u/LittleSky7700

One of the main differences I've seen from several cultures, old and current, when compared to WWII era~ political philosophy, or more specifically, current American political expression, is that a lot of the former cultures use politics as an actual administrative question and exploration. Where as in current day US, which I think has its influences from the WWII era~, people are very idealist. Most of the time without even realising it.

To use Republican Rome, Persia, and China, as examples of the former, while each of these cultures have political troubles, often relating to power and corruption. Do not get the impression that I am saying these cultures are somehow superior. They were (and in the cause of China, still are), very matter of fact about the politics of their time. The systems and answers they built with regard to the political questions of their time were based on how much they would function, not how much one identifies with an idea. As mentioned, while there were political factions, while one might have identified with these power blocs, you were not a "CaoCaoist" or a "Ceasarist". One had beliefs and convictions, but one did not swear to a political ideology.

This is in contrast to today, especially clearly seen with the way people talk about Liberals and Conservatives, or of Communists. Where we treat these not as political philosophical answers to real questions being proposed, but rather as sets of ideas in their entirety to be judged as worthy or not. To identify with or not. One is a Communist before they start talking philosophy and administration. The same as one is a Liberal or a Conservative or a Progressive or Fascist, or even Anarchist. This is very idealist in the sense that we treat these Ideas as reality first of all. These ideas are identified with first and then they shape reality. As opposed to a materialist understanding that sees the functions and processes of a reality independent of political ideas, in fact, this material reality should be used to then inform those political ideas! The former progresses from Idea > Reality. The latter progresses from Reality > Idea.

The communist assumes a communist idealist reality and projects it onto the world. The conservative assumes a conservative idealist reality and projects it onto the world. Etc.

~ ~

This stunts political growth because if we assume an independent political reality with regard to physical reality, then there is nothing else to be done but assert and proselytise about your chosen reality in hopes that everyone else becomes persuaded. How well that often works..

We get stuck in this lock of Ideology vs Ideology without ever breaking from it and looking at the actual processes we are concerned with and measuring them up to see what answers truly work and what don't. And indeed! A knowledgeable person might object here to say that some answers are Ethical! And these ethical questions are personal preferences, not scientific measurements. However, we can still apply a philosophical exploration of ethical ideas to think about what ethics are truly worthwhile for us. Again, as opposed to simply asserting an ethics is good before it has any interaction with reality. We can not simply say "Communism is good", we have to argue why those ethical answers, with regard to reality, make communism good. And it is the strength of that argument with regard to reality that should be compelling. (The same for all other political ethical answers).

What I want people to recognise the most here is how much movement can be had when we first of all recognise how much Idealism, as a philosophical metaphysics, influences our political interactions. And then make an effort to ground our ideas, to test them with a more materialist approach to reality. Now we can, as mentioned, measure the extent of which policies truly achieve waht they aim to achieve. We can see precisely why policy fails and adapt from there. We can treat each other as human beings with biases towards ethics and particular answers, yet fall back onto arguments of material worth, rather than idealist absolutes.

A conservative can have a question of poverty presented to them and they can consider a communist answer and see if it has worth or not. They can keep their conservative bias, but they should admit to any merit the argument has. Or else you deny gravity. And vice versa, of course.

Here, I believe, is where REAL political philosophy lies. And it is something we should be doing our best to cultivate and encourage. Or else we remain stunted proselytising our idealist views.

Can we say we ever arrive somewhere?

If I take a walk from Vancouver, to Surrey, to Langely, and then back to Vancouver. Have I arrived anywhere?

Consider that the idea of arrival and departure is influenced by the way we've been taught to see the world, not how the world actually functions.

We know that there is cause and effect, the universe has been moving long before humans have existed.

So even as we exist now, the universe moves as it does, with no beginning or end.

So then my walk must also be something without a beginning or an end. Have I arrived anywhere?

Consider as well that even if we say I arrived at Vancouver again, time continues to move forward. How much longer will I remain in vancouver?

And when an opportunity arises that inevitably takes me on another walk, will I have truly arrived anywhere? Because now I am off again.

Can we say that I am arriving somewhere else? But how can one arrive twice?

This is to say our life is not like a circle. I do not walk on a flat path in a circle. Time moves me vertically, away from what once was.

Indeed, when I come back to Vancouver once more, this Vancouver will not be the same as the old Vancouver.

Even if this trip took me a few hours, the Vancouver I come back to will be that few hours older.

We see that life is much more like a spiral.

I have moved up to an older Vancouver and so too have become older myself.

Your actions can never be subtractive; you can never fail.

Your actions are always additive; you will always succeed.

It is my opinion that one should use this knowledge to understand that it is not about where you end up in life,

But rather the quality of the experiences you have.

If we agree that life is additive, then we can say that all these quality experiences will add up into a person of quality.

The question is not "Will I succeed?"

The question is "How much will I succeed?"

To begin, understand that political philosophy, and thus the way we think of politics, is extremely vast. Not only within the questions and answers themselves, but also how we interact with reality and each other. As a thought experiment, notice how we attribute meanings to things and treat them as fact. A chair is something you sit in. Yet we can also, instantly as well, treat the chair as something else entirely if we choose, such as a weapon. Or a step stool. etc.

This is to say that what we think should be is not what can be entirely. This is to say that what politics is as you've grown up with it or is presented by media or talked about among friends and strangers is not what politics can be entirely.

Liberalism and Capitalism are not the default way of reality. They are not matters of fact with regard to the ways we can think and can act. We only need to look to history to observe this vastness of organisation and answers to questions with regard to political questions. Were they right or wrong? Who knows. But what we do know is that they found a set of beliefs and values that worked for them for a given time. Of course, until it didn't. Just as we have found answers in Liberalism and Capitalism to organise our way of living... of course, until we decide it's not worthwhile anymore.

And when we make this decision, it's not a matter of idealism per se, to explore all the other answers to the very questions that are being presented to us today. One can easily find material answers. We begin with the question; What then is worthwhile? And we go from there.

Yet this is the issue. People do not first believe that what we have today is not worthwhile. And of course, how does one know what is and isn't worthwhile if they never begin to think beyond what they know? If we never look beyond the presented matter of fact. If we continue to see the chair as a chair.

So I ask again. Given that we have the tools to explore, in any way that fits you, the vast ocean of ideas and explore their applications and implications deeply, and compare and contrast, to find what is and is not worthwhile. Why are you politically stuck?

So if you're one of those people out there who beleives people should be able to say anything they want without any kind of legal or social consequences (the latter which is impossible), then you need to have your own standards and skills to make this work.

Because what is the fundamental intention of communication? To pass on information between people. Every word you and I speak is full of meaning. It symbolises some *Thing* that we know. To say Apple is to make one think of the fruit. To say Fire is to make one think of heat and flame. Every word I type here is conveying some meaning that you are understanding because we share the knowledge. I am trying to pass on information to you.

So when we say a certain "Controversial" thing. Perhaps we say, all green people are bad. Then we can understand that these 5 words have meaning and information that we are putting out there for other people to think about. When someone else recieves that message, they will think you mean exactly what was said, all of these green people are bad. And they will think on it. If they then end up agreeing with you, you have now contributed to the pereptuation of this idea. A consequence of your actions.

So if we truly want to be allowed to say whatever we want, we have to recognise that our words have meanings and those meanings will be interpreted and used by others. And thus we need to be okay with those consequences. If we arent okay... if you said that all green people are bad in a way that you didnt want it to be seriously agreed to... then you need to think more deeply about what you said, how you said it, and how to express it in a way where this miscommunication won't happen. This is your responsibility as the speaker.

Otherwise, you are, to be blunt, simply outing yourself as apathetic and immature, in that sense of not developed. To think that your words exist in a vacuum with no consequences to them at all. To simply be allowed to speak for the sake or speaking and nothing else. And any consequences that inevitably happens befomes censorship, because you couldn't fathom before hand that your actions have consequences. Consequences you can know if you spend the time thinking about causes and effects and how other people think. Theory of mind.

I personally dont believe in absolute free speech. But I just wanted to write these thoughts in hopes of giving people food for thought.

Just wanted to share my thoughts and see reception, whatever that will be.

But I really like tuning my own cars and running rivals times. And after I feel like I've got a good tune down, I enjoy testing it against real people in horizon open!

The problem, however, is that the meta cars are so substantially faster that it's kinda just boring. You have to settle for 5th if the top 4 are running Honda Beats, or Civics, or Ford GTs, or whatever car abuses the PI system easily. Like genuinely, these cars are 5-10 seconds faster than balanced cars. If you want to win, it's a must to choose these meta cars. It's not merely a "Oh I can tune my own car and still have a chance." It's This Ford GT Will out accelerate and out speed you on any straight by a margin of seconds, too bad (And I did the tuning myself for these meta cars to see if I was just tuning bad or not.. I'm not. The cars are genuinely just Faster flat out).

As much as I like the Ford GT and wouldn't mind driving the Honda Beat or any other meta car... I just don't find it fun to be forced into a single car when we have hundreds of cars to choose from. Or else just settle for essentially running a multi-class race within the same PI.

Spec racing, however, is super fun and I'd recommend that to anyone who wants to really feel the joy of racing. Here, it's undeniable, smooth inputs and good racing lines, as well as being able to learn and adapt to a car's tune on the fly will get you results. I don't find the grid RNG to be too annoying, as I focus more on the 3 race tournament. If I'm at the front, great, I can maximise points. If I'm at the back, well now I just have to see how good I am to get as many points as I can.

There was this one race with the BMW M1 that had an atrocious tune. Bogs down on the start, horrible power band, no rear grip, and had a super floaty suspension. But it was fun because I knew I was maximising the car better than anyone else in that lobby.

Sure, if open lobbies were more fair, I'd find it More fun that my personally built and tuned rx-7 in B or A class was competitive. But without that, I'd highly recommend Spec Racing.

Tell me a story..
And promise not to hurry,
Our time could be forever.

A soft story.
One of dandelions.
On those summer evenings,
Warm air that drapes around you,
A watercolour sky,
Vibrant orange and somber purple

And remind me..
Of the time together.
On those summer evenings,
Before the crickets chirp lullabies
And the lightning bugs mimic the stars

Do you remember?
Behind my father's old barn.
Where the cat would sleep.
How we'd watch the fading day,
On those summer evenings..

Tell me a story..
So it wont ever fade,
Our time could be tomorrow...

~ ~
Feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tnv631/comment/onwvs2i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tnrlms/comment/onwxkej/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

What problem is it actually trying to solve?

Historically, nationalism was a way for people to consider themselves as one people and deserving of representation as that people. It served both to control & standardise as well as liberate. In the case of Germany, we have a stamdardised german identity so that a whole german state could emerge. In the case of the balkans under Ottoman rule, it was a way for these ethnicities to organsie around a common identity and resist Ottoman rule, to have a state for themselves.

With regard to the US historically, there has never been an American people, even today there's hardly an American people. America is understood by the differences between people and how even with differences, you can all get along. (Never mind fot now actual american history thats full of prejudices and their atrocities). The melting pot, the statue of liberty, the way you become american not by adopting some american identity, but by believing in that hope of America.

Not until recently has there been a push for a distinct American People who deserve the land over other people who are Not American. Often times this is just blatant racism and xenophobia.

But what im really curious about is what you conservative nationalists or something similar are really trying to solve? How does it make your life better by believing in this stuff? Especially against other potential solutions that more directly solve your problems? Why do americans need a national identity and why do you need to ruthlessly exclude other people from it?

Pretty proud of this one, though would still like any feedback cause I like hearing the thoughts of others

"Sapphire Oceans and Amethyst Sky.
Seeking answers from a name that's died.
Forgotten photos and half baked renders.
A past longing to be remembered.

All the tapes unwound and tangled,
Memories memories lie here mangled.
Cameras discarded without their lens,
Empty is the inkwell and gone is the pen.

The brush is dry the bristles frayed,
The painting never to be displayed,
Of Sapphire Oceans and Amethyst Sky.
If only the name of the one who died."

Feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tii3ok/comment/omx71q2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tiwb6n/comment/omxbuf5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

One thing that I think is an intention of democraric republics that has been distorted by practical application is having people who choose to enter, what i call, the political game and represent constituents.

In its ideal form, this person is a learned and educated person with regard to political philosophy, material governance, and diplomacy. They will take their responsibility if representing hundreds, even thousands, seriously. While they may not be able to understand all thousands of people... they will nonetheless make the honest effort. Perhaps arriving at some acceptable average. Sure, they will have their biases and they will do what they think is right.

However what we get are career politicians who are interested in power and money. They want to influence the whole country to what they think is right. You, the constituent, are a means to that end. You are a vote. One vote closer to their power. When actually engaging in the process of decision making, it is a game. Their political bloc needs just one more vote over the other to win. Who cares what the constituents think, the bill must pass! Whos bill? Whoever pays me enough money. Are you not interested in this and what to be the ideal representstive? It doesnt work that way so its you against entire ossified political blocs. Conform or go home.

So what of the consituent then? If theyre just a vote, what does their opinion actually matter? Well well start telling you what it is you want to hear and what you should think matters. We'll play off your material woes and instead redirect you to what you should actually be mad at. They tell you what to think. We let politicans speak for us.

Alternatively, why dont we simply speak for ourselves? Why dont we organise in our communities and talk among each other? Not people of political identities, but as people who live in similar material conditions and can understand each other. Why dont we organise ourselves to push for the change that would *Actually* help us? Or even better... to Make the change that would actually help us. To create subverssive and alternative systems that dont rely on the silliness of the political game.

We only have one life to live. Are we really going to live it passively?

We are born into a world where nothing matters.
Everything.
Works independently from ourselves
Nothing.
Needs us to function

We are born into a world where we can think.
Everything.
From the smallest atom to the expanse of the galaxy
Nothing.
Staring at a blank ceiling unsure of where to go

So what are we living for?
Everything?
A life of free expression where we can find all our satisfaction
Nothing?
To simply be allowed to live at all at the whim of things greater than ourselves

What are you fighting for?
Everything?
The meaningful life that you only get to live once
Nothing?
A crafted personality that follows what's at the bridge of your nose

We are born into a world.
Everything.
Can be done if we do what it takes to get there
Nothing.
Can be done if we never think at all

Feedback:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tc46qd/comment/ollj22v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tc4jaf/comment/ollfbyc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As I gaze to the stars above me,
I wonder of all the things I could be,
Of all the things I could have been.
Of all that has..

To think of how small we all are,
To know the night from day,
Of life and decay.
The Past ever comes..

If I find my gaze trailing upward,
When I‘m old and have been.

Will I still be thinking of could be,
When The Past comes for me..?

Feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tb8ndq/comment/olf1smu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tb8kcb/comment/olf6j0j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As an aspiring Sociologist, one of my pleausres has been using what Ive been learning from mu study of Sociology and applying it to Anarchism. Where Sociology is the scientific and empirical study of society and human interaction. I believe having what would be called a *Sociological Imagination* is immensely helpful for any anarchist.

One book alone, *The Social Construction of Reality* is enough to go over the fundamentals of how society works as a structure and how we humans interact to make this structure *Real*. *Real* in the sense that we can not simply will it away by our volition.

They argue that people inhabit multiple *Realities* of shared meanings. From fandoms to sports teams to coworkers to family, each of these areas of life contain their own meanings and norms that guide interaction. And over all of this we have what is called a *Reality par excellence*, the understanding of reality in total. Our ontology, if you will. Though its important to note that this overall reality is not the same for everyone. This is most blatant between cultures. But even within cultures, people can have different *base realities*. The person who has been socialised into Conservative beliefs operates on a different social reality than someone whos been socialised into more progressive or even revolutionary beliefs.

And its in this that I find the most important realisation. When we recognise that all social reality is contigent on the meaning making that happens when people interact with each other... and that other political ideologies, including anarchism, are merely unique cultural *realities* that contain their own worldviews and norms, then the questions of what we should do and how we should do it become a lot more clear, I think.

What we should do becomes answerable in the way that we should begin being more social. We should interact with people and express our anarchist beliefs wherever we can and is safe. We should express anarchist behaviours and encourage others to join in wherever we can and is safe. Use this human interaction to create shared meanings. How we should do it is through committed action through groups. Organising becomes a means where we can have known committed anarchists to rely on to engage with you in your anarchist endeavours. To have a sizable group to display towards others and to encourage others to join in on.

In fact, Damon Centola is interested in Social Change and his findings show how this way of interaction creates change. More can be read in the book *Change: How to Make Big Things Happen*. Where he shows through several experiments that change happens when committed actors perform new behaviour in close knit social networks, friends and family, and this basically peer pressures others into conforming to these new behaviours. You dont even need a majority, merely 25% of the group needs to be a committed actor to trigger a snowball affect of people joining in.

I think knowledge like this is invaluable and we should make a greater effort to understand it and use it in our daily activities.