#rensin

In a simple concept, Linearity associates with division, distinction, definition, and direction.

Drawing a line consequences two sides. It is a very distinct form; A-to-B / B-to-A. It is capable of defining, for one example, measurement, for another, placement. Its distinction of definition implies direction. It implies the continuity of separation in an infinite respect of magnitude.

Things that Linearity can be conceptually associated with:

Active Conscious - In the comparison of a concept of consciousness as opposition with sub-consciousness; Active consciousness creates an immediate sense of separation from self from the subject/object.

Distinct Awareness - The concept of having distinct awareness is that an individual has narrowed its conscious into a generality.

Void - Associated with the absence of light and sound.

Separation - In the event of drawing a line, we consequently conceive two opposing sides. 

Rationality - While consciousness and the sense of self-benefit are working with the intellectual subject's environment, the subject becomes more cognitive to use what is around them for their benefit. The subject becomes rational, and this is the leading cause of cognition and the sense to retain information.

In a simple concept, Circularity associates with totality, abstraction, depth, and space.

Drawing a circle consequences in an inner spectrum and an outer spectrum. It encompasses, creating area, and determining space. Its main attribute of absolution is depth in all directions (or considerations). It implies totality and/or nothing in an infinite respect of magnitude.

Things that Circularity can be conceptually associated with:

Subconscious/Unconscious - Associated with the contrast of active consciousness, the subconscious/unconscious is not fully delved into the distinction of the senses, and therefore the mind will simulate/formulate more within the activity of itself.

Abstraction - The contrast of definition and distinction.

Irrationality - In the tense of subjective existence, something that behaves with an abstract psychology defies logic, or rational cognition, and therefore tend to be more irrational, random, and unpredictable despite the environment.

Vibration - A waveform could not be if it did not inherit the depth quality of Circularity; the “flat line” would be retained.

Bones like shackles, a testimony for our temperament; the bodies of old age know not the creatures that would later consume them. Corroding after an abundance, the critters rejoice for their new homes within sight. The light shall shine on the living, the dead, and the seams between, ...evermore.

Just before us, you, the essence which guides worlds revered and blessed, yet, ashamed. You, that power, afar, summons water from the Earth for baptism. Reign down, and drown out our insecurities with mercy! Let us reflect, even in droplets, for all is more likened than ought. Condensate our turmoils for hallowed nourishment, and thrice mark the loon treading the ocean of rings throughout.

Yes, thrice, revealing the demiurge, a woman with many rings, two for one...one, in two, until next slew. From her bosom is the sound created in which the loon drifts and spins, drunken with new love at each crossing. The maternity is swooned and immersed with blood. "Vex trine hex!" read the winds of prevalence, revealed from the ruins of the starved.

Behold, the ringed woman yet produces drink and fruit for famished fools. From her bosom, a sirenic howl is received by all, and it shakes up the frames of every bone. A howl so deep that it lulls her own children to sleep. Her seed is left, but her expression, right, as she broils a vague light to beget a rebirth in oblivion.

Yes, you, to reign in remembrance, condense and be set free throughout the heavens and onto the earth. Borealis! That those foolish old men may live again accursed toward mindless mindfulness.

11:59 - ‘Borealis (Ring Beatmix)

Sample: Cardi B/Kehlani/Rob Williams ‘Ring’

Summary: Quite a few young Americans are non-enthusiastic about the 2016 election, they will either vote third-party, or they will not participate at all. The pundits are shocked, claiming this to be an exceptional, high-stakes election. But the description of Trump as a dangerous outlier debasing American traditions is ignorant of American history. The United States has toppled democratically elected regimes, tortured its enemies, funded right-wing extremists, and dropped nukes on civilian cities. Also, contemporary America is in a state of depravity, featuring mass incarceration, decades of stagnant wages, college debt, and racism. The financial crisis of 2008 has not really been dealt with, and there is fear of another financial shock. About 10% of the population has neither health insurance nor adequate nutrition. The United States are militarily engaged in 6 foreign countries, dropping 23'000 bombs each year. Climate change is quickly progressing, and catastrophe seems hard to avoid. The world is getting better in some measures of global poverty and health, but these are signs of how horrible the past has been, not how great our present is. Finally, all achievements are in constant danger of humans simply destroying what makes the planet habitable. Pundits ask if young people do not see the present crisis of this election. And young people see a crisis; catastrophe and moral failure are staring them in the face. Looking at the world, they see that something is radically wrong. But looking at the media representation, all political solutions given are wholly inadequate. Young people are revolting in many different ways. Revolt "is a symptom of intolerable pressure", and in looking at this world, revolt is a rational reaction. The situation and the reactions to it are not new. We have seen it before, generation after generation: Young people revolt, until they get older, and try to keep their children from revolting. The power structure is changed just a little bit to address the most obvious problems, allowing for all others to persist. The system is constructed in such a way that it constantly reproduces itself. The great majority of (young) people will go and vote, and Hillary Clinton will become president. But we are still quickly moving towards global destruction. This is mad, it makes us feel mad, and it will get worse. When, finally, our food crops fail, and the ocean is flooding the land, there will be further revolts. The pundits will, once again, try to keep it quiet. This is the way the world works, and this is exactly the problem.

Source: Emmet Rensin (2016) Young Minds in the Era of American Depravity. Published in Newsweek on 19th of October 2016.

(Full text at newsweek.com, English)

This summary is licensed CC:BY-SA.

Detailed Summary

Quite a few young Americans are non-enthusiastic about the election.

Some of them will vote third-party, some will not participate at all.

The pundits are shocked, claiming this is an exceptional, high-stakes election.

Pundits believe undesirable behaviour is caused by a lack of information or rationality. This shows they are emotionally disconnected from human life. Their world can be described with facts and statistics.

America is in a state of depravity.

Roughly 10% of the population has neither health insurance nor adequate nutrition.

There is enough food. American food-production practices policies are causing the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections.

Black people are constantly harassed, sometimes even murdered.

2 million people are incarcerated.

College graduates are saddled with enormous debts.

It is hard to find a job.

Labour productivity is rising, but wage growth is lagging behind.

The financial crisis of 2008 has not really been dealth with. There is fear of another financial shock.

The "share economy" is creating a new type of precarious job, to the applause of Democrats.

Climate change is quickly progressing, and catastrophe seems hard to avoid.

The United States are currently militarily engaged in 6 foreign countries. They drop 23'000 bombs each year.

Nuclear war is once again becoming a real possibility.

The common rebuttal to this: The world is better than it ever was. Global poverty is down, medicine is making great advances.

But these are signs of how horrible the past has been, not how great our present is.

Individual human beings do not live in historical abstractions.

All the improvements mentioned are in constant danger of humans simply destroying what makes the planet habitable.

All political solutions given are wholly inadequate.

The presidential elections features "a parody fascist". His opponent's main quality is her "not being an incompetent or a rapist".

The choice seems to be between "vulgar racism" and "barely bridled corporatism".

One candidate wants to bomb the shit out of the Middle East, go back to isolationism and start a trade war.

The other wants to occupy the Middle East, and promotes a form of free trade subjecting the population.

One does not believe in global warming, the other is doing far too little.

Less poverty can be achieved by either starving, or highly restrictive welfare payments.

The parties to this election seem to not realise the problem at hand.

The pundits ask if young people do not see the crisis.

If we look at the world, and all of us do it in some way, we see that something is radically wrong.

Many (young) people see this, and they are terribly anxious about it. The world seems to have lost coherence, and the adults in the room seem to not be in control.

Catastrophe and moral failure are staring us in the face.

But looking at the media representation, and statements by politicians, they seem unaware or uninterested.

We are told "Liberalism is Working".

We are told of civility and the dangers of political correctness.

When Trump is described as a dangerous outlier debasing America, history is forgotten.

The United States has toppled democratically elected regimes, tortured its enemies, funded right-wing extremists, and dropped nukes on civilian cities.

Richard Nixon broke into the HQ of his political enemies and tried to clean the executive from Jewish influence.

Obama holds the deportation record for any president.

But Trump, it is said, is unique and exceptionally dangerous. The Russians are behind it all.

Pundits make a lot of money in ridiculing anyone proposing solutions. Perhaps this is their way of coping with catastrophe.

Young people have very different responses among themselves.

Some claim to believe it is just about avoiding Trump, then everything will be fine.

Some claim the whole system is corrupt.

The usual answer is condescending, telling them the unique situation demands falling in line behind Clinton. Their demands will be adressed later, once the election is over. Minorities have made this expereince before: Liberals like them and promise to look at their demands, if they keep quiet just for now. 

Young people are revolting in many different ways. It is not clear how their revolt will change the world.

But revolt "is a symptom of intolerable pressure", and in looking at this world, revolt is a rational reaction.

A great number of (young) people simply stopped taking part, living private lives, sometimes depressive ones. 

It should be clear why young people are so worried, why they don't do what is expected of them.

We need to ask why so many do what is expected, in the face of evidence that it is not working.

Young people will not grow up in the future they were promised, but, at best, in one that narrowly avoids disaster.

So, why are the pundits so angered by this behaviour?

The situation and the reactions to it are not new. We have seen it before, generation after generation.

Again and again, suffering is answered with insufficient effort, leaving everyone feeling dreadful.

Young people revolt, until they get older, and try to keep their children from revolting.

The power structure is changed just a little bit to address the most obvious problems, which allows for the others to persist.

The problems of today are the problems of the past few decades.

The default reaction of power to complaints is to do nothing, to let the bureacracy and the momentum of a running system neutralise them.

And because the criticisms has been the same for decades, it can be dismissed as unoriginally rehashing what everyone knows already.

The system is constructed in such a way that it constantly reproduces itself. So what can we do anyway?

I am a socialist, but I know that we won't have American socialism for quite some time.

The current state of the world demands actions, and all politically feasible options are wholly inadequate. 

The great majority of (young) people will go and vote, and Hillary Clinton will become president. 

The national political arena will be saved from immediate destruction.

But we are still quickly moving towards global destruction. This is mad, it makes us feel mad, and it will get worse.

We have played this game for a number of generations now. The planet will not wait.

When, finally, our food crops fail, and the ocean is flooding our land, there will be further revolts.

Then, again, the pundits will try to keep it quiet.

This is the way the world works, and this is exactly the problem.

This comment is licensed CC:BY-ND.

Source: Emmett Rensin (2016) The smug style in American liberalism. vox.com, April 21, 2016. (Full Text at vox.com, English)

Summary: The liberal coalition has lost the support of the white working class. What remained were powerful educated coastal elites and minorities. The smug style, practised by these elite liberals, is wondering why working class support was lost: “Why are they voting against their own self-interest?” In reality, neither of the parties represents working class economic interests; liberals represent the business interests of technology, media and finance. But whereas the republican party offers traditional morals, liberals only offer disdain for their supposed stupidity. This creates a huge blindspot: If nothing but rationality and factual knowledge is needed, argumentation and persuasion are unnecessary. Whoever does not agree must be either irrational or misinformed. Bush used this blindspot, and there is serious danger Trump will also exploit it. (See the full txteo summary)

Comment: The article lacks a bit of political history context, like an elaboration of the impact of the civil rights act. Johnson is famous for realising this: “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.” But the demographic change described is real, and the linked study by Teixeira and Abramovitz (PDF, 150kb) is a good read, as is Rensin’s article. The phenomenon (the “smug style”) is a major obstacle for progressive politics and it is a major reason for the discontent of the working class with the political class. Not as big as both parties ignoring their interests, but still.

What the article does not reflect enough is where it is published: I very much like vox.com, and I am a regular reader, but it is Smug Style HQ. Vox knows this, and this is why it is the right outlet to publish the article. If you read Ezra Klein’s “How Politics makes us stupid” from April 2014, the beginning seems almost like an earlier version of this article. But reading it as what it is, the inaugural article by the editor-in-chief of vox.com, which in the beginning had a much heavier focus on explainers and card stacks, and nearly no clickbait (nostalgia!), Klein almost seems to say: “More information probably won’t help, but let’s give you some more information.” I would have loved to hear Rensin talk more on this.

And then there is another odd question I have: Does the “smug style” perhaps trace its origins back to Marxism? Engels, in a famous 1893 letter to Dühring,writes:

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all.