(see obiwanjacobi for the full conversation; I have always hated tumblr’s reply system)

My position on the lack of “actually doing anything” is not moved by those uncountable masses that reblogged and raised awareness. It’s inevitable that masses such as Occupy, and those who supported SOPA/PIPA through other means, would have some effect. I admit I had a different vision in my head than what Occupy stands for. I didn’t mean to necessarily speak on Occupy, but rather these masses that will think they’re helping and being so supportive of various issues by simply reblogging, “spreading awareness”. Sure, it’s literally helping in some way, but I propose that it isn’t as meaningful as a few good bombs. But there you have it: bombs. I was thinking more along the radical revolutionaries, the romantic Guy Fawkes deciding to blow up parliament. So in my head, I compare these people who are “occupying”, and then these internet rebloggers, and I question just how much of an effect these people are really having.

And I admit another: from a pragmatic perspective, how I could claim that these people have little effect and yet also claim that I go out of my way to ignore such things, does not compute. Looking back, I wasn’t (am not) claiming that Occupy hasn’t done things; yes, it is inevitable with such masses. I am more interested in the latter part of my post, which I will try to sum up better.

[also, I know how Iceland is doing, and I love it. Please note I specifically said America for a reason. We really suck here.]

The drones - sorry, yes, literally the drones flying in the sky. These are matters in which votes are irrelevant. There is nothing you’ll do to stop these drone patrols, save from shooting them down yourself. There might be laws enacted: can’t patrol during the day time, can’t patrol in 50 yards of a preschool, etc. These are accounted for by the government. It is all part of the plan from the start. Though I have reason to believe that, in fact, voting doesn’t even matter; but that’s nothing provable and a matter aside from this.

Regarding the selfish nature. You will find as much evidence for my belief as you will to the contrary. My belief is typical with “objectivists” that understand how selfish us sentient creatures are. It’s my belief that life itself thrives: that it is hard to eradicate life completely once it exists. I believe this relates back to our internal mindset to look out for ourselves, and just as pigs do, we can be very social about it. We are social. Societies are the only reason we’re having this conversation. We crave social attention, but it is to fill our own need. I don’t believe this is erasable from the gene of life, but I believe that as a society, we should be doing more to discourage biases and to employ logic and efficiency to as many aspects of our lives as we can. I’m not hoping for Vulcans, I’m hoping for enlightened individuals who can have conversations just like you and I are having now.

I will not get into economic systems. Everything we say will have been repeated by 1,000s of others with 1,000s of other contraries to everything we’ll say. We would get nowhere. Continuing.

I think of it not so much as bashing, as much as criticizing. If I were a revolutionary, I don’t think I’d be very content with “occupying”. In fact, maybe I am a revolutionary, because I can only imagine that I would spread new ideas at the best opportunities I get to do so. That would be my revolution. The concerns of others do not necessarily bother me.

~

The reason utopianism changed from “the world” to “yourself” is because it was jejune - childishly naive, even arrogant - to believe that we could just simply “better the world”. Well, Hitler thought he was bettering the world. We could agree that picking up trash along the highways and volunteering at soup kitchens is a good thing, but there is no way I could be attempting to posit this “belief system” as a genuine belief system and claim some ways that would objectively be better for the world. It is a subjective matter, but in the newest revision of utopianism’s article, it’s noted that one should attempt to be a positive force in all that they do. Push the world forward. A utopian villain would not be utopian, and yet again, here I am trying to define what a villain would be. Am I a villain for believing that I should ignore the world and let the virus cure itself, that I should just strive to have this “utopia” of ignorance and feel I did a good thing? I don’t know.

edit: as a response to vossk’s post this morning, (late night? :P) I don’t believe what’s being done with the movements is great enough to be part of, or that it’s even that great for the world. I’d rather donate to an organization that would plan on founding its own city into a kind of utopia. Just let the virus cure itself. Of course, this is all ideal and in reality I’m really hoping to have a nice house in the middle of somewhere, secluded and very well taken care of.