No RISK No FUN

Hmm ... quite some time has passed, since last I wrote of how our cognitive models define our Worldview and thus how we behave - like per what options we see. And that's also why words and their definitions shift and change - are contended over and get invented, forgotten and re-invented. And such.

I mean - ideas such as "can't we just get along?" or "can't we just make sense of economy/how we trade?" eventually grow into concepts such as socialism, but then someone else comes in to take the "can't we just get along?" thing to promote fascism perhaps.

How well an idea or concept can perform depends on how well it is, or can be, understood - and for that matter I suppose I may have to volunteer as to be some kind of Pawn in a game that is played. At least can we make it so - as I'll be further elaborating on.


The first thing we have to understand hereto, is the relationship between National Identity and National Leadership. Now, as the Beast of Fascism again rears its head - this has become more contemporary again - as, well, not too long ago we were effectively looking at a vastly different world. So were we previously much more inclined to think of some kind of common wealth that exists, although not entirely fair, as a shared thing between the nations. Pretty much all of the wealth we look at these days has come from that. Give or take. At least as the individual is concerned.
With the rise of fascism - that idea is effectively being revoked. As political power consolidates to prioritize their own, wars over resources are an apparent inevitability - and we may have to ask ourselves whether or not that's in our interest.

So, National Identity isn't much of a thing - here - in that it is merely a superficial or cultural thing when speaking of the common wealth - or an idea detrimental to our common wealth, as a consolidation of force that resists international cooperation while instead resorting to aggressive posturing.

National Leadership may in some sense be there to reflect the will of the people - as it were, as to either conduct itself in favor of cooperation or as an antagonist. But that isn't the game we play here. The game we play here is more akin to a game of Risk. Or Civilization. The fundamental idea is this: Any leader exists regardless of the will of their people - for as long as the respective social forces maintain the leader as such. Hereby leaders are individuals - and one fundamental "game" for these leaders is to maintain that their people want them to remain their leader.
Possibly re-enforcing that through systems of control.

This is however the nature of these "Personality Cults" - where through some manipulation of how the money flows, a military force can be maintained that can - similar to military occupation - maintain some sense of governance.

So is the matter of 'National Identity' hereby a tool of a 'National Leader', akin to how in Black and White and similar games the power of a God depends on the number of their Worshipers.


So is the problem with Democracy - that this isn't really a game that is being played. It worked out alright, but through a combination of crisis, manufactured or natural, enough ill will - so it seems - could be fueled to burn in support of fascistic leadership. Democracy is weak against this, because it inherently requires a competition of ideas to function - a mechanism that fails once the ideas put up for competition aren't debatable as per their supporters. While Democrats would so look to consolidate political motion by discourse, cooperation and agreements - Fascists will look to consolidate political motion by militancy.

Now, we can ... try to hack this game.

I mean - perhaps this game is by all means just a social construct. There is no game - as it were - but putting things into that framework gives us tools by which we can comprehensively interact with things in the abstract.

So do I volunteer as a Pawn. To be a leader in the abstract. I mean - between National Leader and National Identity, the National Identity is just an abstract to serve the Leader. But that's no requisite. We could also have National Identity be globalistic - and have a leader that's just in the Abstract.


Food for thought