K!TCH:

One of the most disturbing things about working in a restaurant is the extent to which people tolerate deplorable conditions. One grows up expecting a certain standard, and working towards this ideal in all avenues of life becomes the only practical design for morality, as well as the only basis for Goodness, the denial of which constitutes the entirety of evil. Karl Marx needed very seldom to refer to something or another as evil; most of his texts are simply saturated with disturbing accounts whose import ought to be self-evident. Despite this, psychologists such as Jordan Peterson and philosophers such as Camus, despite showcasing a brilliant scholarship in their respective areas of specialization, insist on marginalizing Marx by depicting life as though it were an inevitable struggle. As Jiddu Krishnamurti attested, if we did not accept human life as misery, life and death would cease to be seen as problems. Jung insisted that man cannot tolerate a meaningless life, and neurosis is categorically NEEDLESS difficulty. Viktor Frankl insisted that those with a Why to live could bear with any How. Given the unanimity of these intellectual father figures, it is preposterous to consider that their progeny should resort to cynicism. My generation ought instead to protest Absurdity, as Camus prescribed, and to live in such an unconditionally free manner that life itself might become vindicated as a rebellion. When we perceive a situation to be unfavourable, we ought to feel the obligation to change it, for ourselves and for each other. Instead I have seen the most palpable treachery in the tendency to tolerate the intolerable, almost deriving pride from sloth, divorcing the ethic of effort from that of reform. It is not as though we do not behave as THOUGH our generation were singularly right just for being ours; we simply have disowned and lost the entire tradition of genuine progress. Even loyalty itself has become debased, as equality has begun to appeal only to the lowest common denominator. Rebellion itself, even when it is on behalf of the entire colony, warranted by the integrity of the business, is treated as though IT were sheer mutiny, though inwardly no member of the crew seems truly to believe in the integrity of the captain’s idealism more so than does the rebel, who seeks first to uphold the leader’s idealism and only by chance happens to threaten the leader’s true power. Those with a Why to live can bear with any How. Unfortunately, the “how” is born without any apparent Why. If a fetish is found to substitute for human solidarity, then it is much too myopic to be readily recognized. It follows logically that the evil that Marx ascribes to capitalist leaders is not merely a projection of his own tribal mind, but rather the deduction of an indignant conscience. What was far more tribal was the Red Scare, which appears far more repressive than the Red Terror, for its primary sin lay in that it demoralized an entire populace.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

BOJACKS6E9:

Initially, I thought that I would have to hate Hollyhock. The sentimentality of sibling relationships alone never swayed me in television; I defend Charles McGill to this day. This is a more blatant matter. When Hollyhock meets Peter Repeat, whom we might presume to have conferred unto her some sort of sensitive information, there was a very clear course of action for her: she might have either dismissed the gossip, on bloody PR!NC!PLE, or she might have done her research. Even Sarah Lynn, an absentminded drug addict, could find Penny Carson online, and it takes even less time to find an age of consent for a state in the United States. It would not have been poor form to investigate the incident that Peter inexplicably recounted; professional journalists were already showing interest in doing so. At any rate, even were the means for her investigation barred, she might have successfully reconstructed the event mentally based simply upon an intuitive grasp, and that would have been EAS!ER to do than it would have been for anyone to predict the “outcomes of” BoJack’s encounter with Penny Carson in Season Two. If that were not enough, Hollyhock might simply have TALKED to BoJack, who had given her absolutely no reason to hate her. His presence at Wesleyan is not “selfish”; to be more precise, the quality of its being or not being “selfish” is by no means determined by some infantile need to ask her for permission to teach a CLASS once requested to do so. At any rate, a professor who is thought of highly by Hollyhock’s BEST FR!END must certainly be deemed sufficiently trustworthy that Hock would feel safe confronting him. I would have expected nothing less than this: “I know that this might seem absurd, but through what appears to be an incredible coincidence I have made the acquaintance of a young man who claims to have been formerly associated with you. Knowing that you are a celebrity, I will not presume upon the validity of his account, for you surely encounter many, but I must ask you to either corroborate or to deny it if I am to sleep well at night, since some elements of his account called your character overtly into question.” You see, that is what one would EXPECT of a young woman at a University. It is also synonymous with decency, and one hopes for nothing less upon GROW!NG UP.

The fact remains that BoJack had every right to sleep with Penny Carson, and it’s only tragic that they were interrupted by Charlotte. Penny’s mother demonstrates a considerably inhibited capacity for moral reasoning in her old age, especially by contrast with Penny, who knows her own legal rights, as well as those of BoJack. BoJack had neither right nor motivation to dismiss her autonomy with ageist prejudice, and any university student should feel some sting of injustice that he would even consider doing so under the force of illusory pressure. Yet if BoJack’s initial refusal of the call to adventure was an act of Sartrean bad faith (a philosophy mentioned on several occasions throughout the series, including references to Sartre overtly by name) then he was heroic by contrast with Charlotte, whose “happiness” is threatened by the mere PRESENCE of BoJack. When Charlotte concludes that BoJack “makes [her] sad”, she attempts to escape responsibility for her own emotions. The life that she has “built for herself”, narcissistically, is a bourgeois fantasy and a sham, easily disturbed by the mere presence of an old friend with stronger feelings than her own husband or children ever showcase. If BoJack’s feelings of authenticity “make her sad”, it is because she is sad already. While some critics insist that she has found a more authentic happiness by foregoing short-term gratification for long-term gain, and while the ham-fisted B-stories of this most recent episode seem to reinforce this platitude like a children’s rhyme, the fact is that positive behaviour does NOT produce positive outcomes in the BoJack Horseman Universe, and neither can we presume that Charlotte is Good because she is “happy”, nor that BoJack “did something wrong” because he is met with misery. Charlotte has only her past and her hopes for the future. BoJack acts truthfully within the Moment, just as Cuddly Whiskers prescribes, though the philosophy may have been bastardized by Copernicus. Charlotte has Some Nerve calling in a favour from BoJack at the end of the episode. How was HE supposed to know about those journalists?

Making rational sense of an absurdist comedy is by its nature futile, but if the comedy is sufficiently informed then its relevance is not lost in personal life. Expecting some sort of a melodrama, I sat down to watch, upon its release at midnight, with some reflections of my own. I have had to conclude that most young women, by contrast with older ones, have treated me with contempt in direct proportion to the affection that I showed them, and such a double-standard is unacceptable. Thankfully, I have made the acquaintance of a few whom I can tolerate and understand, in whom I can place my faith as both an academic and a man, thanks to the miraculous Internet. Yet perhaps it was this same device that produced so many self-entitled fakes. About half of these women who found the authority to spurn my affection were themselves involved in romance. Having been single for nine years, a decade come my twenty-ninth birthday, I must find their hypocrisy laughable, if only to prevent its becoming tragic. I did nothing to wrong these women. THE!R feelings are not MY consequences. If I COULD possess myself of the capacity to control the emotions of others, I would not know how to use it, for even with a goal in mind the apparent mechanics of emotional reaction are absurd. Even were it proven to me that I had such a power, and hence such a responsibility, I would disown both to preserve individual autonomy*.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

*My foregone conclusion that this power is illusory, a conclusion corroborated by the few women in my life who are serene enough to imagine an amoral world, despite strong moral convictions of their own, is an expression of respect for this autonomy, and hence it is morally imperative to conclude.

CLOS!NG REMARX:

Regarding the Bill Cosby trial, it is obvious that the Court of Public Opinion settled the matter long before the Court of Law did, reflecting poorly upon both, for they must always recognize their independence and their inequality. The verdict came down to a simple, cynical question: who are the liars? One man or fifty women? Whom are we to accuse, lest we be accused? The trial was really one that tried the American People. On the surface, we were being tried for sexism; deep down, we were being tried for Fascism and mob rule. Presented with that cynical question, only incidentally gendered, (though not without the influence of gender politics, though we were tested to see if we would ignore that bias) there was no obvious answer, nor was there one which was more obviously cynical. My vote came in this form (for whatever good my vote ever does, for Reason has historically occupied the extreme minority): that experience has shown me that people, especially those involved in politics, with personal gain in mind, are far MORE likely to lie in groups, even condemning the few who speak the Truth to ridicule; the word “snitch”, a slur more perverse than any ethnic pejorative, serves to evidence this depraving tendency. That I side against fifty women in defending one man is simply a matter of course in matters of Justice, since the mob is almost always wrong, no less so for believing its own lies as each of its constituents hears them repeated enough times. Their gender is incidental from a rational perspective; the tragedy is not one of sexism but rather that, in the attempt to curb the toxic influence of sexism, feminism organized women INTO a mob, shamelessly promising them not only protection but success in solidarity, in matters so subtle and consequential that they ought instead to have been handled by rational individuals, operating free of partisan distortions. This much I can say for certain, for it requires no further evidence: the sexism of any one man PALES before the sexism of fifty women, and the fact that they have yet to be put on trial in EITHER Court serves to corroborate this unbiased commentary upon Humanity.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Perhaps I have been too kind towards the Dead. Looking back on my relationship with Alanna, I can see why I abandoned the ideal of chivalry which still drives so many deluded men in their defense of grotesquely privileged women. I had been the One and Only to play the part of the Knight in Shining Armour, the Gentleman and the Loyal Servant, exalting myself only in direct proportion to my idealism, expecting only that which I would have granted to those most loyal to me. The nature of our relationship could not be reduced to any sort of friendship that could have been betrayed by sexual longing, so my longing was not inappropriate; even passersby who witnessed our first meeting were charmed by the seeming romance of our correspondence, and veritably most romance comes out of these specific conditions. Even if I would never mate with someone who had been so loyal to me, it is only because those few who have been loyal to me were never as attractive as I was in doing so, for I served her only as a gentleman courting a lady would, and she showed little reservation in using this tradition for herself. The fact remains that she chose someone disloyal and treacherous over someone who adapted his entire lifestyle to her influence, desiring primarily her self-preservation and only secondarily her love, while the other squandered the love and renounced the preservation, though he owed the both to the both of us, having betrayed my friendship to acquire the love and having had her preservation as his only justification for having done so. It was I that had to protect her from him; Reason offered me no recourse, whatever her madness might retort. And SHE thought to call ME “stalker”? I deserve better.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

Regarding Equality:

1.                 All beings value their own lives.

2.              It follows logically that all beings must value all lives.

3.              The best means by which to preserve all lives is through reciprocal altruism.

4.             Equality is the only means by which to effectively enact reciprocal altruism.

a.According to equality, I can value others as much as I value myself.

b.It follows that I might prioritize others over myself (altruistically) with the conviction that they will do so for me (reciprocally).

c.   Additionally, if I am to treat others as I would like to be treated, I must confess that no one wants to be treated as inferior, so the attempt to escape inferiority by becoming superior is a fruitless enterprise, for it only ensures that others feel inferior to me.

d.Additionally, the benefit of Equality is that the preservation of my needs is not confined to my abilities, for I can rely upon the abilities of others to protect my needs.

e.  By the same token, and perhaps even more significantly, my abilities are not confined to the preservation of my own needs. This allows for a sort of progress which is not exploitative and irrational.

5.              Envy, jealousy and vindictiveness are simply attempts to adapt to the betrayal of Altruism. Equality as an ideal does not stem from them, but the obverse is true.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

The Kohlberg Hierarchy of Love:

1.             Rape. On the basest level, the Individual is concerned only with self-interest and that which (s)he may get away with.

2.           Promiscuity. Barely better than rape, though it perpetually tries to escape its downstairs neighbor, this is a mindset wherein others are merely means towards ends, to be manipulated for personal gain.

3.           Formal Relationship. Herein, love is a measure of reciprocity, just as in promiscuity, but reciprocity is maintained by the observation of socially accessible norms which must be followed if intimacy is to be maintained. Deviance reflects poorly upon the deviant, and romantic failure may be pinned upon the failure to conform.

4.          Marriage. A legally binding contract, this is the goal of many formal relationships that seek to attain a relative permanence through the observation of rules, till Death or Divorce do us part.

5.           Unrequited Love. As convention falls away, so does the felt need for reciprocity. The post-conventional Individualist understands that norms are merely social contracts; authenticity occurs in the privacy of one’s own psyche, and the Heart is a Lonely Hunter. The intensity of a feeling, not its reciprocation, is a measure of its value, for the former is a measure of commitment and potential, whereas the valuation of the latter is merely reflective of the tendency for human beings to pursue a reward, which started on Level Two as merely an escape from Level Three.

I should note herein that Rejection is experienced so powerfully precisely because most social pressure operates on the Lower Levels, specifically levels two through four (though perhaps with an Unconscious Influence from Level One), centered about Level Three, which is most normative and prevalent. When I profess my love for someone, I fear rejection not only because I desire reciprocity, but because I know that, without reciprocity, I am forbidden to love. Yet this does not reflect upon the ulteriority of my motives. If I seek reciprocity by just means, rather than by manipulation, it is not that I am doing “the right thing for the wrong reasons”, but rather that I must take account of the “wrong reasons” in order to do the “right thing”, recognizing that those same reasons may in fact turn, if all goes well, into the Best of All Outcomes. If I should allow my fear of reproof to skew my judgement, however, I will be no better than the rapist, seeking only to operate within the confines of that which will keep me out of trouble. Simply by expressing my love, knowing its worth to be immutable regardless of the reception which it receives, I lay the ground for the Next Stage of Development, one which must by necessity protect my own right to make such an expression, so that it is not heard as merely a sales pitch:

6.          Consummate Love. Upon this level Romance is married to Reciprocal Altruism. Two people, each of them capable of unrequited love for the other, recognize within one another the readiness to make the Ultimate Sacrifice. Because each is willing to risk social standing and health for the Other, they protect and nurture one another as postconventional Individuals, recognizing a truer Freedom, Individuality, and Authenticity in this self-sacrifice, this disentanglement from the bonds of convention, than any who find their happiness in the relative safety of moral inferiority. It is upon this Level that our entire Ideal of Love is created. This is where the ballads come from, and it is from this platform that lovers can think to reach God. Hence religions and poets alike venerate this Ideal.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

DUPL!C!TY:

Duplicity is a condition wherein the person you believe yourself to know and the person that that person is diverge. Unlike a delusion, this divergence is through no fault of your own; you err innocently and naively in a manner that can only have been orchestrated by the other, since you have held the other to a standard of integrity which only you possess. At the very moment that your friendship appears most stable, precious, and sincere, already the other has begun to move against you, without remorse. Clinging to the other’s word, ascribing integrity to it and honouring it, you are left to worry about what had happened to your friend, driven to more and more elaborate displays of loyalty or affection in the attempt to restore the correspondence. Once you are informed of an alternate history, almost invariably by a third party, your deepest fears will find corroboration. Yet these fears, having been irrational, could never have been enough to deter you. Had you considered the behaviour and intention of the other person, in the manner that the third party describes it, at the moment that it had happened, you would have been considered crazy, since it would have stood in such blaring opposition to everything that your ostensibly good friend had led you to believe. How is it, then, that women so often get away with this disappearing act? Why would men, who have yet to hear a reason for the split, one which could only have happened without reason and without even announcement, accept the moral burden for the tragedy? This much is certain: that the duplicitous woman is a narcissist. She accuses the man of caring for her TOO much, and men who have a defect in caring favour her. Yet what do we say when we accuse others of loving us excessively? We imply that while we expect others to admire us, so much so that we presume upon the admiration, we take the admiration for granted, for we have enough admiration to satisfy our pride. By so doing, a narcissist turns a relationship that might actually benefit her in many ways into one that only benefits her ego. By her own definition, it is unhealthy, though secretly it is only because she has been wasteful of the relationship she has cultivated. Most salient therefore is this lie: that there never WAS a relationship. Supposing that I say that I wish to maintain a friendship, I am left to grapple with the possibility that “space”, by its very nature ambiguous, meant nothing more than the sudden betrayal of a friendship, and that this sudden betrayal placed upon me the moral burden of its unconditional acceptance, even without notification, irrespective of my moral performance as a friend. It is because friendship itself is not considered a relationship, as though the latter category were some sort of a higher social stratum, that the feelings of warmth I feel for the illusion are marginalized by the illusionist.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

UN!CORP:

The twenty-first century will see the rise of corporate communism.

1.                Corporate executives will come to realize that there is more of an advantage to cooperation than there is to competition.

2.                C.E.O. positions will be assumed by communists who will restructure employee salaries based upon the Marxist notion “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

3.                Promotions will be carried out in the context of a meritocracy that rewards loyalty to the company more so than it rewards results or performance.

4.                Company policies will be adopted across various businesses, thereby socially engineering moral behaviour and promoting reciprocal altruism.

5.                Corporations will combine into a global conglomerate: a centralized means of production run by an oligarchy of executives, not any one of whom would think to seize absolute power because the thought of handling such responsibility would be practically tantamount to mutually assured destruction.

6.                This will begin in the United States.

a. Up until this point, anti-Communism in the United States has largely been a radical response to the failed Marxist experiments in Europe and Asia.

b.                As this radicalism falls out of vogue, especially given the absurd caricature of neo-Conservatism that certain political figures and pundits have provided, the American populace will come to embrace Communism again as an ideology. A new history of Marxism will be taught in schools:

                                        i.    Marxist experiments in the twentieth century were the result of civil unrest, on a localized level, coupled with the dream of global solidarity.

                                     ii.    These experiments were carried out by a populace that lacked the means to appoint and to supervise a qualified oligarchy of leaders.

                                   iii.    Contemporary Marxism responds TO a globalized culture in answering civil unrest on the GLOBAL level. Owing to twentieth-century technology:

1.                Globalism is no longer a utopia but an imminent reality, and

2.                The populace is armed with a double-edged sword that at once spies upon the People but that enables the People to spy upon the Leaders.

3.                So long as those in power are also in control of Production, they must answer to all of their employees, without whom Production would be impossible.

4.                So long as the employees are reciprocal altruists, they will stand by one another in solidarity, so that no employee would ever be expendable.

c.  Given the United States’ global military hegemony, it is the only country in history with the capacity to enforce the establishment of a World State surrounding a Multinational Corporation.

                                        i.    Radical Islam may be eliminated through the modernization of Middle Eastern countries.

                                     ii.    Drug cartels may be eliminated through the legalization of scheduled drugs.

                                   iii.    Allegedly Communist dictatorships will be forced to open their borders and to assimilate under the threat of information warfare.

                                   iv.    Nuclear Holocaust will be deterred, as will environmental collapse.

7.                Human Beings will evolve according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

a. All base needs will be answered by automation.

b.                As base needs are met, Human Beings will develop skills according to personal preference.

c.  The economy of the past tried to create “jobs” as technological progress eliminated positions. The New Economy will replace these jobs with entitlements.

d.                Entitled individuals will grow restless, and once they realize that any deviant road would lead to social failure, they will turn towards self-examination and the discovery and development of new potentialities within themselves for creative work and blossoming personality.

e. It will be easy to incentivize entitled individuals towards creative action, since they will only be those individuals who know that they lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Since they were compensated generously, they will not resent the System, but they will think of new ways in which to live within it, recognizing that having basic needs met is hardly ever enough and that only righteous, productive paths can lead to happiness. (Once misery has been mitigated, what follows is the pursuit of happiness via meaningful conduct.)

f.   The economy of the past adapted the Individual to the Society. The economy of the Future will adapt the Society to the Individual. Once all base needs are met, society becomes flexible. A populace inclined towards more scientific personalities, for instance, will have a greater focus upon Research and Development, whereas a more artistic society will tend towards Humanities. Whatever the trend may be, there will be no competition between the fields, since no consumer is ever totally unilateral.

8.                Capital will be replaced with money, and money will be replaced with credits. Credits will be assigned based upon needs. Merit and promotion will be regarded as intrinsic goods, appealing to the human desire for influence instead of avarice.

9.                Religions will see their ethics implemented within a totally secular context. Human beings will embody their latent angelic nature.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]

UTOP!!A:

Presuppositions:

1.         Human Nature is inherently Good.

a.  Human beings are largely concerned with the well-being of Others.

b. Out of this primordial concern emerges the capacity for Moral Universals.

c. Moral Development is an Individual Quest to reach Universalism.

d. Moral Development may occur independently of economic and social development.

e. Empathy evidences that compassion is a prevalent human tendency, even transcending social and economic boundaries. It is also the primary motivator for relationship.

2.         However, Human Beings can become Morally Corrupted by Impersonal Forces imposed from outside themselves.

a.  Moral Development tends to plateau at a conventional level in most people because of the felt pressure to conform.

b. Groups develop by which the Individual might hope to preserve individual interests by making concessions to partisan interests and opinions.

c. Injury by narcissistic deviants, whose evil tendencies prevail under group thought, can produce cynicism in their altruistic victims.

d. Dominance hierarchies develop by which more narcissistic individuals exploit altruistic people by manipulating thought and action within a group.

e. Philosophers reject Universalism in favour of various forms of Pragmatism with the hopes of living a life which is less miserable, even if it is unhappy. The popularity of their ideas accord them a status, within their respective social hierarchy, which they grudgingly enjoy.

f.   In the process, Philosophers become narcissistic. Because they are clever, they project that same narcissism upon altruists, claiming Moral Development to be nothing more than another hierarchy of dominance, except one governed by unfounded claims instead of scientific facts.

g. Philosophy atrophies and becomes socially irrelevant under this regime, though a niche develops for consumers of these new “philosophies”.

h.The niche is marginalized by the General Populace as merely another preferential interest group.

i.   Idealism becomes a social order which is external instead of a psychological value.

j.   Psychological values are no longer considered sacred, by idealists and “realists” (unimaginative idealists) alike.

k. Psychological Moral Development is further morally impacted. Those few who are capable of genuine Universalism are marginalized as imitators of old heroes, and their economic and social mobility is compromised.

l.   Nihilism and absurd conflict prevail, especially in the forms of warfare, rape, and competition. Some of these evils are exalted as though they were virtues, while others are condemned as Universal Evils, based entirely upon the status and function of the evildoer in his or her respective interest group.

m.              Evil is presumed to be Universal to Human Beings, since there are so many Evils judged to be Universal based upon contempt for social deviance in a conformist society. With the suppression of all moral authority, this Universal Evil comes to overshadow Intrinsic Goodness.

n.As people begin to regard one another cynically, by default, as a prejudice, even towards those individuals who had done them no injury, Evil begins to transform from Potentiality to Actuality.

                                       i.    Good people are punished for having good intentions and for pursuing the common interest by traditionally Noble Means.

                                    ii.    The nostalgia Good People feel for solidarity is equated with mere self-entitlement, whereas all genuine entitlement is ascribed to those who accrue status.

                                  iii.    Good People turn Evil.

o.Humanity creates a cataclysmic catastrophe, but there is insufficient motivation, even among human beings, to prevent Human extinction, since the life of each Individual has been reduced to absurd struggle against Human Nature Itself.

3.         The Solution must appear Utopian by the Modern Standard.

a.  The motivation to prevent catastrophe must originate with the Hope of Living Better Today. It must thereby transcend Pragmatism.

b. Moral Development must be prioritized in Individuals.

                                       i.    Hierarchies must be rendered ineffective so that the Individual’s capacity for external action, reflecting his or her internal stage of development, might be put into practice.

                                    ii.    In order for mistakes made by underdeveloped individuals to be corrected, developed individuals must be ready to accept more responsibility for outcomes produced within a team. In turn, they might find an incentive in a new kind of superiority: Objectivity.

                                  iii.    Morality will cease to be regarded as a Dominance Hierarchy, since the principal evil has been eliminated: that of “superiors” bypassing the autonomy of their “subordinates”.

                                  iv.    As Moral Objectivity accrues rewards for those who attain it, the incentive to progress towards Universalism strengthens, so that eventually people meet as Equals at the Top, instead of Equals at the Bottom who must be shepherded by equally evil specialists.

c. In order to facilitate this change, philosophers must act again as moral role models.

                                       i.    Philosophers who are already popular must forego bourgeois cynicism.

                                    ii.    Idealists must refine their ideas of Goodness to include a disparate array of individual case histories.

                                  iii.    Nihilism must become unfashionable, as well as all human tendencies which reinforce the absurdities of competition.

                                  iv.    More and more so, intellectuals must influence the populace to elect intellectual leaders.

d. All forms of economy and government which were considered necessary evils, based upon a cynical outlook, must be abolished.

                                       i.    Some of these, like democracy, were arguably founded upon a healthy understanding of Human Nature, though their nature as an experiment created the same mob rule that reduced Equality to cynicism.

                                    ii.    Democracy must be abolished because it systematically marginalizes minorities by its very design.

1. Majority rule reinforces the conformist notion that that which is popular is right, hence people become evil in groups.

2. Minorities form groups as well, wherein even more oppressive majoritarianism emerges out of a felt necessity to preserve minority identity.

3. Minorities of minorities lose their autonomy under majoritarian rule.

4. Liberal regimes try to preserve minorities in bulk, AS groups, so they empower the leaders of these oppressive cults.

5. Minorities of minorities lose access to the General Populace owing to interference from both their representatives and the Government.

6. Conservative reactionaries try to seize power via democracy.

7. Met with the argument that democracy itself is evil, owing to its majoritarian nature, conservatives claim that democracy alone effectively protects the rights of minorities.

8. Liberals and conservatives share power based upon the manipulation of minority groups and the marginalization of unaffiliated, minoritarian Individuals.

                                  iii.    Capitalism must be abolished because it reinforces Dominance Hierarchies and Absurd Competition.

1. Capitalism incentivizes people towards “upward mobility”.

2. People sacrifice their allegiance to the interests of any position by seeking higher positions. They end up using their fellows as means towards ends, perpetuating cycles of abuse and bypassing autonomy with mere rank. Only those who are ruthless enough to perpetuate such a condition are capable of tolerating subservience without moral scruple. Their superiors promote only them.

3. The most important work is done only by those who are treated as though they were expendable, forced to answer to every colleague as though he or she were a superior, even though that colleague has no interest in the Reality of Their Condition.

4. While capitalism claims to produce wealth and thereby to mitigate misery, happiness can only be arrived at as the result of living altruistically and meaningfully, for that is most in accordance with Natural Human Nature.

5. Mitigating misery without offering genuine happiness leads to nihilism. Social deviance is incentivized by the felt need for Justice, experienced (and marginalized) as envy, in the absence of respected Moral Authorities and in defiance of corrupt social and economic leaders.

                                  iv.    Individuals ought to be encouraged to be Utopians.

1. Up until this point, the task of conquering Institutional Evil and liberating Human Goodness has been left to specialists.

2. Specialists ought only to be a stepping stone to Equality at the Top.

3. Cynicism, the archnemesis of Utopianism, was only ever a means by which an Individual, forced into egocentrism by an impersonal social order, sheltered one’s self against a Populace which that person perceived to be Hostile.

a.  The tendency to project the Hostility of actual abusers upon Human Nature has no foundation outside of personal egoism.

b. It was only as the result of this cynicism that people formed minoritarian groups.

4. Specialists, such as philosophers and enlightened politicians, ought to lure people away from cynicism and towards Moral Development.

a.  Everyone can recognize an “enlightened” politician, though cynicism precludes people from democratically electing such people.

b. It thus falls to philosophers, especially those who already enjoy a nonpartisan audience and who have not yet formed a cult of personality, to help convert people from cynicism.

c. Philosophers cling to cynicism because it helps them to preserve their standing. Yet this corruption of power for the purpose of preserving power is precisely the primary drive for these Individuals to remain cynical, after which they simply project their cynicism upon Human Nature.

d. Cynicism does not protect us from greater evils, and neither does optimism doom us to self-aggrandizing self-destruction.

                                                                                       i.    The former obscures the realities of our needs and justifies our abuses towards one another as both equals and nonequals.

                                                                                    ii.    The latter reaffirms the autonomy of each Individual within the context of a Moral Order.

                                                                                  iii.    This is irrespective of traditional boundaries.

5. As more and more people become Universalists in thought, several transformations emerge as expressions of latent potentialities.

a.  Commerce can become Marxist in scope without the necessity of Authoritarianism, since people will share resources based upon empathy, and they will produce resources based upon a rational consensus regarding the needs of Others. This will become Common Sense.

b. Social stratification is nullified.

c. Differences of opinion are resolved without partisan bias and also without the desperation underlying unrest within a minoritarian group.

d. Utopianism becomes a matter of common sense, no longer centralized to figures of authority. Individuals begin to think in terms of Common Goods, instead of personal gain in an Absurd and Fallen World. New leadership emerges based not upon Power but upon the virtues of Reason and Empathy.

e. That I can say no more on this proves that it passes the capacity of any one man. With the abolition of monarchical egoism, either as the Lord of One’s Own Life or the Lord of the Land, Human Beings will finally realize their truest Nature and evolve to the next step in Human Potential.

4.         The alternatives are unacceptable.

[({Dm.A.A.)}]