Dhyana - An Emptying Out

An artistic break among the chaos..

The "Right-Wing Populist" Grift

I've been thinking lately about how fixating on “left” versus “right” is doing us all a disservice. These labels split us up on a huge number of issues where we agree on far more than we're traditionally told.

Overusing these labels turns politics into a team game. Elites and the media love to propagate the team games, often reducing things to cartoonish caricatures of “left” and “right.” While real talk about what truly matters, what is truly valuable for a nation or the world gets tossed aside. Suddenly it’s all about cheering for your team - a social construct - no matter what you actually believe or what the values at play truly are. Instead of genuine debate or discussing what's truly valuable, it becomes a game of shouting extreme political stereotypes at your opponents and claiming victory. Values and truth be damned!

This would be entirely depressing if it were the only way forward. But there is another view of politics, more pragmatic and less focused on ideals. More focused on what's truly valuable and what can actually be achieved. Populism it's called. Populism, a term created by farmers and common folks tired of being exploited by elites in the late 19th Century. Populism isn't about political calculations or manipulation. It's not about left or right, but instead it's a pragmatic viewpoint focused on finding what most common folks intellectually agree is best, and doing that.

Unfortunately, in today’s global political climate, where socially powerful elites dominate the conversation, finding that common ground or what folks think outside of elites is rare. This isn’t an accident. Stagnation and division serves the socially powerful as it ensures their rule is never challenged. In fact elites have also created and fostered the caricatures of either side of politics ensuring that a true intellectual renaissance of common man populism can never occur. 

Currently, the left sees itself as aligned with 'The Intellectuals' - elite academics and experts who claim to have a monopoly on truth. This fuels their moral superiority, allowing them to feel justified in dismissing not only figures like Trump but importantly, his supporters anti-elitist values too. In response, the right has framed itself as the challenger to this kind of elitism, taking on these elites who have at times made disastrous decisions in their own favor at the expense of the common man. But in doing so, figures like Trump have fueled a culture of conspiracy and anti-intellectualism in response, tapping into deep frustrations with the establishment.

The current political system then, while elite controlled, keeps us divided, so that we never come together and intellectually discover and act on our shared values. In line with this; at every turn since Populism's inception - the powerful on the social level have successfully sought to keep the general populations understanding of what exactly it is - blurred and confused. Just about every caricature known of the populists now is the opposite of what it was.

Racist? They occasionally fought and died along side their fellow blacks for their equal rights
Sexist? They had women in lead roles.
Anti-Intellectual Unthinking Mob? They often celebrated intellectual achievements and started as a movement using books and intellectual discussion to determine why they were getting screwed.
Authoritarian? They mostly made decisions as a collective and never really had any strong-man type leaders.

Thomas Frank writes about this campaign of the populists and their anti-populist elite opposition in his excellent book titled 'The People, NO'. Without knowing about this superior alternative though, folks can be and have been easily manipulated.

Enter Steve Bannon. Unlike Trump who all too often does and says things to contradict his 'populist' label (and is never called out for them by an uncaring elite media) his former political advisor Steve, in some ways, makes a stronger case to be labelled a populist. For example in a recent interview(above) he calls himself a 'neo-brandeisian'. This tag is in reference to the original populist lawyer named Louis Brandeis who is quoted as famously saying:

We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.

And

“Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

In the video above Bannon also speaks highly of former FTC chair Lina Khan who was one of the only few bright spots in a relatively lackluster Biden administration.

Finally, like the original populists, Bannon has argued that elites care little for international borders or the rule of law and undermine local workers by importing cheap labor from overseas. Importing cheap labor, neglecting rights and hurting not just the immigrants but the common folk is an immoral placing of social level power above the Human Rights of the workers. Indeed, Bannon takes this critique further and also notes that by undermining a culture through mass immigration, elites are able to undermine a sense of national identity fostering chaos and enabling further exploitation.

If this was all there was to Steve Bannon's "populism" then, that would be the end of it, we could rightly call him a populist and go home. Except unfortunately it isn't.

Nathan J. Robinson recently on Twitter points out some of the issue with his "populism". In the same way the Democrats latest elite supporting chair argues that there are 'Good and Bad Billionaires' - so too does Bannon. In his arguments for Trump and Musk, Bannon makes dubious claims as to why these Billionaires he deems as good, are at least somewhat immune from corruption:

'Trump doesn't have an elitist mentality' Bannon argues 'because he is a self made Billionaire'. 'Trump isn't an elitist.. he's an outsider'. After some thin prodding Bannon's arguments become even less strong when asked about Trump's elite Billionaire supporters: 'All of Trumps billionaire friends aren't elites, they support Trump!'.

So with Bannon's rose colored glasses, he believes that simply because Trump is self-made(he isn't) he will always have the nations best interests at heart(he doesn't). It takes very little scrutiny of Trump's actions, and especially of Musk's recent actions to see they clearly do not have the nations best interests at heart.

To point out an easy one - look at their (currently underway) dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This Department costs 1 Billion dollars a year and has done far more good in protecting consumers against powerful elite run corporations than just about anything else. It's returned over 20 Billion to consumers through law enforcement over the last 10 years and protected Americans from further exploitation. Exploitation such as Facebook's recent attempt at becoming its own bank and creating money for itself and becoming an even greater undemocratic power in America and the world.

With this in mind then, it's somewhat of an irony that in 'religious' America the sins of greed, lust and power can be so easily dismissed by the likes of Bannon. The idea that if someone is rich enough or they are 'self-made', they no longer lust for more and will always have others best interests at heart is simply asinine. For the great majority of Billionaire's accumulated their wealth at least partly because they lusted for further power and their greed knew few bounds.

This understanding though is best summed up through the language of the Metaphysics of Quality(MOQ). Because those who understand the MOQ, understand that the conflict between social values and intellectual values is still ongoing. And at this moment, it's most profoundly being undermined with the aid of an amoral metaphysics at the hands of the socially powerful like Bannon, Trump and Musk.

Bannon has done more than anyone before him to muddy the waters between populism and elitism. By rolling out the red carpet for elites in his so-called “right-wing populist” movement and hyping up figures like Musk, he’s made it clear—this isn’t real populism. It’s a sham, a vehicle for grift, deception, and the erosion of anything truly valuable. Rather than being a movement about widespread intellectual enlightenment and a celebration of intellectual values - it's encouraged conspiracy and limited critical thought.

Like past anti-populists, Bannon has warped the meaning of the term, giving the elite media even more ammo to do the same. The result? The powerful have successfully misled everyday people about what genuine populism is—and what real change could look like.

When we begin to look at the reasons why Bannon might be deceptive in undermining the intellectual value of populism in this way there are a few that can be given.

1. He can fundraise off true populist outrage.
2. He can keep framing himself as an outsider despite having wealthy backers like the Billionaire Mercers.
3. He actually prefers social level strong-man authoritarians rather than true populist common-man movements as evidenced by his working with 'soft' dictator Viktor Orban, and praise of Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinping.

Notably each of these reasons is about social level power. Either increasing his own, or admiring that of others. This is the opposite of what the populists were fighting for. Valuing social level power at the neglect of the intellectual value of fairness and the Dynamic Morality that can arise from that equal opportunity is wholly immoral.

There is far too much extreme inequality in America right now. Social level power drowning out the people in being able to choose what is intellectually right is immoral. There is a better way and the MOQ eloquently shows it to us.

Metaphysics & Racism : A Better Way.

Yesterday I wrote about the above video in the context of the role Subject-Object Metaphysics(SOM) plays in undermining intelligent discourse in our media. Between a President and a media personality who both have the same ideological assumptions and are cheering on the same things. All while they do this with little to no intellectual scrutiny and little to no championing of intellectual values.

Today I'll write about this same video and the role identity politics plays in explaining Trump's racist policies.

Because identity politics has a way of splitting people up who have so much more in common regardless of their race. When we fixate on race, gender, or other biological markers, we miss the deeper layers that truly define us. We’re not just a collection of physical traits—we’re a blend of culture, experience, and shared values. And while an amoral Subject-Object approach neatly boxes us into racial categories and acknowledges their existence, it also undermines the increased freedom found in cultural values and leaves our cultural richness in the dust. That’s why the Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) feels like such a breath of fresh air; it appreciates the nuances of life and emphasizes the importance of culture and our freedom to be who we wish.

By reducing us to our biology, SOM based identity politics creates more conflict than connection. Instead of uniting people around common interests and shared struggles, it enables the socially powerful to pit us against one another based on superficial differences. This narrow focus not only drives wedges between folks of the same class but also pushes racial conflicts to the extreme. The more we emphasize fixed identities, the more we enable an elitist conservative narrative that uses these divisions to bolster racist policies. When our identity is defined solely by what’s immediately visible, we give license to reactionary ideas that thrive on exclusion and segregation.

For those of us who embrace the MOQ perspective though, it’s clear that true quality—whether in art, culture, or moral judgment—transcends the limited view of Subject-Object metaphysics. Culture isn’t a subset of biology; it’s beyond the rules of biology. It's the glue that holds communities together and is the combination of social and intellectual quality. As such we have far more freedom to be who wish than our biological identities reflect. When identity politics insists on reducing us to static, isolated biological categories, it strips away the layers that protect our shared values, and undermines the freedom at the heart of human experience.

After more than a decade of watching this ideology unfold, it’s become all too obvious that a conservative reaction to and interpretation of identity politics was almost inevitable. Leaders like Trump and Musk—seem to emerge from a system that only knows how to talk about folks in racial categories and undermine not just our shared culture but the freedom that we all have to be better people.

The real issue then isn’t just the fight for recognition or equality as identity politics insists—it’s the way we frame that fight. If we continue to define ourselves by narrow, rigid biological identities, we deepen the divides that uber-conservative policies exploit. What we need is a broader perspective—one that celebrates the full, multifaceted nature of who we are both as individuals and as a culture. By shifting our focus from mere biological categorization to the quality of our culture, we can foster a culture that values connection over division and depth over surface-level labels.

In the end then, identity politics, as it’s commonly practiced, does little to challenge the very power structures it claims to oppose. Instead, it often reinforces them, paving the way for policies and leaders that further entrench division. Embracing an MOQ approach means recognizing that our identities are a tapestry woven from far more than our physical attributes—they’re built from the freedom to be who we wish, the quality of our relationships, our shared stories, and the enduring values that bind us together.

In short, the MOQ takes us to a better way.

Metaphysics & Media : A Better Way.

This video is comical if not entirely depressing. Zero facts, zero reality, just folks role playing what they 'feel' is right and most of the country just watching along, aghast, while others cheer it celebrating.

The media—on both sides—has gotten so caught up in social-level power games for so long, that any real pursuit of intellectual values and the common values which underlie them get entirely sidelined. Instead, it’s far too easy to accuse the other side of corruption and ignore our own blind spots. Few voices in American media seem truly dedicated to preserving uncorrupted intellectual values, regardless of the side championing falsehoods.

For those of us who value the Metaphysics of Quality, it’s all too clear that sticking to a strictly subject–object viewpoint too easily shuts out the nuanced role values at play in our understanding of culture and truth. Our perspectives aren’t shaped in a vacuum; they grow out of what we each hold important. And if we can see that, and help our culture see that, we might have a shot at bridging the so-called “great divide” between left and right. Between one media saying one thing, and the other saying something else entirely, it would be nice if folks could begin to acknowledge their own values, the values of others, and then begin to find common ground. Yet instead of that, we’re stuck in a race to the bottom, where even the simplest facts are often dismissed if they don’t align with whichever “side” someone happens to be on, and discussions quickly end.

There’s something profoundly frustrating about all this of course, because deep down, I think most people sense that we’re missing a better approach. An approach that acknowledges how values filter into every corner of our worldview. Rather than continuing to dig trenches, if we can recognize how all these values coexist we can start to find common ground and not simply get stuck in our bubbles. It doesn’t have to be about giving up what we believe or pretending our differences don’t exist. It just means working toward understanding how each person’s values shapes their sense of “right” or “true.” With that, folks can begin to acknowledge the values of the other side as being important, especially intellectual values, and true cultural progress can be made.

Sadly, that’s not what’s happening now, and especially here in this video. But our current situation hasn't come out of nowhere. It's the result of decades of social level corruption of intellectual values. Of an elitist social level power making decisions in the name of the common man, and the dismissal of the importance of an informed people and the intellectual values they help to protect. With this elitist attitude towards the intellectual values of the common man - cynicism among the people has grown and an appreciation of common values we all have has been thrown out the window.

So this is where we are. On full display in this video. It's now just about pure team playing. With social level power using our current amoral metaphysics to keep folks divided, to ignore intellectual values, and fight one another. Intellectual Morality, Dynamic Morality be damned.

It's time for a better way.

Rejection.

I have a confession.

For the great majority of good things in my life - I rejected them when I first heard about or saw or heard them.

Everything from my favorite author - to my favorite movie - Gattaca - a now to one my favorite songs - 'You can do it' by CARIBOU.  At first - when I heard this song I found it too repetitive and far too simplistic for my ears. It's the type of song to get on ones nerves if heard in the wrong way or wrong context.  But now much later.. having needed the occasional push of encouragement - it's one of the few songs that comes to mind when I need it.  

Its repetitive drive, its pattern, really gets me going and into a more positive mood..

Maybe you will like it - maybe you will hate it like I did when I first heard it. But either way it's fascinating how our opinions of Art can change over time.  And for me at least, it's usually those things which challenge me the most, which I'm likely to reject outright, but which are actually the best things going around.

To fully appreciate these things - I have to grow.  Oftentimes that growth isn't done intentionally.  I don't intentionally think about liking something - and very often things are rejected which, for good reasons, are bad anyway.  But sometimes things aren't so easily rejected. And in an effort to understand them - to appreciate them - sometimes I end up running out of reasons to dislike them.  In the process of understanding them, in the process of putting them in their own unique context, I realise that I can really just appreate them for what they are.   And sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes, those things first rejected, but which took an extra long time to appreciate, are the best things going around.

To understand required growth. And in that growth was the Quality that was there all along.