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.