Tag Archives: societal

Interpretation of American Globalism

An Interpretation of American Globalism

This brings to mind the old social studies lesson about African tribalism… How the most an extended tribe based upon a familial kind of interconnection–that is, relationships knitted together based upon direct recognition of one another–could only extend to about 500. This is the maximum, so the theory goes, that individuals could be acquainted with one another in any kind of direct recognition of one another ;beyond that, there would be strain put on ones ability to feel kinship with all the members of the tribe and you get internal discord.

This is one of the breakdowns in human cultural evolution of extended civilization which religion directly addresses. Religion provides the foundation for recognizable kinship and a basis for understanding which extends beyond a single persons ability to actually know and recognize members of a community beyond this direct acquaintance number of 500 people.

This is also why, religions, to remain pertinent to their mission, must incorporate an inherent regard for members of different faith groups on the terms of those differing faith groups. There are, as with most legitimate doctrinal religious mores, other reasons for the same established value or values–in which the observance of one aspect creates the danger of diminishing the importance of other aspects, which is why to speak of such things in brevity is dangerous and why such issues require a more meditative (or prayer-like) approach. Such issues require a next-step brand of cognitive awareness; rather than a bullet-point explication a more topographical understanding–the kind of cognitive apprehension which would explain the incites of say a Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi or Dr Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Without this cultural innovation, or evolutionary stage, and something we see almost trapped in amber in the rendering of US bases across the world, we revert to more archaic forms of societal order. In a word, militarism. That is, the presence or threat of power to keep order. A strategy for societal order which inevitably means slavery.

Whenever you have the amassing of power with its attendant hierarchical structure… you will always have those within that hierarchical order who abuse their position, leveraging their place and title to amass personal power–or more likely, having amassed personal power, leveraged this to seize their position thus setting the tone of their conduct a priori. Suppressing the rights of those beneath them in that hierarchy to steal what would be their just due–the use of threat in this relationship renders this the accomplishment of slavery.

Unfortunately, the alternative without another organizational doctrine, results in a chaos and strife which reduces the societies ability to support the population numbers we now enjoy… In other words, a correction results in whatever form–war, famine, disease–to bring the populations back down to a manageable number; determined by whatever organizational structure is put in place to take up the job of societal management, or governance. The simpler the system, the greater the misery, strife and diminution of population and control over ones own fate–the greater the debasement of humanity. This system of order, because it does not obtain by slow negotiation of the various representatives of the various communities, WILL result in that system of organizational structure being one of devolved cultural resource. That is, a more ancient pattern; which means, based upon power; a greater consolidation, and more oppressive kind, of authority.

This is why revolutions are a failure from the get-go and evolution is the preferred route to change. Anything else… ensures the debasement of culture, ensures slavery…

Hands all over / Soundgarden

Don’t touch me
Hands all over the eastern border
You know what I think we’re falling
From composure
Hands all over western culture
Ruffling feathers and turning eagles into vultures
Into vultures

Got my arms around baby brother
Put your hands away
Your gonna kill your mother, gonna kill your mother
Kill your mother
And I love her, yeah
I love her

Hands all over the coastal waters
The crew men thank her
Then lay down their oily blanket
Hands all over the inland forest
In a striking motion trees fall down like dying soldiers
Yeah like dying soldiers

Got my arms around baby brother
Put your hands away
Your gonna kill your mother, gonna kill your mother
Kill your mother
And I love her, yeah
I love her
I love her

Hands all over the peasants daughter
She’s our bride she’ll never make it out alive
Hands all over words I utter
Change them into things you want to
Like balls of clay
Put your hands away

Yeah, put your hands away
Put your hands away
Gonna kill your mother
Gonna kill your mother
Gonna kill your mother
And I love her
I love her
I love her
I love her
And she loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Written by Christopher J. Cornell, Kim A. Thayil • Copyright © BMG Rights Management

A Rebuke to Charisma on Command


(Video posted on youtube by, Charisma on Command)

Interesting, but shortsighted and caught in a frame from the start. That frame being the quest for power. This is a pagan trap… that is, the worship of power. I agree that in our culture such focus on power is rampant; that we are rife with a juvenile preoccupation with achieving even the appearance of having power over others, but it is a trap. The “game” of power, to use a word in currency, will always betray the user to a more fundamental manifestation of power. Like Elric of Melnibone who wields the sword Stormbringer; Elric fights, but in the midst of that fight Stormbringer kills friend and foe alike despite Elrics desire–Elric becomes the vehicle of the sword rather than the sword being a tool of Elric’s will. But this pattern is true outside of Michael Moorcock’s stories of the eternal champion. The Italian Mafia was born out of a criminal culture which sprung out of a community whose social fabric had broken down. Men joined their criminal efforts like hunters in hunting parties until they consolidated power enough to achieve a sort of established status in which case they were forced to protect themselves from the same culture of criminality which produced they themselves. The most effective method being to acquire such competitors as subservient associates, and later, as such crews achieved success in whatever endeavor they might concoct, so too would the reigning power capability absorb such talent. In this way, success would become the beacon by which the lessor was brought into service of the greater. This pattern still prevails. Attend the court sessions of petty criminals and you will see a great majority of cases dismissed as the penal system is swamped by the societies inability to provide adequate guidance and integration for it’s own citizenry as they cross that bridge from adolescence into technical adulthood. It is this preoccupation with power which traps us all in a failing equation. And though it isn’t appearant to those without the benefit of seeing the pattern unfold for years… the situation isn’t getting better, rather, the useful adherents to the status quo are merely getting younger and less aware of the bigger picture. These plays at power and poses of confidence which you would profess are merely shallow lies which do not deceive but rather benefit those who butter their bread with the rendered fat of the ablest students.


(Video posted on Youtube by, Charisma on Command)

I have to say, the two videos of yours that I have watched are interesting, but I must reiterate… Your videos seem to be concerned more with a shallow preoccupation with power than with truth or substance. I have to add, that you are very good at outlining interactions, but I would question the value of your advice–I say “question”, because such interactions define who we are and if one decides that to appear in control and to dominate in power play interactions is what is most important, well, there it is.

But I would have to point out that what is most championed by Robert Downey Jr. in this example and what is being challenged, even if the interviewer doesn’t fully realize it, is the decorum of this interview. A decorum which, it could be argued, supports an insidious chimera of ill conceived virtue which thinly masks an industry that is not at all concerned with virtue, but the appearance of virtue for the sake of making money.

By championing certain values, even if those values have merit, but from a place of insincerity, it is this insincerity which becomes the active and propelling truth rendering that pose at virtue merely gaslight for the un-savvy or unguarded victim swayed. That by defending virtue badly, you do more harm to the pursuit of such virtue and lead the would be follower “down the garden path”. Even this interviewer, probably more motivated by career ambition than any real virtue, perhaps cannot see the true value in breaking the decorum of this interview–that is to break the illusion of truth, sincerity and seriousness in what Hollywood, with it’s hundreds of billions in effort, produces.

However, one has to wonder, if this interviewer himself were run through the gauntlet of failure and humiliation each one of us must run in order to gain our own understanding of the lay of the land, might he not be provisioned with the fortitude to look Robert Downey Jr. directly in the eye and ask him why his own experiences with the trials and pitfalls of the human condition haven’t informed his choices in how he goes about waging his craft, rather than just adding his significant influence to the production of, at the very least, vacuous cinematic tripe? It’s the difference between desiring to seem to be rather than seeking, simply, to be.