Politics. Can you think of a more discredited profession? No one suspects politicians of being knowledgeable, nor of having a dedicated character to a particular cause, a politician is a the most flexible, pliable, drifty and shifty character on earth. This is because they are non believers, politicians don’t really believe in anything, the least successful politician will always be the one that truly believes in something. This is because when you believe in something you are alienating something else. Belief is by its very nature exclusionary. Belief calls for absolutes. Politicians must not show that they are absolutist. They must profess to have an open mind, a willingness to listen, and the more they are willing to change the more we will admire them. To be an absolutist is to be a dictator, and the populace wants to have a feeling that given the right circumstances, and proper communication that a politician would understand their particular cause. If only they could talk to him, and obviously most will not get the chance to converse with their political representatives, but as long as they have the idea that the senator or governor has the potential to be influenced then they will support him; even as this is not going to happen they will support him, it is the idea that a politician can believe in anything that is the base of democratic massification.
It is interesting to note that the feminine is also considered much in this light, she is the more likely to be neutral, we are more given to believe our wives and mothers because there is an inherent aspect of neutrality which convinces one that they could support any cause. A mother loves her son the murderer, a mother is willing to forgive a lie, a mother is tolerant, a mother is receptive, a mother is of course a very autocratic & fixated concept in the universe but you wouldn’t know it from her ability to suffer, endure and overcome.
But then there is politics and politicians and I am here to tell you that there are only politicians and not politics. Political science is hubris, there is no such thing, never has been, but there are politicians, characters that behave and act politically. The implication of this is important to our comprehension of the birth of neutrality and objectivity which have much to do with the suspect independence of a subject: science, politics, religion and even something as mundane as environment.
There is an interesting difference between politics, religion and science. Politics and religion endemically recognize that they need mass support and proactively seek it. Science is the opposite, it believes that facts speak for themselves and anyone with enough mathematics and common sense will comprehend and become a believer, the rest of us humans must just believe they are right about what we don’t understand innately.
If planes fly it is because of science, it can’t be because god ordained it, the facts despise faith. Or it couldn’t be because we BELIEVE that they fly, it is because a formulae has struck the right balance with gravity and metal, and so planes fly. Or it could certainly not be that there is no such thing as a plane but that your imagination came up with the concept to explain the interval of time that passes when you convene the ravine of self between to points.
This rhetoric I am feeling you with here is to reiterate the point, massification of belief is essential to reality. The mass is the medium to any reality and it is precisely because of this that the mass is inert. Sorry Mr. Marx you can not awaken a solid object.
Science spends many laboring hours in its inquisition against religion and everything else that is not fact based, and throughout the centuries science has gradually acquired a psyche-massified-mindset that allows for its principles to become common truths.
The externalization of belief is what generates concepts that are detached from humans. And externalization is a requirement in order to acquire endorsement of your beliefs from the presumed external world. The universe, as most must suppose, is an extrovert. It doesn’t hide much, it is the most visible most obvious thing, the universe is an extrovert. But is it really? And if it is extroverted why is it so?
One must be careful when using the word reason, and specially if its me using said word, but it is reasonable to suspect that the universe wants us to know it is there so we will get out of the way of his INTRUSIVE being more and more universe. The universe is really an introvert, as really we all are, because we are all subjective beings, but we extrovert in order to create a perimeter, to arouse the nature of our existence upon anything that might be inadequately challenged to recognize it. The universe wakes me up to tell me look at my beautiful Luna, it calls my eyes to speck in sprinkled cosmic nova, it hums eternally the radiation of its origin essence, it vomits quasar-tons my way, it promises to disemboweled me into its black holes, the universe is externalizing its self essence so as to capture mine. Simply put the universe is a selfish agglomeration of introverted extrovertions, staying attached from lack of separation, there is zero distance between me and the universe, we keep convincing each other of that, by way of rubbing, but such convincing would not be possible if it were not already so.
One wants to imagine it not so, but so it is and so it is with humanity and its atomic components we call human. Later we will discuss the further duality of the human helix which is entwined in the feminine and masculine embodiment of blue glue. But lets not get out of the universe yet. Inside the universe is everything, if this is the case there is no duality within the universe and everything that comprises it. Please don’t get scare we are not going anywhere with this. Now magnify yourself back to your little tiny planet of self, there in your self essence you find the you that is a politician which is in all of us, though more manifested in some than in others. The reason for the variance in the magnification of the political self is based on lack or not of representation. The better represented you are the less likely you are to be politically active. This is why the average person is generally so comfortable and inert, they are well represented so they can afford to be apolitical or more accurately expressed, they don’t have to extrovert their political self to accrue greater benefit of belief.
I am sure all this sounds very fine to you, while it really sounds horrid to me, specially because I am not average which is to say that I am not comfortable and that I have a large political self which is seeking to extrovert itself and that explains this book nicely. The politics of the time have an average acceptance, but this is not to say that they are average and therefore serve the common good. Belief does not have a right or wrong qualifying quality check, something can be wrong and if enough people believe it then there is nothing wrong about that wrong even as it wrongs.
People that have a conflict with the apolitical average, which again is really not apolitical at all, their political gene is livelier because it is successful, but those disenchanted by the average will, that silently dominates the social psyche, rise to attempt to convince others that they need to wake up and be politically alive so that they can rescue his or her subjective dream of fairness and humanness. All those politically active organizations are composed of disenfranchised unsatisfied extroverted political selves. The only exception is political lobbies which are franchises of the established political order, merely there to secure that no one changes the rules on the game that they have already won. But the point is that those of us not served by the accepted average are forever at war with it, and so we are a danger to the current, stable and proven and largely comfortable social condition. A heapeance of tragedy would unfold if we the disenchanted were to find average converts.
And everyone needs average converts. It is average converts that make any and all systems. Nothing about the luxurious geniuses, the mavericks, the entrepreneurs, the visionaries, nothing about these is inherently stable, they will destroy any system or world of belief, it is only the average convert that stabilizes and creates a normal ambient temperature that is tolerable to all. The mass is automatically political and therefore endemically apolitical. You can study the inner workings of a thing that ceases to exist when it is most successful. The common world politic is not active! A successful politician doesn’t exist in the real world. It cant, because the political essence freezes and hardens and becomes average when it manifest itself within the social ambiance of the times.
Unless again it is not dully represented.
I have gone on long enough about this but my point is simple, politics as a science and as a profession is another of the necessary irrelevancies. It is an arena where the least politicking happens, and mostly the least successful. The political decisions have already been made by the time they materialize into the supra-social-psyche. There are only two ways to change the world as we know it, and that is to change yourself or to change others, neither are possible; humanity can not externalize itself from itself, the universe gets the same information from ten humans or a billion, the revolution is on lockstep.
Again the universe does not register 1, one, singular human. They came in two’s dint they?
