A Lonely Cycle

Blue-eyed stock

Balding men

Blistered heels


Understanding Weakness


I struggle

In the simplest things


Collared white males

Put them in chains


Even Hegel himself

Non Fiction

Night of the World, Morning of the Universe: A Gleam of Hope in a Vapid Global Society

It appears that a superficial orientation to any subject is rampantly extant as a buyer’s catalog/introductory for masses of consumers that are indeed introduced, yet are never fully immersed. Yes, they buy, but purchasing negates understanding.

If you can hear someone’s headache going away, what does that signify?

-Absolutely nothing, it is nearly impossible to observe objectivity while immersed in meaningless buzzing.

However, when your ear drums are infected, your brain does not have to rot, conversely, let it grow in spite of the drone. One may ask, how can you not experience ambivalence in relation to society? You must realize that this conflict stems from a general concern: apathy and zealotry are two sides of the same coin.

It is true that life is purgatorial, and that is why people are attracted to extremes, black and white, when in reality ambiguity pervades. The irrelevant word is not spoken just for the sake of it, it is given in order to create an image. When this does not pertain to anything of substance, with the sole purpose of maintaining an illusion, then it is un-genuine, deliberately subversive, and utterly unbearable. Societal norms are based upon this idea, especially in recent times, when humans are not judged, but their hopelessly fake self-reflections represented by (sometimes singular, oftentimes multiple) internet persona[s] are… Thus, undue credit to the self is too often pitifully given as a seemingly transparent contradiction.

However, there are cases when confusion abounds, or that words are misunderstood as meaningless because of a chasm between subjective experiences. This is not contradictory, as subjectivity and objectivity are also two sides of the same coin. In truth, you are familiar with the concept that is expressed but it is just presented in a completely alien way.

These proverbial children are degenerating in mass-produced shells, and like Agamemnon, are quick to wrath because of expected societal reactions. People think that they have experienced the objective simply because they exist, at least in some sense, when in reality they are merely another clone in their own self-absorbed world. It is foolish to think that solipsism (whether conscious or not)  and freedom can coexist. When regarding others, the subject must always revolve back to the problems that they cannot perceive. Intentions may be justified in their own mind, which is why they can never be wrong: inherently and ironically, they are perfect.

The ability to bear the perfectly imperfect fades and then dies. Sensing the motives and desires of others is ruinous for the self. There is pointlessness, there is an oversimplification of everything based on experiencing and wading through mounds of bullshit, no, humanshit. Yes, there are vast differences between individuals, and it is understandable that no one can understand one another. Yet it is apparent that the masses are indeed clones, and that worthlessness is paramount. This harks back to the idea of an online entity representing the self. It has become an epidemic in that it no longer represents the self, it has become the self. Humans are influenced by what they perceive as their own creation, when it is only a cloned construction dictated by the oligarchs that have been successfully pacifying the masses for centuries.

For a brief instant, Anonymous seemingly destroyed this oppressive tool by shedding the idea of having a false personality. This was unfortunately reversed, however when Anonymous was given a face, specifically: Guy Fawkes. This phenomenon was hijacked by capitalism, and it should have been unsurprising considering the Che Guevara t-shirt precedent.

Is this struggle orchestrated, or is it organic? Neoliberalism’s best defense is true in that most conspiracy theories are ludicrous, but it is the greatest shame that these fears are not baseless.

This is the decade of dreaming dangerously, yet will emancipation from this wretched, disorderly order come to fruition anytime soon?

Freedom will be realized once humanity settles the final frontier. Only then: when communities are protected from corporations and governments by the vacuum and enormousness of space, will there be peace.

Non Fiction

Another Look at Karl

Karl Marx was not necessarily the last of the philosophes, but in contrast, he could easily be seen as the death of the philosophes.  Karl Marx was avidly opposed to anything having to do with reform, instead, he advocated the revolution of the proletariat.  All of the eighteenth century philosophes were in support of reform through already established governments in order to implement their own ideas.  Karl Marx was influenced by, but directly opposed to the political reform strategies and the internal reform ideas of the French Socialists.  Marx believed that only revolution could cause true reform through destroying the social class structure.  Piecemeal reforms would not be able to transform society because the class struggles that permeated throughout history were never accidental factors, but class struggle was in itself deliberate, and the proletariat would have to become class-conscious in order to overcome their oppressive existence.

None of the philosophes brought that much complexity into their political ideals solely because they were reformist in nature according to Marx’s taste.  He was influenced by them, yet he understood that he would have to oppose all of their ideas in order for him to create what he thought was the correct intellectual agenda and ultimately achieve the revolution of the proletariat.  However, Marx conducted political writing and research in the very same ways that French philosophes such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau did.  He used a variety of directly opposing views as his resources, and he wrote his agendas in such an authoritative manner that would be reminiscent of Rousseau.  However, Marx’s nullification of all past political works including the philosophes and his radical, purely working class rhetoric would have been bizarrely foreign to the Enlightenment philosophers, and thus Marx only had abstract connections to them.

Marx’s theories were purely working class and revolutionary in manner.  Marx was indeed, the beginning of a new era in political writers who would write according to their own analyzations of events around them, (such as Marx’s reactions to the revolutions of 1848).  Marx utilized his own interpretations of Hegelian historical analysis in order to define and point out class struggle in the world around him.  Although Karl Marx absorbed influences and styles from the aforementioned great philosophers of the preceding century, his work can be more accurately interpreted in view of his contemporary surroundings.