>>318735>try defending an X and then talkSuch statements are born of multi-form of cowardice, foolishness and continuous escape from reality, that is to say abdication of one's own responsibility for it and its state of affairs.
Making a stunt towards any status quo load bearing power, institution, individual, etc in venue of "but look at the big bad X" is a logically correct statement, - and a wholly impotent one, because it is born of explicitly bad kind of fear, and does not have any counter-action behind it. It is not an opinion of a warrior that can face any presumed force any time any where, regardless of winning chances.
It is an abdication.
Such a choice, continuously taken by men and women alike, is what in part has if not created outright, then contributed to some problems of current human condition, and created the situation wherein some people aren't good at, well, living.
The government, of any type, be it monarchic, democratic, republic, etc and hybrids thereof of any kind imaginable, is an architecture that is constructed by certain people to certain ends. In older days, for instance, things were commanded by chieftains and nobility that commanded their own military forces, in tribes and military democracies.
Those men, being direct power wielders by their own merit that allowed them to amass it or be born into it had, usually, a vested interest in maintaining their environment in certain way.
The further you go back, the more tribal it becomes, and the more directly mature, if harshly given the times, those people were. But they were fully responsible for their lives, and were very much not out of touch with reality.
The key idea here is that those people had interests, and were fighting for them. Ambitions, agency. They were, effectively, the singular members of the very society they were building with their own will and outlooks.
Bloodlines, too, naturally.
As power conflicts and systems evolve, as feudalism came into being and then progressed, the power from individual nobility became integrated into the states and dissolved, all the while throughout it all the finances were growing, until they became the banks, bourgeoisie, etc.
Eventually the power dynamics, social pressures, conflicting interests and personal ambitions have started to make people more sophisticated, while at the same time other interests, intentionally or as a side product, have optimized their plebs with increasingly greater sophistication into work force, resources and so on, for any reasons, ideals and ambitions imaginable.
Naturally that includes the purposes of governmental apparatuses.
Between the fact of peasantry being a thing, various revolutions (French, industrial, communism) and other things, a situation has emerged where the average person does not live by the most fundamental dynamics of human life, that is to say the most initial conditions.
The individual conflict for resources has became side-lined and became almost wholly warped out of the public comprehension as people became more integrated into society, and social roles became more complex in order to facilitate and sustain it. A human society after all needs farmers, workers, warriors, thinkers to both exist, to defend itself and to fight, for whatever reasons.
The things are vastly too complex for most to tackle on systemic level, and as quantity does not turn into quality - that is a property of specialists of rare sort, - most people are not good at rulership, at commanding loyalty (especially through example or experience), or at other things for this venture. Plus issues of physical access to any resources.
So that too doesn't help.
But the thing is, is that the conditions necessary to accumulate power, the actual dynamics have never changed.
Part of the problem of Western world et al is that institutions defend corruption. In some ways it can be said that corruption is merely when power is used questionably.
As one degenerate and presupposedly dead bitcoin billionaire has once said, - to paraphrase, - when a stronger individual comes around, you either fold or you are swept aside. That is corruption, because whatever are you gonna do?
And so people turn a blind eye, make agreements, or just roll with the flow. Some out of their own pursuits, others out of weakness, others are malicious outright. Now not all are necessarily strong that there is a single dominant power in all cases, such arrangements come in all shapes, including mutual enterprises.
While the common mass is inadequate at the game, - because they exist in their own bubble of normalcy that is at once a good and bad thing that is exploited, - the ruthless, the industrious, the cunning, unscrupulous, wilful etc, - are not.
And so the problem is, you, that is to say most of you, really, - cannot do anything at all, at times in spite of yourselves.
It is not within your thought paradigm to interpret reality in a way where you need to stake a claim, much less must fight for your own life, much less more so when it is you -all alone- against uncertain future and overwhelming odds.
That's the crux of your issue.
You do not "defend the government" - they merely entertain you, - from their position of militant, intellectual or resource, or any other superiority including pure circumstance, - as much as the common mass of subordinated individuals; faceless but extant, in an abstract sense when the critical mass of grievances born of any misgivings of any party or random tragic events and circumstances of natural and dubious nature force some conflict, - entertains them in the way of its own procedure as subordinate gear of itself.
When any select group of people or entities, be it government or common social outlook permits certain outcomes to be as they are there are many reasons as to why things are this way.
But when it comes down to certain sorts of injustice, you can make a generalized reduction on both them, and most importantly the commoners, as they are the mass that makes up the society, - either they can't act, or do not want to.
In other words, the government that you "defend" was never on your side to begin with. You're merely noticing things decades late, because you have never properly cared, or properly understood anything.
There is nothing to defend. You defend a carefully constructed or naturally emergent illusion carelessly utilized, of a nice state of affairs.
It is indefensible.
By approaching it from the position of excusing the inexcusable (Without being capable of redeeming others no less! That is vastly beyond all of you imageboarders by and large.) you commit a mistake - you set yourself up for iterations of incorrect choices, because that's all you can do in your acquired helplessness and self-/domestication for the purposes of others.
You've turned the blind eye.
And that, my fellow human being, is CORRUPTION.
Just one quick example, do you know what honor is? The term honor means, simply put, "face". You maintain your "face", your reputation, standing. It's that sort of thing.
Basic logic states that a person that cares about their honor would at bare minimum have an interest in maintaining it because they in one way or another agree with ideals behind that honor.
The issue here is that being honorable does not mean one is maintaining authentic and explicitly the highest virtues, or in fact care at all beyond raw rationale of social standing. Worse, it does not mean one itself is authentic.
The easiest, modern example is British royal family. They are corrupt, they allow financial interests to bring hostile extranationals upon the home soil. In all ways they have betrayed their very population just like the entire government of Britain does, just like the more snobbish and xeno-malicious anglo-saxons betray the preceding natives of the Britain (which is extra ironic given that the British elites have seen to fetishizing King Arthur as the hero of England, and the populace actually believes in it) and betray themselves in a number of ways.
The British Government, as Oswald Mosley have said, - himself a peculiar character that may or may not be a MI5 op, - does not care about British people at all. Money rules.
Yet the British royal family has honor, from their own perspective and from certain social ones.
Can you see the theme here? Think about it, the person absolved of titles wasn't absolved because they were unjust, but because they've put the family in bad light.
Even the mass release of prisoners from one UK prison is a pure tactic of terror. A government that is so ruthless they are willing to cause death of millions for practical gain didn't make a choice to "accidentally" starve to death 20k prisoners.
Oh no! They chose to release them on their very own population. Does this look like a behavior of any actual virtuous sovereign to you? Even a power-hungry smart sovereign that has a vested interest in loyalty?
Nations that don't bother protecting their very own population on their own land! I'd call them pathetic, but they deserve none. They aren't even traitors to you, really.
The very title of "honorable [title name]" that US politicians have is amusing in the same way. Yes, Mr. Senator, you're very honorable no doubt, but what exactly is behind that honor? And that's without unpleasant reminder that political yankees are historically two-faced.
The reason why I'm telling you this is this. In order to maintain a virtuous society you need appropriate people.
How exactly are you going to maintain any virtue when the very procedure you have entered, and were entered into by others before you were even born, that you won't challenge and instead will excuse and defend, - does not have any morally authentic people with vision? A fuck up so systemic that dishonesty became the norm like that can only be overturned with combat.
But you shall never consider it, much like you shall never rip apart with critique anything you believe in, anything anyone else believes in, and never consider many other things.
Nevermind starting your own dynasty lasting for millennia at least, you're of no consequence whatsoever.
