°
Is there a universal thread that unites revolutionary warring factions?
Viewing revolutionary potential as a shared impulse could reveal an unseen ideology, showing people they are more alike—driven by a craving for change—than opposed. Alternatively, their differences might shrink to mere juvenile angst, maturing into the sublation of antagonism.
Optimistic, yes, but not without hope.
°
A well-crafted article presents research, fact after fact, in a compelling order—only to end in moralization, transforming it into a fable.
Sometimes, I invert every value judgment, reaching opposite conclusions from the same facts. The ease of this reversal exposes a deeper issue: we accept logical structures (formulaic chains) without applying counter-logic.
We crave belief, not reason, using facts as rhetorical tools rather than as paths to truth. The facts seldom dictate the conclusions; they merely serve as a pretext for moralization.
°
When responsibility is distributed across many actors but profits flow to few, we face a fundamental challenge of modern capitalism.
The tragedy of shared resources – like oceans or public attention – emerges when individual actors can extract private wealth without effective oversight. Ocean pollution exemplifies this: while the damage is collective, the profits from activities causing pollution accrue to specific entities. Without global governance mechanisms, there’s no effective way to align private incentives with public good.
The digital economy demonstrates how innovation can outpace regulation, creating new “commons” to exploit. Social media companies harvest attention and personal data, transforming public mental space into private profit centers before legal frameworks can adapt. This regulatory lag allows for the privatization of previously unmonetized aspects of human experience.
As enterprises grow, they often develop symbiotic relationships with national governments, leading to a system where risks are socialized (through bailouts and subsidies) while profits remain private. This creates a perverse incentive structure where growth itself becomes a shield against responsibility.
A critical shift occurs as organizations scale: initial risk-taking that demanded responsibility transforms into an argument against responsibility. Large enterprises cite their size – their employees, infrastructure, and economic importance – as reasons they cannot be held fully accountable for their negative externalities. The organization’s success becomes a defense against bearing the full costs of its actions.
°
When faced with failures or setbacks, many people resort to superficial solutions rather than addressing core problems.
They believe that polishing appearances, rebranding, or forcing perceptual changes will mask the fundamental lack of substance in their candidate, product, or ideology… or themself.
It only follows that those who choose a symbolic/semantic argument would accuse critics of bias or persecution when they reject these surface-level changes. It is not only disingenuous—it’s a continual form of gaslighting that attempts to shift blame rather than confront real issues.
Naturally, it is easier to shift appearance than reality, to control spin rather than actions, but this pursuit of superficial control reveals a core truth: that those who grasp and mold appearances are invested in the ephemeral, attempting to control what is inherently fleeting and easily displaced.
°
Progress is always already happening: by definition, we are in the midst of progress, making it a bit oxymoronic to label yourself as being for something you can’t stop or start.
This pedantic insight reveals that Progressives are only for a specific type of movement in a singular direction, which must be spurred on or accelerated. This requires an ideology mapping out the future utopia, which can be used to direct the morally fervent. This type of religiosity is also on the right but progressing backward: they are applying the brakes for a return to known dangers/ills rather than theoretical expansive equality.
The problem with claiming that “the arc of history” bends progressively or that you need to be on “the right side of history” is that if progress is already progressive, why fight so hard? It is not happening fast enough, so we must accelerate, which creates the conditions for an ideological tug-of-war to slow down the change, burning energy and relationships at both ends.
(partially from Steven Pinker)
°
Certain traits, such as pride and defiance, are seen as toxic, yet they established our nation.
So… toxic, yet useful.
In Christian morality, these virtues were always wrong, yet ignoring their role in establishing a nation that can be both religiously free and, paradoxically, demonize defiance and coerce submission from the prideful is a lesson in the drift of power into irony.
°
Typically, the winner is determined by (1) might (overwhelming scale), (2) surprise (unexpected violence or betrayal), or (3) weak point leverage (fulcrums or flexibility).
Given the goal of a revolution, you will not have the numbers to win, so the revolutionary must use (2) surprise and/or (3) weak points. This is called terrorism or guerilla warfare.
To attempt a pacifist rebellion is to protest from inside your moral strictures: we can only beg for concessions and policy tuning from a violent state. Further, in our clamoring, disruptive asking, we are verifying the state’s power to give and our subordinate status.
If you protest but do not dare, you lose perpetually.
from Ward Churchill, Pacifism as Pathology
°
Having faith beyond doubt is to stop seeking: perfect faith is perfect stagnation. Pure faith obliterates curiosity.
You may still perform and struggle, but personal change will be incidental. The world may change through your performance, but only towards a singular, less considered state.
–
–
–
°
Consider violence as a harsh problem solver: it removes obstructions and stains. However, like any caustic agent, the short-term fix applied repeatedly is corrosive to the structure.
–
–
–
°
A supernatural realm persists, enacting odd changes while remaining veiled from comprehension. This mysterious realm seems to serve as the underlying foundation of the palpable, natural world we inhabit. With careful attunement and rituals, we can align with the mystery, predicting and anticipating its caprice.
While embracing empiricism or materialism might seem to disregard this mystical dimension it is not at odds with it, rather it reverses our relationship: by empowering the physical we induce change on our terms for tangible profit or benefit attempting to reduce dependence on "magical" influence.
