Political logic, plebeian linearity

The complexity within late stage democracy arranges its accumulating structural endemic problems into a socially streamlined sequence that the individualistic plebeian gracefully inhabits while remaining unable to reasonably grasp the political decisions that purposely produced them. Every unresolved issue is looped through the same digressive circuitry of the institutional apparatus that manufactured the very need for mass repetition of its idiocy, and with enough movement to resemble positive «change» while the powers that be disappear into political procedure and deeper ideological inconsistency. The wholesale deceived voter is held at the exact civic constant and «psychological distance» required by the system, convened by consequence and perpetually entangled in its numerous «crises» and predictable excitations while remaining far enough from decision making and so to overall obviously conflate the expansive order for a reasonable political existence.

This is the core precondition of liberal democracy: «The People» defectively engaged in decisions they encounter only as supervised subjects and passive recipients of political repercussions, inculcated with absurd dogma and stifling stigma until the confined semblance of implication becomes the replacement for democratic agency.

The great practical deception of advanced mass liberal democracy is how the modern plebeian is mentally saturated with views and opinions while remaining near untouched by actual political understanding. This is precisely the case for most of the majority, more widely because modern political order increases complexity by integrating more social functions into a lapsing totality, whose deleterious effects prime and permeate their lives while nevertheless beyond tangible. The modern plebeian may hold genuine opinions on many a public frustrations and follies, but still next to nothing of reasoned rationale and understanding of political power, because the «opinions» such people tend to hold are usually not much more than principally cheap competitive cue cards on a fixed social frame, or fridge, while politics in any serious sense begins where the covert forces decide the sovereign sensibility and standard.

The ideal democratic subject naturally experiences politics linearly, which is also why it’s vastly definitely politically disposable and readily intellectually interpolated as every political object appears as a relevant aspect of some attention. Each of the system anointed «political objects»; archetypes, are screened meanwhile effectively submitted by flimsy and semantically stunted language. These objects may appear well founded and as some kind of bespoke «common sense» in reason, but will eventually exhaust itself and amount to very little once the shift is finally on for another cycle. This is also similarly the practical value of «psychological distance» once applied to modern political schemes, where the political subject remains close enough to hope to be smitten by some pseudo profound political ambience, however, such is always obstructed or deliberately slanted to make sure you mistake the source of its true power.

The apex of dumb distractions

‘Plebeian linearity’ as a phenomenon is intrinsic to the political management of pseudo-progressive complexity and passivity. Because the system is finite and wasteful, it cannot continually enhance dependencies and expand morally diverse, demographic contradictions while also expecting the average democratic subject to comprehend the structure he is being put into like a puppet. It is also critical to understand the imperative of integration and that of functions, particularly technology, finance, bureaucracy and consumer credit economy. These also requires an proportional private infringement, where the dim-dem voter is individually inverted, conveniently and collectively morally conditioned through normalized instability while incessantly almost mentally mechanized; instrumentalized to «tolerate» things from something they never would be able to discern as substantial design.

The politically useful «separation of powers» in the modern mandala-like state of powerlessness are comparatively the ideological suspensions between experience and causality, where most of the subjects are merely permitted to indulge in social tenderness and simple talking points while the systemic origram is protected without incidence.

It is at this point that basic structural societal complexity impose political destiny, i.e as the ‘Gliberal’ democracy’s «inclusive» sensibilities actually reveal its austere substance. Generally, an overextended system, i.e one without much semblance of sound bounds, patently develops a huge appetite for mass manipulations of different kinds and oppressive dissident control because its ideological capacity consistently multiplies the disturbances it claimed authority to morally absorb and advance. Its fundamental fallacies thus remain invisible to system and subject alike because indeed contradiction has developed into a doctrine of itself. The follwing glibtarded confusions entail more mandates and its unchecked failures regress into rhetorical «progress». The inevitability is actual and guaranteed given enough time, as the whole scheme is bestowed upon a chronically clueless public through frivolous, one-way universalist «values». The end result of this is systemic stagnation with lots of mimicked maturity, .e.g what in Norwegian and Scandinavian conformist maxing contexts constantly is asserted as some moral «decency» (anstendighet), although this more accurately tracks the traditional characteristics of basic civilizational decay, but in the case of modern mass democracy: A state where everything supposedly changes except the uniform political direction that determines what the «change» is even permitted to ideologically imply.

A subject whose captivity no longer requires borders or a master cannot identify the prison as structure once domination has been systematically distributed through meaningless procedure and too much diversified dependency, which on another technical note arguably equals fragility. The democratically streamlined and domesticated plebeian, of whatever adjacent political persuasion, happily paints such a state as the utmost representation of «freedom» because every liberal path has already been predetermined as the only legitimate ideological «choice» imaginable.

Likewise, a population removed from causality and realities thereof requires contiguity and inarticulate abstractions because that which cannot decide the form of the common world, must be enveloped with infinite small and dumb decisions inside a fictitious one. Preferably, people must be distracted through scrolling, silly purchases, secular confessions, religious delusions, destitute system updates and miscellaneous meaningless activities, all while their life becomes more tuned in actual detail, and so their already docile imagination and intellectual amplitude degenerate further into infantility by the day. All in Al, in an increasingly linearized, automated apolitical blight, almost every construed «choice» corresponds less with political power, and every intensified reaction further degrades the possibility of accurate and actually honest judgment.

The final epistemic estrangement is arguably complete when abject and obvious failure no longer effectively discredits the constrained system itself, because its integrated contradictions and subject-forming conflations interpret every failure as insufficient democratic dimensioning rather than the explicit consequence of conceptual defects, leaving the same error-generating democratic «consciousness» retained through another «conservative» mentality in which systemic failure is preserved as the only acceptable form of structural correction and social coercion.