/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>3605

>you know Machiavelli intended that particular work to be satire right?

I thought it was his way of trying to reestablish himself in government after the Medici banned him when they took over

There's also a letter to one of the Medici praising him and humbling himself as an explanation for the book (I thought)

>try:

>>Aldous Huxley - the doors of perception

>>The Circular Ruins - Jorge Luis Borges

>>War is a Racket - Smedley Darlington Butler

I will, thanks

>with regards to your question I think your perspective that the current system can be "gotten out of" is inherently flawed because fundamentally your own self-realization is not yet complete. Having idealistic and pathologically altruistic preconceptions about the world at large is what got us here in the first place, it's what allowed the soviet union to exist, whilst having purely materialistic views has given way to the rat race of capitalism.

It was not my intention to shift the subject to my personal self-realization, but to look for advancement within the structure of western civilization. But if you are trying to say that advancing civilization is not possible, because of preconceptions, then I think you've ended a discussion without even touching my originally posed subject. Furthermore, by having the preconception preconceptions brought various kinds of government into existence, we have a large number of dead ends on discussions I would view as productive to "make the world a better place". Maybe you're trying to point out that discussing government is unproductive because it doesn't reach the core of our existence, but then (if so) I don't understand why you think that.

>You should focus more on finding a way to define your own humanity outside of the scope of social and moral sacrifice and the need for suffering as a filter between those deemed lesser and greater.

I don't understand why you think that I should define myself by other standards than how I think human nature evolved. I think I am an animal and I want to do good for the people I live with and the people who will live at a later date. I don't see the lesser and greater fit into that picture. A lot of speculation is always taking place on the elite's intentions, which, in my experience, often come out as selfish deeds for materialistic gain and I am interested in more information on if that is a realistic point of view, since I believe in people's good intentions.

>The wool pulled over your eyes has been generated down to the framework of phrasing the question of what it means to be human. If you want to be an Elite then it's a matter of excising any sense of moral norms and being able have a superhuman threshold for pain and suffering, the kind that lets you crawl out of the dirt and claw your way to the top of the pyramid even if you have to step over the bodies of those closest to you.

It was not my intention to ask about the meaning if life, and I don't think I get how you came to that conclusion, would you like to elaborate? And can you elaborate on why you think, that if I want to be elite, I would need to have a superhuman threshold for pain and suffering?

>I means establishing kinship with those of the same mentality rather than the same kind.

I agree that this fits in your previous statement, but I feel like you mean it in a superficial sense. As in: kinship to humans in general is superior to kinship with humans with the same mentality. And I agree with you on that, but I think seeking kinship with people in general can exist besides seeking kinship with people who share the same mentality, or did I misinterpret the meaning you intended?

I appreciate you taking the time for such an extensive reply, but I do not fully understand why you shifted the subject to the quest for a good life from my original post

>>3603

How do you oppose elitism with something other than democracy? Wouldn't any alternative to elitism be extending democracy? What does it mean to misconceive the right priorities?

>A lot of speculation is always taking place on the elite's intentions, which, in my experience, often come out as selfish deeds for materialistic gain and I am interested in more information on if that is a realistic point of view, since I believe in people's good intentions.

Try The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills if it's information you want.

>>3607

>

>How do you oppose elitism with something other than democracy? Wouldn't any alternative to elitism be extending democracy?

I don't know about something better or different.

>What does it mean to misconceive the right priorities?

Well, as described by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion, the problems faced in a society of today's size are not easily captured by one's daily experience. Once you had villages, and people who lived in those villages. Government was very much approachable and citizens had a good idea of the shortcomings and ways to handle them. Now we're entangled in a complex interlocked system, where villages have become cities and cities depend on government. It's difficult for a citizen of a city to capture the more important shortcomings, and since we're overloaded with "news" interpreted by someone else, it's become increasingly difficult to form a well informed opinion on some matter, I think. That's why I think it's a possibility, that people not in such "high" places, are unable to see the right priorities, or the value of the decisions being made by the elite. It's also the main reason for my question of 'elite yes or no'. Or is my logic flawed?

Another reason, is the seeming disinterest of people I talk to, when talking about possible problems I see on modern day capitalism/democracy.

>Try The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills if it's information you want.

Yes, I will, thank you.

>>3607

>>3603

If you want to make things better for the naive crowd - and who doesn't, we just disagree on what that means - opposing the elite doesn't seem the way to go. But nor does becoming elite on the conviction that you being in charge would automatically fix everything. I would say, make a detailed plan of what you would change if you were elite, then focus on implementing it. That way, you won't make things worse if you succeed.

>>3605

>The Prince was a satire

The translation I read couldn't really be a satire - I interpreted it as a very subversive book, purporting to be hardnosed advice but really exhorting the prince to be kind tot he peasantry at the expense of the minor nobility. Maybe that was the translator's agenda rather than Nico's though, hard to say since I can't read the original.

>>3607

Ever hear of liquid democracy? It's kind of a blend between true and representative democracy, Might be of interest if you're looking for new options.

>>3611

>But nor does becoming elite on the conviction that you being in charge would automatically fix everything.

Why is this, in your opinion. I fully disagree.

>>3609

>I just meant that if democracy means power by the people, then less power in concentrated hands (an elite) would be like having more democracy. Depends how you define elite.

Ah, yes, but I don't know if its good or bad to have a powerful few. I was just looking for some alternative perspectives that weren't negative towards the powerful few. But I think I misinterpreted those lines at the time of writing.

I did not bypass /b/ or /pol/, but I don't visit them regularly. The good intentions are there, because I think everyone (except people with severe mental problems) has good intentions when it comes to decision making. But take Manufacturing Consent (Noam Chomsky) for example. Its about US propaganda and gives a very detailed view on news outlets and coverage which is kind of unsettling (since it makes no assumption on why its happening, just that its happening). And its easy to draw your own negative conclusions (e.g. selfish assholes), but since I believe in good intentions (still), I think there has to be some kind of explanation, and I hoped I could find some hypothetical answers here.

Public Opinion is not about explaining democracy fyi, its about why the world needs propaganda (in a nutshell) aka the actions of the elite translated to the crowd (that layer was missing before ww1 and Lippmann was in the little propaganda group of the US of ww1).

>>3611

Its not about fixing broken shit, it's not like I look at the world and have an opinion about it. I think of the world as a balance. Every effort gets equal result etc. But I would like to know what kind of problems the elite gets confronted with for real, what makes them do what they do.