Establishing Cultural Order

Post Reply New Topic

Yes this was written by me. If you are offended, I'd like to have a reasonable and logical discussion on why you feel the way you do. Same to those who agree. This is not meant to offend. This is tossing around a very big and lofty idea to get other views from people much, socially, like myself.

"Karl Marx said that the entirety of human history can be summed up in the form of class warfare; the upper versus the lower.



Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels said that the entirety of human history can be summed up in the form of racial warfare; the superior versus the inferior.



These two descriptions represent the two realms of human society; economic and social. I believe that it is not appropriate to relegate the entirety of human history to one extreme or another. There has always been war based on both racial and economic discontent. However, every ethnicity and genetic sequence has its own inferiorities and superiorities; making the notion of a a disproven and closed case.



Economic disparity has almost always existed, and there is a fine balance between individualism and collectivism. The allowing of people of nequal abilities and strengths to pursue their goals will always result in inequality in the economic and social systems.



But in this matter, these economic and social "Boxes" that these two men put themselves in does not matter to me; because human history can be attributed to economic disparity as well as racial discontent. What I have to say here, is a third factor; something which trascends both race and economy- cultural discontent.



A culture can originate in a given part of the world from a given ethnic group; but other ethnic groups may adopt that culture- unlike boundaries between ethnic groups, which individuals are born into, cultures can be contributed to by and disbarred by any individual regardless of ethnicity, gender or nationality. Unlike ethnicity which one is born into, culture is fluid- it can evolve during the lifetime of a single person because of the ability of individuals to take on cultures at their behest.



I see in America a need for cultural order. Going to Iraq and Afghanistan to hunt for Osama Bin-Laden and killing him will not eliminate terrorism. Other terrorist groups will replace Al-Qaeda. This fact shows the remarkable and potentially dangerous resillience of the fluidity of culture. Some cultures can be good, others, detrimental. But detrimental to whom? Something can only be detrimental if it is opposed to an unwilling party. The culture of terrorism in the Middle East is detrimental to the people of the United States.



In the Mainland itself, I see a culture emerging with every new generation- a culture of degeneration, stupidity and perpetuation of actions and ideology largely detrimental to the majority of the people of America. This culture which I see emerging, cannot be said to have originated from one ethnicity or another, because people of many ethnicities have adopted it as something in which they manifest themselves. That culture, is the culture of Gangsterism; it is a culture of domestic terrorism which glorifies the extortion and murder of, and violence against innocent people for the sake of respect and power.



Our nation, and nations around the world, are infected with a disease; a parasite thrown into existence by another of the same. The lower-class parasites of Gangsterism encouraged to be "Accepted" by some are created by the upper-class parasite of monetary greed. It would seem that the actions of one parasite create another polar opposite of the same. The lifeblood of this international plague is unsound economic policy creating the economic preconditions for these cultures to manifest.



My life's political mission is to create a balanced society both economically and socially. The opposite-polarity parasites of imbalanced economics of the past and present are but remnants of systems requiring change; and, along with the preconditions allowing their existence, must be eliminated in whatever fashion appropriate.



I have before pondered what it would look like to eliminate a culture. Eliminating detrimental economics requires revision of bills and business practices. Eliminating detrimental culture will require not only the physical removal of noncompliant participants of targeted cultures from their places of residence, but a propaganda campaign both scaring and discouraging possible future promoters of detrimental cultures from expressing them; because culture is something which is only shown through expression, and when you remove the ability of one to express something, you remove the possibility for the passing on of undesirable mannerisms.



My social policy is one of elimination and intolerance of detrimental cultures for the good of the people and their offspring; and for the balancing of economic and social practices so as to remove the economic preconditions which encourage harmful cultures to manifest.



It begins in Kissimmee, Florida with the conversion of halls of Republican Party patrons into my ideal, and the establishment of my party in a city I never intended to come to; to embark upon the mission of creating cultural order in the United States of America, and creating an economy compliant to the iron logic of human nature."

Elaborate. I don't know whether you are saying something highly controversial or something that is not very controversial, and I am not willing to decide in favor of one or the other until I get further evidence.


You'll have to explain the issue, the problems, and why this will continue without solving itself, or even how this problem is worse than any past cultural problem within society. I know that employers don't reward "gangsterism", and at most, all that occurs is that people are willing to sell cultural items, but this isn't really encouragement to accept "gangsterism" in as far as I would think of encouragement to accept something.

Additionally, you'll have to talk about the "unsound economic policy" that you are referring to.


What do you consider "balance"? How do you know that the metaphor of "balance" is the most apt for the situation? How do you actually identify what "balance" really is? What does "balance" mean in policy practice.


Well, a few questions then:
1) How do you know that these policies won't create their own harmful cultures? For instance, when psychologist Phil Zimbardo performed an experiment called "The Stanford Prison experiment", what he did was that he created two classes, a class of people for controlling the prisoners, and a class of prisoners. What happened was that the guards, the first group, became abusive and totalitarian and oppressed the prisoners.
2) How do you correctly identify how cultures, even negative ones, can come into existence in advance?
3) How do you prevent actions, such as propaganda campaigns, from destroying the current culture, including the healthy parts? What cost/benefit analysis can be used for destroying a culture to have to build another one to take its place? How do you analyze the benefits and detriments of a culture that includes within it the willingness to destroy its cultural roots?(such as the one that has to be proposed) Couldn't it actually end up worse than a more permissive culture that allows for detrimental ideas to take root? (After all, a culture-destroying culture would itself have some nihilistic characteristics it would seem)


Who says that human nature has a logic that can be easily manipulated and controlled?

Just about every totalitarian "master of the universe" believed he could make the human race over in his image. Hitler wanted a master race. Lenin wanted the New Socialist Man. Cromwell thought he could make over England in his image of Christianity.

Every such grandiose scheme has met with wreck the ruin (thank the Deity of your choice).

ruveyn

I said that racial superiority is a false notion and has been disproven.

I never said that this cultural problem was any worse than any past cultural problem in society? Terrorism's a culture. Because of it, 2,985 innocent people died on September 11th. Something could happen just as bad as that but not necessarily be worse. Does that make it okay? No, it does not. However, the Gangsterist problem I mention will continue without "Solving itself" because I think it is created by the economic policies which allow the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. Of course, allowing people of different abilities to pursue their dreams at their own pace will create inequality. However, when this inequality becomes too great and NO safety net is outreached, Gangsterism will manifest itself as its followers attempt to reconcile their lowly place in society with crime, violence and respect which they see as a tried and true method of making themselves "Something".

Balance in economic policy in my opinion is a state where the disadvantaged are given every opportunity possible to succeed while the financially ambitious are not held back from achieving their financial and business goals. So that the inequality which allows society to innovate and evcolve through personal gain still exists, but less so so as to discontinue the trend of Gangsterism.

1) How do you know that these policies won't create their own harmful cultures? For instance, when psychologist Phil Zimbardo performed an experiment called "The Stanford Prison experiment", what he did was that he created two classes, a class of people for controlling the prisoners, and a class of prisoners. What happened was that the guards, the first group, became abusive and totalitarian and oppressed the prisoners.

That is a GOOD question. Well, that's a different situation. The prisoners are supposed to be prisoners and are supposed to stay prisoners and the guards are not supposed to be abusive. In this case, Gangsterism is a culture which is strived to be eliminated completely by any means necessary. I'm not sure what can become harmful about that after Gangsterism's been gotten rid of. Then there'd be no more reason for this superimposed nationalist culture to exist.

2) How do you correctly identify how cultures, even negative ones, can come into existence in advance?

I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer to this question. I can't answer it the way you want me to. But I will say that with our opinions we can judge which ones are negative after they come into existence by observing their effects.

3) How do you prevent actions, such as propaganda campaigns, from destroying the current culture, including the healthy parts? What cost/benefit analysis can be used for destroying a culture to have to build another one to take its place? How do you analyze the benefits and detriments of a culture that includes within it the willingness to destroy its cultural roots?(such as the one that has to be proposed) Couldn't it actually end up worse than a more permissive culture that allows for detrimental ideas to take root? (After all, a culture-destroying culture would itself have some nihilistic characteristics it would seem)

I'll break this answer into parts.

1) How do you prevent actions, such as propaganda campaigns, from destroying the current culture, including the healthy parts? What cost/benefit analysis can be used for destroying a culture to have to build another one to take its place?

That'd be very subjective depending specifically on the culture being destroyed and the parts of the culture which should be preserved. In this case, I think Gangsterism should be destroyed in its entirety. However, there are some healthy parts although they're being utilized to bad ends; people want to be accepted and part of a group, so they join a gang. They want family, so they join a gang. They're scared and want protection, so they join a gang. These are all very normal and human feelings. However, I think they could effectively be redirected elsewhere (By implementing a nationalist culture and, for example, joining the police or fire department would be like an extended "Family". An air of acceptance of each-other and pseudo-familial closeness would be encouraged.)

2) How do you analyze the benefits and detriments of a culture that includes within it the willingness to destroy its cultural roots?(such as the one that has to be proposed) Couldn't it actually end up worse than a more permissive culture that allows for detrimental ideas to take root?

I'm not sure what you mean by "How do you analyze the benefits and detriments of a culture that includes within it the willingness to destroy its cultural roots?" But it could end up worse than a permissive culture. However, perhaps having a permissive culture could be worse than having a reactionary "Cleansing" culture. I guess my answer would be that we couldn't tell until things happened.

I misread you a bit there. The reason being that we do have people on this forum who have promoted some racial notions. Most forum members don't bother to bring it up though, unless they are in that group.


Well, my basic point is that to argue that this is a "big problem for which something must be done", it has to be compared to and considered less than problems that required no solution and solved themselves.

You didn't seem clear about the causation of "Gangsterism" earlier. Even further though, how do we know that this counter-culture isn't just a part of being a lower class? How do we know that this counter-culture isn't just self-perpetuating? How do we know that it isn't that aberrations exist in the lower class(such as poor behavior and all of that) and thus tends to be "gangster" as a counter-culture, rather than this being purely a reaction to the inability of the lower-class to succeed? What even counts as "success" or necessary success for this? Finally, how will a safety net unify culture? Why couldn't it exacerbate the problem? As we will then have a class of people who no longer live off of their own labors, and thus have no more incentives to integrate into the mainstream culture, whereas a people who live off of their labor will be forced to integrate with mainstream society. (assuming "safety net" refers to redistributionary policies)


I don't know what would be called "every opportunity possible", however, as it stands, even in the US, colleges provide need-based scholarships.(Note: I am not saying those are sufficient, only that their existence does bring up issues on what is necessary that isn't there.) Even further, this isn't defined well enough for me to see how it really can go into action. After all, children are encultured into "gangsterism" into an age earlier than we can really give the m opportunities.


Well, my bigger concern is going to tend towards totalitarianism. I can't evaluate where you are coming from at this point, but someone who is talking about cultural suppression and actions to this end brings up the parts of my mind vigilant against totalitarian impulses, and that is worse than both gangsterism and nationalism. The issue is that institutions can create cultures, and institutionalized culture change is itself a culture change, and one that could have very negative impacts.

That being said, I am not sure that the hyper-nationalism is going to be outright defused. Here's the sources I can also see:
1) Dangerous foreign nations.
2) The fact that America is going to have to continue worrying about decline compared to other nations.

Others may exist.


Perhaps not. I am just coming at this with a lot of criticism, mostly because you are impacting a few of my nerves on the matter, so I am suspicious until I get what you are saying.


Well, actually, you misunderstood me. I was referring to American culture. You are not just "attacking gangsterism", you are talking about an action to alter American culture to prevent a certain idea from being maintained. The problem is that this involves actions that even in American culture might be questionable. (propaganda is a loaded term though) Whatever you do isn't just going to impact one culture, but rather it will impact how the middle class and the upper class view themselves. This is the reason I brought up Zimbardo, as the "Gangsters" aren't the prison guards, but rather they are the prisoners, your cleansing elite are the prison guards.


Well, I am unclear here, the issue is that when trying to alter a culture, you are coming at it with values. These values are ultimately going to be on some level cultural values. The question is that you end up requiring a culture that criticizes itself, and that has to be willing to destroy itself, how it can ever really evaluate itself. After all, a more permissive culture can have some benefits, but by accepting that kind of culture, one is throwing away the ability to have a "cleansing culture".