Two Ideals

Ok so this is a huge topic. One could write a whole book about it. But Im going to try and keep it short, sweet, and to the point. Now then Id like to get into ( what I call) rogue warrior values and comfort values and how they are opposed. More specifically Im going to get into how all political ideologies for the most part are based on values that exalt comfort and security and how that runs against rogue warrior values.

So what are rogue warrior values? The values that were followed by the rogue warrior class. What is that class? If you look back at history you can split warriors into two classes. The ones that served authority ( say a King) were what I call respectable warriors. Your typical medieval knight would be a good example. They lived within the center of society, werent rebellious, and so on. Then you had your soldiers of fortune, wandering swordsmen, etc who had no allegiance to any authority and lived on the margins of society. An important point I forgot to add that often separated the respectable warriors from the rogue ones was status of birth. Knights were often nobles while mercenaries were more often from peasant stock.

Now then these classes are gone now however the ideals they held have not disappeared. This is where politics comes in. See basically all political ideologies are rooted in comfort values. That is they appeal to the comfort and security seeking tendencies of your average person. People that the hippies used to call square. As you all know a main argument for authority is the line that goes " We need authority because without it there would be no order. We need order because only from it can prosperity, comfort, and security flow". For proof you dont need to look further than the goals of all political ideologies and the promises of politicians. Socialism, Liberalism, even Fascism have making life better for people ( or a certain group of people) as their main goal. Im not saying all political ideologies are the same but they all seek ( at least say they seek) this same end. I mean have you ever seen a political ideologue write that his ideology's goal is to ruin the economy? Or a politician that said Hey guys vote for me Ill make everything turn to shit? So yeah I think I got my point across about politics being for people who want comfort, order, etc. And thats totally logical if thats what you want. But for people with rogue warrior values that isnt an option.


Yes there arent any rogue warriors anymore. But there are people ( like me) who still believe in those sort of values they believed in . These values or ideals prize freedom above security and comfort, self reliance above obedience to any sort of authority, independent action over social conformity, etc. The wandering swordsman out in the woods back in the fucking Dark Ages didnt have much security or comfort nor did he have nice Mr government or business dude to run to when things got tough. He didnt have many peers so acting in a way that pleased others didnt matter. Its only natural that these values developed among them. And no Im not trying to rehash Libertarianism here. Libertarians need order, want comfort, and so on ( cause of their precious market) which means they got nothing in common with these ideals. Im talking of true freedom ( not having to answer to anyone), doing for yourself, and doing what you like. Of course theres much more to this whole rogue warrior mindset that I cant get into right now. So anyways to wrap this thread up only people with comfort values can truly support any kind of political ideology. That means if you truly believe in rogue warrior values then you cant support any kind of political ideology. Ill get into why I think rogue warrior values are better than comfort ones later.

Ok so if Ive gotten into why rogue warrior values are opposed to comfort values ( and therefore to all political ideologies as well) I might as well write down why they are better than comfort values. All worldviews boil down to personal taste of course but I think there are many good arguments in favor of this whole romantic, barbarian, mystical, idealist, and elitist yet blue collar outlook which I call rogue warrior outlook. See theres way too much practicality expected today in life. Everythings supposed to be rational, useful, sensible and so on. Trying to make things mystical or irrational in any way gets shouted down as " oh your a moron with your head in the clouds". Yet there always has been a clear human longing for something bigger than life. Bigger than the reality you see. Thats where the mystical side comes in. Im not talking religion here ( which crushes true mystical aspirations cause of dogma IMO) thats not the point. Im talking about having an appreciation for the unexplained and undescribable things in life and in your consciousness. And also looking beyond just mere reality, trying to find more than just what you see. Ideology especially political ideology doesnt like this way of looking at things. Its always down to earth, rational, and systemized. Not fit for this find things out yourself way of looking at things.

Socialism especially comes to mind for criticism because of its great emphasis on materialism and reason. Yes sure you could I guess mix Socialism with this mystical element but modern Socialist attitudes toward this are usually negative. And thats the problem. Theres much more to life than just living in reality and trying to fix real problems. Sure I agree that you should accept reality and live in it but not all the fucking time. The real world lacks many things. To use an example take what Puddleglum says in the Silver Chair about Narnia licking the world of that witch hollow. Ok yes its a cheesy kids movie I dont even like but that quote is so true. Reality is indeed completely hollow comapred to your own mystical type thoughts. Ok yes I cant prove this but this is true. My point is these mystical type emotions ( that tons of people have) shouldnt be brushed under the carpet like the civilized comfort values ( and all things that spring from them like political ideologies) try to do so. People need something bigger in life than reality and fighting against that only causes more lives to become emptier.

To move on idealism gets a very bad rep. People are like Oh idealisms for stupid kids who think there can be a totally good world. Bullshit. Idealism can mean trying to live up to ideals you hold. Few are perfect but one should at least try to have some sense of honor. As for Romanticism, people long for some bigger than life good. Something immortal. Nothing like that actually exists but thats exactly why some things should be romanticized. Some say that everything should be looked at as it is, if you follow that then theres not much purely inspiring and good stuff left. You will basically be blowing a candle out in the dark. I say fuck that. Man has always lusted for immortality, transcendence, and all sorts of unexplainable things, trying to change that will only lead to despair.

Elitism neednt be about rich fucks being snobs. It can also mean the support of quality over quantity. Exclusive yet at the same time unpretentious and common. The emphasis not being placed on wealth or birth but conduct and traits. Pretty much combining the chivalry seen in warrior cultures with anti authoritarian and blue collar attitudes/behavior. These ideals put self reliance, freedom, good conduct, honor, stoicism, bravery, and originality above dependence, obedience to authority, law abiding conduct, cowardlinees, and conformity that is exalted by civilized comfort values. This whole worldview can be summed up as how a warrior mystic of peasant roots would think and act. This outlook was outsider back then as it is now by the way. So this is basically why I think rogue warrior values are superior to civilized comfort values.

Another things Id like to bring up is that barbarism is better for humans than civilization. I mean think of how much humans evolved in the Stone Age as compared to now. Back then you had to work your muscles and your brains every single day just to survive. Now you dont have to do shit. Humans back then were much more physically strong than now and I think mentally as well. Just imagine if you had to track down and kill a woolly mammoth for dinner. That would not only take brawn but lots of practical hands on thinking as well that most people dont do nowadays.

Also along with civilization comes customs, morals, ideas, etc that chain up man's true nature. Humans by nature are instinctual beings. Yet civilized values force us to act against instinct and nature as well. This causes a lot of hatred, despair, and pain to build up inside which is not healthy at all. Thats exactly why I think humans should return to their barbarian roots. Not only is primitive orclike barbarism fucking awesome its our true nature. We are just hiding it because of all the unnatural civilized ideas pushed on us for many years. Barbarism needs a comeback.

Socialism especially comes to mind for criticism because of its great emphasis on materialism and reason.


--------------

Yes, but every socialist is a idealist, the only difference is that we use rational arguments to reach a goal, we socialists, more than any other aderent of others political ideologies, are very concerned about everything, economy, morals, history, science, we need to understand all of this because we are in favor of a radical transformation of society, so we need to understand the past, the present, the possible alternatives to future, the mind, the soul, the culture

A liberalist/ancap/fascist could learn everything about marxism and even agree with it in his mind, but if his heart is not socialist, he will deny it. A person who believes private property is ok will use any kind of argument, even if he knows these arguments are weak, he will defend the "progress" free-market brings to society at any cost. So we are all idealists in different degrees.

That's an interesting dichotomy you propose but I don't think it holds. I agree with you on a lot of counts. I emphasize the mystical over the real, definitely. For the last year I've been preparing myself to become an off-the-grid farmer in the backwoods of nowhere with my (soon to be) wife. I plan to live as an ascetic, in some ways like a monk.

I have many political philosophies I endorse. My economics are a fusion of Sraffian, Marxist, and Post-Keynesian. I see Social Democracy, Parecon, and Anarcho-Syndicalism all viable depending on the geographic and historical circumstances. Even when you separate out the fact that wealthy people are not much happier than a person in Africa and the fact that material wealth is illusory, the fact that 18,000 people died in the United States this year because of lack of access to Health Care should serve to bring us back into reality. There should be some regard for the importance for life.

I think we need a system which makes sure that people get the basic necessities. Period. What if you're disabled or mentally handicapped? Old? How does the system treat you? Are children punished for the 'moral failings' of the adult in the form of inferior nutrition, access to healthcare, and opportunities?

A system that takes care of the weak, the stupid, the lame, the disabled, whom never had a chance while still providing equality of opportunity is all I really want in my political system. To that end, I don't think the ideal of the "rogue warrior" meets the criteria. It is not out of concern for myself that I form my political ideas but out of concern for others. In fact, I'd say most of my political ideals are directly contrary to my own material interest.

RedBrasil wrote:Socialism especially comes to mind for criticism because of its great emphasis on materialism and reason.


--------------

Yes, but every socialist is a idealist, the only difference is that we use rational arguments to reach a goal, we socialists, more than any other aderent of others political ideologies, are very concerned about everything, economy, morals, history, science, we need to understand all of this because we are in favor of a radical transformation of society, so we need to understand the past, the present, the possible alternatives to future, the mind, the soul, the culture

A liberalist/ancap/fascist could learn everything about marxism and even agree with it in his mind, but if his heart is not socialist, he will deny it. A person who believes private property is ok will use any kind of argument, even if he knows these arguments are weak, he will defend the "progress" free-market brings to society at any cost. So we are all idealists in different degrees.

Your right. That was directed at Socialists who keep putting down idealism when like you said their idealist as well.

sytar wrote:That's an interesting dichotomy you propose but I don't think it holds. I agree with you on a lot of counts. I emphasize the mystical over the real, definitely. For the last year I've been preparing myself to become an off-the-grid farmer in the backwoods of nowhere with my (soon to be) wife. I plan to live as an ascetic, in some ways like a monk.

I have many political philosophies I endorse. My economics are a fusion of Sraffian, Marxist, and Post-Keynesian. I see Social Democracy, Parecon, and Anarcho-Syndicalism all viable depending on the geographic and historical circumstances. Even when you separate out the fact that wealthy people are not much happier than a person in Africa and the fact that material wealth is illusory, the fact that 18,000 people died in the United States this year because of lack of access to Health Care should serve to bring us back into reality. There should be some regard for the importance for life.

I think we need a system which makes sure that people get the basic necessities. Period. What if you're disabled or mentally handicapped? Old? How does the system treat you? Are children punished for the 'moral failings' of the adult in the form of inferior nutrition, access to healthcare, and opportunities?

A system that takes care of the weak, the stupid, the lame, the disabled, whom never had a chance while still providing equality of opportunity is all I really want in my political system. To that end, I don't think the ideal of the "rogue warrior" meets the criteria. It is not out of concern for myself that I form my political ideas but out of concern for others. In fact, I'd say most of my political ideals are directly contrary to my own material interest.

I wrote about the so called rogue warrior outlook but the truth is anyone who is on the margins of society has no reason to get into politics. In every age there were people like that and what I write about those with a rogue warrior outlook goes for them as well ( even if they dont have a rogue warrior outlook). Politics always takes place in society so it really doesnt make sense to take part in something that is part of something your barely a part of.

A person on the margins of society has no self-interested reason to be involved in politics but I think the politics of the left is more guided by a sense of social justice than self-interest.

sytar wrote:A person on the margins of society has no self-interested reason to be involved in politics but I think the politics of the left is more guided by a sense of social justice than self-interest.

True then again social justice means different things to different people. Thats actually a good question: What exactly is social justice? Replacing capitalism with socialism? Or does it go further than that? I never got the point of caring more about others than yourself but to each their own.

I think the Human Development Index says it best:


Life expectancy at birth
Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
GNI per capita