It takes a certain kind of wisdom to condemn the atrocities of Communism in a world that is blatantly tolerant of such. Enlightened minds, albeit a few, risk isolating themselves from the seemingly ubiquitous worship of that epitome of human error called Marxism. From the highest officials of a state down to the lowest scums rallying on the street, the spectre of Communism still haunts Europe and beyond however hard its perpetrators tinker with a few of its elements to coat it with glamour. Those with a thirst for cheap thrills are then lured, in most cases university students whom incidentally Vladimir Lenin fondly referred to as “useful idiots”—their eyes all glazed with idealism and their minds riddled with Marxist jargons which they replay in a mantra-like fashion.

These Marxist jargons are not unfamiliar to anyone who pays enough attention to human affairs, words like “brotherhood” and “class warfare” including everything akin to it hold a special place in the hearts of every staunch Marxist exactly as they have learned it from their dog-eared copies of “Das Kapital” and “The Communist Manifesto.”

Karl Marx, as his followers would know, was a Materialist who disliked the idea of having a boss, as well as the idea of having an income of your own. He was all for the Workers—Workers here I wrote as a proper noun for Marx portrays them differently than most do: “Workers” as a Marxist term refers to those hapless people who are both overworked and underpaid, whereas the norm (and usually correct) is to think of workers as just like everybody else who would like to provide a decent living for him/herself and for his/her family.

This discrepancy offers us a glimpse into the mind of a Materialist who at all cost would refuse to acknowledge the existence of lofty ideals such as love, hope, and faith— in direct contrast with that other detestable extreme, Objectivism (more popularly known as either “Capitalism” or “Crony Capitalism”), whose followers worship at the altar of greed. The notion of a worker who willingly submits himself to the hardships of labour for noble reasons which include caring for one’s family is way above the comprehension of the class-warfare preaching Communist, and the profit-seeking Capitalist.

However, I’ll save a thorough reflection on both in another post as the point I would like to make in particular is that Materialism as the foundation of Marxism prompted Karl Marx to reject anything that cannot be seen yet can be clearly felt. An example of which is when he spoke of Religion as “the opium of the masses”; a simple analysis of this quote would bring about the Straw man argument that Religion should be condemned for merely placating superficial pains whilst drowning the bigger issues in a frenzy of hymns and prayers to a benevolent God.

There is so much more to Religion, a fact so obvious that it need not be justified here. The aforementioned Straw man argument should be dwelled upon as many even up to now quote this Marxist saying as though it were truth. Its parallels with today’s brand of Democracy in terms of using Democracy as a facade behind which lies a very inhumane, not to mention godless system is astonishing indeed.

Democracy is best summarized by another popular saying which goes: Vox Populi, Vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God) and the process of voting or elections has long since been its defining characteristic. Now while any stalwart of this system would defend it as the best form of government because it entails polling the opinion of the majority, what they fail to understand is that it is precisely for this reason that Democracy becomes at par with Communism as the worst form of government.

This fact can be proven by way of analogy. The human body alone can attest that only one system is needed per bodily function—that is to say, the nervous system controls all the nerves in our body, but it cannot be responsible for all functions pertaining to the circulatory system, and so on and so forth.

Science and common sense are witness to the reality that it is only in very special cases wherein a particular system can interfere with certain other bodily systems, such as when severe arthritis (skeletal system) will impede one to perform extensive cardiovascular exercises thus resulting in a less than sound circulatory system, or when problems in the lumbar spine (nervous system) would become the cause of urinary incontinence (affecting of course, the functions of the urinary system). In summary, the human body simply cannot function properly if the scenario were that each and every member were able to control aspects beyond their given limitation.

This same argument is analogous to how Democracy works. Instead of promoting supposed fairness and equality, as they purport happens every time the masses are asked to cast their votes during elections, what actually occurs is a blatant mockery of the dignity inherent in a human being.

And how can it be not so when the system demands of the masses something beyond their responsibility and capability? Can anyone argue against the fisherman who, hard at work to sustain the lives of his wife and children, should concentrate on this and not be bothered by the burdensome task of selecting a public official who the former may not even be sure will fulfil his/her campaign promises?

So it must be that every member of society should be left to his own devices in such a manner that in doing this, he will contribute to the improvement of his own life, that of his family, community, and of his nation. Those with the ability to lead ought to take the responsibility and be given the chance to serve his people in a way that should he be found wanting, he’d have enough decency to step down and allow somebody who is better to take over.

People, specifically the masses, must be freed from the false sense of security that an election gives them. Going to the ballots does not guarantee that one’s voice is being heard. Rather it is just an exercise in keeping the people poor and stupid. What is needed is a breakthrough ideology that will shake the status quo, and exactly what that is perhaps the future generations have an answer to. It is high time for another political revolution as democracy is already outdated in a more complex world with more complex problems going beyond such trite feel-good terms like “equality”. But alas, such scenario seems to be far-fetched in a system that is beneath the surface as nefarious as Communism, a system which threatens to produce the same effects as that substance which Religion is wrongly accused of as being.

I’ve been exploring the internet pretty much since I was 12 years old and if there’s one thing other than ‘memes’ which strike me as corny, it would have to be the overuse of the word ‘random’. Be it on social networking sites, message boards, and especially blogs, that word is almost omnipresent. A few years ago, the usual suspects who use that word were easily cognizable as young adolescent girls; however in these days, with Grandmothers using Facebook and Twitter, nobody can be really sure anymore.

It’s always ‘random this’ or ‘random that’, as if this word would magically transform whatever it is they’re trying to express into some form of ingenuity. Even if they don’t realize it themselves, but with the word ‘random’ attached to any sentence, it just sounds downright arrogant and stupid.

How come? One may ask. Look, if you write a blog about your interests perhaps say, literature, you don’t go on claiming that your post about what you think of Goethe’s “The Sorrows Of Young Werther” are just random thoughts and ideas which happen to go through your head at that random moment. Nobody would be so outrageous as to pretend that critiques on great works of fiction tend to “randomly” occupy one’s mind.

Then there are others who try their hardest to make their “random” posts look random in the utmost sense; they’d pick a topic, perhaps say about their celebrity crush, and write “random” observations about them such as commenting on their hairstyle, accent, or whatever. Now that may actually look random to some, but if one squints hard enough then he or she could see the obvious maneuver of trapping readers into thinking that this person with “random” thoughts is quirky and funny.

In a sardonic manner, I intend to ‘profile’ the aforementioned two kinds of “random” bloggers: the first type is usually a college freshman who’d just discovered an Encyclopedia or worst, the overrated philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche- they most likely would be girls (optionally a lesbian or bisexual), bespectacled, short-haired, with bad skin, and enjoys reading or writing fanfiction.

The second type is at the outset could easily be identifiable as pre-teen girls, but it goes far, far deeper than that; however elusive they may be to profile, I’ll give it my best shot anyway: these people are divided into four (4) sub-groups, the first group being those of the common type, the pre-teen girl with an inferiority complex- the proof of this inferiority complex is obvious from their dire attempts to come across as interesting or weird. The second group are young adults who are trying their best not to grow up (and one wonders why society is such a failure nowadays), they are slaves to the latest trends, and more often than not, not very intelligent. The third group is comprised of minorities, majority of which are Filipina girls who think that usage of the word “random” makes them sound more ‘Caucasian’; these minorities (note: Filipinas) are usually cosplayers and they tend to hang out at Anime forums or chatrooms, plus they unabashedly imitate the American accent whenever they speak the English language. The fourth group is your mom trying to be cute.

And there we have it, a complete and most probably accurate profile of the two kinds of people on the internet who enjoy the word “random” a bit too much.

I’m not sure why, but that bastion of sarcasm, Encyclopedia Dramatica is yet to have an entry regarding this “random” phenomenon. I have to wonder because I’m very much convinced that I am not the only person who has issues with the careless use of that word.

Going back to the two types, there are several characteristics to them which unite (well on second thought, the moms are probably not included in this) them as a formidable ‘random’ force. One is that they are all pretentious when it comes to their tastes, be it art or music; second is lack of popularity during their schooldays, and third and most important, they’re all pathetic attention whores.

Knowing this, nobody could really blame me if I can’t help but snort whenever I read a blog entry or a forum post which starts with “this is just a random…” to it. Sorry but it’s just so fake. As I wrote in this same post, you don’t go about saying that your three lengthy paragraphs about your favorite ice cream flavor is just a random quirky post about your favorite ice cream flavor, because surely, whether you refuse to admit it, at some point while writing those lengthy paragraphs about your “random” favorite ice cream flavor you would have been aware of what you are writing and how you want it to come across to your readers.

Therefore it is advisable that the next time you stumble upon the word “random” in the context of a long mundane blab about how the blogger loves Japanese culture, you know now what’s behind that. Take it from someone who’s been on the internet for far too long.

It is also quite funny to note that these people who claim to post their thoughts in a random manner are the same people with the most number of posts. By all means, they obviously want readers to think that they are so broad-minded, so well-read that they are able to encompass all kinds of topics in every “random” post. Nice try, but, no they’re not. With wikipedia and google at hand, literally every topic under and above the skies could be searched for at a single click.

Finally, this is not a random post ranting about the word random. It is as deliberate as deliberate gets. Deliberateness: the refreshing antithesis of random and my kind of word because I firmly hold on to the stance that if you say it, then you have to mean it.