2008-03-05 - 1:37 p.m.
Ideology vs. Sentiment...
I think about the balance of each of our personal belief systems and the ferocity with which we hold on to our ideologies, while external forces of society, media, religion, and a myriad of other forces work incessantly to chip away at them, and to replace them with their own. It is a murky world, with different forces acting to sway our ideologies to their side, and it is often very difficult to actually identify who is acting for us or against us, and to what end. I consider myself a pawn in this game, but at least I am an aware pawn. I know that this is going on, but I have yet to identify the various actors and players, and their motives.
For an actual player in the game, having my pawn-ish support and loyalty on their side simply means one more number, in a numbers game, with which the player with the most numbers on their side has a clear advantage. Yet again, it is possible that it may not just be the numbers, but the value attached to each number, like one group having a million pawns being less powerful than a player having a thousand rooks.
I have not really made a choice, as to any such perceived or defined allegiance, but it may not be that simple. I may not know the choice I have made. I do have my ideologies, but they are atypical, and I vehemently proclaim my independence from any groups. I do, however, have to live in this same society and make choices, and by default, I am adhering to SOMETHING. Whether I choose to buy a Coke or a Pepsi. Whether I vote for a Democrat, a Repubican, a Green, a Libertarian, or an independent. Whether I go to a church, a mosque, a temple, a shrine, pray at home, or don't pray at all. Whether I work for the government, a company, or for myself. I am making choices all the time. And with such choices, someone else, or someone(s) else, benefit. So whom am I supporting? I don't know and it worries me.
It is amazing that this game is being played so openly and so obviously with society (and societies), but it is still very much an unobserved function. People are having to take sides, without their knowledge, and often with pride and fortitude about their "choice" and the indubitable nature of their belief. Some of the battles in this strategy game are fought openly, the spectacle metamorphosizing among the populace from a hype to a spectacle to a new social creed with a temporal fell swoop, aided by an utterly fallible societal memory. Whereas, it would have taken retelling of such a story for generations for the same effect, not two hundred years ago.
The havoc wreaked from such battles, wins minds, loses minds, and suffers casualties like any military venture. The losses may be enumerated in lives, sanity, or allegiances, but the gross count is undeniable. They break and sway like waves with every offensive. The funny part is, the riders on the waves have no idea what is happening to them or why.
Here is an example of one of the more obtuse results of these games...
A beautiful and shy Persian girl lives in Paris. Her parents have encouraged her to overcome the odds, and to succeed in her studies, graduating from a European school of Law. She prides herself in her education, her open-mindedness, and her capabilities. And yet, there is the societal stigma of her lineal ancestry. Despite all that she has overcome, and her total and complete immersion into the life and society in which she lives, that she descended from an enemy of the ancestors of the founders of the society in which she lives, forces her to have fear and self-denial. Her genes are anathema, stemming, not from any factual reasoning, but from a systematic reiterant conditioning of that sentiment into her society. For her, there is to be no acceptance or expression of her beliefs and customs. There is to be no pride in who she is and those who came before her, to give her her life and her existence. She must not have herself as her ideal canon.
In order to survive, she must deny, completely, her ideology. She must ride the wave caused by the game being played upon her society's mind. Were she to secretly adhere to her ideology while playing the duplicitous role to survive in her society, she would endure a lifetime of schizophrenic perturbation, cutting the wound that would be the scar she loathed for the entirety of her existence. So from the very beginning, the immersion into that denial of her ideology must be complete. It need not be the sentimentality of adhering to that ideology that forces her to be denied and crushed by her society. It is a game of survival. She must play it or perish. And in the larger scheme of the world, it is all about adaptation, survival, and procreation in a new image. The image of the generalist.
Unfathomable numbers of such sacrifices (or martyrs or casualties) play out every single moment of every day. I REFUSE, ABSOLUTELY REFUSE, to accept that it is just a matter of the "human condition" or causality. There is a reason for things being this way and for PROGRESSING this way. It is self-evident that there would have been a redress or a pact or a resolution at some point, were it not for deliberate intervening factors from players that were benefitting from the game. And today, with new tools, further power, ensured predominance and the cowed minds of those who may have once threatened their hegemony, the various players are playing a turf battle, where neither wins or loses (indeed, that is no longer even the point of playing, for mutual coexistence even among their competitive ranks is the only strategy for guaranteed survival), but remains entertained.
�
�
