The liberals are doing it. They are trying to dismantle the most sacred and ancient of ethical traditions of guest-host relations. Don’t you dare strengthen your community by establishing some co-relation in the most basic and universally understood manor. Don’t you dare act kindly toward your neighbor or break out of your selfish, commodified, isolation. How dare you do a kind act without expecting something greater in return. The liberals are going after what’s left of humanities soul in the West. They’ll sterilize the humanity out of us more than they already have with their twisted, hedonistic ideology.
If one reads Prince by Machiavelli and then takes a look at Renaissance art, sculpture, culture, one can see how a plea to virtue was embedded in and reflected the ruling ideology. The virtues were captured in art and portrayed for everyone to see (before and while Machiavelli wrote – he didn’t necessarily come up with the idea himself).
The art from that time is often brutal. It was a virtue to be warlike and able to crush one’s enemies. So aristocrats and merchants (an early model of the modern bourgeois in the first proto-capitalist city states) would pay for paintings and sculptures of themselves wielding clubs and crushing other strong men – capturing their supposed manly virtue.
The same kind of portrayals can be seen throughout Europe following the Renaissance.
It’s strange… the dark ages are acknowledged, a time when records were lost, before the Renaissance became the Enlightenment, but if humans survive whatever is about to come our way with global warming and nuclear war, I’m guessing that future societies will look back at this time as having ‘slipped back’ into a second dark age, where humanity largely lost the capacity to see itself. The parallels are uncanny. (Parenti’s History as Mystery touches on the suppression of historical knowledge, as does, IIRC, Cedric Robinson’s An Anthropology of Marxism.)
Today we see this everywhere in film, TV, books, magazines, all media forms. Constant depictions of what makes people (especially those in the ruling class) great, and better than others. It’s quite insidious, but art is taught poorly in schools, so children are not taught to question – or even to see – their environment. @Kirbywithwhip1987@lemmygrad.ml, this may explain why we see so many Terminators and Jasons.
Curiously, most people don’t even accept that members of the ruling class pay for art (and news stories) that depicts them in glory. If you mention it, people’s eyes glaze over or they call you a conspiracy theorist.
In a way, they’re right, because some of the payment mechanisms are distorted by the wage labour relation. And there are so many people willing to idealise the status quo without being commissioned like a merchant explicitly seeking out a canvas by da Vinci or Michelangelo. As if PR and marketing firms are not just a sophisticated form of the same age old practice.
I suppose the ruling class knows how dangerous it is to teach the lower classes history and to teach them how to understand relations as historically contingent. That path would lead to Marxism even if it did not lead to Marx or Marxists.
Now that you mention it, i cannot attest for art, but it’s also very visible in literature, especially the fairly young genre that is supposed to look in the future - the science fiction - from around 30 years already, their visions are increasingly dark dystopias, and even when they aren’t openly nightmarish they do tend to regress into the “golden age” of “infinitely” growing capitalist economy.
It’s especially problematic with sci-fi, too, because it often leaves the reader thinking that they can now spot the big problem. Or that capitalism can exist in the future. I can’t remember the source, but I recently heard that with current technology (including tech that we can predict will be possible in future), even if we can start extracting from space, at the rate of growth needed to sustain capitalism, we will still run out of resources in 400 years! That is not long at all in human historical terms!
Good question. Hmm… I spend most of my working day writing, reading, editing, or giving feedback on writing. So I suppose I am, though I wouldn’t introduce myself as a professional writer.
I’m glad you think my writing is eloquent. If I write well it’s down to lots of practice and reading. I was not great at writing through school. There was some improvement from about age 17, which I put down starting to read several novels each week from about age 15/16.
It was not until university that I realised poor writing was holding me back, and that writing is work – i.e. it’s not just a case of recording the words in one’s mind in the order that they appear. That’s only step one.
So I read several books on style, craft, and on how to write essays, fiction, and non-fiction. All the while testing out voices and styles in assessments to make the most of feedback.
The first book that was helpful was Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. Orwell’s (I know, I know, but this one is worth reading) Politics and the English Language was also useful. While both helped with writing more clearly and accurately, I also started to write quite densely – a result of trying to write as briefly as possible.
That’s when I started thinking about creative non-fiction. Long before becoming a Marxist, I found, IIRC, Peter Medawar’s ‘advice to a young scientist’ quite useful (I’ll try to dig up the article and exact title).
Now I think there are no easy formulas for good writing. There are lots of different types. Still, there is a lot to be said for the following notions:
good writing takes time, care, and attention;
good writing involves re-writing;
the first draft can always be improved;
the second, third, and forth, etc, drafts can also be improved – you have to decide which draft is good enough;
writing is a craft and we cannot assume it will come naturally, so we need to pay attention to good examples and learn to figure out why they are good, then to try the same technique to see if it improves our own work.
Now I’m hoping your ‘wondering how [I] do it’ wasn’t rhetorical. If it wasn’t rhetorical, I am happy to keep talking about writing.
Oh not in the slightest was it rhetorical, I appreciate the detailed response. It shows that you are an active writer. I have taken note of those books.
A problem for me especially is writing densely and my own patience.
I myself am a highschool student in the US and there was never any actual advice or help for me to try to elaborate my own thoughts into a strong voice. I always had a faint idea of what i was trying to say, but it would never come out just right. This became increasingly apparent whenever I would try to elaborate my political views or debunk Western propaganda.
Another issue i run into, is this weird “wanna be professional” voice i get when writing. A lot of big words or language with little value, and sounds very artificial. Now this probably stems from teachers telling us to “sound right” and having us fill a word quota so the essay becomes incredibly bloated.
Okay ill be working on my writing, tho for further discussion what would you recommend, DMs? Email? I assume using this thread wouldn’t be wise in the long run. I really, honest to god, appreciate you taking time to respond. :)
The liberals are doing it. They are trying to dismantle the most sacred and ancient of ethical traditions of guest-host relations. Don’t you dare strengthen your community by establishing some co-relation in the most basic and universally understood manor. Don’t you dare act kindly toward your neighbor or break out of your selfish, commodified, isolation. How dare you do a kind act without expecting something greater in return. The liberals are going after what’s left of humanities soul in the West. They’ll sterilize the humanity out of us more than they already have with their twisted, hedonistic ideology.
Is there any particular reason as to why libs naturally have and show less emotions than Terminator or Jason?
I’ve talked to more than enough of them, these people are monsters, no regard to anything except their ideology
Egoism has been taught to them as a virtue.
Honestly it looks exactly like the material emanation of subjective idealist philosophy, nothing is real to them except them.
If one reads Prince by Machiavelli and then takes a look at Renaissance art, sculpture, culture, one can see how a plea to virtue was embedded in and reflected the ruling ideology. The virtues were captured in art and portrayed for everyone to see (before and while Machiavelli wrote – he didn’t necessarily come up with the idea himself).
The art from that time is often brutal. It was a virtue to be warlike and able to crush one’s enemies. So aristocrats and merchants (an early model of the modern bourgeois in the first proto-capitalist city states) would pay for paintings and sculptures of themselves wielding clubs and crushing other strong men – capturing their supposed manly virtue.
The same kind of portrayals can be seen throughout Europe following the Renaissance.
It’s strange… the dark ages are acknowledged, a time when records were lost, before the Renaissance became the Enlightenment, but if humans survive whatever is about to come our way with global warming and nuclear war, I’m guessing that future societies will look back at this time as having ‘slipped back’ into a second dark age, where humanity largely lost the capacity to see itself. The parallels are uncanny. (Parenti’s History as Mystery touches on the suppression of historical knowledge, as does, IIRC, Cedric Robinson’s An Anthropology of Marxism.)
Today we see this everywhere in film, TV, books, magazines, all media forms. Constant depictions of what makes people (especially those in the ruling class) great, and better than others. It’s quite insidious, but art is taught poorly in schools, so children are not taught to question – or even to see – their environment. @Kirbywithwhip1987@lemmygrad.ml, this may explain why we see so many Terminators and Jasons.
Curiously, most people don’t even accept that members of the ruling class pay for art (and news stories) that depicts them in glory. If you mention it, people’s eyes glaze over or they call you a conspiracy theorist.
In a way, they’re right, because some of the payment mechanisms are distorted by the wage labour relation. And there are so many people willing to idealise the status quo without being commissioned like a merchant explicitly seeking out a canvas by da Vinci or Michelangelo. As if PR and marketing firms are not just a sophisticated form of the same age old practice.
I suppose the ruling class knows how dangerous it is to teach the lower classes history and to teach them how to understand relations as historically contingent. That path would lead to Marxism even if it did not lead to Marx or Marxists.
I’m unsure if this is what you meant, @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml, by
but it’s what you made me think of.
Now that you mention it, i cannot attest for art, but it’s also very visible in literature, especially the fairly young genre that is supposed to look in the future - the science fiction - from around 30 years already, their visions are increasingly dark dystopias, and even when they aren’t openly nightmarish they do tend to regress into the “golden age” of “infinitely” growing capitalist economy.
Good example!
It’s especially problematic with sci-fi, too, because it often leaves the reader thinking that they can now spot the big problem. Or that capitalism can exist in the future. I can’t remember the source, but I recently heard that with current technology (including tech that we can predict will be possible in future), even if we can start extracting from space, at the rate of growth needed to sustain capitalism, we will still run out of resources in 400 years! That is not long at all in human historical terms!
Well capitalists usually barely plan for more than one quarter ahead, so when they hear about 400 years they will just burn the Earth.
Unfortunately, you’re almost certainly right.
@redtea Are you like a professional writer or something, cause words always seem to flow from you eloquently and wondering how you do it
That’s high praise! Thank you.
Good question. Hmm… I spend most of my working day writing, reading, editing, or giving feedback on writing. So I suppose I am, though I wouldn’t introduce myself as a professional writer.
I’m glad you think my writing is eloquent. If I write well it’s down to lots of practice and reading. I was not great at writing through school. There was some improvement from about age 17, which I put down starting to read several novels each week from about age 15/16.
It was not until university that I realised poor writing was holding me back, and that writing is work – i.e. it’s not just a case of recording the words in one’s mind in the order that they appear. That’s only step one.
So I read several books on style, craft, and on how to write essays, fiction, and non-fiction. All the while testing out voices and styles in assessments to make the most of feedback.
The first book that was helpful was Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. Orwell’s (I know, I know, but this one is worth reading) Politics and the English Language was also useful. While both helped with writing more clearly and accurately, I also started to write quite densely – a result of trying to write as briefly as possible.
That’s when I started thinking about creative non-fiction. Long before becoming a Marxist, I found, IIRC, Peter Medawar’s ‘advice to a young scientist’ quite useful (I’ll try to dig up the article and exact title).
Now I think there are no easy formulas for good writing. There are lots of different types. Still, there is a lot to be said for the following notions:
Now I’m hoping your ‘wondering how [I] do it’ wasn’t rhetorical. If it wasn’t rhetorical, I am happy to keep talking about writing.
Oh not in the slightest was it rhetorical, I appreciate the detailed response. It shows that you are an active writer. I have taken note of those books.
A problem for me especially is writing densely and my own patience.
I myself am a highschool student in the US and there was never any actual advice or help for me to try to elaborate my own thoughts into a strong voice. I always had a faint idea of what i was trying to say, but it would never come out just right. This became increasingly apparent whenever I would try to elaborate my political views or debunk Western propaganda.
Another issue i run into, is this weird “wanna be professional” voice i get when writing. A lot of big words or language with little value, and sounds very artificial. Now this probably stems from teachers telling us to “sound right” and having us fill a word quota so the essay becomes incredibly bloated.
Okay ill be working on my writing, tho for further discussion what would you recommend, DMs? Email? I assume using this thread wouldn’t be wise in the long run. I really, honest to god, appreciate you taking time to respond. :)
Apologies, Citrus. It’s been a bit hectic on my end. I’ll send you a PM soon!
No worries! I am binge finishing all the latework over this break so i completely understand. Take your time!
idk, I think they’re just fascists. This is what it’s like living among fascists.
Hyperindividualism
that exactly. Man is not an island, but liberals will do their damnedest to put an ocean in between each and every one of us.