Sometimes our society is warped, confused and acts with ignorance.

It can operate, change

or react in ways that challenges what we are and we must somehow contend with strange
nuances or societal projects.
When our sense of order is checked by those who guardian and accept us, we must
choose to either conform to or contest structured behaviour.
Society is an assortment of collective ideas and neuroses, but often our people are
our safety and we must choose do we obey or defy.
Is there opportunity for prosperity, for earthly improvement?
I mean if society acts or evolves, it has done so for a reason, so, could we be wrong
or ignorant to challenge that?
Should we want to ‘better’ our behaviour to satisfy our group in their agenda and be
accepted?
Or are our people delusional and responsible for stupidity or malevolence and if we
participated, we would contribute to that harmful fantasy?
What can we do if we assess our community to be wrong?
What if we assess our people to be harmfully delusional?
Do we challenge what is and risk being singled out as deviant – become the
otherness that society does not accept – become part of the unknown, and felonious due to
defiance of law or social custom; or concede and conform to be accepted – abide – and find
rightness in the group, in its purpose to satisfy our people and become one with the
delusion, with the purpose, the identity so we can be included.
Social good and bad are what benefit or detriment the group’s perception of itself,
and if we are part of that group, it by extension should be beneficial or detrimental to us,
we are then encouraged to be good to in a social standard; should we then contribute to
better our group then not only for us but for our legacy. And from this sometimes the
preservation of the group can be more valuable to us than our own lives.
We first encounter social structures as babies: first we need to poop so we do, then
we realise we don’t like pooping on ourselves and finally we realise that we are part of a
group who have established pooping ritual and we then determine whether we want to
abide to that ritual to be accepted or refuse to be shunned and so with the establishment of
the superego and so we are encouraged to conform with our people’s ways and become
‘socialised.’
But then, maybe, our way of pooping isn’t the best way, toilets are convenient yet
the idea that they are proper is one of societies illusions; the sitting posture is not ideal and
what we do with the waste may not be optimal.
Perhaps we should use our waste to create compost for plants and insects and
should have developed a squatting pose? There are other ways that may be better;
unconventional but better, to some even mentioning changing the toilet system would be
too weird to consider. That’s just how it is.
And so we must contend with that.
Our fascination with our genius can be possessive and ideas of superiority can grow.

Ideally cultures or communities would respect borders and other cultures as

different, even exotic and maintain space and good relations.
 But a collective greater good may be imagined and sought and if we believe it’s good
it must be good and those who don’t believe that must therefore be bad.
That can be fine, if that evil remains small, such as putting on an amateur production
of a copywritten play riffing with licenced music; the evil philosophy that ideas should be
free – yeah, sure, on a small scale; but don’t take on Disney with intellectual property – not
only will your playgroup fail but resentment could perpetuate and group resentment toward
another group breeds hatred.
If however counter ideology solidifies and grows, we tend to infect other people to
our delusion, and disrupt others; sometimes good, like teaching but not enforcing
knowledge to other cultures, in the worst circumstance another nation is conquered and its
people subjugated, enslaved and killed in mass.
Idealism can make ideas seem fantastic, but often that’s what they are – fantasy.
For those that directly experience the clash of culture, the madness of social
delusion becomes clear. Each person must choose whether they believe the cause and the
methods, and confront the horror of violence.
Is it better to appeal to one’s holiness or to one’s people?
What does one do if they realise their people are the villain and if they participate
they are the bad guy and contributing to evil?
Hello and welcome this video will explore the madness of governmental ambition as it is
depicted in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness – and by extension – Francis Coppola’s
Apocalypse Now primarily through the characters of The Manager and Kilgore who
represent the National Idea over natives – the white of the Yin Yang, Kurtz who represents
the recognition of the natives and the rejection of the Nation’s ideas and delusional lies –
the Black, and Marlow and Willard; he who ventures from the light of order into the chaos
of the unknown and must choose how to react and what to believe.

A very brief overview of both stories is: a man – Kurtz - is part of an occupying force (The
Company Traders (book) or the American Military (film)) who are destroying people and
their land for the sake of extravagant wealth and ideological victory.
Kurtz becomes aware of the wrong of his group and despises the narrative that the
Western forces – championed by The Manager and Kilgore – who tells itself, that their
actions will somehow benefit their nation – or the whole world – and that they and the
chosen methods are unquestionably, dogmatically proper.
And he hates that he is there and tasked to contribute.
He comprehends the story, sees through the illusion and undermines it and operates
in seclusion at his station miles away from the Western forces, living with natives who he
has ‘inspired’ to work for and worship him.
Called savages by the invaders, and treated as such Kurtz sees them as what they
are: human – they are like us – and he begins to learn them. To know his perceived ‘enemy’
and learn from them about how to live in such an environment.
Due to his methods being different from regulation and his ideas being different to
ideology and therefore socially deviant they are considered ‘unsound’ and ‘improper’ by
officials and so Kurtz is to be ‘extracted’ from his station. His evil was not the correct evil,
despite his efficiency because it challenged Western identity.
The Protagonist: the Captain Marlow and Soldier Willard are tasked by the Western
forces to retrieve and relieve Kurtz of his operations.
When the protagonist arrives – they find that indeed Kurtz has abandoned customs
completely and has indeed become wild, violent and extremely unhinged – as was described
– and yet Kurtz explains himself eloquently and with purpose and sophistication and clarifies
his philosophy: namely that, the West is clouded by its ambition and its identity that it
actually fails to efficiently accomplish its task because it fails to truly comprehend and be
willing confront the true horror, and the real atrocity they were committing and why they
were doing that.
That the natives are more capable and cultured than the Westerners would believe.
As the protagonist extacts him – Kurtz dies, uttering “the horror”

The horror of the conflict

The horror of war
The horror of human violence
The horror of his participation
The horror of his situation
The horror of ignorance
The horror of his actions which he felt compelled to do
The horror of reality – leaving behind the monuments to his deeds and the
statement of his legacy.
Namely – the shrine of worship he built around himself.
But that’s the strange thing – the natives did worship him

Compare these two scenes from the film:

And the text from the book wherein Marlow looks upon the heads of so called
criminals; as if Kurtz has established law.: he said: these heads were the heads of
rebels. I shocked him excessively by laughing. Rebels! What would be the next
definition I was to hear? There had been enemies, criminals, workers—and these
were rebels. Those rebellious heads looked very subdued to me on their sticks.
‘You don’t know how such a life tries a man like Kurtz,’ cried Kurtz’s last disciple.
So, is he “very obviously insane”?
True, he has succumbed to the darkness – that’s if we use the Yin Yang model, as
explained in Pyjama Sam: darkness is not evil, it is unknown, he’s actually a pretty cool guy;
we just fear and don’t like what we don’t know. And become ignorant of what it is because
it may challenge who we are and often we prefer to destroy that other rather than even
identify it or with it.
That unknown may be superior to us, but because it is unknown; we don’t know that
and won’t sacrifice our identity to try.
Kurtz, valued by his Company has fallen ill and must be relieved though rumours of
his unsound methods disturb many; Kurtz not valued by Military Command has supposedly
commit murder and must be ‘eliminated.’
 No. Kurtz is not insane. He defies the false narrative; and to an established order,
that appears uncivilised.
The stories make it clear that the Belgium Traders and the American Military – the
civilisations are the villains of the story, destroying communities and environments for the
sake of profit or victory and enforcing their law.
Seeing through the lies of the West and overcoming them alone.
The stories thesis is that he who breaks away has become insane.
My thesis is he who breaks away becomes edified and can challenge rather than
contribute to sociological neurosis.
We all struggle with meaning, for Kurtz it is found with truth, for the conscriptor, for
Kilgore it is with the nation.
Civilised people have become captivated by the order of their civilisation, become
accustomed to community organisation and law, and been able to establish ourselves within
the conditions of our people.
I have a Bachelor’s degree, English Major as a ground to one day properly pursue
writing and am paying off a U-turn violation so I can avoid punishment; this all depends on
my state and council’s ability to enforce its will, a will that is generally upheld by law abiding
citizens and my and societies evaluation of how valuable my degree or respect for the law is.

But, maybe the whole concept of degrees is stupid and maybe that U-Turn was safe and the
ticketing system is robbery. We naturally want to be accepted by our people, I want to be
with mine so I can have a licence, so I can work and make money to have a go at making
YouTube videos; so I abide, but some social challenges are too much for our principals
Changes and groups can refer to anything from us against our friends, our friends
against the law, our law against other societies; whatever threatens our group is perceived
to be the enemy; but are they?
There are three then, us, our group and the so called enemy; three philosophies to
balance.
Shall we fall back on our group or concede to that other or fight or abandon them
both?
Are our people fighting for righteousness or is this the manifestation of our civilisation’s
shadow?

What is the American Order that is so valuable?

Apocalypse Now really embellishes this mentality: throughout the film American
culture is accentuated:

The shot of American mismanagement

Surfing
Beach Party
Valkyries
Drugs
Cambodian outpost
Playboy

Contrasting these two scenes: surfing / Kurtz introduction – who is crazy? And why.
All this to say sometimes our collective decisions can be foolish.
So when our normalcy is disrupted, when our pursuits are disrupted – and there are
times of crisis or panic we are met with the absurdity of existence, and the vicious,
uncontrollable forces within - whether that’s natural disaster or war - the voice of reason is
often the first casualty – and we as a collective or as individuals can react with the lowest
form of thinking, the simplest response, and resort to messy mayhem in attempt to thwart
what has upset us and protect our identity, our purpose, our self-belief, our sense of order;
and from that stand point, entire regimes can be built solidifying the response rather than
questioning the impetus/ catalyst.
Many believe safety is found with our people and so they contribute to that regime.
Those who analyse the situation and consider the response can be seen as
dissenters. Stalin had those people shot.
So to be able to destroy the idea of what we don’t like – that other - and cling to
whatever safety and order there is left many bury themselves in whatever comfort and
familiarity – normalcy that can be found – fall off the waterfall or stand guard at Auschwitz
or groom their children (lbgt), or – enslave natives and torture them into hunting ivory for
you because money and riches make us powerful; or machine gunning villages of civilians
because communism is bad.

Others cope differently by distracting themselves from the horror, finding meaning in
whatever structure remains or simply zoning out while carrying out orders.
Still others refuse to participate, refuse to acknowledge what is confronting, or
perhaps they intellectualise it all, perhaps disassociating from ego to observe and judge; or
choose punishment, or death – escape.

The most dangerous people to the regime comprehend what was once other and unknown,
have come to understand and appreciate it and begin to see the folly of their own people
and the mission, see the delusion as an outsider and judge it to be wrong and resist
challenge it ideologically.

Leopold II saw the Congo as his opportunity for colonial territory so he could propel
his country to greatness.
America saw Vietnam as their opportunity to exterminate communism and propel
the world to greatness.

In both circumstances such delusion caused the destruction and enslavement of a people,
extreme violence. Those who participate are often blinded by their purpose for it gives them
meaning, but for others – the reality becomes too much for them to bear and they begin to
question, even doubt their purpose.
Each of the film’s characters find different ways to cope with the madness: Clean follows the
rules, Chef and Lance get high and disassociate, Lance also looks after a dog, Chief tries to
fulfill his responsibilities and the absurdly young Mr Clean who wants to fit in with the
grown-ups; Willard slowly embraces the wild.
Kurtz has become it.
While Kilgore napalms it.

While Heart of Darkness is more subtle; especially by showing the after effects of the
campaign.

The war effort is absurd, and people MUST cope, the challenge to their identity is too
strong. That itself is a problem.
But if the barricades of our illusion shatter, to face the danger, the threat is to see reality for
what it is, and perhaps we can learn and grow from that, step outside our understanding
and see things for what they are. Perhaps our old ways no longer fit into the new world and
we as individuals and as a community should have open eyes to what isn’t us; that we can
be better informed and in form.
But dare we risk destroying ourselves by peering outside of our sense of safety?

Rather than be powerless Kurtz asserts himself as a superior, as a deity, and takes control
over the horror of the situation.
Doing so causes shame and disgrace to his soul, but he could either be the horror or
be subjected to it.
And – with the perspective – he realises the horror of humanity and how he has
contributed to that – he hates how he has had to be evil to thrive – but – in a circumstance
where westerners have brought hell to earth – he has chosen to master the madness.
He is aware and suffers from the horror we, and he are capable of.
Something that the West does not seem to consider, and love the evil rather than
hate it.

Makes one wonder what is so valuable about our way? What is so good about our culture
beside that we are in it? Why are we convinced that this is the way – that our culture is
better? Why? Just because we made it?
Surfing?

Clash of evil, biblical evil vs social evil vs personal evil.

What is righteous, holy, universal.
What benefits our people.
What we believe.
One who vows not to kill, personally hates violence yet must fight in a military force where
thou MUST kill is a major moral conflict and a dilemma that would haunt one’s soul. One
must choose how to be, to confront the changing ways or remain true to oneself. What are
the consequences of each decision?
What is the heart of darkness?

That is not contemplating the truth, it is believing the story.

So to be disliked or perceived to be incompetent by one’s group could be
existentially dangerous, to be undesirable, to have low social status could have major
consequences. This is true in the modern day – if you are disliked in all social groups – you’ll
not be attractive enough to find intimacy – is why public speaking is so terrifying to some. A
remnant of the fear of exclusion from the clan for being a dorkish embarrassment.
It safest for us to fit in rather than deviate – or be normal and nor stand out - to do
what others do and abide all governmental/committee developments as to not stand out or
be a threat to the prevailing ideology – it is our clan after all. Safest but not the most
beneficial or progressive.
From a young age we develop awareness that we are part of a whole and that we
can harm or heal that whole. From this we develop morals, compassion – the knowledge
that we are a part of something greater than ourselves – to want to change that greatness –
is extremely risky for others could deem your ideas good and use them, or bad and
persecute you – despite how intelligent new ideas may be.
As we grow we learn what is good – or acceptable behaviour that will gain favour
and reward from others – and what words or actions will be met with scorn or punishment.
So we become learned in and try to abide by our cultures customs. With established right
and wrong we become able to project ‘otherness’ and classify that as ‘bad.’

The ivory trade and the war effort are sane in the western sense but insane in the
human sense.
Which evil is chosen therefore? To not kill may risk the lives of fellow soldiers, but save
one’s soul. To kill may save lives, but corrupt one’s soul.
The Congo traders, and the American military, and all colonial activities should have focused
on communication, to breach the gap between unknown and unknown and filtered the
darkness in carefully and with purpose. Learned of their ‘enemy’ and understood he
similarities between them to create comprehension and be able to work together for
whatever common goals they may have.
But to accept that they are like us, is a threat to the ideology and thus refuse
resulting in extreme.

There is no disguising the fact, Mr. Kurtz has done more harm than good to the Company.
“unsound method?”’
Heart of darkness is a story about a journey into the psychological shadow on both personal
and social accounts; represented by the ‘darkness’
Marlow and Willard are born in the Western ideology – and participate in their cause – but
as they travel downriver to Kurtz – they become exposed to the horror and begin to
question the ethics of either the West or Kurtz and learn from both – but closer to Kurtz
they go they deeper into the Heart of Darkness they go – into the shadow, into the
unknown, into the self.
Civilised is a very specific word.
Other cultures, or behaviours within our own culture, can be uncivilised if they don’t
adhere. There is darkness – within us – and there is darkness outside of us.
The Trading Company and the Military want to keep the illusion that what they are
doing is proper and sane, it is the American way but we cannot ignore what we don’t know
after we confront it.

Willard states that home isn’t there anymore – once he’s seen the truth of humanity – he
also can see the illusion – and grows to hate the illusion.

>A threat to the war effort

>is the war effort justified?