Submitted by CaptainACAB in lobby (edited )

WE:

We've all heard it; the evil, seductive allure of self-fulfillment or gratification. Our desires and our nagging need to have them fulfilled. Thankfully, "we" are of a higher breed than the base animal, we are humanity; the superior species, the enlightened species, the dominant species; "God's children", "the proprietors of the earth". The smartest beings, the moral beings, the wasteful beings, the depraved beings, the self-tamed beings, the self-destructive beings; the human being is the logical being, the highest echelon of rationality (which, given our invention of the concept as mentioned in the previous piece, makes perfect sense) and morality (which "we" also made up); and "we" are all of these things because "we" overcome our innately evil desires and shackle ourselves to the moral codes crafted or influenced by a religion who's followers are soaked up to their eyeballs in the blood of non-adherents.

Thankfully, due to the birth of religious freedom, the cause we must take up and the burdens we must bear have now become universal edicts! Whether you are a fervent theist, a noncommittal agnostic, or a stout atheist; we can all join our hands together, shed tears of joy, and gush incessantly about our shared humanity; our common moral values; our single, unified front against...them. Rather than separating ourselves based on our differences, we, the enlightened, have learned to tolerate what divides us by ignoring everything that does not make us the same! Of course, we have nothing in common with them. They are not like us: they are inhuman, they are insane, they are irrational, they are evil, they are filled with sin, they are self-righteous; they are idiots, WE are intelligent!

The Woman

To best understand the superiority of the modern man, one must first examine the mistakes that we have made and had to overcome, one of the more glaring examples being the modern man's triumph in quashing sexism and gender inequality: the elimination of man's mistreatment towards the woman; though, this pertains solely to modern man; the savage man, the lesser man, the inhuman man are still steeped in this backwards line of thinking. Somewhere down the line, the woman was considered a human; later, we gained the insight to recognize the worth in people, the worth of a human being lies within their ability to further the aims of the human race-and the objective demonstration-the empirical measurement- of how well each individual toils towards the ends of their society; how their misery brings happiness, luxury, and comfort to the majority! With this revelation-the first step towards building glorious civilization- we relegated the woman to her tasks- women's work, as it was called- and reduced her down to that which would make her most useful to the human race- the womb: her ability to give birth; her body: that what would make her most appealing to the ends of reproduction; her body again: specifically, its ability to do so-called "woman's work": child rearing, housework, the like! And what more use could we have for her? She is irrational, hysterical, emotional! We, the human, are none of these things; or so we thought. Despite our infinite potential to do good and our intelligence, we failed to account for what we did to the woman; we did not calculate correctly, we were not thinking clearly, the errors of past Man have made themselves apparent: the woman's value to humankind does not lie solely in her reproductive ability! Indeed, with civilized society have moved beyond the age of the savage; we've brought about an age of equality thanks to the feminist movement, we've realized the folly of segregating work roles under gendered lines: women can do what was once deemed "man's work" and vice versa! The woman is now, once again, a human! What better proof of the woman's freedom than her permission to toil for financial independence as we do? What more could she possibly want to other than to strive for financial gain under the liberating embrace of labor? What could signal her freedom more than her need to submit under the just authority of the economy as we do, to set aside her selfish desires to serve society as we do, to overcome her innate irrationality to follow the path to reason as we must? Surely, with the woman having become human, she could not have anymore demands to make; if she does, then she, an errant individual, is surely as hysterical and selfish as we previously believed. Perhaps her lust for freedom from man has gone too far beyond what is reasonable and veered onto misandry.

The Savage

Overwhelming proof of our magnanimity can be seen in our uplifting of the savage. When we discovered the savage, its wild nature and unconquered environment made it obvious that it was not like us; it was inhuman, animalistic; indulging in its baser urges without regard for God or reason. Despite our benevolence and propensity for reason, we reacted poorly; we simply did not see: the savage was not an animal, but an unfortunate human; plagued by their lack of civilization. Unfortunately, we did not realize this in time: by the time we did, we had already killed the savage and tamed his children. And what fine children they grew to be! They possessed skills and abilities that mirrored our own! They could reason like us, write like us, read like us, and, with time, may even learn to speak like us! Our sin was not seeing the humanity in them; in not taking a more level headed approach to raising them and teaching them the errors of their backwards ways. The savage is dead and, in his place, stands the tamed savage! A human, as evidenced by their accomplishments and ability to disregard their savage nature and embrace their humanity! What was once the victim of unjustified expropriation and enslavement is now a respectable equal! Surely, with the same legal rights and newfound ability to roam the world with us as equals, they are rational enough to understand their good fortune? With their bondage behind them and their permissions to submit under just authority and mandatory paid labor, the savage is happy? If they are not, then they are an errant individual: ungrateful and unreasonable, no better than the dead savage. Perhaps their lust for freedom from the civilized man has gone too far beyond what is reasonable and has veered onto bigoted intolerance.

The Beast

Our benevolence is not restricted to our fellow man, but to beasts as well! It is true that in building modern civilization, our sprawling cities and the vast fields of crops needed to feed them; we have caused some damage to our environment. Fortunately, thanks to the advent of science and human problem solving, we've managed to form a reasonable compromise with our fellow inhabitants: we've ingratiated them into our vast, interconnected network and, in doing so, have gained much from them! In a mutually beneficial relationship, we ensure that they don't die out and we gain meat, pets, and test subjects in turn! Surely a better situation for everyone involved rather than sacrificing all of them for the sake of advancing human interests!

The Madman

Unfortunately, for all of our power; there are some things that we simply cannot cure. Some people are simply beyond hope and the only solutions are imprisonment or execution; this, of course, refers to the insane: those incapable of reason. We are not inhumane; we would not call for the systemic execution of these people; they cannot help what they are! It is more humane to simply exile them into the madhouses from which they cannot escape, though it is not entirely hopeless, some of them can even be saved! Yes, thanks to our knowledge of the human mind, we can monitor and treat these people and they can even have some semblance of a normal life and, more importantly, contribute to society! Surely with these concessions, the madman cannot complain; we acknowledge his humanity and understand that they did not choose to be born this way! We can fix the madman, and if he refuses, he is simply too far gone into his madness and must imprisoned before he becomes "The Criminal"!

The Criminal

Here, we reach our breaking point; once someone has gone into this path, they forsake their humanity for their own selfish desires! The criminal is the omnipresent threat to humanity; they are the opposite of what we strive to be: they are unreasonable, selfish, destructive, and illogical! They disregard reasonable authority and thumb their noses at the laws created to keep us safe and orderly! The criminal can only become human again if they pay their debt to society and renounce their criminal ways, though the sin of being a criminal cannot every be fully washed away and their humanity is always in question: regard the ex-convict with distrust, for he has broken the law once and would surely do so again! While unrepentant criminals cannot ever be human, and thus deserving of our rights and freedom, we human beings still have use for them: it would be inhuman to kill them, but to simply imprison them is not punishment enough: we must extract all possible use from them: their minds may not be human, but their bodies are; as such, it would be an unforgivable waste to squander such a plentiful potential labor force. The single best, most humane option is to have them labor towards society's ends; it would not be a punishment to simply employ them, but to enslave them would be inhuman, instead we must offer them a reduced wage to perform this labor. The unreasonable would call this slavery, but surely working for a wage, even a reduced one, is better than slavery? And making this labor the second option to rotting in a cell means that there is a choice in doing so and, thus, not slavery? Furthermore, should the freedoms of those who would break the law even matter? If they could not abide the punishment, perhaps they should simply not break the law? The criminal is simply a lesser being that deserves punishment, there is no reasonable argument that exists that proves otherwise. The criminal forfeits their rights and freedoms and any who would argue for the criminal's liberation is surely a madman!

In conclusion, because of our benevolence, our intelligence, and our devotion to reason; we have shut out the allure of madness, we've measured our freedom and sit satisfied with what we have, we've spread our reason guided morality throughout the world and have solidified its place in the world; we have become powerful and have given that power to reason, making it material! We have given the law the means to defend and assert itself as needed! We have used reason to determine that society's current form must endure and that the only acceptable form of progress is towards that which is most logical!

We are the human!

We are rational!

Me:

The above is the mockery of the conglomeration of philosophies and values that are especially prevalent within Western thought, ideologies, and culture. In juxtaposing the stated core values with the actual core values of Western "thought" (humanism in particular), my aim was to highlight its contradictory and absurd nature by pointing out the difference between what humanists say they believe in and what they actually have done historically. Pointing out hypocrisy is, as we all know, a useless tactic in political debate, often relied upon by liberals; it does, however, make for a decent polemic against liberalism.

The point of the prose is to mock the obsessive infatuation that adherants to this form of "thought" have with rationality/logic/facts/the "objective". The excessive use of italics and exclamation points was to invoke a more...theatrical, emotional voice (traits that those obsessed with stoic analysis would find distasteful despite how well an angst-filled rant against emotion suits such people). The use of "we" and "they" to emphasize the collectivist, dehumanising nature of humanism; with the "othering" of assimilated "non-humans" that have "become human" also serving this purpose (i.e, "the woman" not being included within the "us", rather, she is still referred to as "the woman"). The overt narcissism and excessive self-congratulatory nature of "we, the human" is to accentuate the anthropocentric nature of a species that considers the apex of it's imagined virtue (morality) to be synonymous with its own name ("humane" or human whenever used a synonym for "good"); the utilitarian nature that human morality applies to "non-humans" can be seen whenever "we" refers to how "non-humans" can be used to advance human aims (heavily emphasized in "the beast" and "the Savage"). And finally, the fawning nature of "we, the human" exhibits towards the higher powers of "rationality" and "logic" is the classic comparison between the logic obsessed and the fervant religious zealout.

Of course, the main point of this piece that separates it from it's predecessor is to point out the assimilationist and authoritarian nature of the rational. Throughout the first part, it is apparent that "we, the human" cannot tolerate be devoured or used: the differences that exist on an individual level as well as the out-groups crafted by humanity; what is assimilated is not entirely the same to the human (hence, it's predilection for referring to "former non-humans" to their "non-human" label; i.e, "the savage" is still defined as "the savage" rather than "we, the human" to mirror racial stratification. "We, the human" speaks about "the savage" in a particular way: like that of a pet owner still struggling to tame a few unruly individuals of his pets; he refers to "tamed savage" like one would a well trained dog and laments the "wild" nature of "the savage"; an allegory for respectability politics and the liberal's paternalism. "The savage" is used as a stand in for those of the "non-white" racial category, it was originally going to be called "the Black", but was swapped out for the sake of expanding upon the racism exhibited by humanists beyond just those of african descent. This is a play on the "separate, but equal" implication of a Western world where overt racism is taboo, but racial categories still exist and paint perceptions in how people are grouped). In the end, "we, the human" refers to "former non-humans" as "equals", not because of any acceptance of differences, but through relating to what is the same. In the end, liberals can only see "other human beings" as their equals and can only treat those equal to them with any sort of empathy or acceptance; so long as the outsider is "human enough", they are deserving of respect; if the differences can be ignored/tolerated/endured, the outsider "can be human". It is likely not an accident that those enamored with rationality submit under "necessary" authority (their values are, after all, derived from Christianity); it is "unreasonable", "impossible", and "insane" to desire the destruction of the state, it provides "us" with stability (under the broken backs of those that are forced to toil)! You see, it is not enough for us "non-humans", "lesser-humans", and "lunatics" to be forced under the boot of authority; we must learn to meekly accept it, to love it, to depend on it, to embrace it, to happily defend it! Even a tepid, disgruntled complaint must be hosed down with ice water, "What will you do then, when you have your anarchy and the degenerate non-humans come to kill, and rape, and pillage?" "Who will defend us from the criminals, if you have your way and the police are gone?" The archist's "stone cold logic" is born of an irrational emotion: fear; which has long been used as the lawmongerer's rhetorical bludgeon! I say, "You are no more "rational" than I am, and I am motivated by anger!" Thus, the liberal, the communist, and the fascist expose themselves: they are irrational!

I, too, am irrational!

But I don't surrender myself to self-delusion.

And I don't need to be ruled, restrained, or rational.

16

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CaptainACAB OP wrote

Well, I finally did what I said I'd do and wrote a follow up to what was my first submission of actual substance here.

This was originally going to just be more of an analysis in contrast to the first piece's rant, but I decided that it was simply more fun to mock ideas that I think are ridiculous and do a more personal part explaining my methods as a 2nd part.

Didn't take me as long as the Egoism write ups, but I'm employed now and while I enjoy writing, it's still a mentally exhausting process and my job is like an emotional leech sucking away at my passion, I blazed through most of it tonight I'm supposed to be in bed half an hour ago; I'm just glad it's finally done, so I can spend my spare time masturbating and/or trembling in existential terror like a normal human being.

8

annikastheory wrote

Your character that you've created vaguely reminds me of something from "The Wall".

Also great job with this line.

Here, we reach our breaking point; once someone has gone into this path, they forsake their humanity for their own selfish desires! The criminal is the omnipresent threat to humanity; they are the opposite of what we strive to be: they are unreasonable, selfish, destructive, and illogical! They disregard reasonable authority and thumb their noses at the laws created to keep us safe and orderly!

In a true liberal fashion you make being a criminal sound cool as f.

In regards to the very first section. I always find it a bit strange that humanists seem to abandon a belief in God and yet work within a Christian framework. What's the point? Without a God none of it makes a lick of sense. If there is no divine policeman why are there divine laws?

6

CaptainACAB OP wrote

Thank you!

In a true liberal fashion you make being a criminal sound cool as f.

Let's be honest, people love criminals/villains in fiction (just look at Robing Hood or Ned Kelly), there's probably some psychology there.

In regards to the very first section. I always find it a bit strange that humanists seem to abandon a belief in God and yet work within a Christian framework. What's the point? Without a God none of it makes a lick of sense. If there is no divine policeman why are there divine laws?

Because Hobbes.

Seriously, they think people would just start killing each other en masse in the streets in an orgy of blood, gore, and violence if enough people got the idea of morality being made up in their heads.

They've abandoned the whole "God" portion (in the sense that their worldview doesn't have room for anything other than human actions, they still covet ideas), but the idea of human beings being innately sinful, evil creatures never really left; they're honestly some of the most misanthropic people around.

4

ziq wrote

tagging this so i can read it after work

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

lol

This text is perhaps the best repository of the worst themes and claims in the field of demagogue, anti-intellectual, wrong-headed -and of course irrational- Regressive Left ideology I've seen in years. So if your intent was to provoke and awaken criticism as response, well, honestly you got my congrats, coz this works. And I'm at the moment writing a more elaborate text as response that will be posted in this same sub, soon. Seriously this stands as a RICH reference for everything wrong with the ID pols and other social media-driven Left discourse these days.

But before hand, I just wanna make sure...

Rather than separating ourselves based on our differences, we, the enlightened, have learned to tolerate what divides us by ignoring everything that does not make us the same! Of course, we have nothing in common with them. They are not like us: they are inhuman, they are insane, they are irrational, they are evil, they are filled with sin, they are self-righteous; they are idiots, WE are intelligent!

This is a play on the "separate, but equal" implication of a Western world where overt racism is taboo, but racial categories still exist and paint perceptions in how people are grouped). In the end, "we, the human" refers to "former non-humans" as "equals", not because of any acceptance of differences, but through relating to what is the same. In the end, liberals can only see "other human beings" as their equals and can only treat those equal to them with any sort of empathy or acceptance; so long as the outsider is "human enough", they are deserving of respect; if the differences can be ignored/tolerated/endured, the outsider "can be human"

What is it, in here, that keeps you from being supportive of these irrational views that separate humans among each other, like, say, racism or nationalism? If universal humanism is a problem to you, then how is segregating people, based on entirely irrational arbitrary notions of race or nationality, or faith is lesser a problem to you?

Doesn't look like the world you seek, even for yourself and your buddies, is a world ridden of these enclosures. More like one where they are reinforced...

−5

CaptainACAB OP wrote

This text is perhaps the best repository of the worst themes and claims in the field of demagogue, anti-intellectual, wrong-headed -and of course irrational- Regressive Left ideology I've seen in years. So if your intent was to provoke and awaken criticism as response, well, honestly you got my congrats, coz this works. And I'm at the moment writing a more elaborate text as response that will be posted in this same sub, soon. Seriously this stands as a RICH reference for everything wrong with the ID pols and other social media-driven Left discourse these days.

Have fun! Hope it isn't a boring read.

What is it, in here, that keeps you from being supportive of these irrational views that separate humans among each other, like, say, racism or nationalism? If universal humanism is a problem to you, then how is segregating people, based on entirely irrational arbitrary notions of race or nationality, or faith is lesser a problem to you?

Why does me mocking one religion mean that I have to fit into another? They're both repellent.

Doesn't look like the world you seek, even for yourself and your buddies, is a world ridden of these enclosures. More like one where they are reinforced...

There's no "world that I seek"; my "ideals" aren't present on this text. I'm just mocking liberals by pointing out that they're terrible at actually following their ideals; if that's wrongthink, I'll just haul myself off to the loony bin so that they can fix me to think more like you.

8

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

Ok well, regardless of the world you don't seek... I'm just wondering from what position you are writing this, as I ain't seeing much in these claims that is going after some retrograde patterns like cultism, racism and nationalism. If you're against humanism, then what are you opposing it... same old convictions recycled from the past?

Like Laborit said, only a stance for diversity, knowledge and conscience can have an edge against those liberal values you're criticizing, without falling into the ultra-conservatism that liberals grew in opposition to. Reason still stands as a human quality or strength which can prevent from obscurantism, religious fanaticism and other "barbarisms". It's not enough in itself, but a measure of protection against following gurus and despots, and all the (indeed) irrational bullshit they're pulling.

Take things tendencies like Qanon for instance... Is this really the irrational savagery you cling to? And why reject intelligence when this is the thing that allowed humans to overcome their problems through history, and grow more OUT of things like shitty despotic rules, rather than in accordance WITH?

This at least appears demented to me....

The so-called "savages" have never rejected reason, It's simply that the imperialists let their own brutal convictions in the way of understanding their rationality. Spaniard and British-Americans especially were notorious for their bigoted brutality, partly based on very irrational Christian beliefs.

1

CaptainACAB OP wrote

Ok well, regardless of the world you don't seek... I'm just wondering from what position you are writing this

It's not obvious? I'm pretty open about being an egoist.

, as I ain't seeing much in these claims that is going after some retrograde patterns like cultism, racism and nationalism.

Look, if you think the whole "the savage" portion doesn't mock the perspectives of racists well enough, I get it (things got a bit rushed there); but accusing me (someone who can legitimately play "the race card") of supporting nationalist racism (or thinking that it's a lesser evil than humanism) is kinda jumping the gun a little. Come on now.

If you're against humanism, then what are you opposing it... same old convictions recycled from the past?

Egoist nihilism so, in a way, yeah.

Like Laborit said, only a stance for diversity, knowledge and conscience can have an edge against those liberal values you're criticizing, without falling into the ultra-conservatism that liberals grew in opposition to. Reason still stands as a human quality or strength which can prevent from obscurantism, religious fanaticism and other "barbarisms". It's not enough in itself, but a measure of protection against following gurus and despots, and all the (indeed) irrational bullshit they're pulling.

I'm not against "reason", but sacred reason. If you've never heard anyone crying for reason in defense of the status quo, I guess I could see where the confusion is; everyone else here seemed to get the point.

Take things tendencies like Qanon for instance... Is this really the irrational savagery you cling to? And why reject intelligence when this is the thing that allowed humans to overcome their problems through history, and grow more OUT of things like shitty despotic rules, rather than in accordance WITH?

Where did I "reject" intelligence or problem solving? If you're referring to:

they are idiots, WE are intelligent!

That's referring to one of the many methods of "othering" displayed by the people that this piece is mocking; again, I'm not rejecting problem solving; I'm mocking those that fervently worship it as the primary element of a person's "worth".

The so-called "savages" have never rejected reason, It's simply that the imperialists let their own brutal convictions in the way of understanding their rationality. Spaniard and British-Americans especially were notorious for their bigoted brutality, partly based on very irrational Christian beliefs.

You mean the imperialists that the "we" portion mocks? Yeah, I know.

Parodying their obsession with enlightenment values while undercutting them with their contradictory acts is kind of the fucking point. This also extends to the "nu-atheist" cultural christian.

I don't really get how I could have made it more clear.

4