase by leaps and bounds.

Remember that the rainbow Pride flag is supposed to symbolize freedom to engage in same-sex activity, among other things. It is this same flag that’s being freely used in these commercial products, to appeal directly to potential buyers. Thus, this sudden and drastic corporate involvement raises many questions. Does sex exist only for the sake of commercial interest? Is this doubly so for same-sex activity? Is “pride” in one’s sexuality really dependent on commercial goods and services? Does all this commodification adequately symbolize freedom to engage in same-sex activity? Instead, doesn’t all this corporate entanglement profane the sanctity of sex, a gift given to humans from above? Is such corporate influence good for the long term interests of the LGBT-identified community, or for larger society?

The fact that none of this bothers the LGBT leadership and media speaks volumes. To the contrary, the leadership will often come to the defense of these corporations, and their ever increasing influence. Their positions show the influence of neoliberalism in modern sexual philosophy, and how much they themselves depend on it.

As a final note, it’s quite telling that anal sex is arguably the signature sex act of this era. It is firmly established in the “gay” world, and becoming increasingly popular in the “straight” world. As such, there is no other act that most symbolizes the neoliberal influence on modern sexual philosophy. As the Man2Man Alliance points out so well (link NSFW), anal sex is a grossly unequal act. The penetrator gets direct penile stimulation, and receives intense physiological pleasure. Meanwhile, since the anus is not a sexual organ, the penetrated receives no physiological pleasure; any stimulation must be imagined into existence. Because of this, the act (and neoliberalism itself) can be summarized by the following expression - the top gets the goods, and the bottom gets screwed.

How Modern Sexual Philosophy Affects the World

As it turns out, the essence of that expression is generating anger worldwide. 2016 and 2017 have been marked with endless social and political unrest, caused by a mass rebellion against neoliberalism. Examples of this include the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, the popularity of Marine Le Pen, and other developments across the Western world and the developing world. According to a number of international commentators, these seismic events reveal mass anger against a philosophy that doesn’t work for most people.

Indeed, these political developments have happened during, and often because of, larger developments within society. In the United States, inequality has reached breathtaking heights, rivalled only by standards of the late 19th century. Wages have long been stagnant throughout the developed world. Lack of affordable housing in the U.S. has reached crisis levels, as homelessness is now common in many American cities. In New York in particular, small businesses are closing left and right, as they no longer afford increasingly expensive rents. The Grenfell Tower fire in London highlighted the substandard living conditions endured by most of the working class.

How are these events connected? All of them are related to neoliberalism in one way or another, which is why the masses are getting increasingly restless. Flashpoints like the Occupy movement of 2011, and the G20 protests in Hamburg during 2017, highlight a populace that is rapidly losing patience with the status quo.

As a result, increasingly more people are looking to other economic philosophies. In the United States, socialism has become popular among the masses. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who openly called himself a socialist for years, has shown how attractive socialism has become. In fact, during 2017, membership in socialist groups has increased dramatically. Through these developments, the masses are showing that in their opinion, changes to the system are no longer enough. Instead, the system itself must change.

As such, all sorts of media have popped up to sustain the momentum. One of the shows I will highlight on this post is the radio program “Economic Update”, hosted by Professor Richard Wolff in New York. As an aside, if you can understand spoken English, I strongly recommend that you listen to his show. In my opinion, it is one of the best shows on radio today, as it gives news and analysis about economic developments that aren’t heard on U.S. mainstream media. By the way, I’m not being paid to make this endorsement. It’s because I truly admire the program; I’ve been a constant listener for 3 years.

Anyway, Mr. Wolff has reported on the growth of worker co-ops throughout the United States. In his analysis and commentary, he often says that events constantly shows that our economic system must change. If recent events are any indication, it seems more people are agreeing with him. However, in planning out that change, popular commentary (including that of Mr. Wolff) might be leaving out an important factor.

In saying that, I’m not trying to impugn Mr. Wolff at all. He is first and foremost an economist, and in his capacity, he does his job exceedingly well. However, I’m slightly different, as I’m a writer with a background in philosophy and history, and with knowledge of convoluted sexual politics. Thus, I’m able to extend his analysis into areas that he, and others like him, might not able to.

As a result, I feel compelled to make the following statement - if we are serious about changing our economic system, modern sexual philosophy must be the first to go.

Why do I say this? Because that philosophy represents a special infusion of neoliberalism that can’t be ignored.

As you’ve just seen, neoliberalism permeates modern sexual philosophy in all its forms, including within the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy. Principles of the free market are used to guide sexual dealings and how we conceptualize them. As a result, we are allowing an economic philosophy to dictate our most personal and intimate expressions, and dictate how we conceptualize them.

In such an arrangement, neoliberalism makes deep inroads into the psyche of the average U.S. resident. It doesn’t stay just an economic or political philosophy. Instead, neoliberalism also becomes a social and even sexual philosophy. It gives substantial underpinnings to the emerging “free market society”, and makes neoliberalism omnipresent, ever overwhelming, and increasingly immovable.

At present, people are increasingly looking for transformation within the economic realm. However, if modern sexual philosophy is allowed to exist, neoliberalism will live on within the social and sexual realms. Ideas that influence our most intimate interactions affect actions in other areas of life, and in this case, that may cause an issue. Even if a new order is instituted in the economic realm, the old order will still remain in more personal areas.

Thus, the presence of neoliberalism might undermine progress in other areas. It might assure that such progress is short lived, and that neoliberalism might quickly reemerge and assert its dominance once again.

Make no mistake: modern sexual philosophy preserves neoliberalism for the long haul, in a way that’s not so obvious. If we really want to explore other economic philosophies, modern sexual philosophy simply cannot coexist with them. It must be destroyed, totally and comprehensively. Otherwise, economic exploration doesn’t stand a chance.

Conclusion

When talking about sexuality, the roles of society, politics and economics are often neglected. However, as this blog has been covering, they have played key roles in forming modern sexual philosophy as we know it. As such, you’ve just seen how neoliberalism has been especially important in its development.

Simply put, modern sexual philosophy (including the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy) is really sexual neoliberalism. It enforces neoliberalist principles as sexual law, in a way that’s easily hidden but just as effective. It makes an economic philosophy rule our most intimate expressions, and how we conceptualize them.

It becomes clear why the home of modern sexual philosophy is the global West, and particularly the United States. Only the United States has the conditions that could create this thinking. Modern sexual philosophy is completely the child of the U.S. and its society.

As such, modern sexual philosophy poses a serious threat to any effort for economic change. It allows neoliberalism to become deep-rooted in the American psyche, for “straights” and “gays” alike. It makes neoliberalism sexual orthodoxy, just as it has become economic orthodoxy. Under such conditions, modern sexual philosophy preserves neoliberalism for the long haul, and in a very deceptive way. It permits neoliberalism to undermine and sabotage any real movement for change, and like a stubborn computer virus, it can quickly reassert its dominance.

Indeed, modern sexual philosophy affects everyone, whether they realize it or not. Thus, same-sex activity cannot be compartmentalized as the domain of a minority. The LGBT leadership cannot have the last word on same-sex behavior, and how it should be conceptualized. If we think this is compatible with progress, we are deluding ourselves. Our treatment of same-sex activity is intrinsically related to other processes and events in our society. If we ignore that, we do so at our own peril.

Thus, if you care about economic change, you must pay attention to how you perceive sexuality. You must learn a different way to think about sex, because it will affect how you think about economics.

Thus, I urge you to read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.

Make no mistake: sexuality and economics are closely linked, and affect everyone. The sooner that everyone realizes that, the sooner real progress can be made.

#neoliberalism #homosexuality #gay #lgbt #gay pride #lgbt pride #Gay Christian #gay christianity #lgbt christian #lgbt christianity #homosexual #bisexuality #lesbian

2 notes · View notes

frankcmcclanahaniii · 5 years ago

Text

CORONAVIRUS

As the “social distancing” demanded by the coronavirus silently dismembers the “connectedness” around which much of modern society is constructed the enforced isolation makes many individuals increasingly aware of the fragility of institutions. On an even deeper level it challenges trusted notions about the regularity and order of everyday life, the fundamental framework of ideas and values we routinely take for granted as reality. Shared crises like this one are disruptive and frightening for most people, but they also provide rare moments of clarity and perspective, opportunities to rethink, reconsider or even just to doubt the models we are told or taught govern the world in which we live. The current crisis is interesting because it refutes so much. We know very little about this virus, and the time it is taking to learn more refutes the idea that science is the answer to every natural conundrum. We are told (at least in America) that our healthcare system is the best in the world and yet we see that it is already being overwhelmed in the earliest stages. We are told our economy is the strongest in the world and yet we see it collapsing, just as the other economies are collapsing, despite all the varied extreme interventions. We remember that only a few months ago we were told that the most imminent, most dangerous threat to our American institutions and way of life was the President of the United States who must be removed from office immediately. I could, of course, go on ad infinitum but additional examples are not required. This crisis refutes, and is refuting almost everything we might have been expected to believe a short time ago. To me, and I suspect to most contrarians, this crisis is refreshing. Let me try to explain. I do not welcome disasters for anyone. I do not dispute that the virus is dangerous, and that people will die. I doubt, though, that it is more lethal as many things we are already accustomed to, such as driving, or drug addiction, or even poverty. It may well be more lethal than the influenza strains we regularly experience, but I believe the total worldwide deaths are still much lower than influenza deaths this year or any year. Coronavirus appears to spread more rapidly, and so may well end up infecting more people. But it also may die out in summer, like influenza, and we likely will have some kind of vaccine next year. Nonetheless coronavirus is refreshing because it forces us to critically examine the systems we have created to deal with health crises, and is seemingly demonstrating that they are not well thought out. And that, in all likelihood is because American healthcare systems are mainly designed to produce maximum profits. Excess capacity (which is what you need in a crisis) is a drain on profits. So, the system is designed like airline flight schedules, to keep all the beds full and generating revenue. Of course, as fliers know, that leads to delays, cancellations and backlogs, not to mention, uncomfortable crowded flights and aggravating fees. The weather too (like an epidemic) routinely wreaks havoc on fliers since there is no spare capacity. Ordinarily, that is not life threatening and so fliers just accept it. I doubt dangerously sick people will be as complacent. The American economy itself, being designed for maximum profit, also is turning out to be poorly designed for stoppages or shutdowns. The cheapest supplier may prove the least reliable. Just in time may be too late. Even the hoarders may be more focused on maximum profits than personal needs because the system is as concerned with price maintenance as with sufficient supply. Maybe the advertising bombardment of workers to spend more to save more, and borrow their way to wealth is a bad model for a good economy and worse for the unemployed. Maybe the happy people portrayed in the pharmaceutical ads will look less cheerful in unemployment lines or bankruptcy court. Maybe the whole grand illusion that everything can be fixed with the right medicine, or a better credit score, financial advisor, weight loss plan, self help guru, or any other magical product will be the most consequential victim of the coronavirus. At this moment, the US government is working on some kind of bail out or financial support program for the economy and the most affected businesses. Airlines, cruise lines, hotels and healthcare are being specifically addressed and many others considered. One useful consideration for taxpayers (who will pay for it all) is whether any of these businesses should be supported in their current form. If private enterprise and management have failed (as they clearly have) then what conditions should the taxpayers impose upon the relief they provide? One suggestion I would make would be to look at the terms Warren Buffet imposes on the companies he agrees to assist or finance through rough times or transactions. On several occasions he has demanded that the supplicant company issue him convertible preferred stock for the amount of his infusion. This stock pays preferred dividends until the company redeems it or he converts it into common stock. That way, if the company survives or succeeds, he participates in the recovery. If not, he has a preference over the common shareholders in liquidation of the assets. I see no reason why the United States (which has much more money than Warren Buffet) should accept worse terms than he would, nor any reason why the representatives of American taxpayers would treat their constituents worse than Warren Buffet treats his shareholders. And I note that his approval ratings by the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway are much, much higher than American voter approval ratings of Congress. Anyway, here is a sonnet on the subject of how ideas and perspectives change. GENETIC THINKING Ideas propagate much like disease At first the deadly ones destroy their hosts Like plagues, it takes them years to symbiose And after that only few may achieve Calm coexistence with majorities. The rest just fade, as error or overdose Of fad or fashion, anything that goes After infectious moments pang or please. We think we can believe the things we choose As if we could control immunity By processes we manage consciously Or once conferred we might decide to lose. It’s not a question what you want or why; Ideas just adapt to us or die. © 2020 frankcmcclanahaniii

#sonnet #coronavirus #the weekly sonnet #ideas #crisis #maximum profit #healthcare #bail out

0 notes

the-huntress-songblade · 5 years ago

Text

A Huntress’ Journey: ‘Tawny’ Songblade

NAME: Titaniia Songblade

FACE CLAIM: Megan Ory / Stephanie Beatriz

NICKNAME: Tawny

AGE: 8,730

HEIGHT: 6′1″

SPECIES: Kaldorei

GENDER: Female

BIRTHDAY: January 13th

SUN SIGN: Capricorn

RESIDENCE: None - wanderer

SKILLS: shadowstalking, poison-making, alchemy, glaive-wielding

DRINK: Tea

FOOD: Banana bread

DAY OR NIGHT: Night

SNACKS: Telaari Grapes

SONGS: Agent Tex by Jeff Williams [click song title to listen]

PET: Emerald Hippogryph- Beryl

COLOR: Black

FLOWER: Pandaren Wisteria

EYE COLOR: Mercurial Silver

HAIR COLOR: Ocean Blue

BODY TYPE: Perfect - fit and curvy

MORAL ALIGNMENT: Neutral / Chaotic Evil

A neutral / chaotic evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She is ruthless and brutal, and sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. She has a restless nature and a love of conflict, and is in it for herself above anyone else.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral / Chaotic evil is the best alignment you can be because you can advance yourself without regard for others, combining self-interest with pure freedom. However, neutral / chaotic evil can be a dangerous alignment because it represents not only pure evil without honor or variation, but also the destruction of beauty and life, and the order upon which those both depend.

PREDOMINANT ARCHETYPES:

PERSONALITY: ISTP-T - The Virtuoso

Virtuosos love to explore with their hands and their eyes, touching and examining the world around them with cool rationalism and spirited curiosity. People with this personality type are natural Makers, moving from project to project, building the useful and the superfluous for the fun of it, and learning from their environment as they go. Often mechanics and engineers, Virtuosos find no greater joy than in getting their hands dirty pulling things apart and putting them back together, just a little bit better than they were before.

Virtuosos explore ideas through creating, troubleshooting, trial and error and first-hand experience. They enjoy having other people take an interest in their projects and sometimes don’t even mind them getting into their space. Of course, that’s on the condition that those people don’t interfere with Virtuosos’ principles and freedom, and they’ll need to be open to Virtuosos returning the interest in kind.

Virtuosos enjoy lending a hand and sharing their experience, especially with the people they care about, and it’s a shame they’re so uncommon, making up only about five percent of the population. Virtuoso women are especially rare, and the typical gender roles that society tends to expect can be a poor fit – they’ll often be seen as tomboys from a young age.

Dare to Differ

While their mechanical tendencies can make them appear simple at a glance, Virtuosos are actually quite enigmatic. Friendly but very private, calm but suddenly spontaneous, extremely curious but unable to stay focused on formal studies, Virtuoso personalities can be a challenge to predict, even by their friends and loved ones. Virtuosos can seem very loyal and steady for a while, but they tend to build up a store of impulsive energy that explodes without warning, taking their interests in bold new directions.

Virtuosos’ decisions stem from a sense of practical realism, and at their heart is a strong sense of direct fairness, a “do unto others” attitude, which really helps to explain many of Virtuosos’ puzzling traits. Instead of being overly cautious though, avoiding stepping on toes in order to avoid having their toes stepped on, Virtuosos are likely to go too far, accepting likewise retaliation, good or bad, as fair play.

The biggest issue Virtuosos are likely to face is that they often act too soon, taking for granted their permissive nature and assuming that others are the same. They’ll be the first to tell an insensitive joke, get overly involved in someone else’s project, roughhouse and play around, or suddenly change their plans because something more interesting came up.

[ SOCIETY ]

$ Financial : wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty / *I take what I need. ✚ Medical : fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged. ✪ Class or Caste : upper / middle / working / slave / *Your societal structure means nothing. ✔ Education : qualified / unqualified / studying ✖ Criminal Record : yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / Crimes, yes; record, no.

[ FAMILY ]

◐ Marital status : married - happily / unhappily / engaged or betrothed / partnered / single / divorced / separated / widowed ◒ Children : has a child or children / has no children / wants children. ◑ Relationship with Family : close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased / Has cousins and is close to them ◔ Filtration : orphaned / adopted / disowned / raised by birth mother

[ TRAITS + TENDENCIES ]

♦ extroverted / introverted / in between. ♦ disorganized / organized / in between. ♦ close minded / open-minded / in between. ♦ calm / anxious / in between. ♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in between. ♦ cautious / reckless / in between. ♦ patient / impatient / in between. ♦ outspoken / reserved / in between. ♦ leader / follower / in between. ♦ empathetic / unsympathetic / in between. ♦ optimistic / pessimistic / in between. ♦ traditional / modern / in between. ♦ hard-working / lazy / in between. ♦ cultured / uncultured / in between / unknown. ♦ self-loyal / disloyal / unknown. ♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown.

[ BELIEFS ]

★ Faith : monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic. ☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care. ✮ Belief in an Afterlife : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care. ✯ Belief in Reincarnation : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care. ❃ Belief in Aliens : yes / no / don’t know / don’t care. ✧ Religious : orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious. ❀ Philosophical : yes / no.

[ SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION ]

❤ Sexuality : heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual. ❥ Sex : sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable. ♥ Romance : romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable. ❣ Sexually : adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious. ⚧ Potential Sexual Partners : male / female / agender / other / none / all ⚧ Potential Romantic Partners : male / female / agender / other / none / all.

[ ABILITIES ]

☠ Combat Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none. ≡ Literacy Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none ✍ Artistic Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none ✂ Technical Skills : excellent / good / moderate / poor / none.

[ HABITS ]

☕ Drinking Alcohol : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. ☁ Smoking : trying to quit / never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. ✿ Other Narcotics : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. ✌ Medicinal Drugs : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. ☻ Indulgent Food : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. $ Splurge Spending : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess. ♣ Gambling : never / sometimes / frequently / to excess

[ MOST NOTABLE PERSONALITY TRAITS ]

RATIONALITY

You like clarity and intelligent simplicity and you get frustrated at messy thinking. This can make you seem unreasonably pushy to some, but it is actually a virtue: you are motivated by a horror at pointless effort and a longing for precision and insight into how things and people work. Your ability to synthesise and bring order is essential in producing thinking which is truly helpful.

AGGRESSION

One part of your character is anger in all its forms: frustration, outrage – and when anger is suppressed – bitterness, grumpiness, and bodily aches. Fundamentally, frustration comes from hope: you get upset because you expect your life will be more than a valley of tears. One way to deny aggression is to direct it inwards, as self-criticism. But you’re at your best when you acknowledge anger, and act it out clearly and in a focused way, with honor.

EXHIBITIONISM

There’s a strand in your nature which loves making an impression – perhaps with your clothes, or conversation, or in a self-revealing blog or a novel. You like to dramatize yourself, to pose as a unique, perhaps mysterious person, to joke or exaggerate your part in adventures. Though you might more than once have been called a show off, it is actually a generous tendency: you want to please and entertain others. It could be the start of good teaching and leadership.

your archetype is: The Warrior

Also known as: The Shero, The Heroine, The Badass, The Baddie

You often find yourself in the hero’s (or heroine’s) journey. Courageous, aggressive, protective and resilient. Every dark Goddess archetype possess warrior-like qualities, but if you are assigned this archetype you are likely someone who is primarily driven towards confronting the obstacles that lie before you head-on. You thrive in a chaotic word and are anti-fragile (meaning you know how to thrive in situations that would break most people). You and your fears coexist because combating your fears allows you to delve into a greater version of yourself. You thrive on the battleground but at times find it difficult to lower your armor.

FLOWER PERSONALITY:

DANDELION

Scrappy and tough, you’re a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps kind of person. You don’t give up easily and you often thrive in situations that others would find discouraging. You have an instinct to serve others and see yourself as most useful in times or places of crisis, but you may over rely on your toughness and forget how sensitive you really are.

Like you, dandelion holds steady, even in unfriendly environments. It provides gentle liver stimulation and digestive support, aiding your body’s natural detoxification processes.

Called “the little postman” in Persian because of the belief that dandelion brought good news, dandelion has unfortunately acquired a reputation as a pesky weed. Its liver and digestive benefits have been known for centuries, with reference in Arabic texts dating to the 10th century. Dandelion is a bitter herb, a characteristic that contributes to its digestion-supporting properties. When roasted, dandelion root has a coffee-like flavor that once made it a popular coffee substitute!

ECHINACEA

A protector. With an amazing blend of optimism, nurturing and goodwill, you lend your strength and energy to those in need. Your seemingly infinite goodwill and boundless supportive energy make you the one people turn to when times are tough. Your greatest strength is, of course, also one of your weaknesses, especially if you neglect to take care of yourself. At times like these, it’s a good idea to take a step back and focus some of that protective energy on yourself.

A bold flower with a tough stalk and tenacious roots, echinacea is as strong as it is beautiful. This pretty, hardy plant brings that same quiet strength to the herbal world, earning it a reputation as a wonderful ally for the immune system. While you’re giving yourself some extra love and attention, echinacea can offer added support.

One of echinacea’s distinguishing characteristics is the presence of alkylamides, which are partly responsible for its capacity to stimulate the immune system. You’ll know that you’ve discovered truly high quality and echinacea when you feel a slight tingling on your tongue after tasting it. Native to the Americas, echinacea was introduced to European settlers by Native Americans, who had used it for centuries, and became popular with American doctors in the early 1900s.

SLIPPERY ELM

Let’s just say you’re a vocal person. Sure, that might mean you’re chatty. But it also means you’re the one humming in the hallway, singing in the shower, speaking your mind, standing up and shouting if need be to get yourself heard. You’ve got a voice and you know how to use it. Inclined to speak up for the voiceless, defend the defenseless or simply bring joy to the joyless, you may have a tendency to overuse your voice.

Smooth and silky, slippery elm is balm for the voice and friend to everyone who uses it. Long a champion for tired vocal chords and taxed throats, slippery elm’s slickness make it an ideal companion for those who a prone to use (and sometimes overuse) their voice.

Slippery elm or Ulmus rubra (Latin for “red elm,” so called for its lovely reddish bark) is a beautiful, native North American elm tree Introduced into Western herbal traditions by Native Americans. It’s the inner bark of this tree that is actually called “slippery elm” due to its, yes, slippery, smooth, and slimy-in-a-good-way properties.

#the huntress songblade #character sheet #aesthetic #a huntress' journey #Titaniia Songblade

0 notes

edc-creations-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel by Bernard L. Dillard

At the center of a fierce, fiery, and invisible battle is Dr. Garnet Gibbs, a history professor, who is considered to be both a guidepost for and a mystery to many on the job. After hours, she often finds herself caught in a vortex of drama surrounding her family, associates, and friends.

Although she tries to offer support as best she can, the shenanigans of all involved may prove to be too much for her, especially given the potpourri of players in her world, including: Jamay, her adopted daughter; R.J., her grandson, whose father is facing challenges as he serves overseas; Kemal and Manuela, a kinky church couple; Tario, a Que Dog, whose frivolity and wry wit lead to his nail-biting confrontation with death, igniting a spirited rally in the city.

Then there’s Nieko, a gay gentleman, who is rethinking his sexuality but whose ex-boyfriend is making it tough; Rusty, an avowed redneck, who makes a shocking decision since he believes President Trump is taking too long to do something about the current state of affairs; and Celeste, her what-comes-up-comes-out co-worker, who has a knack for catching people off guard with her uncanny sense of humor.

Critical interactions reveal key life lessons, but not all interchanges end on an upswing.

Something’s brewing. Someone’s watching. And time is running out! Midnight is fast approaching. What will go down when the clock strikes twelve?!

(Recommended reading for ages 18+ and includes discussion questions at the end for reading groups and book clubs)

Book Reviews: Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel by Bernard L. Dillard

“It’s a cosmic battle royale…Resonates like a live wire…[D]elivers a stunning conclusion that will leave you pondering long after you’ve turned the last page. Five-plus stars to Two ’Til Midnight.” –Publishers Daily Reviews

“In Two ’Til Midnight, author Bernard L. Dillard does an amazing job of storytelling while integrating several of today’s hard-to-discuss topics. . . . This book is not for the faint of heart.” –San Francisco Book Review

“Dillard skillfully weaves each character’s part into the plot…[He] has done an exceptional job creating a novel that will be enjoyed…This is highly recommended reading.” –Reader Views

“Readers who stick with the myriad of characters and [the] blend of supernatural influences, daily life challenges, and confrontations between [two] worlds will find Two ’Til Midnight an engrossing, multifaceted story.” –Midwest Book Review

Read more and watch the book trailer: http://bernarddillard.com/new-author

Chapter Excerpt: Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel by Bernard L. Dillard

“I don’t know. It just seemed wrong to me. I knew Schmidt wasn’t all there sometimes, but I never thought it would come to this.”

“Well, honey, I’m glad you spoke up. That wasn’t right.” She adjusted her nightgown and took one last look at the bathroom mirror before turning in. “You did the right thing.”

George was hesitant to accept her praise. “I hope so. It just didn’t feel like me. It was like I wasn’t myself. It’s hard to explain. At the moment, I just felt like I had to step in and say something. Honestly, Schmidt didn’t seem like himself. Something had to be controlling him. If I hadn’t said anything, I really think he woulda shot the kid.”

“Things were going that bad?”

“Only because Schmidt kept pushing the issue. And the way he looked at me when I told him that was enough. He just had a different face.” He spooned her and placed his arm around her stomach. His breath was a little tart, but she had gotten used to it.

“Imagine if you hadn’t spoken up and said anything. It might be a different story on the television. It may have been one of those stories again. Another one shot dead where the cop claims that he felt threatened.”

“It’s just not right, baby. I’ve seen all kinds of stuff on the beat. I feel sort of in a bubble because I know the violence will never probably happen to me and probably not you either since we’re both lily white.”

She laughed.

He continued. “It just bothers me that things are the way they are now. White cops can pretty much get away with whatever they want. You should hear some of the conversations in the precinct, how the guys talk among themselves about minorities. I’ve even seen Schmidt put up a poster that had a black face with a target on it and a picture of the white cop using it as target practice. Sick.”

“Wow.”

“My gut feeling is that things aren’t gone change until white people start speaking up against it. Sad to say, but seems like it’s true. Seems like the more they protest in the streets, the less stuff gets resolved. I’m not saying we gotta be the ‘Great White Hopes,’ but we gotta make sure our voices are heard right along with theirs.”

“I’d say you made your voice heard loud and clear last night. I’m proud of you, dear.”

“Well, at least that makes one who is. But I’m definitely on the Schmidt Sh** List. I really caught him off guard. He chewed me out when we got back to the precinct, asking me whose side I was on. ‘Right. The side of right,’ was what I told him. He didn’t like that and told me I’d learn soon enough but to never challenge him like that ever again.”

Out of the blue, Nan asked, “So where do Asians and Hispanics fall in this drama?”

“Dunno. There don’t seem to be huge numbers of killings involving Asians or Hispanics. Just seems to be a thing with African-Americans. Just seem to be a lot of tension between whites and Blacks. I’m sure it still has something to do with slavery. I’m sure America is still rather proud of that.”

“Oh, George. Everybody knows slavery was bad.”

“Yeah, but when it’s time to talk about some of the kickback and consequences from slavery, not everyone is willing to talk about. White people seem the most uncomfortable when race matters are addressed. Like people are blaming and accusing them today of it. No one is accusing us of anything, but it would be nice if we could understand our part in helping black people get their footing, economically or otherwise. Nobody’s talkin’ about giving them forty acres and a mule, but we can start with basic treatment with human dignity. There’s a good starting point.”

“So what advice would you give a mother who has to raise a black son in these turbulent times?” She could tell he was getting sleepy, even though he was talking logically.

“Yeah, I’d tell her to make her son pull his pants up and stop wearing hoodies. They need to put on a suit and tie every day and wear glasses, I guess. Walking through these streets in America looking like a bookworm may do the trick and make them look less of a threat. I really think that would work. A suit and glasses.”

Nan chuckled a bit and turned to him face to face and dropped a bombshell on him. “So I guess you’ve never heard of anyone named Malcolm X, huh?”

“Oh yeah, that’s right.”

It was too complicated to solve tonight. All they could do was simply revel in the small victory that had been attained last night. Maybe preventing a possible homicide of another black guy with promise at the hand of an overzealous cop was all that was needed for the moment, for the present, for the here and now.

( Continued… )

© 2019 All rights reserved. Book excerpt reprinted by permission of the author, Bernard L. Dillard. Do not reproduce, copy or use without the author’s written permission. This excerpt is used for promotional purposes only.

Intimate Conversation with Bernard L. Dillard

Bernard L. Dillard is an associate professor at Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City. He graduated from Morehouse College with a bachelor’s degree in English. The author of two text books, he is more known for his book, Lemonade: Inspired by Actual Events, which won first place in Dan Poynter’s Global Ebook Award (2013) in the memoir category.

He is also the author of Two ‘Til Midnight, this controversial novel is a soap-operatic dramedy, whereby the author tackles sensitive material against the backdrop of a Trumpian society. Select topics include race, diversity, tolerance, terrorism, sexuality, and faith.

Bernard L. Dillard has enjoyed a few acting stints (“The Wire” and “West Wing”) and several modeling assignments (Sean John). More information can be found at his website: http://bernarddillard.com.

BPM: Please, share something our readers wouldn’t know about you. Dillard: I had an acting role on “The Wire” (filmed in Baltimore).

BPM: Is writing your full-time career? How much time do you spend writing? Dillard: No. I am a math professor. On average, I probably spend about an hour a week writing.

BPM: Tell us about your first published book. What was the journey like? Dillard: My first published book is titled Lemonade: Inspired by Actual Events. I was a self-published author, so there was a lot of on-the-job training, a lot of pain. I had to learn to fight for my native files once the book was formatted. They did not want to give me the original files, but I won the battle and got them.

BPM: Introduce us to your most recent work, Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel. Available on Nook and Kindle? Dillard: My most recent work is Two ‘Til Midnight. It is my first novel and took 6 years to write, on and off. I had to squeeze it in before “normal” working hours. It is only available in print now but will be available as an eBook around December 2019.

More about Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel and the characters: At the center of a fierce, fiery, and invisible battle is Dr. Garnet Gibbs, a history professor, who is considered to be both a guidepost for and a mystery to many on the job. After hours, she often finds herself caught in a vortex of drama surrounding her family, associates, and friends.

Set in modern times, Two ’Til Midnight is a soap-operatic dramedy that presents two distinct and separate worlds that thrive together, both influencing the other in their own unique way. Ultimately, their coexistence produces a jaw-dropping ending that no one sees coming. Something’s brewing. Someone’s watching. And time is running out! Midnight is fast approaching. What will go down when the clock strikes twelve?!

BPM: Can you share with us something about the book that isn’t in the blurb? Dillard: One of the interesting parts of the book occurs when a white cop is speaking with his wife and struggling with the actions of his fellow white coworker as it relates to race. It shows the complexity of the race discussion that may exist within the white community. This part of the novel explores how some non-complicit whites may deal with racist situations when their white colleagues are not acting appropriately.

BPM: Did you learn anything personal from writing your book? Dillard: Yes, that writing is a very cathartic process for me.

BPM: Is there a specific place/space/state that you find inspiration in? Dillard: I like writing early in the morning, before most people get up. I joke and tell people I give the rooster his wake-up call.

BPM: When developing a new book, what comes first, the plot or characters? Dillard: For me, the plot generally comes first. I know what I want to get across and develop characters to make the plots a reality.

BPM: Where do your book ideas come from? Are your books plot-driven or character-driven? Dillard: Many of my book ideas come from casually observing. From sitting in meetings to riding on the train, ideas are birthed from anywhere for me. My books are generally plot driven, although characters may experience types of evolution (or not).

BPM: What did you enjoy most about writing and developing the characters for this book? Dillard: I always love developing characters who provide some sense of comic relief. Because of the gravity of some of the plots, it’s always good to lighten up and laugh a bit.

BPM: Is writing easy for you? Do you feel lonely being a writer during the creative process? Dillard: Writing is very much my happy place. I don’t feel lonely at all when doing so. Other than the gym, it’s the place I go to recharge and energize. It’s relatively easy for me, though I have some moments when I may struggle to get some ideas out.

BPM: Tell us a little about your creative process. Do you use a computer or write out the story by hand? Dillard: I may jot initial ideas down on paper (or a napkin), but I use my laptop to do most of the fleshing out of the details.

BPM: When you’re writing an emotionally draining scene, how do you get in the mood? Dillard: I just go there. I literally put myself in the characters’ position and bar no holds. If I am writing through the eyes of a racist, I have no problems calling somebody a “nigger” because that’s just what some of them do. Afterwards, while reading it, I may feel a little sad that I had to write it, but I try to stay true to how I think the character would have said it.

BPM: Writing can be an emotionally draining and stressful pursuit. Any tips self-care for creative folks? Dillard: Find a small healthy diversion. Run. Swim. Go for a walk. Get a massage. Watch Game of Thrones. Do something to give your mind the much-needed break it deserves after struggling through with the writing process.

BPM: How do you personally deal with emotional impact of a book as you are writing the story? Dillard: I run a lot to clear my mind. Running helps me escape.

BPM: Are there under-represented groups or ideas featured in your book, Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel? Dillard: Yes, my current novel addresses the struggle of Nieko, a gay gentleman. Often, stories are written about people who think they may be gay. Nieko’s situation is the opposite. He is not satisfied with being gay and thinks he may be happier by giving up that lifestyle. I also try to explore life as a serviceman/servicewoman. There’s always room to feature life in the barracks and get a look at how those in the military are dealing with their reality.

BPM: Share one specific point in your book that resonated with your present situation or journey. Dillard: As a more less radical Christian, I sometimes struggle (like Garnet does) with other, more radical Christians. In the chapter titled “Right vs. Right,” I tried to capture the tension that occurs between two groups of Christians who think their perspective on life is the right one. Both use scripture to back up their positions and both feel that they are “right.”

BPM: What were the key challenges you faced when writing this book? Dillard: The biggest challenge was making sure the storyline remained seamless when I took months off from writing. I had to go back and read what I wrote and make sure to keep the same train of thought as if I hadn’t taken a break from writing.

BPM: Can you share some stories about people you met while researching this book? Dillard: A lot of the people were in my professional circle already. I adapted some of the characters’ actions based on things I witnessed. Other times, my international travel provided a sense of globalism that I tried to express while writing about troops.

BPM: How has writing impacted your life? Dillard: It often provides a sense of therapy for me. It is what I do when I need to relax.

BPM: What does literary success look like to you? Dillard: If I hear that someone really enjoyed a book I wrote, it’s satisfying. It’s like cooking. It always tastes good to you, but whether someone else likes it is another thing.

BPM: What are the 3 most effective tools for sharing your book with the world? Dillard: Word of mouth, social media and book marks.

BPM: What books or authors have most influenced your own writing? Dillard: The Bible and Frank Peretti.

BPM: What are your 3 favorite forms of entertainment? Dillard: Broadway shows, independent films and baseball games.

BPM: What was your favorite part and your least favorite part, of the publishing journey? Dillard: I like the feeling of holing the finished product in my hands. I am not particularly a fan of the challenge with language when dealing with freelancers who are designing my cover or doing my website. It’s hard to explain to them in a way they understand, especially since the only interaction is via email.

BPM: Do you have anything special for readers that you’ll focus on this year? Dillard: No, I’m just resting from pushing hard to get this novel out to the world.

BPM: How can readers discover more about you and your work? Dillard: They can discover all things related to me at www.bernarddillard.com. It presents me in all of my forms, not just as an author. I have an author page on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B00AGP43UW.

Email: [email protected] Website: http://bernarddillard.com Dillard: http://bernarddillard.com/the-brand Twitter: https://twitter.com/bl_dillard @bl_dillard Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedillardbrand Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bl_dillard Cinematic Book Trailer: https://vimeo.com/329722801

Two ‘Til Midnight: A Novel by Bernard L. Dillard Two 'Til Midnight: A Novel by Bernard L. Dillard At the center of a fierce, fiery, and invisible battle is Dr.

0 notes

cryptochurp · 7 years ago

Text

Op Ed: Tulip Myths and Modern Cryptocurrency Skepticism

“Ever heard of tulips?” It’s a question anyone who is publically involved in the cryptocurrency space has been asked multiple times. With the enormous gains in value the industry has seen, many observers come to the same conclusion. It’s a bubble.

The take is not a terrible one and many experienced cryptocurrency traders agree with the sentiment. Bubbles have come to be an expected occurrence in the space. The difference in opinion comes when deciding whether the “pop” will be a minor setback or the final conclusion in an exciting but short-lived ride.

On one side are the supporters of cryptocurrency. Their motivations can be boiled down to two points: desire for profits and a belief that the technology will benefit humanity. They believe that bubbles are a natural phenomenon in price discovery and an inevitable part of the long-term upward trend in value that will occur as cryptocurrencies become more utilized. They also understand that, while bubbles can hurt some traders in the short term, they are a necessary evil in the development of a technology which stands to dramatically increase human financial freedom. Sometimes these motivations can seem at odds, but in general they coexist within the community.

Get rich making the world a better place. It’s an attractive pitch.

On the other side are the skeptics. Doubt in cryptocurrency has made strange bedfellows of a band of commentators as diverse as it is vocal. Nobel prize economists, billionaire bankers, goldbugs and central banks have all weighed in to signal their prediction of the industry’s inevitable demise. And with the spotlight of increasing coin valuations has come even more doubters. In the age of Twitter, it’s almost essential that you have an opinion on the matter and that you let the world know it. For detractors, the tulip meme often comes into play:

OG Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/qQSMJYhLR7

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 6, 2018

For skeptics as much as believers, there is a personal economic motivation. While they may not have cashed in on the extraordinary rise of cryptocurrencies, they think the game is rigged from the start. By keeping their hard earned cash out of the market, they are saving themselves from an “inevitable” crash to zero.

But under this current of self-preservation is an ethical play opposite to that of cryptocurrency supporters. Many detractors believe that this technology is not just ridiculous but actually harmful to society. What drives this outlook? The true history of the tulip bubble can give us an interesting view of the motivations driving their sentiment.

An Early Mania

Tulip Mania is the go-to story whenever someone wants to talk about humanity’s penchant for irrational exuberance in financial markets. It’s the catchy name for the extraordinary rise in value, and subsequent crash, of Dutch tulip bulb valuations over a four month span from November 1636 to February 1637. This phenomenon had devastating effects on the Dutch economy and left many people in financial ruin.

At least that’s how the story is told.

But according to Anne Goldgar, Professor of Early Modern History at King’s College London and author of Tulipmania: Money, Honor, and Knowledge in the Dutch Golden Age, the popular story is mostly an exaggeration.

The description of her book reads like this:

“We have heard how these bulbs changed hands hundreds of times in a single day, and how some bulbs, sold and resold for thousands of guilders, never even existed. Tulipmania is seen as an example of the gullibility of crowds and the dangers of financial speculation. But it wasn’t like that … not one of these stories is true.”

Goldgar uses extensive research to expose that, while there was a rise and crash of tulip prices, much of what we believe about the period is the product of historical exaggeration from a small number of writers.

What drove this? According to Goldgar, it was a product of societal anxieties triggered by the immense riches of the Dutch Golden Age. As Lorraine Boissoneault writes in Smithsonian Magazine’s recent piece on the book, “All the outlandish stories of economic ruin, of an innocent sailor thrown in prison for eating a tulip bulb, of chimney sweeps wading into the market in hopes of striking it rich — those come from propaganda pamphlets published by Dutch Calvinists worried that the tulip-propelled consumerism boom would lead to societal decay.”

English historian Simon Schama also writes of the period: “The prodigious quality of their [the Dutch] success went to their heads, but it also made them a bit queasy. Even their most uninhibited documents of self-congratulation are haunted by the threat of overvloed (abundance) ... a word heavy with warning as well as euphoria.”

When looked at through the lens of this historic research, the legend of the tulip bubble becomes less about financial mania and more about the way that an economic memory can reflect a society’s collective mindset. The Dutch Golden Age represents a period during the 17th century when “Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world.”

This transformation was termed the “Dutch Miracle” by historian K.W. Swart. But, while it is easy to look back now and realize this era was a huge stepping stone to the modern prosperity the Dutch people enjoy today, at the time the progress was not as apparent. Many of the Dutch found a hard time adjusting to a society where fortunes were being created overnight. Schama compares the mindset to one which was found by de Tocqueville in 19th century America: “that strange melancholy which often haunts the inhabitants of democratic countries in the midst of their abundance, and the disgust at life which sometimes seizes upon them in the midst of calm and easy circumstances.”

While there was undoubtedly a run on Dutch Tulip prices, it seems there was an equal run on seizing the opportunity to find a negative aspect to extraordinary societal progress. Today, we are seeing the same mindset from cryptocurrency skeptics.

Modern Anxieties

Cryptocurrency has arrived at an uncomfortable moment in history. There is a wide debate surrounding whether or not technology is hurting human progress. Many argue that smartphones are making kids depressed and robots are taking our jobs. The thought is that technology which was supposed to make life better is instead causing us to become stupid, antisocial and unhealthy. On top of this, the freedom of speech made possible by the internet is being questioned for the alleged harm it can cause to democracy.

It is in this atmosphere of negativity that critics have found their “tulip moment” in cryptocurrency. It is being latched onto as an lightning rod for these growing worries about a society that is becoming radically shaped by the digital age. Detractors consistently ignore any possible justification for cryptocurrency to be considered useful and instead focus on its most distasteful features:

Haha, I feel sorry for all you losers who missed out on the Bitcoin train. You should've bought in years ago, like me: A perfectly normal man who coincidentally hoarded a virtual currency during a time when it's only use was for sex trafficking and purchasing organs.

— Shane (@Shanehasabeard) December 8, 2017

Many cannot push their analysis past observations of price movements. Warren Buffett partner Charlie Munger has described the cryptocurrency scene as “total insanity” and recently told an audience at University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, “I think it is perfectly asinine to even pause to think about them. It’s bad people, crazy bubble, bad idea, luring people into the concept of easy wealth without much insight or work.”

Others, echoing popular sentiment questioning unbridled freedom of speech, are worried about a lack of governmental oversight. Back in 2013 author Charlie Stross wrote in Why I Want Bitcoin to Die in a Fire that “Bitcoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money-issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind — to damage states’ ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens’ financial transactions … late-period capitalism may suck, but replacing it with Bitcoin would be like swapping out a hangnail for Fournier's gangrene.”

Economist Paul Krugman cited the article in his piece Bitcoin Is Evil, adding “Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I.” While Krugman did admit he was open to conversation on the topic, fellow economist, Joseph Stiglitz, has been less forgiving. Recently he told Bloomberg “Bitcoin is successful only because of its potential for circumvention, lack of oversight...So it seems to me it ought to be outlawed … It doesn’t serve any socially useful function.”

The Progress Paradox

Are these arguments baseless? Not at all. Cryptocurrencies do in fact make many unsavory things possible. But, much like supporters believe bubbles are a necessary evil for price growth, they also believe that some illicit activities are a worthwhile trade-off for the ability to have a censorship-resistant, value-transfer system. They believe the win for personal freedom trumps all else.

It looks as if this idea is spreading. Bitcoin alone has grown from roughly 6,000 transactions per day in January of 2011 to 240,000 transactions on January 1, 2018. With 1000+ other cryptocurrencies, each growing their own communities, this desire for this financial independence appears contagious.

To the critics, these statistics do not matter. They will continue to focus on perceived faults. As the myth of the Tulip Bubble illustrates, this is rooted in human psychology. Some people are set on ignoring the progress around them.

De Tocqueville observed: “In America I saw the freest and most enlightened men placed in the happiest circumstances that the world affords; it seemed to me as if a cloud habitually hung upon their brow, and I thought them serious and almost sad, even in their pleasures.” Over the last few centuries, technology has made our lives less nasty, brutish and short. But, for some of us, the natural reaction has been to question whether it was really worth it.

Cryptocurrency now finds itself at the center of this larger debate over the morality of technology in a developing society. If supporters have their way, it holds the power to usher in a new era of human economic freedom. If critics have their way it will be regulated to death.

Let’s hope one side ends up as forgotten as Calvinist pamphlet writers.

This is a guest post by Kenny Spotz. Views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Media.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2HnIjpp via IFTTT

#BTC #HODL #ETH #CryptoChurp.com

0 notes

ellahmacdermott · 7 years ago

Text

Op Ed: Tulip Myths and Modern Cryptocurrency Skepticism

Get rich making the world a better place. It’s an attractive pitch.

OG Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/qQSMJYhLR7

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 6, 2018

An Early Mania

At least that’s how the story is told.

The description of her book reads like this:

Modern Anxieties

— Shane (@Shanehasabeard) December 8, 2017

The Progress Paradox

Let’s hope one side ends up as forgotten as Calvinist pamphlet writers.

This is a guest post by Kenny Spotz. Views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Media.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

from InvestmentOpportunityInCryptocurrencies via Ella Macdermott on Inoreader https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-tulip-myths-and-modern-cryptocurrency-skepticism/

0 notes

cabiba · 8 years ago

Link

What is Globalism?

Globalism is the dominant ideology of our times and it unites the Left and the Right. Globalism should not be confused with globalization. Globalists purposely encourage this confusion, but globalization is a factual account of the accelerating interactions of nations since the discovery of the New World and the creation of international markets, shipping, transit, and communications networks from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Globalism, on the other hand, is an ideology describing how our current elites, on both the Right and the Left, would like things to be politically.

Globalism is an ideology that advocates open borders, mass immigration, and the liquidation of (Western) national identities. It advocates, under the guise of diversity, the obliteration of “indigenous” European cultures and the creation of a generic culture dedicated to consumerism and universal human rights. Globalization is not an ideology but a factual state of affairs about the growth of communications and trade in the modern era.

Both the Leftist and the corporate Right establishment are globalists, and both portray globalism as if it were an inevitable fact intimately associated with the growth of trade and communications. But globalism, as Robert Locke points out, is a deliberate political choice, no more inevitable than the establishment of feminism, transsexualism, or Communism. Mass immigration is not inevitable. It could be stopped tomorrow. The European Union, which seeks to diminish the political independence of European nations, could be abolished, and this would not bring an end to globalization, any more than Japan’s decision not to diversify itself through mass immigration has limited its ability to become a global economic power.

Nationalism and globalization can coexist with each other, and did coexist in the past. But nationalism and globalism cannot coexist with each other. The Left-Right establishment wants globalism. Trump is a critic of globalism. He wants to put America and Americans first, though he is a civic nationalist, which is a softer nationalism than I would like. He has not yet expressed criticism of legal immigration.

Students today are being made to believe that globalism is the same as globalization, an inevitable process brought about by our age of intensive communications, travelling, and global investments. They are taught that “massive numbers of people are moving across borders, making virtually every country more polyethnic in composition.” Or that “all societies are becoming increasingly multicultural, while at the same time becoming more porous.” These are the words of Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor, the foremost theorists of Canadian multiculturalism. They are deliberately deceiving Canadians into believing that the swamping of Canada with immigrants is an inevitable product of globalization.

The truth is that “only a tiny proportion of the world’s population is mobile across international borders.” Today, about ninety-six percent of the world’s inhabitants are living in the country in which they were born. More than ninety-eight percent of the people in less-developed countries were born in the country where they reside. Immigrants have accounted for a mere 1.4 to 1.6 percent of Asia’s population over the past twenty years – despite fertility rates well below replacement levels in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and other Asian countries. These Asian nations are thoroughly globalized, but they don’t accept globalism.

Globalists hate European national cultural identities. In the last decades, Leftist globalists have carried out relentless campaigns to decouple Europeans from their nations and their cultural traditions. These attacks have taken many forms: revision of their histories, fake claims that they are all immigrants, promotion of guilt related to the “genocidal actions” supposedly committed by their founding peoples, reinterpretation of European national identities in purely civic terms, and the equation of any form of cultural nationalism with Nazism.

Corporate globalists prefer to produce goods with a generic identity for consumers across the globe. They prefer niche markets without clear national boundaries, with different parts produced in different regions, incorporating hybrid styles in music, adornments, and furniture. People who are rooted culturally are less suitable consumers of these hybrid-generic commodities. They don’t want consumers and producers with a sense of national identity who will care about the “national” economy, domestic jobs, and who resent corporations that move in and out of towns without caring for the effects these movements have on the communities. People who are rooted like to protect their culture and economies, which goes against the globalist mentality of Western corporations. They want cultures to be interchangeable parts of global markets identified only by their adherence to cosmopolitan and postmodernist values. They want a homogeneous commercial pop culture to replace authentic traditions. Corporations love the way Leftist causes have adorned this consumerist culture with humanitarian concerns about transsexual rights, “discriminated minorities,” and “suffering refugees.”

Convergence of the Left and Right

Despite their varying emphasis on different aspects of globalism, the Left and Right have really converged in a state of amicable reinforcement. The Right’s main interest has been the promotion of policies that augment the expansion of global capitalism, deregulation, and freer mobility of capital and information at low cost between borders, as well as international labor migration. The Left’s globalist narrative is more complicated, and goes something like this: humans are members of the same species; the racial differences between them are superficial; and cultures should not be viewed in “essentialist” terms, but as constructs in a state of change. Liberation consists in allowing individuals to express themselves without being tied to given identities, be they cultural, national, or sexual. With the “freeing” of humans from identities “constructed” by “white males” and the emergence of “complexly” new gender and racial identities, humans will learn to become global citizens, identifying as members of an “international community” devoid of hierarchies of dominance. These new humans will be morally sensitive to the suffering of “strangers,” quick in their responses to the violations of anyone and everyone’s human rights, and will gladly assist those threatened by famines in Africa, tsunamis in Asia, and floods and earthquakes while celebrating trans-sexuality and pan-sexuality in an orgiastic state of happiness.

The Left and the Right have actually reached a new consensus on the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration. The dominant pro-immigration argument today is really a combination of Right and Left economic concerns about the fact that the populations of the Western countries are set to decline dramatically in the next decades due to continuing below-replacement fertility rates, which is resulting in a shrinking labor force, while at the same time there is an aging baby boom generation. Together, these factors will bring about a decline, or so they argue, in both economic growth and the possibility of financing socialist programs. A decline in population, both sides say, will cause a “massive” crisis which, left on its own and without mass immigration, will result in widespread labor shortages, lower tax receipts, declining welfare support, and lower consumption levels. Only now has this convergence come to be well understood with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and the persistent growth of populist nationalist parties in Europe with platforms that stray between (and away from) traditionally Left and Right positions. As a recent mainstream media article announced: “Forget left and right – the new divide in politics is between nationalists and globalists.” Before these developments, the academic world had no clue about this convergence.

What is Nationalism?

The Fake Media portrays nationalist parties as “far Right extremist parties.” It portrays the supporters of Trump, Brexit, and these parties as racists and xenophobic people who can’t handle change and who can’t cope with the sophisticated cosmopolitanism of the media and academics. They portray the working classes as parochial, small-town characters who are against openness and change. Or, now that Trump won, and they want to get the working class vote, they portray them as victims who need to be attended with more welfare expenditures and government-initiated job creation programs, while still advocating mass immigration.

When we examine the class background and the moral concerns of these two sides, the globalists and the nationalists, we find that the former are generally well-off whites living in cities and university towns who benefit from cheap migrant labor, ethnic restaurants, and international students. This elite has little attachment to any locality or to any people, and they are not loyal to any culture other than to consumerism and status-enhancing, easy to follow, “humanitarian” causes. They claim to be more open and tolerant, but they are intolerant of anyone who questions their ideas or of any expression of European identity.

Nationalists, on the other hand, are people who have different and wider moral concerns. They feel a bond with their country and their heritage, and they fell that citizens should be loyal to their nation. They are Westerners who value freedom of expression and individuality, but they also value in-group loyalty, traditions, and open debate. Their moral concerns are more sophisticated and inclusive than the moral concerns of globalists.

Fake News

Fake news by The New York Times

Many dismiss Trump’s objections to “fake news,” but what is important about this term is that it reflects a growing sense in the population of the West that they are being deceived about the most fundamental question of our times: mass immigration. The entire argument about its “benefits,” and the claim that “we are all immigrants,” is based on fake history, fake facts, and fake events.

Here is one of many examples of media deception as part of the incessant campaign to instill the notion into the British that they are immigrants, just like the millions of Africans and Muslims arriving today. The fake New York Times (March 9, 2017) announced that “Britain is an Immigrant Nation.” This article, by Rachel Shabi, deceitfully equates the migratory flows of Vikings, Romans, Normans, and French Huguenots in the seventeenth century with the immigration patterns of today. Yet the scientific evidence has been mounting over the last few years showing the exact opposite. A paper published in Nature, “The Fine-scale Genetic Structure of the British Population” (2015), reports that there has been very little genetic differentiation within the native British population. Only in the twentieth century has the migratory flow increased substantially:

Between 1900 and 1950, the foreign-born fraction of the population rose, but never exceeded 5%. By the early 1990s, it was well above 5%. In 2011, it was around 13%. And today, it is probably above 15%. Thus, contemporary levels of immigration into Britain are historically unprecedented.

Moreover, the genetic impact of the Normans and French Huguenots on the British-Celtic stock was negligible:

Estimates for the fraction of the population that Normans comprised, following the Norman conquest in 1066, range from 1% to around 5%. Between 1066 and the turn of the 20th century, it is unlikely that the foreign-born fraction of the population ever exceeded 2%. French Huguenots, for example, are unlikely to have constituted more than 1% of the population.

In another article which sums up these new findings, we learn that the contribution of the Romans and Vikings to the genetics of Britain was also marginal:

The Romans, Vikings and Normans may have ruled or invaded the British for hundreds of years, but they left barely a trace on our DNA, the first detailed study of the genetics of British people has revealed. The analysis shows that the Anglo-Saxons were the only conquering force, around 400-500 AD, to substantially alter the country’s genetic makeup, with most white British people now owing almost 30% of their DNA to the ancestors of modern-day Germans.

Those of us who care for truthfulness, the indigenous peoples of Europe, and the people who built the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada welcome the election of Trump the God Emperor.

This article was originally published at the Council of European Canadians on March 20, 2017.

#globalism #nationalism

0 notes

jasonwentcrazy · 8 years ago

Text

Revolution and Counterrevolution in Modern Culture

First of all, we think the world must be changed. We want the most liberating change of the society and life in which we find ourselves confined. We know that such a change is possible through appropriate actions.

Our specific concern is the use of certain means of action and the discovery of new ones, means which are more easily recognizable in the domain of culture and customs, but which must be applied in interrelation with all revolutionary changes.

A society’s “culture” both reflects and prefigures its possible ways of organizing life. Our era is characterized by the lagging of revolutionary political action behind the development of modern possibilities of production which call for a more advanced organization of the world.

We are going through a crucial historical crisis in which each year poses more acutely the global problem of rationally mastering the new productive forces and creating a new civilization. Yet the international working-class movement, on which depends the prerequisite overthrow of the economic infrastructure of exploitation, has registered only a few partial local successes. Capitalism has invented new forms of struggle (state intervention in the economy, expansion of the consumer sector, fascist governments) while camouflaging class oppositions through various reformist tactics and exploiting the degenerations of working-class leaderships. In this way it has succeeded in maintaining the old social relations in the great majority of the highly industrialized countries, thereby depriving a socialist society of its indispensable material base. In contrast, the underdeveloped or colonized countries, which over the last decade have engaged in the most direct and massive battles against imperialism, have begun to win some very significant victories. These victories are aggravating the contradictions of the capitalist economy and (particularly in the case of the Chinese revolution) could be a contributing factor toward a renewal of the whole revolutionary movement. Such a renewal cannot limit itself to reforms within the capitalist or anticapitalist countries, but must develop conflicts posing the question of power everywhere.

The shattering of modern culture is the result, on the plane of ideological struggle, of the chaotic crisis of these antagonisms. The new desires that are taking shape are presented in distorted form: present-day resources could enable them to be fulfilled, but the anachronistic economic structure is incapable of developing these resources to such ends. Ruling-class ideology has meanwhile lost all coherence because of the depreciation of its successive conceptions of the world (a depreciation which leads the ruling class to historical indecision and uncertainty); because of the coexistence of a range of mutually contradictory reactionary ideologies (such as Christianity and social-democracy); and because of the mixing into contemporary Western culture of a number of only recently appreciated features of several foreign civilizations. The main goal of ruling-class ideology is therefore to maintain this confusion.

Within culture (it should be understood that throughout this text we are ignoring the scientific or educational aspects of culture, even if the confusion we have noted is also visibly reflected at the level of general scientific theories and notions of education; we are using the term to refer to a complex of aesthetics, sentiments and customs: the reaction of an era on everyday life) there are two parallel counterrevolutionary confusionist tactics: the partial cooption of new values, and a deliberately anticultural, industrially facilitated production (novels, films), the latter being a natural continuation of the imbecilization of young people begun in their schools and families. The ruling ideology sees to it that subversive discoveries are trivialized and sterilized, after which they can be safely spectacularized. It even manages to make use of subversive individuals — by falsifying their works after their death, or, while they are still alive, by taking advantage of the general ideological confusion and drugging them with one or another of the many mystiques at their disposal.

One of the contradictions of the bourgeoisie in its period of decline is that while it respects the abstract principle of intellectual and artistic creation, it resists actual creations when they first appear, then eventually exploits them. This is because it needs to maintain a certain degree of criticality and experimental research among a minority, but must take care to channel this activity into narrowly compartmentalized utilitarian disciplines and avert any holistic critique and experimentation. In the domain of culture the bourgeoisie strives to divert the taste for innovation, which is dangerous for it in our era, toward certain confused, degraded and innocuous forms of novelty. Through the commercial mechanisms that control cultural activity, avant-garde tendencies are cut off from the segments of society that could support them, segments already limited because of the general social conditions. The people within these tendencies who become well known are generally accepted as exceptional individuals, on the condition that they accept various renunciations: the essential point is always the renunciation of a comprehensive opposition and the acceptance of fragmentary works susceptible to diverse interpretations. This is what gives the very term “avant-garde,” which in the final analysis is always defined and manipulated by the bourgeoisie, a dubious and ridiculous aspect.

The very notion of a collective avant-garde, with the militant aspect it implies, is a recent product of the historical conditions that are simultaneously giving rise to the necessity for a coherent revolutionary program in culture and to the necessity to struggle against the forces that impede the development of such a program. Such groups are led to transpose into their sphere of activity certain organizational methods originally created by revolutionary politics, and their action is henceforth inconceivable without some connection with a political critique. In this regard there is a notable progression from Futurism through Dadaism and Surrealism to the movements formed after 1945. At each of these stages, however, one discovers the same desire for total change; and the same rapid disintegration when the inability to change the real world profoundly enough leads to a defensive withdrawal to the very doctrinal positions whose inadequacy had just been revealed.

Futurism, whose influence spread from Italy in the period preceding World War I, adopted an attitude of revolutionizing literature and the arts which introduced a great number of formal innovations, but which was only based on an extremely simplistic application of the notion of mechanical progress. Futurism’s puerile technological optimism vanished with the period of bourgeois euphoria that had sustained it. Italian Futurism collapsed, going from nationalism to fascism without ever attaining a more complete theoretical vision of its time.

Dadaism, initiated in Zurich and New York by refugees and deserters from World War I, expressed the rejection of all the values of a bourgeois society whose bankruptcy had just become so grossly evident. Its violent manifestations in postwar Germany and France aimed mainly at the destruction of art and literature and to a lesser degree at certain forms of behavior (deliberately imbecilic spectacles, speeches and excursions). Its historic role is to have delivered a mortal blow to the traditional conception of culture. The almost immediate dissolution of dadaism was an inevitable result of its purely negative definition. The dadaist spirit has nevertheless influenced all subsequent movements; and any future constructive position must include a dadaist-type negative aspect as long as the social conditions that impose the repetition of rotten superstructures — conditions that have intellectually already been definitively condemned — have not been wiped out by force.

The creators of surrealism, who had participated in the dadaist movement in France, endeavored to define the terrain of a constructive action on the basis of the spirit of revolt and the extreme depreciation of traditional means of communication expressed by dadaism. Setting out from a poetic application of Freudian psychology, surrealism extended the methods it had discovered to painting, to film, and to some aspects of everyday life; and its influence, in more diffuse forms, spread much further. Now, what is important in an enterprise of this nature is not whether it is completely or relatively right, but whether it succeeds in catalyzing for a certain time the desires of an era. Surrealism’s period of progress, marked by the liquidation of idealism and a moment of rallying to dialectical materialism, came to a halt soon after 1930, but its decay only became evident after World War II. Surrealism had by then spread to numerous countries. It had also initiated a discipline whose rigor must not be overestimated and which was often tempered by commercial considerations, but which was nevertheless an effective means of struggle against the confusionist mechanisms of the bourgeoisie.

The surrealist program, asserting the sovereignty of desire and surprise and proposing a new way of life, is much richer in constructive possibilities than is generally realized. The limited scope of surrealism was in large part due to the lack of material means for fulfilling its aims. But the devolution of its original proponents into spiritualism, and above all the mediocrity of its later members, obliges us to search for the failed development of surrealist theory in the very origin of that theory.

The error that is at the root of surrealism is the idea of the infinite richness of the unconscious imagination. The cause of surrealism’s ideological failure was its belief that the unconscious was the finally discovered ultimate force of life; and the fact that the surrealists revised the history of ideas in accordance with that simplistic perspective and never went any further. We now know that the unconscious imagination is poor, that automatic writing is monotonous, and that the whole ostentatious genre of would-be “strange” and “shocking” surrealistic creations has ceased to be very surprising. The formal fidelity to this style of imagination ultimately leads back to the polar opposite of the modern conditions of imagination: back to traditional occultism. The extent to which surrealism has remained dependent on its hypothesis regarding the unconscious can be seen in the theoretical investigations attempted by the second-generation surrealists: Calas and Mabille relate everything to the two successive aspects of the surrealist practice of the unconscious — the former to psychoanalysis, the latter to cosmic influences. The discovery of the role of the unconscious was indeed a surprise and an innovation; but it was not a law of future surprises and innovations. Freud had also ended up discovering this when he wrote: “Whatever is conscious wears out. What is unconscious remains unalterable. But once it is freed, it too falls to ruin.”

Opposing an apparently irrational society in which the clash between reality and the old but still vigorously proclaimed values was pushed to the point of absurdity, surrealism made use of the irrational to destroy that society’s superficially logical values. The very success of surrealism has a lot to do with the fact that the most modern side of this society’s ideology has renounced a strict hierarchy of factitious values and openly uses the irrational, including vestiges of surrealism. The bourgeoisie must above all prevent a new beginning of revolutionary thought. It was aware of the danger of surrealism. Now that it has been able to coopt it into ordinary aesthetic commerce, it would like people to believe that surrealism was the most radical and disturbing movement possible. It thus cultivates a sort of nostalgia for surrealism at the same time that it discredits any new venture by automatically pigeonholing it as a rehash of surrealism, a rerun of a defeat which according to it is definitive and can no longer be brought back into question by anyone. Reacting against the alienation of Christian society has led some people to admire the completely irrational alienation of primitive societies. But we need to go forward, not backward. We need to make the world more rational — the necessary first step in making it more exciting.

Part One of Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency's Conditions of Organization and Action by Guy Debord, June 1957

#manifesto #situationist international #Guy Debord

0 notes