We’re All Nazis

I’m no expert in pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics. But what fol­lows here is just my under­stand­ing of things and how I arrived to it.

Politics and Consumerism go hand in hand. No shit, right? I’m pret­ty sure every­one knew this was obvi­ous. But to what extent this is the case might actu­al­ly be far more hor­ri­fy­ing than we give it cred­it for. And it goes far beyond the straight­for­ward “buy­ing and sell­ing” of gov­ern­ments.

There’s a joke on the inter­net that a Twitter user @Drolra uses in his About Me sec­tion: “and appar­ent­ly worse than Hitler.” Because, in a way, maybe we all are pret­ty much “worse than Hitler”, maybe we all are a bunch of Nazi, if Godwin’s Law had its way — for­get­ting that the total­i­tar­i­an Nazis were respon­si­ble for geno­cide, eugen­ics, or racial supe­ri­or­i­ty, some­thing that an aver­age inter­net user can nev­er hope to scratch the sur­face of.

.…or can they?

Demonization of par­ties we dis­agree with is not some­thing exclu­sive to the inter­net. After all, the tweets, videos and argu­ments are made by real life peo­ple, aren’t they? Where did the strong sen­ti­ments against Hitler and Nazis come from? Why is “Nazi” even such a cringe­wor­thy word, since their adver­saries — whom we sup­port­ed — weren’t a bunch of saints either?(Another Link.) It’s easy to call the oth­er par­ty out for Terrorism, but not so much to find our own par­ty guilty. But his­to­ry is always writ­ten by the win­ners, and we sure as hell ensure peo­ple do not doubt our dom­i­nant nar­ra­tive. And this inse­cu­ri­ty enables us to hide the truth in favor of cher­ry-picked evi­dences that con­firm our stances, while show­ing peo­ple every pre-chewed “proof” to that jus­ti­fy our prej­u­dices that the ones we’re against are stereo­typ­i­cal “vil­lains”.

Like, you know, the sim­ple fairy tales and sto­ries we’re told: We are always the good guys, try­ing to take down the Dark Lord who is clear­ly bad.

This is why things like “Men’s Rights Activism” is con­sid­ered to be such a cringe­wor­thy term, with a con­ven­tion­al def­i­n­i­tion of, “Pedantic Angry Misogynists” — sim­ply for being at odds with Feminism — even though it actu­al­ly has valid argu­ments to make that may or may not be addressed by any oth­er group focused on this regard, and deserves to be treat­ed with intel­lec­tu­al dig­ni­ty. This is also why even folks like Rebecca Watson — my per­son­al favorite skep­tic — can imme­di­ate­ly com­pare the apo­lit­i­cal and the neu­tral as “worse than rape threats” by false­ly attribut­ing the rea­son­able adage of “Don’t Feed The Trolls” to “Sexism”, even though Trolls in gen­er­al tai­lor their threats TO pro­voke the worst reac­tions. When things like, “If you don’t speak up, you ARE the prob­lem” become a ral­ly­ing cry — where the only side you’re allowed to speak up for is the one telling you to speak up — there might just be a big­ger prob­lem at hand than the issue the teller is point­ing towards.

That issue might just be either an incom­plete or false nar­ra­tive. In oth­er words, a fic­tion we are forced to live in.

When it comes to demo­c­ra­t­ic pol­i­tics (not nec­es­sar­i­ly just nation­al pol­i­tics), we like to define it as a means of gov­ern­ing and order, where dif­fer­ent par­ties with their own agen­das and bias­es com­pete and we — the peo­ple — vote the most suit­able can­di­dates to have max­i­mum con­trol for the sake of a bet­ter world. Except, there is no frame­work to test which can­di­date is bet­ter suit­able to steer us all. There is no frame­work to actu­al­ly, objec­tive­ly, imple­ment inten­tions of prob­lem-solv­ing beyond the bias­es of a giv­en par­ty. When that hap­pens, there is typ­i­cal­ly no way for the gen­er­al pub­lic to even know what’s real­ly going on behind the cur­tains, besides what each par­ty has us believe, and because each par­ty wants to win the polit­i­cal game, any­thing goes. And even though I’d still take Democracy over Oligarchy any day, in such a sys­tem, choice may not effec­tive­ly be a choice at all. Due to the nature of things, what stops any par­ty with a polit­i­cal lean­ing to con­struct mythol­o­gy as the only known infor­ma­tion that the gen­er­al pub­lic then depend on? This isn’t real­ly hard to do with the echo-cham­ber effect when cor­po­ra­tions and mass-media are involved, and is a major prob­lem with Clickbait and Yellow Journalism that appeal to people’s emo­tion­al sen­si­tiv­i­ty over their basic skep­ti­cism — result­ing in par­tial­i­ty of cov­er­age: such as report­ing the shoot­ing at Charlie Hebdo, but neglect­ing the mas­sacre of Muslims by the Boko Haram (thus nur­tur­ing Anti-Islamic sen­ti­ment into the gen­er­al pub­lic). Even in regards to GamerGate, there is MUCH Anti-GG sen­ti­ment being spoon­fed to the gen­er­al pub­lic by cher­ryp­ick­ing irrel­e­vant info and describ­ing the move­ment as a “hate mob”, while com­plete­ly ignor­ing the movement’s good­will and achieve­ments as well as the fact that GamerGate sup­port­ers get harassed / doxxed / their life & careers endan­gered on a rou­tine basis by — get this — peo­ple who claim to stand for Social Justice. Sometimes I won­der if there even is such a thing as an unbi­ased media.

So when we hear things like how the Koch Brothers buy away American pol­i­tics, and how Indian pol­i­tics is guilty of sim­i­lar cor­rup­tions, even though it’s a prob­lem — a betray­al of the gen­er­al pub­lic — it shouldn’t be shock­ing that it might just be com­mon­place, and what we’ve heard is actu­al­ly just a peek under the desk. Why? Because of the gen­er­al ratio­nal­iza­tion: To real­ize Social Change you need pow­er of influ­ence, and to obtain that pow­er of influ­ence you’ll need sup­port of exist­ing struc­tures, and those exist­ing struc­tures need some­thing back with inter­est (not unlike bank­ing), so you tai­lor your Social Change agen­das with the cor­po­rate inter­ests in mind. In return, to pro­tect their inter­ests, the cor­po­rates will be biased in favor of a polit­i­cal lean­ing — hence the Anti-Islamic, Anti-Black, Pro-Corruption and Anti-GamerGate lean­ing, despite the con­stant harp­ing about Social Change.

But, hey, couldn’t it actu­al­ly be the oth­er way around, that it’s the cor­po­ra­tions that ENABLE pol­i­tics to go forth with social change? See, here’s the thing: Even though some com­pa­nies some­times do, Corporations in gen­er­al have no oblig­a­tion TOWARDS socioe­co­nom­ic change (case in point: trick­le-down effect, which is a myth). Regardless of their moral agen­da, Corporations are LEGALLY BOUND to max­i­mize their prof­its, even if that means employ­ing slaves from the third-world on-the-cheap to make large-scale pro­duc­tions (hel­lo there, Make In India cam­paign!) which defeats the pur­pose. Corporations see sales before lib­er­ty, demo­graph­ics before diver­si­ty, and pol­i­tics to them is pret­ty much just that — a demo­graph­ic.

People and cul­tures — in gen­er­al — can­not be con­fined into false dichoto­mous “sides” on a scale, due to their indi­vid­u­al­ly diverse philo­soph­i­cal lean­ings. The world is not so black and white. But we are still led to believe oth­er­wise, that there is such a thing as “Liberal” and “Conservative”, arti­fi­cial­ly cre­at­ing an “ingroup” (that is, “Us peo­ple”) and an “out­group” (that is, “Them peo­ple”), allow the pub­lic to self-iden­ti­fy as one or the oth­er depend­ing on which rep­re­sen­ta­tive they sup­port. The rea­son we — the peo­ple — sup­port what we do is because almost every­one of us is con­cerned about the state of human­i­ty, and we gen­uine­ly believe that what they sup­port might help in away. We are con­stant­ly shown “prob­lems” and “symp­toms”, but besides the hasty and judg­men­tal reac­tions, our long-term research and solu­tions are rarely every put into motion. And yet, no mat­ter who we sup­port or elect, we bare­ly end up mak­ing progress in the right scale and pace — even if we believe we are.

That’s because progress might not have been the pri­or­i­ty to begin with.

Remember: Corporations have an oblig­a­tion to max­i­mize their own prof­its. On paper, we believe that the cogs of con­sumerism are sim­plis­tic “Supply and Demand” chains, but in prac­tice Corporations NEED to sell as much as pos­si­ble and “SaD” does not guar­an­ty cer­tain­ty of sales. They always need a demo­graph­ic they KNOW will buy what they sell — prod­ucts, ser­vices, or even ide­ol­o­gy — and the best way to do that is to divide and con­quer, sim­ply because peo­ple are like­ly to sup­port the group they belong to. If a Corporation is a Liberal / Conservative, and we are a Liberal / Conservative, then we are their demo­graph, and because we are so con­vinced that there are “big­ger issues to tack­le” (such as the “oth­er side” of the debate), we will hap­pi­ly buy into what­ev­er bull­shit the cor­po­ra­tions sell to us.

But in the face of com­pe­ti­tion against the “oth­er side of the debate”, it’s usu­al­ly their demo­graph that can take a hit once we become dis­il­lu­sioned — whether or not the demo­graph join the “oth­er side”, or just go their own inde­pen­dent way. Why else would cap­i­tal­ists jour­nal­ists, espe­cial­ly, become so aggres­sive against any par­ty that even remote­ly might seem like a threat to their posi­tion? In these cir­cum­stances, it is also not unheard of for these enti­ties to go on full-scale Cultural and Industrial (and in the case of East India Company, even Geopolitical) inva­sion to not only secure the scale of their con­sumers but also EXPAND them.

We all equal­ly par­tic­i­pate in that inva­sion. And we jus­ti­fy that inva­sion as some kind of “Social Change” or “Social Justice” against an issue. Even if we don’t actu­al­ly address the issue from an objec­tive approach towards prob­lem-solv­ing, and instead believe that “Their” accep­tance of “Our” moral­i­ty is enough. Even if the prob­lem remains unsolved, despite our vic­to­ry. This is why Conservatives don’t care don’t accept the free­doms LGBTQ, while at the same time Liberals claim to do the oppo­site (that is, sup­port­ing LGBTQ) while STILL con­sis­tent­ly mis­rep­re­sent­ing and attack­ing those they seem to be stand­ing for. In the words of Cain, a writer on Medium:

Yes. I am a lib­er­al. I vot­ed Democrat in pret­ty much every elec­tion. I almost always vote Democrat. I sup­port­ed 1 Republican since I began voting—George W Bush. As a gay man, I have watched as lib­er­al out­lets in the 80s and 90s spread mis­in­for­ma­tion about me. I know, for a fact, that lib­er­als can be as exclu­sion­ary as they say con­ser­v­a­tives are. Neither side is inno­cent in this.”

When you project some­one as a Nazi, just to jus­ti­fy your desires to shoot them, you become what you project.

When it comes to equal­i­ty, I don’t think I could trade Feminism for any­thing. I would always be one because I gen­er­al­ly agree with what it’s try­ing to achieve. But at the same time, I also empathize with those who are against it. I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly agree with them (because Feminism is not a mono­lith­ic enti­ty), but I can under­stand where they’re com­ing from. I’m not even kid­ding here — there is even a hash­tag on Twitter called “WomenAgainstFeminism”, where these women — con­scious­ly or not — have begun to feel that Feminism is no longer an anti-author­i­tar­i­an force, but is now slow­ly becom­ing a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for Liberal Corporations to assert their their self-inter­ests. I’ve even noticed my fel­low Feminists call these women out for hav­ing “Internalized Misogyny” — using deroga­to­ry speech and accus­ing these women for “Stockholm Syndrome”, “Fuck You, Got Mine”, “Conservative Tokens”, and “Gender Traitor” (just a bit more nuanced than call­ing women “Nazi” and “Hitler”) — when the real­i­ty is that these sup­pos­ed­ly “Egalitarian” women are actu­al­ly rebelling against what they con­sid­er as “hypocrisy of fem­i­nism” where

1) Feminists con­sid­er crit­ics of Feminism as “Anti-Women” and “Anti-Equality”, despite the fact that Feminism isn’t the only “Pro-Women” ide­ol­o­gy around, nor does it have a sole claim on rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women’s diverse voic­es and issues,

2) Misogyny is com­mit­ted BY FEMINISTS in the name of Feminism and Equal Rights, and

3) Large sociopo­lit­i­cal enti­ties use Feminism (as any oth­er ide­ol­o­gy) as an excuse to assume author­i­tar­i­an and anti-com­pet­i­tive con­trol over busi­ness­es, art and media.

What’s worse is that, despite the tan­gi­bil­i­ty of Feminist the­o­ry, we still haven’t been able to build bet­ter cul­tures and solu­tions, instead have been judg­men­tal­ly depend­ing on the click­bait / out­rage cul­ture designed by cor­po­ra­tions, because it makes us very sus­cep­ti­ble to it — you know, for the sake of Social Change! And that’s pret­ty much what fired off the over­re­ac­tions of Shirtgate con­tro­ver­sy, where a bril­liant comet-land­ing was to be cel­e­brat­ed, but that cel­e­bra­tion was eclipsed by butt-hurt indi­vid­u­als, pub­licly bul­ly­ing and sham­ing one of the sci­en­tists for wear­ing an offen­sive shirt. Because once a nar­ra­tive is prof­itable, every­one wants in on the band­wag­on.

It’s the cold harsh truth that ide­ol­o­gy is no umbrel­la for fac­tu­al­ly judg­ing peo­ple. Pro-Something or Anti-Something, it doesn’t real­ly mat­ter — it still comes down to Anti-Humanity. It all boils down to demo­graph­ic.

Homogeneity and con­trol is EVERYTHING, because it ensures long-term gain, even though homo­gene­ity kills diver­si­ty (and diver­si­ty is need­ed for bio­log­i­cal and intel­lec­tu­al sus­te­nance). Anti-Competitive prac­tices are far more com­mon-place than we tend to believe, because the Corporations that assume large-scale indus­tri­al influ­ence can also give us too many options that still — inevitably — are con­trolled by a hand­ful of enti­ties, ensur­ing that we con­tin­ue to believe that we have a “Consumer Choice” even though — as any good Magician knows — that “choice” is noth­ing more than an illu­sion. And when things like “Social Change” become less of a rebel­lion against Authoritarianism, and more of a trade­mark of a spe­cif­ic “polit­i­cal side”, some­times I won­der what are we even “chang­ing” at all.

We are not buy­ing their prod­ucts. We ARE the prod­uct. We ARE resources for large nar­cis­sis­tic enti­ties — human or not — to har­vest for their own self-inter­ests, so we fight their bat­tles FOR them under the illu­sions they con­struct where, no mat­ter which side wins, we all lose col­lec­tive­ly.

And we are all gullible enough to be seduced by it.

I’m pret­ty sure some­one on the inter­net will be quick­ly demo­nize me for this before try­ing to ful­ly under­stand what I’m try­ing to say here, just because I choose to dis­sent — for­get­ting how I’ve spo­ken in their favor before, many times. Allow me to wave white flag on the rooftop, even at the cost of hav­ing a sym­bol of Conservatism / Misogyny / Swastika pro­ject­ed on it.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: