David

David

Melbourne

After failing high school - disillusioned with the meaning of life - David drifted until he was introduced to the Metaphysics of Quality. He now spends his time using it to make things better!

David
WAR - The Final Stage of Social Level Power Control

audio-thumbnail
WAR - The Final Stage of Social Level Power Control (Audio)
0:00
/329.862676

I first came across Dennis Kucinich when he ran for president in 2004. He stood out as someone whose policy ideas I mostly agreed with - especially his unique proposal for a Department of Peace. It was a proposed cabinet-level office devoted to projecting some of America’s best values into the world: democracy, justice, human rights and peace.

The vision of a department promoting peace was simple but profound: a world where countries appreciated their uniqueness and worked to resolve disagreements democratically and peacefully.

The idea wasn’t unique to Kucinich; it went all the way back to Benjamin Rush, one of the Founders, who dreamed of a Peace Office to balance the War Office. But Kucinich made this old idea feel alive again. One that wasn't merely tied to religion as Rush had done.

Recently too, Kucinich received some recognition for that advocacy; The Washington Post credited him as a kind of Bernie Sanders before Bernie was on the national stage. Knowing about this proposal - albeit long distance aspirational - gave me hope that America could still be guided by important intellectual values that promote Human Rights.

But now President Trump along with Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has almost completely undercut any progress Kucinich made in this more peaceful direction. America hasn't just stalled or slipped backward in theory - she's gone sharply in the opposite immoral direction.

Hegseth - with Trumps direction - has sought to symbolically rename the Department of Defence back to the Department of War. At first glance, it may seem like a small and symbolic change in rhetoric. But rhetoric from an administration with real power is never merely symbolic. It carries weight. It shapes how America or the administration acts, and how the world understands those actions.

Because why do people want to attack America? Hegseth and Trump probably think the answer is simple: “They’re evil”.

But evil doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Something produces it. And if something produces it, maybe it can be stopped - not only with weapons, but also with prevention rooted in thought, morality, and understanding. In times the threat is real, there are also far more humane ways to respond - by capturing and providing people their habeas corpus rights rather than extra-judicially taking their lives. Under the law even, lethality is only ever an absolute last resort.

All this concern with legality or defending America, though, is now out the window. In its place, a new moral framework is taking shape - one where intellectual morality no longer guides social values. Instead, raw social-level power becomes the standard. This shift doesn’t just abandon defence - it replaces it with a philosophy that prizes dominance over principle.

This renaming of “Defence” to “War” celebrates this grotesque direction. It signals that the Trump administration appears to no longer want to protect through principle or restraint, but to project force with little regard for law, human rights, or deeper moral reasoning.

This is more than a change in rhetoric then - it’s a philosophical shift. It shows America stepping deeper into an unthinking embrace of social-level control. And the more that control spreads, the more intellectual morality withers. As intellectual morality withers - the social level gains further dominance seeking more power through unthinking force. The greed of social level power knows no bounds.

A war state is the final stage of this social level driven transformation - seeking power and dominance no matter the immoral cost - and America is increasingly becoming just that. Intellectual Morality be damned.

On days like today, it’s hard to be hopeful for the moral trajectory of the world. I worry deeply about what the next few years of this administration will bring. But I still hope that America’s laws and judicial system - designed to protect intellectual morality - will withstand the continual attacks from a President very clearly driven by a very different set of lower values.

If only folks knew of a better metaphysics - a better way - maybe then things could or would be different. With a strong and intellectually grounded moral compass, America could look not to a Department of War, but to a Department of Peace - much like Kucinich proposed years ago - and celebrate a very different set of higher morals.

While we watch aghast - it is the profound potential of this moral philosophy that provides hope.

David

audio-thumbnail
Superman - The Populist Hero We Needed (Audio)
0:00
/901.093878

Apologies to readers :: This post has been updated both in terms of Superman history and a far more accurate understanding of the film Man of Steel. The update was inspired by an excellent video essay of Zach Snyder's entire filmography(including good things about his work which I agree with) by Patrick Willems which made clear the mythological aspects of the film that I'd neglected.

Superman was the first ever comic book superhero. Looking to communicate moral concerns beyond religion, the comic combined ancient myths and modern moral issues. Ever since then superhero comics - and their cartoon and live action adaptations - have provided readers and viewers moral guides for navigating the world; something mostly neglected by our current amoral metaphysics.

The comic was created towards the end of the Great Depression and with the tides of Fascism and Communism in the air. Superman was created as a democratic symbol of hope, anti-elitism, and a champion of the oppressed. He defended the poor from greedy landlords, workers from abusive employers, victims of domestic violence from the violent, and the wrongfully accused from their accusers. And he didn’t stop with cases where there were always clear victims; he also tackled systemic injustice by going after corrupt politicians and war profiteers.

The protagonist wasn’t just Superman either, he was Clark Kent, a newspaper reporter who, in true populist style, wholly appreciated the importance of intellectual values. Finding the truth and acting on it in the name of his version of justice and fairness - these were the values of Superman.

In a world full of corruption and desperation, Superman gave hope to the poor who had been on the bad end of the s%$t stick for too long. They could look to him as an example of someone demonstrating how to live in the less-than-fair world around them. They might not be able to do all that he could, breaking laws to get his way, but Superman's brand of justice and protecting the weak were values worth living. This Golden Age Superman - rebellious, morally driven, and politically charged - quickly became a pop culture icon.

Then, after American success in World War 2 and the beginning of the Cold War - a new Silver Age Superman morphed into something different. He became the flying, super-intelligent, super-powerful Superman we see today. This transformation occurred not as a result of a drop in popularity, as throughout the 40s and 50s he was one of the most popular comic characters, but due to a post-war conservative cultural movement. A movement of change that was driven by the post war Red Scare and the anti-subversion atmosphere that came with it.

Where Superman was previously populist, rebellious and carried out his own version of vigilante justice - he now needed to appear safe, loyal and patriotic. So by order of a newly created Comics Code he was reshaped. Moral ambiguity and law-breaking were out - American values of lawfulness, restraint and a perfect morality where he vowed against killing were in.

This shift in Superman’s moral character wasn’t limited to his behaviour either - it extended to the nature of the threats he faced too. They became far more fantastical rather than represent any kind of systemic injustice. Aliens, robots, and science fiction villains were the new while the problems of elitism and class based injustice were the old and no longer used.

After this second Silver Age version of Superman - the comic has waxed and waned between being the vigilante populist hero he once was and the picture of moral perfection fighting aliens and science fiction villains he was forced into being. Bronze Age Superman from around the 70s to the mid 80s, for example, appeared to be a somewhat harmonious amalgamation of the two where writers re-incorporated some populist elements but kept his style of justice on the side of the Law.

Bringing us back to the version of Superman in popular consciousness today - with Lex Luthor as his arch enemy - Lex no longer fully embodies those same Golden Era populist concerns of systemic injustice. But the populist parallels, even with the single Billionaire Lex, are clear.

So in amongst this conflict between the era's of the different versions of Superman and what he is to represent we've had the backdrop of rising inequality over the last four decades and the increasing elite control that goes with it. Indeed while things aren’t quite as desperate as they were when Golden Age Superman was created, America now has the highest levels of inequality and the elites more power than ever before.

As if matching that inequality, a sense of cynical and overly-intellectual hopelessness has infected modern culture for decades. And who can blame folks? Elites have cynically used our modern ‘amoral’ Subject-Object Metaphysics to hide all sorts of immoral behaviour under the language of objectivity. From immoral wars, to economic exploitation, to the corruption and millions of lives taken in healthcare, to the gutting of news laws and the resulting media manipulation, to the weakening of environmental protections and the delay of further action on climate change - the list just goes on and on.

And right there all along, helping them along the way, has been our current metaphysics, which encourages individualistic, ‘scientific’, subject-object thinking and denies and undermines the existence of morality at every turn. Indeed, science has been so successful - who can question the importance of this amoral objectivity?

Embraced by folks who see the power of science; this amoral yet individualistic intellectual attitude has become an increasingly large part of our shared culture. An attitude which views concerns about right and wrong with great intellectual skepticism at best, or naive and foolhardy at worst.

With this background - this brings us to the 2013 film Man of Steel. Following the lukewarm reception of 2006’s Superman Returns - the first Superman film since the Christopher Reeve era - the creators of Man of Steel saw an opportunity for change. Screenwriters David Goyer and Christopher Nolan aimed to ground Superman in realism, while Goyer and director Zack Snyder specifically hoped to emphasise moral ambiguity. Snyder further contributed to this grounded vision with his gritty yet stylised cinematography, marked by bold, powerful imagery.

To achieve this look Snyder used an aforementioned "Heightened Realism" film technique which makes every shot appear dull, overexposed, and cold. If someone were looking for a cold, calculated, and intellectual style of filming - away from the emotions and warmth that colour brings - then this would likely be it. Indeed, the intellectualism demonstrated in this film isn’t the warm, pragmatic style shown by Superman in the first comics. Instead it’s an intellectualism far more in line with our current individualistic Subject-Object Metaphysics - one which views doing good with great hesitation and skepticism and then requires reasons for doing so.

Throughout his childhood, Clark is told by his father to hide his powers - his full goodness - from the world for fear of the repercussions of folks knowing his power. It is only after witnessing an abundance of suffering, including the death of his own father, that Clark finally breaks free from this parentally imposed limitation and begins to act in line with what is right.

When Superman finally and openly confronts the villains, they are portrayed in a highly thematic and mythic way, reminiscent of the grand, otherworldly antagonists of the Silver Age comics. This Superman ultimately does the right thing - but this version is far from the idealised, unwaveringly noble hero of the Silver Age.

The culmination of the film is a choice Superman must make between the lives of innocent bystanders and his fellow Kryptonian who is threatening those bystanders - General Zod. In the end Superman takes the life of Zod and saves the bystanders but the film highlights that this choice isn't without great suffering. It is this choice that the creators wanted to highlight as a reason for Superman doing the right thing and having his 'no killing' clause.

This version of Superman isn't interested in Golden Era concerns of shining a light on moral injustice and standing up for the right things in populist fashion. Nor is it the Silver Age Superman of moral purity who is always on the right side of justice against science fiction style villains. Instead this version of Superman is morally unsure of himself and is overburdened by the consequences of the enormous power he holds. Indeed on a metaphysical level this Superman is struggling with goodness and morality so much that he even requires reasons to do it.

But Creator/director Zach Snyder was never interested in telling those old Silver Age stories and his knowledge of the Golden Era appears mostly lacking - instead by his own admission he was interested in the mythology and depicting larger, deeper mythological conflicts on screen. Particularly the physical consequences of Gods living among men and the awesome power they hold. As Snyder says:

"Yeah, I feel like a lot of people didn't want Superman to grow up. They want him to remain a simpler man from a simpler time. My philosophy is that these characters are cathartic, they're our mythology and they speak to modern problems - when we don't know how to deal with an issue we can superimpose those feelings of impotence on to them and let them solve unsolvable problems."

So in this Snyder version, the attention shifted away from the moral conflicts Superman was resolving, to existential moral uncertainty within Superman himself. While Snyder leans into the virtuous and mythological aspects of Superman, placing the character in a contemporary political and metaphysical framework - this resulted in a very different perhaps unintended message. Instead of affirming the existence of goodness, the film questions it mirroring a growing sense of moral despondency found throughout the world. And it does this all while entirely neglecting the elite concentrations of social level power that cause much of it.

Golden and Bronze Age Superman by contrast, knew what goodness was and is and acted on it in the name of Intellectual and Dynamic Morality as with the populists before them. These versions of Superman, supported by the Metaphysics of Quality, morally highlighted important moral conflicts within modern culture that were unaddressed by existing power structures and neglected by our current metaphysics.

Enter 2025’s Superman film and the reason why I’m writing this. Rather than simply call out a misguided film, I think it’s worthwhile if we also point to one that’s good. If Snyder’s Superman was cold and overly skeptical of doing good, this new James Gunn version is way more in line with Golden Age Superman and open and direct about doing good. Indeed in one scene Superman goes so far as to proudly declare that all he is doing is serving 'Good'. This is a colourful, warm, and pragmatic Superman who doesn’t lament the decisions he makes and is almost too self-assured that he always does the right thing.

But before I go into the detail of that quality, let me get five minor issues with the film out of the way.

Because it would have been better if:

  1. Lex Luthor had manipulated the people and divided them against each other - distracting them while he carried out his evil plan (more accurately reflecting real life).
  2. Clark’s real concerns were more about elite manipulation rather than his own identity (although both were rightly included).
  3. It further highlighted the intelligence of the reporters at the Daily Planet.
  4. The focus was more 'Golden Age' Superman style on the abuse of the common folk by many different elites (not just Lex) in many different ways.
  5. The other 'Silver Age' style superheroes were not included - I'm not hopeful for any sequels to highlight the right things from this point forward.

 

Now the good.

Since Man of Steel we have witnessed the rise of Marvel and superhero films taking over global consciousness. It can be hard to underestimate the impact these films have on our shared culture. So in these times of overt elite injustice, we have been crying out for a film of similar popularity which didn’t just shine a light on some of that injustice but also pointed to a better way.

Where Man of Steel‘s father told Clark to be cautious and skeptical about doing and being good, the 2025’s Jonathan Kent has no such hesitations. The fearful parenting style is gone and something quite different and better has taken its place. As his father says to him:

“Parents aren’t for telling their children who they’re supposed to be. We are here to give y’all tools to help you make fools of yourselves all on your own. Your choices, Clark, your actions… that’s what makes who you are.”

Which is about as strong a statement in favour of pragmatism and goodness, and away from the nihilistic mythology of Man of Steel as you could find.

Indeed, this film is ‘the Superman we needed’. This film:

  1. Rightly and proudly points out, in our modern often overly ‘individualistic’ culture, that caring is punk rock and people and things are beautiful and worth caring about.
  2. Quite directly calls out a few major villains in today’s world - something we haven’t seen in a blockbuster of this scale since Chaplin’s brilliant The Great Dictator.
  3. Provides a positive role model for young men to look up to - something that has been lacking on the screen for a long time. It provides something the rise of the ‘crisis of masculinity’ has been calling out for
  4. Demonstrates, through an excellent performance of Mr Terrific by Edi Gathegi, how it’s cool to use your intelligence for good - far better than for bad, as Lex does.
  5. Joins a growing trend of eschewing the Heightened Realism cinematographic style made popular by Christopher Nolan. Colours are finally coming back to blockbuster cinema films.

It's not often a piece of art that's culture changing is also popular. But that appears to be the case here - and for the better. So with Superman 2025's box office success - I say Rock On. 🤘

_video cultural-values intellectual-values social-values the-law
David
The Cage of an Amoral Metaphysics Over Art.

We have gone through a trend, lasting at least the last 20 years in cinema, of something referred to as "Heightened Realism". A preference for shots which look slightly dull, yet somewhat overexposed. The technique is often to take the natural light already existing in a shot and subtly increase it. A dull effect is not what one might expect from increasing light in a scene- yet because only the existing light is being raised, it ends up muting the subtlety of the colors that sit quietly in the frame.

The result is a feeling as though we are right there in the shot with the subject - yet entirely as passive observers. Or perhaps more precisely, we’re overlooking the scene in a cold, scientific, god-like manner. The sterility of the effect, and how it separates the audience from the emotional life of the scene, is perhaps the aspect of it which is most overwhelming.

It’s a cinematographic style that appears dull on the surface. It uses “natural” lighting, a certain graininess, and avoids any sense of creative risk in color grading or light design. It resists stylization in favor of something that pretends to be close to reality but is, in fact, just another aesthetic decision.

Christopher Nolan is perhaps the most famous for this style. And the “scientific observer” quality of his work goes beyond just the visuals. It extends to the sound - audiences have often complained they can’t hear actors speak their lines clearly, just as a distant observer might struggle to pick up speech from far away. The music, too, often follows the same formula: naturalistic, but pushed, exaggerated, heavy.

The key to note perhaps though is that this Heightened Realism is anything but real and is just another style. Beautiful yes, but just another style choice like every other.

To those of us who appreciate a better metaphysics though; the parallels between this kind of thinking and an amoral metaphysics - which denies any sort of human emotion or moral judgement - is obvious. We live in a scientific age, and one creatively trapped by the metaphysics that underpins it. A time where even audiences appear to prefer this kind of aesthetic. A time where science and the apparent necessity of its amoral metaphysics rule the day.

Perhaps this kind of judgement-free thinking is why superhero films have, until recently, dominated the box office. These are stories that allow the breaking of scientific laws - but only by very specific characters. Superheroes are entirely external to us, and even their powers must follow very specific rules for how they break the natural order. They are fanciful, yes - but absolutely everything else around them must remain grounded. Heaven forbid we cast judgement or break free from the self-imposed cage we’ve built.

What’s missed in this way of thinking though - is the simple fact that we exist - and our existence is value. There is nothing but value. Value judgements are just as real, if not more real, than the objects we observe. Even scientific rules begin to fall apart at the subatomic level, but yet we cling to this aesthetic of scientific realism, almost entirely driven by the material success it has brought us.

This cage of scientific-style art is one entirely of our own making. But the good news is—we can break out of it at any time. And we're starting to see the cracks.

Most directly, we can see it in the rise of anime among Gen Z. Anime deliberately shuns realism in favor of something entirely different. But another great example is the underrated yet great and brilliant film Speed Racer.

Dismissed by critics at the time of its release - some even called it “pop fascism” - Speed Racer embraces almost everything that runs counter to the Heightened Realism trend. Except maybe the Heightened part. "Heightened Un-realism" it could almost be called. Indeed Speed Racer is full of heightened color, heightened light, heightened playfulness, heightened emotion and it continually breaks the laws of science to the point where those laws are constantly bent always in service of the story itself. The result is just a great masterpiece of film - one co-incidentally also based on an anime. So now, nearly 20 years later, people are beginning to change their minds on this box office failure. Some are even calling it the most important film of the 21st Century.

But it's not all roses and perhaps this is why I'm writing this post.

Because the latest forthcoming Christopher Nolan film - The Odyssey - might perhaps be the most egregious usage of his Heightened Realism style yet. A film that will bring Nolan’s scientific realism to the Ancient Greeks - a culture that predates our current metaphysics entirely. The juxtaposition between our modern, emotionally detached aesthetic and how things actually were is likely going to be at an all-time high.

Except it won't just be a juxtaposition but a "heightened juxtaposition" if you will..

Nolan, famous for his realistic portrayal of the appearance of a black hole in the film Interstellar, is entirely shunning the experts on what the Ancient Greeks actually looked like or what they wore. Instead he will be pairing his Heightened Realism filmmaking style with entirely fanciful and false portrayals of their armor and dress.

Where modern portrayals often reduce the Ancient Greeks to something stoic, monotone, dominant, and hyper-masculine, they were, in fact, the opposite. They celebrated color and beauty in their clothing. They were emotionally complex, playful, poetic, and deeply involved in democratic dialogue - far from the dominance they are usually associated with today.

A dominance which, perhaps not coincidentally, is plainly visible when animals are observed scientifically. Indeed it is the same value-blind perspective that distorts both our understanding of our uniquely human behavior and the deep and rich fabric of Ancient Greek culture. Our current amoral metaphysics then doesn’t just undermine modern art—it also sustains and enables our misunderstanding of the Ancient Greeks themselves.

Regardless of that exacerbation though; with Nolan's portrayal there is the high likelihood that those who aren't familiar with the Ancient Greeks will be even further led to misunderstand them. The important difference between modern portrayals and how they actually were will be further undermined. While Nolan brings his 'realistic style' of cinema to them, the portrayal of the Ancient Greeks he's looking to show on screen will be anything but realistic.

Which brings us full circle - back to our current metaphysics. It masquerades as the “most real” way of seeing the world, insisting on a detached observer model that excludes value, judgment, and feeling. But in truth, experience itself is soaked in all of those things. Real experience is not neutral. It never was.

As always there’s a better way. The Metaphysics of Quality shows us that. And thankfully, we are starting to move - back toward art that affirms life and its rich tapestry of values and emotions, not merely observes it. And that's a Good thing.

David

An artistic break among the chaos..

dhyana _video code-of-art
David

An attack on true Populism and the Intellectual & Dynamic Morality it represents.

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.

_video cultural-values intellectual-values social-values the-law