During any age, there is always an ethos, an ethic by which that age develops its political character and social personality. While certain ages had more prevalent and identifiable characters, ours is one that hides its nature, and maintains its values in a sub-active manner, that is meant to say without a title, or a movement, or party representation. In fact, the greatest and most powerful attribute of this age’s ethic is its invisibility. For if there was tyranny would it not be recognized by those who have eradicated it in the past? If there was propaganda would it’s application not be investigated by the free in thought? This vague phantom cannot be observed. Additionally, it cannot be pointed to in any other period of history. Certainly, the Age of Enlightenment was an age of liberalization of both knowledge and government, as the reign of kings was that of monarchic dynasty. Fascism was quite conspicuous in its nationalized behavior as communism was quite well noted for its ideal. No, it is clear that ours is an age of elusive character, yet ever present and strongly featured to the adequate observer. In addition, and unfortunately, our ethos tends to contradict the facade of this democratic time in history, which was so arduously toiled over to reach. The malevolence of this spirit stands in contrast to the freedoms of the 21st century, which I will discuss in further detail in the following entry.

The roots of this contradictory character, according to my research and observations, are often sparse and somewhat obscure, but I trace them to the lifestyles of European hedonists and, more obscurely, to the spiritual practices of the priestly caste of various Indo-European and Mesopotamian centered societies. Sounds unusual? I implore you to read on and into the substance of this argument. I continue on this topic. In these cultural and spiritual contexts there existed two key factors pertaining to each respectively: economic/imperial splendor and pacifist withdrawal. A splendor typified by the violent whims of an overindulgent upper class and a withdrawal into the spiritual quality of nature.

Now to the state of democratic nations. Known for their open structures, opportunities in industry, and unrestrained promulgation of the potential of the individual, they’re values are currently under assault and the populace mostly careless or without recourse. There exists in these nations a force which subversively opposes these values and actively seeks to rob the citizenry of their function.

Most of this begins in the private sector by what I’ve entitled “cultural moderators.” These are entities (groups of individuals, companies, entire industries) which share a common ethic and employ tactics to fortify their beliefs. Of course, with some room for exaggeration, the economy is balanced by opposing actors, however the establishment radicals, which this entry is dedicated to, will be the subject of detailing. These cultural moderators who act in the interest of the establishment of the current age are most commonly found in industries such as entertainment and media, however they can be spotted in finance and academics as well. Essentially, the individualist and fervently self-expressionist values proposed within industry react with an aspect of human nature to negate the need for social reasoning and political representation. These cultural moderators use symbols within poetry and the common arts to inject a sense of hyper-sexualization and even tribalism into the collective conscious, so as to achieve amongst the populace base ideations of sexual virility, racial violence, and primitive stature. The public is fed by pop-culture, with politics taking a secondary status as a cultural practice. Pop-culture itself, without mentioning the many schools of thought within academics and how they are interpreted to promote similar conclusions, is often used as a tool by industrialists, who I’ve heard called current day oligarchs, to spread criminal sentiments amongst the citizenry, essentially supplanting the common man from his legal status and catapulting the famed and wealthy into a state of accordance with the government. This goes without mentioning the pull that wealth and status offers in reducing punishment for criminal behavior, allowing those in power to always have an upper hand in the legal system. Meanwhile, the resources afforded by this industry are so extensive, as is its appeal, that it can only be assumed with assurance that its possessors could imbue the government with their own chosen representatives, meant to further disconnect man from his society. There is a stark nihilism that has begun to dominate the information outlets available to the regular populace. Note TikTok: fifteen to thirty second long videos displaying such meaningless activities as the construction of statues made of chocolate or stuffing they’re face with some kind of unidentifiable meat. This is primarily due to an unrestrained and ubiquitous bourgeois element within society that has replaced the unbiased press, the sharing of information which is actually relevant to people’s political status.

Neo-liberal reforms and the corporatization of attitudes had worked to hinder the citizenry from engaging realistically with their surroundings. Often, this process has claimed to determine for us which topics are of political relevance or importance, usually falling in the realm of Middle-Eastern conflicts (*reference to introduction) or the repeatedly stale need for boundless sensitivity in social life. For example, the privatization of the public sphere, essentially its status change from open to scrutinized, abundantly contemplative to acutely aware of itself as a threat to the political establishment and somehow the consumer industry, while allowing for greater distribution of thought, has moderated its ability to behave transformatively. Obviously, the political usuals are more often seen disputing with each other over infractions to rules of conduct rather than any true ideations between the open-minded of furthering their status in our chosen government.

This brings me to my next point about matters in the public/civic realms.
I’ve determined the ways in which an overindulgent upper class acts to moderate free thought and instill feelings of tribe behavior. I will try to express my second value emphasis from the introduction, that of pacifism and withdrawal. On to the civic world: more often than not, taxes are used for what I have deemed “maintenance spending,” the government behavior of directing its internal resources into menial programs (i.e. the dole and welfare programs, public service and plumbing upkeep) rather than the development of agencies or offices that make the democratic infrastructure more accessible, improve education, or promote cultural activity. Essentially, the reforms that led to a further socialized economy were only enacted to keep drug addicts from going through withdrawals (*humor). In addition to this, instead of agents who have been educated in its foundations and inspired to execute its ideals, one will find our democratic structure populated by only loosely affiliated officers, unimpassioned chair holders, and even vacancies in certain departments meant to protect the rights of the people. At this point, the civic body has undergone malaise, behaving in a way that transfers a state of imposed pacifism onto the general public even if they are invested in political affairs in that its offices are used for only menial tasks. I have first hand experience with this as someone who has attended the activities of local government. Without any exaggeration, I can reveal that most of the slots on its calendar are reserved for exercise classes for senior citizens, broken up by an occasional superfluous board meeting. This is how it feels to live in this democracy. It must be only those with the best college degrees, highest paying jobs, and social outlets and connections who can find themselves in a position of influence.

I remind you to keep in mind that I am from America and this may be part of why the starkness of this age is so apparent, what with its less than reputable racial history and the vengeful sentiments that it has produced amongst large swaths of the population who do end up holding positions in the government. Is it possible that government offices meant to protect civil liberties are vacant? Possible that positive attitudes have spoiled and opportunity has become more traceless with some amount of intention? Is the current establishment seeking vengeance more than it would promote prosperity? Can a society so easily permeated, both intellectually and organizationally, ever be coaxed out of its disdain for (or perhaps unawareness of) the liberty affirming values it somehow at once functions alongside and in opposition to?