Lapsing on democratic deception dialectics and corporate coercion

Not Prime of Thought

As the nature of relations that discorporate rational essence from emergent rationalizations progressively becomes a lesser imperative with the surge of oblivious observers and their ideologically synthesized sensibility, objective reality and its solitary sophistication bordering society consequentially render a state beyond blur. Improperly and expressionistically, rationality and reasoning are derived and cast as paradigmatic pretensions of subject states of mere docile determinations: destructively converging towards a sub-optimum by the coercions of their unyielding contradictions, manifesting a tedious circumstantial interplay between conformists and chaos critics.

Depending on the depths of their nature as such, and in terms of variety, vacuity, and viability thereof, these subjectivist states in and between ideological vacuums will accordingly be progressively affirmed and endorsed as politically effective, overarching, and categorically unifying concepts by the agency of their capacity for incomplex imitation of innate reason. Furthermore, the very increase in fundamental appeal to its own proprietary feedback-functionalism—essentially, political power mongering and rule by positivist arguments as opposed to, say, a more natural order through rational alignment, actual and adept—clarifies criticisms.

Currently, the most viable of such subjectivist states and progressive self-processing (appeal to concept principles over actual effective function) can arguably be identified in what I perhaps shoddily dub the systemic drive of discontent of modern mass-democracy—where ultimately the quantitative degree of deliberations and the potential for misrepresentation become its main quality, and as a consequence, the source of its power, appeal, and political working utility.

The parallel physics: The conceptualized notation of rule by potential entropic inflation means sets of ideologies that unreasonably suggest weighing mass over mind and matter to procure political force and power. But this is a kind of power inherently achieved, assimilated, and incorporated through a fundamentally corrupt and false design in regards to rationality. It is therefore more accurately described as a destructive power in place of a more constructive and non-contraindicative nature.

On the embodiment

Any past favourable truths of the previous political universe must in effect and by configuration of the new chaotic democratic ideologies be polarized and so generically re-popularized within the emanating truth-paradigm and it’s ideologically absolutist overrides, which obviously includes things like more censorship the more it’s core is actually, objectively corrupt, «evil» et cetera.

The ideological innatism of democracy and equality invariantly procures it’s power by an all encompassing compression-to-system scale ratio of all available sense and self-functionality within it’s own syntactics which further develops an ill-cognizant, but compelling standard for it’s entropic expanse, which again, in a physical context and function of utility, is by fact and prime deduction inevitably an exercise in political demagoguery and a disjunction into logical decay.

The developmental decay is occasionally parsimoniously shrouded under the guise of liberalism’s many conceptual conflations, authoritative contradictions and abject abstractionist, abolishment acrobatics. The many «clown world» operators obscure and pray on social systems in order to enable and embolden self-deterministic public opinion so that these are insensately conveyed as «universal», perpetually justifiable and naturally wholesome as the universe itself by it’s observers by the force of their own dead weight. Democracy in that regard is a self-grandiose entity by the very ostensible definition.

To bring about and ultimately survive in the reins of such a social post-capitalistic, pro-social, paradoxical, parable political schema, it’s not synchronically, but an empiric imperative that even some of the most technically exclusive and pseudo capitalistic corporations at some point in the archetypal endeavor must interlock, merge or invariably mirror and perhaps prominently spear head even the ideological designs to a tee. Literally by: «Showing the way» (or some other stupid corporate concocted slogan) to some kind of pie in the sky rat race by ambiguously identical and equivalent in popularizing certain categorical «facts» familiarly astute in quality of most historic ideology.

Material intermission

If my discernment of perceived reality is non-faltering, I can tell that I am amidst both of these worlds meeting head-on, right here and now, where such anti-logical larceny beckons brightly before me in person. Thankfully, I can see very clearly—or is that really just a contemporary curse nowadays? I am not so sure anymore. At least there aren’t many “Minority People Inc.” here, just two or perhaps four, and I don’t think they’re employees—probably temporary deckhands.

I am white and bright as the Texas sky but surrounded by what I picture as busy-bodied blockheads turned gear-headed engineers. However, do not let the credentials fool you. These are mostly morons—perfectly professional, that is. Nothing personal, never. I really should say “we” instead of only “I,” because thankfully, there are a couple of bright, white people here, at least to my perceptive and partially previous knowledge. The rest are rather uncharted, swarthy territory, but arguably morons in this technically related context—and also, onto the next lecture of the day. Yes, many here are arguably big-time normies, seemingly anyway, as I do not know too many personally outside my branch and area of expertise here. I always feel like generalizing outside of work. I believe it is important to take personal leaves of actual critical cognition.

Still, I do know how normies tend to darken their surroundings, dampening true greats and fun guys like me by their mere numeric presence. Their behaviors usually cement this reality. Fortunately, I don’t need to investigate these people much because it’s too obvious that things here are neither on the up-and-up nor heading in the right direction in that respect.

Sure, these normies got their formal resumes, corporate positions, and they sure think they can run things straight—but probably ultimately only into the ground. At least they can’t hide from my judgment. If I was boss, I’d fire 80% of these people right on the spot.

Be it by lack of original imagination, spirituality, or complex rationality, first and foremost what generally defines these promptly prone ideologically filler-people is whatever they apparently have the capacity to soak up of intellectual garbage and emotional drivel and what their relative responses are to ideological sensibilities as opposed to more sensible and strong imperatives. In that regard, it does not look good. The future of this corporation does not make sense at all. No wonder these people look kind of sick. Their world, their imagination, and their dogma—it’s all sick and synthetically twisted. They will always be looking for that cure. I feel like quitting this gig more than ever.

It’s actually quite preposterous that I have to be here to begin with. I deserve to be with better people by merit. Actually and realistically. Heh… I bet Jordan Peterson probably “saved” one of those pathetic-looking people over there… Yes, I am beyond assured. While the women here—well, I don’t think women even read the books they claim to read, to be honest. Maybe they just pretend it all and simply read the synopsis? Women generally just remember and regurgitate things that are smacked into them, somehow, rather naturally though. They definitely got a knack for holding on to junk—a superpower in democracy. The women here might look professional, but they might as well put in their work and talents on a street corner. Women might actually be superhuman in this regard. They are always in high demand, no matter the problem and seemingly no matter their effort. There is always a willing customer and few critics. I’ve never heard about a woman doing something actually impressive in this corporation myself, but that must be because I am racist and sexist, surely. I need to try harder in finding the positives, many said.

Thinking of effort… there is a nice enough girl right over there, perhaps… yeah, that one might be worth some actual effort, I mentally put to rack, of which there are too many to simply keep track nowadays.

And over there is someone I suspect to be bona fide diversity hires… who’ve just happened to come to town for this event, introducing themselves by way of lame and all-too-predictable speeches. The new boys, likely to just have graduated. They’re Asian—one definitely Indian. Indeed, there is no mistaking those people. Surely, these will also serve up some inane narrative on how important diversity and teamwork are. But I can’t, for the life of me, understand why almost anyone would agree to give a speech that is so utterly predictable and of such a conventional nature in our line of work. What’s the point of this charade-like social appeal in what is ultimately carried by a distinct few? I really blame the culture of democracy for this, where everyone has a voice, a vote, and a way of exposing themselves as nothing special. So much for the excellence in demand and their salaries. Surely, on some level, this must be some type of joke, right?

I only get bored around boring people, and so I scan the room once more, hoping to find entertainment:

Maybe I should strike up a conversation with that other Danish guy over there. He may be reasonable, judging by the looks of him. Of course, I judge people by their looks. Only mediocre people reject what is a strong instinctual preference, as they can’t accurately trust their thinking, regardless. Meanwhile, my terminator-like pretend interface display analysis suggests that this guy might indeed be a suited subject so I do not succumb to total boredom. And remember, the Danish are not as culturally demoralized—at least not yet. But the Danes do sound like they’ve got potatoes stuck in their necks. English-speaking or not, it tends to make me think lesser of them when they eventually start talking…

Maybe we could examine how these recent corporate conditionings—not so convincingly but arguably affirmed here today (big breath)—intend on carrying over many of the same ideological fundamentals that overly stated aim to implant the same collective framework of fraud and authoritarianism to ultimately manifest its own normalcy bias by way of ideological conditioning in our ranks, essentially, eventually, and inevitably turning it into an ideological conformist playground for overrated people with some diploma and diversity background, resting on the laurels of people like myself—and possibly him—to do all the competent and actually intelligent work. It’s not even half-baked communism, what these Marxists are proposing. Come on, man! I feel like yawning. It clears the brain of clutter; a Danish researcher claims…

But no. Upon second analysis, I decide against having a chat. From an overall observation, I finally suspect that the Dane is too feeble-minded and scared to hang. It would probably be a social washout—another very effective estrangement of mine. He seemed alright but rather pale and directionless. A very common archetype in this field of ours. He’s probably one of these introverted, middle-of-the-road aspies. I see no potential loss of intrigue or benefit.

Now, I better just get through this charade and then get a looker call-girl as some type of makeshift excess and much-needed reflexive contrasting later on.

Who am I kidding here? I can’t and won’t relate to normal people anyway. This obvious reflection warrants another chuckle. Then I boisterously regard my new timepiece, once again. Yes, I paid too much for the Heuer TAG time this time round. It really does not shine the way I thought it would for five big ones.

I’ve also noticed that this particular city has remarkably bad-looking people in it. Consistently so. They’re old on average too. It’s not just me seeing and saying this. I looked it up online, and it seems to be a certain consensus going around. Kind of humorous. May be worth tracking and perhaps revisiting sometime in the future. I already have some theories on the matter.

It seems like the various decadences have no apparent limit within The Walls of Democracy. The situation outside really reflects the inside corporate mirroring and bullshit about «Reaching Beyond» this and that. An outcry and outreach to the «effected communities» of various kinds. Compensation for spillages. Lame duck stuff. Basically, this sloganeering and campaigning are all part and parcel of the overindulged spending aimed at carefully conforming to the dying symptoms of end-stage democracy. And in this regard, this country is on the precipice of going full, downright «Weimar.» Or is it just the symptoms of spring break I am beholding?

The democratic decay has now officially and formally come about to crush the culture and average competence within this corporation in a similarly complete fashion. One part of me really hopes it does, as people don’t really get what they deserve anymore.

And yes, the many fates and “sunsets” of democracy colliding with natural reality are for sure amongst the least aesthetic things I can possibly imagine. I pinch myself while pretending to follow what is being said on the stage, hoping it all would be a bad dream.

Clinching corporeality

Power is essentially about physics, structures, and functionality—all frequent subjects of my imagination. In order to create and maintain an ideologically derived social standard and political concept like democracy, you need to somehow proportionally enforce a systemic vertical subservience to everything that can successfully be projected in the minds of the people as converging into an equalizing, minimal horizontal level. Much like a theoretical black hole: democracy as a concept only appeals to its own consumption of mass, but it has no fine regard for actual matter or a viable mechanism to evolve anything of the sort. People arguably gravitate to democracy because they intellectually confuse its uniform, chaotic nature with some type of justice and freedom.

Democracy is supposed to be a conceptual vehicle of self-enforcing ideological goals, which, by its own nature, neither can be properly affirmed nor attained because the political prestige is continuously in conflict with its own convoluted nature and its lack of rationalizing continence. Mass democracy is not even about means to an end of anything but about means for the sake of the means within democracy itself.

In its very origin, democracy was always a severely logically flawed concept where the massive input had very little to do with the theoretical or actual output. However, democracy paradoxically persists on its feigned a priori legitimacy, as it retains an unlimited supply of the appeal to what is not necessarily of any substance but what is immaterially available by any ideology that the structure effectively facilitates against rational criticisms by its mass-mechanistic nature: a sort of shielding container with nothing in it worth protecting except itself. Almost entirely devoid of reason.

Democracy also disregards any proportional effects significant to any feedback function. Meaning, it has no internal justice but its own self-appeal. This, in particular, is often incorrectly understood as a structural problem instead of a functional one and is usually codified by crummy constitutional law.

To effectively create substance of power and divides in a power configuration like modern, institutionalized, bureaucratic, mid-witted democracy, the most effective way for the system to «succeed» in its fanaticism is to build up synthetic images of individuals who neither reflect nor inspire much critical thinking or controversy, bar none. Meanwhile, real people in the know or of critical competence must comparatively be quelled and removed. This type of corruption is seen as constructive for the conformist and democratic group-thinking paradigm, albeit at the massive categorical cost of potential truth loss. In other words, in the end, democracy, by its inherent disdain for logic, is more destined to become the rule by wicked people, for wicked people.

The democratic fanatics, together with the more cynical game theorists who promulgated the popularity worship, postulated and promoted that once they could finally openly address previous injustices and disjunct the traditional corruption from past societal structures, and thereby re-scale governmental responsibilities back to more people along the popular appeal of democratic delusions… society was really good to go. Henceforth, unleash the public good for the good of itself. Hence, equality.

In actual reactionary theory, excluding hierarchical rule and replacing it with more potential for corruption, a lesser emphasis on rational appeal through, say, excellence, and essentially beguiling the lot of The People with the narrative that they were in charge became the basic framework of the whole structural justification of the mass-democratic appeal and the subsequent outpouring of an ideological gridlocking paradigm.

Meanwhile, the social engineers glossed over the crime of not denoting democracy as a logical fallacy in and of itself, and whatever it could ever bring about in terms of the cascading waves of its concurrent effects on society. Representation, another beauty that did not age well, and many Houses of the People, which never had very good bones to begin with. Moreover, a categorical fallacy of composition was sold as a system whose structural base was said to be somehow ideal in resolving political questions on a spectrum of sentimental appeal rather than on a scale of merit- and competence-based rational representation.

The basis of democratic deliberation as a pro-social improvement of interest to the people, was in fact misrepresented as a beneficial in terms of it’s sheer structural utility. This lie actually allowed corruption and incompetence to flow every more freely, high and wide, delusively affirming to itself that the best ideas naturally would be the ones gathering the majority of popular support.

These failures is what appeal and define synthetic doctrines and derived ideologies trying to, as opposed to what logic would, bring about one way or another. What it actually warrants, is nothing but forms of rationalized historicism and misrepresentative arguments which effectively and emotionally are used to support the perpetual «Government of the people and for (a better) tomorrow». Today, a government and ideology which cannot be effectively opposed by the people, but in reality, merely opportunistically driven towards it’s inevitable and cascading failure of it’s people, en mass. That is evidentially and totally.

No, what we’ve got with democracy is something more like a monolatrist government ideological charade of forever farcical, unconscious and self-subversive, 21th century stoic neo-fascism on horse tranquilizer, courtesy of the «ju00iced up» mass media who’s all too busy playing their little ravenous side game.

Wayward universal totalitarianism

A very pervasive aspect of the democratic charade is the totalitarian tendency to eradicate critics and categorically misrepresent processes of actual arguable rationality by systematically lowering standards across all mass subjects where the matter warrants exponents of increased complexity, importance, and breadth. The concept of democratically derived equality is essentially about effectively replacing standards and responsibilities for those in charge, creating an intelligible power structure of The People based on subsequent values.

Democracy is a rationalization scheme gone full fraud mode, achieved by way of mass deception and adjacent psychosis management, where de facto deliberation and sovereignty have been abolished and inverted to serve the central power structures in concert with big corporations. It is a means-to-an-end system for the benefit of the segmented, departmentalized power structure, while touting the same lame, ubiquitous universalism dogma, like some secular global mega-church. Democracy, by that definition, is pure end-to-end, sealed fanaticism—both from the ground up and top down.

This is partially why so many—the vast majority—find it so problematic to formulate criticism against: they are stuck in a fundamental, false compromise between “good government” and “freedom,” which are essentially interlocking fantasies that serve no function as their main function.

And while such frauds require obsessive charlatans and popular fanaticism to even barely function, actual non-pseudo rationality is often too complex for simple people to redefine and make use of its more reasonable logical inferences. It is easier to destroy than to deduce and command objective and rational truth. That is, to peruse and master knowledge. Democracy takes full advantage of those adages. That is also why, at its core, democracy hates and shuns truth.

The main rationale of today’s modern democracy, stupidly dubbed “political correctness,” but essentially a substance that provides pseudo-intellectual oxygen for NPCs, is the characteristic and pietistic emotional dubiousness concerning the most collectively manageable and reactionary of its topics and subjects. Therein, the frailest or most wicked of natures becomes both the premise and the inference.

There is no other possible premise or conclusion within the social processes of democracy, as it does not contain any intrinsic truth or atonement mechanism at its root core: a mechanism of actual, system-broad function where validity could be properly distinguished by its natural representations or be capable of any systemic retro-action—aside from totally superficial, actually disruptive government term limits, and whatnot. Term limits exist because democratic people inherently fear power and function, so it needs to be limited to project another type of strength and “reason.”

In a recursive and systematic sense, this is also due to increasing non-variation (democratic stability), as manifestations of truths are essentially always lost in the ever-growing entropic inflation and by endemically aligned effects of the increase of different social constants enabled by conformist equality. Analogically: the Cycle of Democracy is the complete opposite of materially constructive, as it appeals to mass rather than being born out of matter. It shifts and sifts base utility from a low to high order of basic ineffectiveness. Democracy, in that regard, is essentially a conceptual centrifuge of all matters that come before it, maximizing mass for its inherent vacuous consumption and refinement.

Illustratively, endemically: its systemics are functionally equal to a chain that is no stronger than its weakest link. Similarly, the prosperity of any purported modern, equalizing, dogmatic democracy is no stronger than its own weakest argument.

Eventually, the mass and many prophecies of democracy will only proliferate endemic unreason by force of countless principles of mere and simple logical explosions. It will level everything else in its course, given enough mass support from the windbags, the wind-up dummies, and material time.