Subjectivism and Power Lust
Subjectivism is a very popular view of our existence. It is the assumption that one’s self and emotional experience are the only knowable truths, and is often the presumption that the subject is the only real thing. Because of these presumptions, it lends itself to the psychological drive of power lust. Power lust is the obsession or drive for power for its own sake. Subjectivism’s assumption about reality, since it exists solely within one’s head, means that it is meant to bend to the subjectivist’s will. Objectivism presumes that there is an external world that the subject cannot mentally directly affect.
There is a presumption of extreme internalization in subjectivism. A person’s accurate conceptions can only regard themselves. This creates a primacy of consciousness or of a person’s internality. Because the internal is the only real thing, there’s no mitigating externality that a person is supposed to cross-reference. The internal qualities and opinions of a person become monumental, and, since the external world isn’t real, the external world is seen as a frustration of the true and factual. This leads the person to desire dominance of the external world, particularly of other people, since the external world, in fact, doesn’t bend to the subjectivist’s will. To the subjectivist, the truth (their internal preferences and impulses) must triumph over the false (the external world). Power lust becomes the norm because all the subjectivist is doing in their attempts in the external world is to bring things into “the truth” by any means necessary.
Other people are seen as enemies insofar as they don’t placate the subjectivist’s “truth.” The more another person pays heed to the external world, the greater the threat they pose. A subjectivist looks for “allies” in the unknown external world. They want people who will join with or placate their internal mechanisms. Other subjectivists are preferred because they already contain the internal mechanisms that will help satisfy the subjectivist in the external world. They will concede the broad philosophical points that allow the subjectivist to generally function, particularly in psychological ease, in the exterior world. However, if a fellow subjectivist ultimately doesn’t abide by the personal internal mechanism of a subjectivist, the subjectivist has no problem with getting rid of them, as it is the one knowable and true mechanism of the subjectivist that holds the mechanism that matters. Other people can be used freely, because they are simply part of the mirage of the external world and are apart from the subjectivist’s “truth.”
In the end, what the subjectivist wants from the external world and all of the other people in it is obedience; obedience to his subjective “truth.” To a subjectivist, all is subordinated to the internal truth. Without a shared external world and an external world one is meant to adhere to, all that is left to a subjectivist is power lust, as the power that he holds within his own head.
Racism and Ideology
By some people, racism is seen as flowing from our racial biology and is considered natural. However, there’s nothing more natural about racism than any other ideology. The classification of people based on races is recent, within the last 500 years, and races have changed throughout history. There’s no clear biological marker that makes races evolutionarily distinct from one another; races may intermingle with no discernible negative impact (even the much more distinct homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans interbred). Racism is an ideological assumption about the world, not a biological necessity. Ideologies spread regardless of race and may be adopted by any member of any race. In the end, racists concede through their choices and actions that ideology, not race, is their primary motivator. They choose those they support based upon those people’s willingness to triumph racism itself and not on their racial characteristics. In many ways, the racist lives in contradiction of not only reality itself but his ideology. Yet, racism is common, and many different modern ideologies adopt racism as a cornerstone of their beliefs (Communism and fascism being the most popular). In the end, racism and ideology are inseparable.
Racism is an ideology. It is a set of beliefs one adopts via choice. Racism is the assumption that a person’s character and choices are determined by their race and that one’s race is primary to one’s existence. It’s a broad assumption about human nature. As such, it involves itself in every facet of human existence. Once adopted, racism becomes a motivating core of a human being. One would not deal with another human but with the idea set that racism provides. Each person must be categorized according to their races and that race’s “character.” Conflicting evidence must be explained away or ignored. Otherwise, the ideology is threatened, and the racist’s worldview and motivations begin to falter. An ideology is so central to a person’s existence that challenging it can create existential crises. Ideology provides an understanding and coherence to the world. In a sense, ideology creates the world for a person. It is the means by which a person engages the world (Even if you don’t have a set school of ideology you follow, you still have your own cohesive set of ideas you follow, no matter how mongrel).
The racist lives a contradiction due to his ideology’s assumptions. The racist must presume that ideology flows from race. Yet, he is confronted with people of his race that don’t share his racism or assumptions about races. Because any ideology can be chosen by any member of any race, the racist has to cut out members of his own race that don’t follow his beliefs, often considering them the worst type of people, e.g. “race traitors.” This directly contradicts his presumptions that character and choice flows from race. He has to select people based on ideology, while discarding race. This leads racists to prefer racists of other races over their own non-racist race members. In some iterations of racism, e.g. some types of Communism, this is less of a problem, as they simply prefer the racial classifications in and of themselves, but, for racists loyal to their own race, this creates a conflict, where they must be hostile to members of the race they triumph. The racist prefers racists of other races because, in the end, he must triumph the ideology above all. Ideology is his motivation and core of action. For him to drop ideology, for race in and of itself, would be to drop racism itself. It would leave him empty and actionless.
Indeed, the debate for racists seems to be split among what ideology should predominate over the races, mostly fascism or Communism (Further reiterating that, even among racists, there are ideological differences within and without races, contradicting the presumption of ideology being racial). Both fascism and Communism see their ideologies as being the right one for adoption across all races; both often create a sort of peace theory, where the different races may coexist on Earth as long as they adopt the preferred ideology. Communism is racial in that races are categorized in how good they are in their compliance with Communist doctrine, such as in Chinese Communism and Bolshevism, with whites being generally classified as inferior for being too capitalistic. Fascism is racial in that races are categorized in how well they triumph and further their own race, such as with Nazi Germany, with Hitler questioning the quality of the German race near Nazi Germany’s downfall. Regardless of the approach, one can see that both classify people and their ideologies based on race, even when contradictory evidence is mounted before them.
Racism is an ideology that believes character and choices are determined by one’s race. This flies in direct contradiction with empirical evidence. The racist resolves this by triumphing his ideology over the members of his race, or other races, in direct contradiction with his ideological beliefs. Indeed, the racists themselves may be broken up into different racist ideologies, further reiterating that chosen ideology is the primary motivator, not the races themselves. Due to the current differences in culture and appearance due to millenia of geographic separation (It is very recent that all of the world has been interconnected), racism may simply be the simplest means for collectivism to conserve its presence.
Calm and Righteousness
People often have presumptions about what it is like to be right or honest. They have concrete visions of what a right or honest person is. Often, the righteous are seen as ever placid and calm, never being subject to outside influences. However, this is an unrealistic and damaging expectation of what it means to be right or honest. It may be modeled after Jesus Christ or the stoics. The truth is that being right or honest requires violent or abrupt actions at times, and a threat to values deserves concern, thought, and action. Indeed, being too placid and calm can be a sign that a person is valueless, that they simply don’t care about what happens to them or things in this world.
Emotions can often abound when a threat to values is present; a person may cry, rage, or panic. Although, it isn’t good to be so wrapped up in your emotions that you can’t adequately deal with a problem; emotions are appropriate responses to real world threats. Emotions often allow us to deal with something that would take too long to think through in the time span it is presented to us. However, in regards to something like anger when it comes to telling the truth, people often think that if you’re angry you’re guilty. To make people believe you, it is often better to remain calm when someone accuses you of lying. Yet, studies have shown that innocent people get angry when falsely accused the same or more than people that are guilty. Merely because a person is calm doesn’t mean they’re right or honest.
An overly placid or calm person may be so because they are valueless and simply don’t care about themselves or the world. When a person doesn’t care about their own lives or the lives of others, there’s nothing that would tie them to the world to make them uncalm. Such a person has no urgency to take action, since there’s nothing an action would be directed towards. Emotions would not spring up, because there’s nothing to be invested in. This type of person is dangerous, because they would not take the actions necessary to help themselves or others. Although a pure example of such a person does not exist (they would probably be an enshrined Buddhist monk), there are people who approach or attempt to approach this state.
Instead of creating impossible standards that imply non-investment. People should acclimate with the toolset and person they have. A person is not necessarily wrong or dishonest simply because they’re emotive or volatile. Someone who cares deeply about themselves and people will necessarily have to take actions that may be rife with emotions and fervor. Pure calm isn’t a universally ideal state.