Well I don’t know about typically, but I understand your sentiment.
arthur lecuyer
32

Well…I like diverse brilliant minds, and such minds, I think resist categorization. Was Tesla a “rightist” or a “leftist?” These labels vastly simplify a set of extraordinarily complex mental processes, which ultimately result in some mastermind dividing and conquering people by placing them into these idiotic neat little categories. I recognize that my beliefs are going to cause people who love these labels and categories (and that is a rightist thing) to call me a “leftist” or “liberal” or “progressive” or in Svetlana Voreskova case, a freaking Marxist.

And it doesn’t matter how many times I tell you, that’s not what I am, and that none of my ideas or philosophies will fit into any of your neat little labels that you so love and desperately need to make sense of the reality YOU have constructed, you ignore that and persist in putting me into a category you think you understand. I get to a point where I don’t even resist the labels you determinedly throw upon me, because in truth my thought processes are close to what you call “liberal” — which simply means free. Free or learned; and you would have me believing that’s a bad thing? Because I should want to be imprisoned and stupid? It may sound ridiculous, but I am well aware that there are billions of people who love their self-imposed prisons that they stupidly cling to. They get off on the limitations. No group of individuals seems to get more of a rush from this than those who label themselves as “conservative.” Yeah, and that’s fine, that’s not me, though.

And this is not to say that people who label themselves as “liberal” don’t do all of these same things…they can, And often do lock themselves down into a set of ideologies that turn into prisons. I just think they are less likely to do this than conservatives. Like I said, conservatives are easy to manipulate because their thinking is so rigid.

Here is an example of what I mean…suppose you are dealing with a mastermind, someone who makes their way through the world by manipulating the minds of other people. Ever come face to face with such an individual? I have, on more than one occasion. These people can be hard to spot, as they can be really charming. But if you deal with them on a consistent basis, you’ll see the patterns. They learn how to manipulate people by intimidating them, playing upon their fears, but in order to do this they need to get inside of their minds and figure out what buttons to push. When you’re a conservative, the buttons are obvious. These masterminds know exactly which buttons to push, and how and why and when.

But take me. Do I have buttons? Of course I do! Everyone has them, but mine are not necessarily obvious or easy to understand. People who hit my buttons usually do it by mistake — and my responses are also unpredictable and erratic. What hits a button one day, will not touch it the next. And so when controlling people is your objective, a mind that works like mine is a moving target. I frustrate the hell out of the masterminds. But these types love conservatives. The use them as pawns, toys.

Anyway.

Here’s what I clearly understand that so many of my fellow humans fail to understand — my mind is mine. It doesn’t belong to anyone else. It is a universe, unto itself and it is very, very powerful. It resists idiotic infiltrations. It doesn’t fit into any neat little category. While doing that, brings comfort to you and Svetlana, it largely means nothing to me. So I say all of that, to this, a brilliant, black “conservative” economist? Sure, I will check him out.

You’re not talking about the African women are you? I can’t remember her name, it she’s internationally known. She’s a champion of China’s economic model, which says to hell with human rights or the health of the planet — definitely “conservative”views. And yet, I do recognize the validity of many of her points, and I could see how someone coming from a third world country, besieged with all sorts of corruption, could arrive at her sort of conclusions about economic development and wealth creation.

But, in the end, I think her thinking is far too limited. We don’t have to always limit our thinking to what is or what has been — especially not now. These days, that type of thinking is ridiculously idiotic. We have to think about what will be…and if you can’t do that, you’re never going to make it. There is no space for you in a future that moves faster than the speed of light, and its futile to cling to a past that is collapsing.