The Why of the Whynot
It's not like they can't just run whenever they want. Have none of these people seen Forest Gump? When asked by the socialist media why he was running - for what PURPOSE it served - he said, simply, "I just felt like running."
And he did. He ran because it motivated him specifically, singularly. He ran because he wanted to run.
Ask any marathon runner why they run, and they'll tell you stories of how they want to prove they can do it. To prove that they are capable of doing something amazing. And let's face it, 26.2 miles when not being chased by zombies is a pretty amazing feat, but it comes back to the original question: If you wanted to prove you can run 26.2 miles, why didn't you just prove you can do it? WHY do you go to a specific location, with a million other people and run a sponsored event? What purpose does it serve?
The only answer is that they are communists.
I know, I know. I beat up on the communism thing. But let's face it, if people who join something really were as selfishly motivated to do the thing they are joining, they would just do it on their own. Perhaps they might look for inspiration from others that have done such a thing or look for training with someone that is doing the thing. But the down in the dirt, Forest Gump running, is done by the individual. Gump must run because Gump is running. Gump didn't join a club. Gump didn't get a license. Gump didn't have a number. Gump ran because Gump runs.
He is not motivated by rules. He doesn't care about the sponsors. He doesn't care about the ten thousand other people all waiting to prove that they can run the race too. What's more is that Gump wasn't even competing to prove anything. He was so pure that he didn't have to win. He didn't have to beat his own best time. He didn't worry about any construction of how society would see him. And yes, winning a race is a construction for it makes other people's opinions of the event have merit in the outcome of the event. "If a winner wins, and no one is there to see him win, does he really win?" You see the individual is lost in the 'winner' social merit because he's not even considered an observer of the event. He can't call himself a winner because he is not allowed to observe his own winning. Only society can deem him a winner. Invalidating his individualism. His own means of production is a tool for the merit of other people's opinion of reality. The winner agrees to be called a winner, agrees to be a puppet of other people's opinion of winning, just so that he can accept, as phony humble as possible, himself a winner.
The whole of the affair of such things is about showing off. It's the worst kind of selfishness because it's about standing in a crowd, on purpose, and then being able to point at the same group of people and accept their praise of him, because another group of people claims him praiseworthy. This is a metaphysics where the reality of self is irrelevant. This is an epistemology built by others that individuals are forced to accept as their methods of thinking. This is an ethics where the social norm is more valuable than the individual. Think about the infamous Tour De France winner Lance Armstrong, who was dethroned, because he chose to not play by the rules the socialists created for him to work within. He's been banned from competing in bicycle races ever again as if the race coordinators had such power to stop him. He tried to be an individual in a socialist played game, not realizing that the whole affair, even his idea of competing was all part of the social trap. If Lance wanted to stick it to them, he should just show up the week of the TDF and race anyway. Race without a number. Without a license. Without all the official paperwork. Just Race. But he won't, because he believes in all those social traps, in their power to regulate his actions and movements. And the media plays right into the trap of it all.
Today, it exists in things like Facebook. Where some group of communists gets the power to 'ban' you for a certain amount of time because they don't like what you have to say. The irony is that Facebook is not even a real thing, but an emotion, a metaphysics that even Hegel would scratch his head in confusion as to how it is taken seriously:
"Let me zee if I get this straight. A group of people writes letters, albeit electronic correspondence, and these communications, they make them a reality, by which they decide the fate of each other? That is crazy! Don't they understand that nothing is the reality?"
Yet, people let Facebook ban them and when the ban is over they come back to Facebook. It makes no sense. Who owns who? If the individual is banned, shouldn't the individual wish nothing more with an organization that feels it has such authority? Facebook is no more a social master than the organizers for a marathon are the end all of who can run. All of it is communism. A communism so deeply engrained in our method of learning that we agree to let it make us who we are and worse, allow it to tell us how to live our lives.
I'm sorry Mr. Gump, but you have been banned from zee running. Yours, your masters.
Comments
Post a Comment