The expertise buffer

From Wikinormous

We should pay dearly rather than indifferently for political personal representation, or party, to govern our lives. The issue here is not money, though may it be an important symbol for commodity in many aspects, and politics certainly costs, but the mere fact that you give away or lend out your own rights to decide what freedom is to you, what ideology is to you, what life is about. You wouldn't accept someone else choosing your lover? (sadly some not exempt from). Or tell what music, literature or artist to like, though an interesting discussion, considering who's owning the printed media and controlling broadcasting, internet etc, but still, things one normally would consider – personal taste – does not comply to ideology? Something that grand and utterly important for ones entire life is narrowed down to "right and left" with a fuzzy middle. The sphere, our globe, and beyond, would better suit how ideology could be illustrated symbolically, in stead of a straight line. Ideology is equally important to love and as intimately personal, though historically it has been seen more collectivistic, that you "belong" to (someone else's) specific ideal, rather than the ideal belonging to you. If you equal ideology to love then you'd better find representation that you can equally trust.


With ideology I incorporate all belief system, spiritual insights and creative process. The democratic method was thought to work with representation as an extension to you, not the opposite. You are supposed to 'dictate, if you will, and the representative 'execute'. We are Not going in that direction, towards personal governing, but as I see it, centralized, farther away from you.


Politics has become an every day conventions means for hindrance and ridiculing tactic for anybody who happens to try and think and create for themselves their own ideology. This habitual norm is one of the toughest to break free from. Politics is propaganda. Politics has to be propagated, perpetually, to uphold the illusion, the diversion, that you can not think and govern yourself. In its most extreme I'd say – politics is forfeit of freedom, either by intimidation or indifference, both equally unfortunate. Freedom is lost the moment you ask for it.


”If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny.” Benjamin R. Tucker Liberty 5.16, no. 120 (10 March 1888)


Well, that is a perfect sign of fear, and I believe fear is as close to evidence as we can get, that you most certainly can. Because I wonder, are your fears honestly coming from within you, or are they dictated exterior to you? As newly born you absolutely take and give love, but, you also have a natural inherent creativity, and as newcomers we should argue if we have any fears at all, I say we have virtually none. At least no fear for personal thinking and questioning. Why are ”childish questions” cute as a youngster but ridiculed as adult? The 'politically correct-incorrect question' is not in the equation from the beginning. For me all fears derive again from those conventions, not DNA. It is the everyday creeping uniforming opinion making, far more intimidating than it seems.


Enter the expertise buffer

The body politic (collectivism) is the big detour for the make-believe propaganda that life, culture and civilization is ”so very complex” that someone else simply must step up and act expert in your place. Someone must lead the collective. But how can one trust an expert (leader) unless you yourself are one to judge their expertise, know-how? Does it not take an expert to judge an expert? A system error occurs, a paradox, if you can't claim equal knowledge then how can you know to trust their? How can you rely on representation if you actually don't know what they represent, since the expert represent only – the expert –? An expert is very much the opposite to the child. They say 'truths', they have 'answers', they judge, start wars ... They simply claim they have reached the Goal. They are the hieratic, the priesthood of industry, banking, energy, life and death. They play gods.


There are further trickeries here though. I believe the experts are a buffer zone between us and them. There are likely experts aware of the actual hierarchy, but most are equally manipulated as "us", if not more. After all they are even more stuck with the habitual norms, high living standards, noble titles, dreadful indeed to be deprived from.


“The history of mankind is a history of the subjugation and exploitation of a great majority of people by an elite few by what has been appropriately termed the ‘ruling class’. The ruling class has many manifestations. It can take the form of a religious orthodoxy, a monarchy, a dictatorship of the proletariat, outright fascism, or, in the case of the United States, corporate statism. In each instance the ruling class relies on academics, scholars and ‘experts’ to legitimize and provide moral authority for its hegemony over the masses.” Edward Crane, CATO founder


“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.” Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1952, pg 67 (Russell describing a nightmarish scenario were the Nazis to win WWII, in fact what some researchers claim they did 'covertly')


That is "us and them" in its most extreme.


"An elite few", are they "them"? In "truth movements" there are many that claim to know who sits on top of the pyramid, the invisible hand pulling strings. For me, the perfect pyramid has no top. I have my theories and conjectures, but I have to again try and find the child within. I try to be the ever questioning child, not the answering expert.


(r)evolution

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller


“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein


I don't see this as a battle against anything or anyone, "a revolt against". It might feel like an inner struggle, but at its core it is – creativity. Evolution suggests new-circulate. It seems like the right notion for true creativity, rather than revolution, re-circulate. In revolution you walk the same paths only in new clothes, repackaged. Revolution becomes the diversion and the belief that we actually made something new, but only renamed it, something in tangent to Santanaya's -perpetually repeating ourselves in history. Revolution, in worst case may confirm the Goethean ”none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe the are free”



Related material




<comments />