Democracy is technically an identical soul to capitalism. There is an exquisite tendency for democracy to manufacture the idea that it allows for individual expression but the reality is that public opinion is hardly individual opinion or individual expression. No one is going to regularly buy a newspaper that they inherently disagree with. Just like no one is going to marry someone that is not more like them than not. People are not given to struggle, people are, let us say, easy going, I mean lazy! They want to adopt that which is going to cause them the least aggravation. It is easier to agree with the world than to disagree with it, and you will die a lonely death if you disagree with everyone.
Here we can apply the similarities that we experience with economics, the number of friends that you want is based on the amount of energy that you want to invest in making and being with friends. It requires less energy to have friends that agree with you. And if you don’t really care about the inner workings of human nature, which is to say that you are ok with superficial friendships, then you can have many friends. Politicians, like preachers, love simple friendships, so they are able to nearly love everyone in one way or another. And to love a lot of people you really have to just love the surface. Of course you can make the religious argument that below the superficial we are all spiritually the same which is still good cause to love everyone because that makes everyone the same, but the reality is that while on the surface we may look very much the same and deep under our character’s structure, at the foundation we may all hunger for the same human aspirations, the truth is that the space in between makes many of us really unpleasant and ugly. So any argument professing the complete love of humanity or equality is in the end a superficial analysis of what makes us human, but it is not wrong in that it works.
The reality is that no one knows or understands the nature of humanity. The real reason, however, why many people understand the nature of humanity is because it is beneficial and profitable. How can a spiritual priest not be inspired by humanity? How can a philosopher, someone who makes a living creating imaginary realities, not be enamoured by the human intellect? How can the hunger for altruism not find reward in a soup kitchen? How could a person that is confused about the human condition not find psychology grounds for comfort? And, not to drag you down the sewer, but how could a person not at ease with the uncertainty of their own emotions not become a scientist?
But do any of these goofs really know what is best for us all? Of course not, but the reality is that the ego believes that what cures the self can cure everyone; what is good for me is good for all. And democracy just takes off from this nice comfortable place and finds common ground for all. And it finds this common ground because democracy understands, like economics, that we do not want to be heavily taxed. So the question is how can ideas be made inoffensive and palatable to all? Well, when they cease to really matter. When something really matters it can not be ignored and it is bound to need effort and cause as much pain as it can cause joy. You are emotionally attached to your children you certainly find a great deal of joy in their existence and it is inversely proportionate to the amount of suffering that you would endure if they were not to exist. You certainly wanted and needed the love and attention that they offer and so now you have a conditional environment imposed upon you because of it. It is that conditional environment, the family, that operates on a sort of auto pilot a good portion of the time that allows the relationship to work, and these overlaps into the relationships that you have with your friends. Common understandings, things automatically understood make it possible for you to maintain relationships. It may be the ritual of eating the same foods or watching the same movies that enforces the automatic environments and then surprisingly allows you to break free from it, for brief periods, so that you can say something contra, or just new and inspiring, contra everything that is mutually shared in the relationship. Moments in which we actively participate in saying things that are new and meaningful to us as a separate entity from any system. And it is this very moments that can cause incongruent obstinacies to flare in relationships.
The conditional environment generated by the needs of family is what in the end we call society. Society is that point that exist and is shared in the common mind. It is the place where common beliefs exist, belief in justice or religion, common to all, it allows us to float in the same universe as another, shared value structures. I can live with those rules, that is the fortunate or unfortunate, I can go either way, but that is the makings of a social structure. And it is primarily born to create a secure environment for the propagation of family and in the end at a more realistic level species.
The problem with fictitious entities however is that they can acquire qualities equal to those of a person, an economic system like capitalism can suffer a depression, no one really knows what it is that induces such a wild and destructive fluctuation as a depression, and one must wonder if the system is inherently suicidal because it is always on the verge of inflation or depression, but one certainly can attribute this inconsistencies that afflict the health of capitalism as similar to those experienced by a human being that has had a bad day at work. You know most of the time a human being works and works diligently, and some what content, but then sometimes an individual has a bad day at work and it is like the whole world is going to collapse only nothing has really changed and nothing will really change until that depressed individual does something really stupid like quit. And then the balance is altered in that economic universe, that is that human, and his or her life will certainly go through a violent period of change.
Now what if, and I am not afraid to accept that this is a big if, but what if an economic depression as experience by a false entity called the economy is merely a reflection of that individual feeling bad? And then another individual feeling bad, and so on… I am not even saying that they have quit their jobs, they are just not feeling well, they are kind of depressed, and since the capitalistic non entity, which is an engine that results from the agglomeration of individual wants and needs, is pure feelings the end result is manic.
An social entities such as communism, capitalism, religion, democracy, which are supra entities because they are globally or metaphysically intertwined, or regional entities such as justice, defense and culture, are all completely dependant on belief! If belief is important for these independent entities to have existence then what would the mood of those that belief these things and thus support them do to their nature? Patriotism a dying civil services is a perfect example of a dying entity.
While most countries still benefit from patriotism the reality is that the more advanced economies also suffer from a greater number of nationalists that are willing to question their country enough not to be blinded by patriotism. As markets move wealth in international money highways the thing that matters the most is not blind patriotism but stability. The economy is lazy, capital flows where it is most comfortable, where it is going to be hindered the least, where it will be regulated by fewer processes, that is where it can be liquid or asset at will. So what matters to thriving capitalist engines is the stabilization of political unrest and the deregulation of markets. A patriot is more likely to think with a cultural bias than a profit bias, a cultural bias leads to protectionist tendencies, but a free economy expands indiscriminately. So while once a protected market meant that you had a captive consumer today it means that you are in a saturated market full of sharks that want to eat you and your lunch. In this sort of environment patriots are the equivalent of cave man in the metropolis. A cave man was probably not a very sentimental fellow, more given to endure a harsh world, so it is with a patriot, more given to thriving and enduring in a homogenous environment and less sensitive to diversity thus more willing to exterminate someone that does not share the same values. Money however is a uniform and a uniformity that everyone can wear and share, the more that use it the larger the market and the larger the market the greater the market potential, and markets feel really good when there is a lot of potential. So it is no longer as important to be a patriot as it is to be a stock broker, in fact a stock broker is the symmetrical replacement for a patriot. If the patriot fought with blind belief for the ways of people the stock broker fights with blind belief in the markets.
So entities come and go and by nature of the fact that they are the combined interest of humans may suffer rebirth, death, and depressions. So the bigger question is where is it all going? A bit simple I mean people expend their lives trying to figure origins through such things as evolution and the big bang, but fewer people give a thought as to where we are going as a civilization. So much is this question ignored that most ideas on the future of humanity are nothing more than magnifications of the present. More horrible they are magnifications of particulars, more technology, more time for leisure, everyone to be more intelligent and so on. In short there isn’t a vision as to what humanity itself might become, science fiction aside our social scientist have done little more than say that the future is this plus more or merely a reflection of the history which has produced the present. Never mind that our interpretation of history might be all wrong or just simply backwards and we might not know it.
Most of civilization walks around hunting and gathering and planning future profit strategies but with the exception of religion and science which both have told us we are in the long term doomed, one tells us that god will come back unleashing disasters which at least today are not economically feasible, and the other tells us that as the universe modeled after the economy will suffer inflation for ever which ironically will cool things down or it will contract, which again contrary to economics will make things really hot. But again few people ever really sit around trying to determine where humanity is really going or even if it really wants to go where it is going. The reality is that while we are on mass auto-pilot, this because it is a lot easier for posterity to handle the future, but so much on mass auto pilot that even a brilliant genius can not override social and economic momentum. In other words remembering that we take the easy way out why try to think of changing what we can not change. Irrelevant. More relevant the success of capitalism and democracy prove that if you let things be they will govern them selves in much the same way that if you wanted to manipulate them. People and markets inherently restrict themselves.
Now it just so happens that I recently threw a tantrum and decided to quit my job, fortunately I am such a unique individual that this did not lead to a mass job exodus and so my disengaging from the system was not cause for alarm. But I mention this because having nothing to do, which is to say not having to be on the automatic strategic plan currently being executed by our humanity; I sit around a lot and start to wonder about the big questions. Thinking about the big questions makes it easy for me to ignore the impeding catastrophe that being jobless will most certainly unleash upon me person. So in order to escape I asked myself where are we all going? Well you know how it is that you really come up with a question after you have the answer and the reality is that I knew the answer but I had never, like most of us, bothered to ask the question.
The nature of things can be divined from the nature of things. So what is the underlying philosophy that enters every sphere, every entity and every soul? It is unification. That is correct; it is in the end no more than unification. All this talk about individuality and freedom of expression is bullshit. We all want to make of ourselves one large homogenous mass that can feel everything from every angle and basically arrive at the same congruent conclusion; this, so as to save the larger organism that supra entity that is humanity so that it can auspiciously compete against the supra of all supra entities the universe.
The universe is expanding, humanity, too, is expanding, humanity is trying very hard to expand faster than the universe so that it can catch up and equal if not surpass the expansion of the universe. Humanity, of course, can not equal or exceed the universe as an individual, at the core level of all individual life there is an explicit understanding that induces a greater understanding of expansion through mass mutual cooperation. What makes democracy, religion and capitalism the most successful entities on the planet is their unifying message which caters to the lowest common denominator. All people are equal under the eyes of the constitution and the law, and even under the eyes of a tyrant god; and this is not just a method for granting everyone the same individual rights, and the same love, it is instead a way to make everyone the same. This is fundamentally important to institutions or entities that depend on humans for their existence, an entity that favors one individual over others will isolate from that individual energy. It is in the fundamental interest of a system to be open minded. Inevitably equality is fostered by a system’s need to expand and encompass everything. So if all people are the same under the law for no one is above the law, and the same under god, for we are all his children, and still all equal to the corporation that wants to sell us its goods, then where ought we to go to even out our differences? To any and all of these systems! The systems flattens humanity and as more and more of us go into the system to seek our equality we become less and less ourselves, eventually our existence outside of the system becomes impossible.
So there have been and are among us those that implicitly understand, such as god, the theory of unity rather well; and sure, religion may have angled things a bit so that the social structure would be created more and more in its own image; but then the same could be said of the communists that have also tried by force to angle it more and more in their own image; all failing to understand that being right is not the same as being able to do. So the entity that survives will have various portions of all of our humanity, of some more than of others thus unequal but with the same interest, in so far as that serves the homogenization of that very humanity.
As entities expand they require more and more energy from the individuals who create them, and therefore they require more agreement; through cooperation and combined belief an entity subtracts energy from the individual. All entities are portions of what is a human being, but as they grow they will demand more and more attention until they consume every hour and minute that is a human individual, and via the same process make less and less of each person. This is necessary because as entities expand their energy needs logically expand, their energy is only the end product of human thought and human toil. Very soon you have individuals that have no personality outside of entities. People whose lives have no meaning without the beliefs, titles or offices afforded to them by institutions. There are already many religious, corporate and bureaucratic personalities that fall into this category.
The relevant part is that all of these entities are the consciousness of our humanity. The future for us is a huge compromise to individuality, the future is the grave of individuality; but the agreed upon singularity of consciousness, perhaps equal to seven, or if the society is very liberal equal to eight, is about half as many as matter in any society today; but that singularity of consciousness of humanity will have a greater possibility to succeed in an indifferent universe. The indifference that is now being directed at the individual will allow us to challenge the indifference that the universe causes us to suffer. The all as one infestation of the universe by our consciousness will lead to the indefinite expansion of humanity.
