Skip to main content

Understanding earthlings 1: Anatomy of right wing daydreamers

1. -isms as wish fulfilment 
People on earth followed/ believed in many different '-isms'. Communism, hinduism, capitalism, secularism, dadaism and so on.  These -isms were short cuts. They allowed for the believer to accept solutions without having to engage in empathetic discourse and recognition of an individual as a free yet malleable agent. They allowed them to accept solutions without a clear understanding of assumptions or use of consistent reason. Now we know that it is prudent to be sceptical of all -isms even if one agrees with most wishes that these -isms propose to fulfil. (and now one should not say that everyone should be sceptical, because that will turn into another -ism.)

2. A divided planet
In a lazy intellectual divide (because you must divide) people on the planet earth were divided as either 'left wing',  'right wing' or 'fence sitters'. Right wingers were assholes who benefited from the status quo and prevailing inequality. They rationalised every injustice as long as it served them. and they rallied against any action that served 'the others'. Their identity was defined in opposition to 'other' people. The other could be anyone - other gender, people with other opinions/ beliefs, other nationality (nation was an artificial concept created by marauding savages from Europe who colonised much of the globe. the defining feature of which was geographical reach - ('property!' - the idea of which made them drool and froth at their mouth.) and so on. So essentially any person with divergent view about anything could potentially be the other.

The left wing were idiots who dreamt of equality for all human beings. They weren't idiots for dreaming that. They were idiots because they often lost the meaning of equality in search of equality. The master day dreamers that they were, they constructed artificial intellectual edifices, the weight of which bore them down often enough.

The fence sitters were the most sane of the lot.

But today, we will talk about the right wingers. partly because they are such amusing creatures, partly because they were just too fucking loud. and sentient being that I am, I must react to their loudness.

3. Delusions of right wingers
'Right wing' people were bipeds from planet earth who tended to identify themselves strongly with regressive and often fictitious characters and beliefs that were invented to maintain status quo. You would most often find them in the privileged sections of the society,  though often they were blind to their privileges. 

Spotting a right winger:
Their defining traits were,
1. They never tried to improve themselves. the only strategy they knew was to bring the other person down. 
2. They could never articulate a straight answer. Their thoughts are like those little bubbles that try to escape your probing touch. Their thoughts are forever trying to escape reason.
3. They believed in past glories because they needed to believe in them. if they didn't, their identity shattered. They were highly invested in manufactured beliefs and myths. They 'belonged' not to the present day and moment. They forever 'belonged to manufactured narrative of ancient glories.
4. If one was to confront them with a difficult question, one gets to see how a person suppresses consciousness (ego) with the id. Their expressions tell you - "don't you dare disrupt my daydream". They are like little children who refuse to get out of the blanket for fear of unknown monsters. Their daydreams are the blankets that they forever carry over their brains.
5. They refuse to acknowledge individuals. In the convenient narrative that they believe in, there are heroes and villains. A 'they' that is unfeeling, unyielding out to get them.
6. In their imagined narratives, they are forever the victims even when they are obviously more powerful. The weaker section is always portrayed as villain out to get them. This was a cognitive trick to hide their guilt - hide from their identities the sins they committed.
7. They had ears. But seldom could they listen. 
Unless someone was singing paeans to them. (even if false) A saffron coloured filter resting in their ears filtered out words that did not contribute positively to their identity.  
8. They were quick to get offended. identity for them was sacrosanct. Any slight to their imagined wonderland or their chair or their self or their anything could short circuit their brains (Steam engine). 

4. Strategy to engage with them

Facts and rationality are lost on right wing bipeds. Steam for the steam engine. However if you must engage with them,  Mask the conversation as their idea_ an exceptionally brilliant idea from the fertile mind of the biped. Mask newness in the garb of old.  Say that a new idea is actually inspired from a proud practise of their ancestors.  Or frame it as an issue that can only be rescued by right wingers like them. Or if you have patience,  talk with them long enough.  No body can be that hopeless. 


Strider said…
i am afraid the strategy of engagement needs vast expansion. the encounters of the right wing kind are happening more often.
I started to think about thinking... How far and wide should one think? must one think?
limited to immediate survival and needs and itches? right off the spinal chord?
my family and extension and their well being. for now? for ever?
my country, my language, my race, my kind...
what does one include in the equation which is to be optimized? what CAN one?
Ajinkya said…
I agree. this strategy is not strategy at all. its merely wishful thinking at best.
I think one should think as wide as the distance between the left stretched out hand's middle finger's nail to the nail of the middle finger of the stretched out right hand. no more. no less.
but on a serious note.. i am guessing you mean 'responsible behaviour towards' when you say 'think'. because, idle think is.. well.. irrelevant. or a blog.
in which case, the responsible behaviour should be towards whoever we get in touch with. eternally responsible.

the equation is really simple. kindness and open ears towards anyone who we happen to come across.

why worry about reaching out, when the world comes to us.

on a different note... there was this study with chims. how far we can care about. apparently, our limit is around 150 individuals comprising of relatives, friends and so on.
Strider said…
by "think" i mean the calculations (not necessarily numerical) that one performs before acting. The actions can be as internal as choosing to believe in a certain thing or as external as literally taking it in ones hands to do what is right (as perceived by one). I don't believe any thought is idle. Its passive or active may be. But even passive thoughts are the reflections/ vents for your actions convictions. And hence something that one should keep an eye on to self diagnose.
some people take their thinking to the level of thought experiments and philosophical/ literal musings. some peoples thoughts are filled with what or if would they eat tomorrow. and a range of individuals on each point connecting these two extremes.
may be the first kind is what you call idle? but don't you think that those are the individuals who act as the conduit between the real world and the world of platonic ideals? there is of course a portion who think they think high but its only a screen saver. may be thats the idle thought you talk of?
you consistently advocate for a egalitarian approach about life that everyone should have. you mean it i know and its admirable. and its perhaps the cynic in me who consistently keeps wondering about how much of that is really possible. is there anything that suggests that we, as a whole, are capable of such wide spread empathy?
Ajinkya said…
agree with you.
passive thought is certainly important. i have devoted my life to it, now that i think about it.

I don't think we can be actively 'empathetic' to a large extent. by which i mean, actively trying to feel and comprehend other's lives and doing something to make it better.

But that doesn't mean that a non empathetic self can't act in a positive way for a large number of people.

the variables are different. there are two different equations at play i think.

empathy - internal thought structure

kind acts - external positive effect

the two are only related so long as the first initiates the second.

the second can also come from culture, from habit, from ennui or even misplaced intentions.

Popular posts from this blog

Why I repair my shoe

I have 3 shoes. One formal, One sport shoe and another a mix of the two. The last one is particularly awesome, cause of its uniqueness. It looks like a formal shoe, but is as comfortable and flexible as a sport shoe. I bought it for my first job in Mumbai. I was newly rich and was expected to behave like one. I found this gem of pure black leather in a Colaba Causeway showroom. Quite a find. But its been almost two years now and the shoe shows its age. For all its awesomeness, its quite a weak shoe, to give out so early. I have stitched it, got new laces, and strengthened its sole. It doesn't look shiny anymore cause the leather has suffered from a few hostile trespasses. I think, like a man, things too should be allowed to carry their scars. Shiny scar-less men are just so... irrelevant. 

Since childhood, I have been used to using things for long times. Clothes, equipments, shoes etc. I can't just throw things away cause they don't look as good anymore or they don't w…

Walk about - II

I have been living in Gurgaon for the last 5 years. 5 years! in Gurgaon! I never thought I would end up staying this long here. In my head, it always was just a transit camp - to earn money to fund travel to Himalayas, come back and refill, go back and chill.. repeat until one figures out a way to break out of the cycle.
For the first 2 odd years that reflected in my lifestyle - My house was small and barely functional, a temporary base camp to return to 'home' in the hills. That 'home' was among strangers in the farthest corners and alleys of small villages in the hills. The home was not peopled really. It had no walls. It was the crisp cool air of the hills, the majesty of Himalaya, the clarity of sun's rays, the hot vapours rising from the ginger tea and the never ending walks in the forests, up the hills, down the valleys and through gullies and alleys of small villages and towns. When I was alone, that's what home was for me: A living breathing intimate …

Reading India through 'Dictator's handbook'

What's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?
The book says, not much. India, agrees. Current political dispensation especially agrees vigorously.

"Soma" of hindutva and past glory + divided impoverished amnesiac masses + legitimised attack on individual rights + tremendous wealth shared among few = brave new world of oligarchical India.

Essentially, democracies/ dictatorships etc., are simply variants of the same power dynamic between the ruler, essentials, influentials and inter-changeables.

Interchangeables are the nominal selectorate - the individual voters who have nominal (or cosmetic) power to choose leader - most of us.
Influentials  are the real selectorate - the guys who really choose the leader. In US recently, the electoral college famously went against the popular vote and elected a clown as their president instead. In India, theoretically, the system is a bit better in terms of a wider base of influentials - it could be religious gurus, party…