Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Resentment and Politics

The affect of resentment, justified or not, is the fuel of mainstream politics, political debate, political opinion, political discourse, whether it be resentment against the workshy, against immigrants, against Muslims, against homosexuals, against government, against the elite, against liberals, against conservatives, against bankers, against 'zionists', against 'political correctness', against feminists, against disabled people... The list is practically endless.

Resentment management is the task of the self-appointed political class, which pretends to be the solution to the real or imagined causes of various forms of resentment,  and resentment creation is the task of the presstitute media and political commentators generally who present to the public all sorts of reasons, events and 'facts' to be resentful about, making it seem as though they're losing out or are being duped in some way. 

The philosopher Nietzsche based much of his moral theory in the Genealogy of Morality on the affect of what he called ressentiment, which is the evocative French word for resentment. 

To be honest, I don't fully agree with this analysis, influenced as it is by the questionable terminology of Nietzsche. For what he calls ressentiment might well be better termed discontent, albeit he does say that resentment does not discharge itself in overt deeds but more in expressions of spite and passive aggression (compensating in imaginary revenge what you cannot accomplish in deeds).  

Resentment, for Nietzsche, appears to be a form of frustrated instinct borne out of feelings of powerlessness and enslavement, that is, the condition of being unfree. And that, unfortunately, is the condition of the great bulk of humanity.

As Joy Division singer Ian Curtis sang in Leaders of Men, politicians 'are a strange infatuation born out of your frustration' as their 'promise for a new life' winds up making 'a victim out of your life'. We need to mature as a species and realise that solutions are within our grasp outside any phoney system of political re-presentation. 

Collectivism v Individualism

Underneath the pathetic media fuelled Punch and Judy show of party politics lies a more earnest conflict, namely the one that holds between the philosophy of individualism and that of collectivism. 

Does society take precedence over the individual as collectivists would have you believe or is the individual sovereign and un-coercable as I and other anarchists believe? 

In the case of collectivism who gets to decide what is in society's 'best interest'? Ultimately will these collectivists not revert to being individuals and seek their own self-interest? Who guards the guardians? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Collectivism is the ideology at the basis of the New World Order, seeking to impose world government on the hapless masses of an eventually depopulated humanity.

Adolf Hitler, a national socialist, is reported to have said 
"society's needs come before the individual's needs."
Individualism is the philosophy of voluntaryists and anarchists who believe in the phenomenon of dominion, self-ownership, and the right to be unperturbed by the concerns of what they believe to be the fictitious entity of society which claims to own them and therefore the right to coerce them.

Mark Passio claims the real divide therefore lies not between liberals and conservatives, Christians and Muslims, but between statists and anarchists. For, in his words,
"the belief in authority is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery." 
No middle ground is possible according to his interpretation. 

Note Personally I have often wondered what instinct lies behind the desire to see what the political-presstitude class calls 'full employment'. Is 'employment' not a euphemism for monetary slavery? Is the desire of collectivists not ultimately to enslave the entire global population for monetary gain and for purposes of control?

The Dangerous Quest for Consistency

Ever since the Greek philosophical tradition, it has been a commonplace for common sense thinking that self-contradiction is an indicator of inconsistency, sloppy thinking, error or even hypocrisy. 

A thought has gestated in my mind for a while now according to which to be entirely free of contradiction, including as can arise between one's words and actions, is an impossibility.

The question is, is this due to some unknown natural law which has built contradiction into physical existence - a phenomenon expressed in Nietzsche's formulation that Nature is "that which has to overcome itself again and again" - or is it that the world is so inverted and far removed from morality that contradiction is unavoidable due to the impossibility of always acting as one preaches?

Taking myself as an example: I consider myself an anarchist and I do consider taxation immoral yet my livelihood at this point depends on the taxation of others' labour as well as general purchase taxation which I contribute to as well.

Other examples of people I respect come to mind.

  • Researcher David Icke has made much of his kundilini experience in South America and his personal awakening, has spoken much about the fraudulent system of banking and the global state, yet it is readily apparent that his website is heavily monetised and living as he does in a monetary system he needs to make money. He needs what he calls 'archon' technology (his name for the hidden power of this world) for his livelihood.
  • Journalist James Corbett has done much to enlighten us on global internet and communications surveillance, before the doubtful Snowden revelations, but the fact is I know quite a lot about his life simply through his online output. Is he that concerned about privacy or is the only privacy that matters privacy that shields one from the State? 
  • De-occultist Mark Passio has said much about the suffering caused by ignoring or disrespecting Natural Law, but it seems that those who ignore and abuse it the most come out of it unscathed and on top of the proverbial social ladder.

I'm not saying these contradictions are serious or cannot be explained away, but the general point I am making is that you can never entirely free the public realm, which includes the realm of discourse, from the phenomenon of contradiction and the charge of hypocrisy, i.e. not always applying what one preaches.

Thinker Hannah Arendt was sensitive to this reality, as evidenced in her account of the French Revolution in the book On Revolution, during the course of which a paranoia over who might be a hypocrite and enemy of the people led to fatal consequences for all major parties to the revolutionary movement. The 'revolution' winded up eating its own children, so to speak. 

In Between Past and Future she noted that contrary the habit of academics of thinking that contradiction in a thinker invalidates his thought, it is in those contradictions that great thinkers reveal themselves in the problems they are seeking answers to; in other words, only small, superficial analysts can afford to be entirely consistent and free of contradiction because they don't grapple with deep paradoxes present in the human condition.

She made a further observation in another book of hers, Origins of Totalitarianism, that one characteristic of totalitarian thinking which seeks complete control and domination, is its acute fear of contradiction.

The Nazis and the Soviets seemed not at all concerned about the immense suffering they were causing their and other peoples but were concerned about the need for consistency; in the case of Nazi ideology, because Jewish people were to them seen as responsible for the ills of mankind, they had to be exterminated en masse, a measure they were ruthless and 'consistent' enough to take.

Stalin for his part had a simple solution to, inter alia, the problem of contra-diction (which means to speak against) for he is reported as having said
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."
All this to say the search for internal and external consistency, the fear of contradiction as well as hatred of hypocrisy can lead to fatal extremes in the dangerous world of political action.

The fear of contradiction also betrays an underdeveloped intelligence and I think Oscar Wilde was right in saying
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."
People who subscribe to belief ideologies without question and seek to be entirely consistent in their ideological worldview are indeed probably suffering from a lack of imagination and as Mark Passio has rightly observed 
"mind control is the destruction of the imagination."  

We're All Conspiracy Theorists

Official definition of conspiracy: 
a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal. 

Official definition of conspiracy theory: 

  1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organisation, a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group. 
  2. the idea that many important political events, economic and social trends are the result of secret plots unknown to the general public.
It should be noted that the popularisation of the term 'conspiracy theory' was promoted at the instigation of the CIA during the time of the Warren Commission set up to investigate the murder of JFK. Thus, irony of ironies, the term 'conspiracy theory' itself was the fruit of a conspiracy designed to silence alternative views on the murder - or is that just another conspiracy theory?

That aside, only a truly ignorant person would deny the existence of conspiracies at all levels of society on a daily basis.

You believe that the government lies when it suits its interests? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe in the possibility that products are made not to last, a phenomenon known as planned obsolescence? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that a successful plot was made to murder Caesar in cold blood? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe the official version of 9/11 whereby Muslim terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that big tobacco companies for many years hid the health risks of smoking to the general public? You're a conspiracy theorist. 
You believe that the whole weapons of mass destruction argument to invade Iraq was a pretext for invasion? You're a conspiracy theorist. 
You believe that banks are put in place to line their own pockets? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that politicians line their own pockets with public money when it suits them? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that intelligence agencies such as the CIA have dark secrets and orchestrate events behind the scenes? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that communications, online or otherwise, are surveilled? You're a conspiracy theorist. 
You believe that the News of the World newspaper workers wire-tapped phones? You're a conspiracy theorist. 
You believe that the mass media manipulate public opinion? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe that the Nazis and not some communist agent burned the Reichstag building? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe GMO crops are harmful to both body and nature? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe war is a form of controlled opposition benefitting arms manufacturers? You're a conspiracy theorist.
You believe police authorities covered up their misdeeds in the Hillsborough disaster in the UK? You're a conspiracy theorist.

And so on. 

Now I am not whitewashing all conspiracy theories in existence, for many may be in error, politically motivated and based on shoddy research. And I am not saying all of existence can be reduced to conspiracy as this is patently untrue (in that regard, Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, which has become a classic among conspiracy researchers, painstakingly points out how much in its 1311 pages of historical narrative cannot be put down to global conspiracies or a single overarching conspiracy). 

Nevertheless, to think that all events in politics, economics, geopolitics, entertainment, business, medicine are the result of accident opens you up to being fooled, hoodwinked and manipulated by the movie script that is the mainstream media and other narratives besides. 

For given the blatant holes in the official versions of domestic and international affairs and the repeating patterns that do occur in shock news items (such as the murder of Jo Cox a week prior to the EU referendum in the UK, which harks back to the murder of a Swedish female MP a week prior to a referendum on Sweden joining the Euro or the famous case of alleged terrorists leaving their passports at the scene of the crime in the case of 9/11, the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the Paris Attacks of November 2015 etc ad nauseam), to put all these considerations down to chance makes you, not a conspiracy theorist, but a questionable co-incidence theorist.

Language Perception in the Philosophical Divide

At root of the divide between so-called 'analytical' philosophy and 'continental' philosophy is a difference in one's conception of language.

English-speaking philosophers tend to view language as a tool of communication. They are in a left-brain mode of intellect and mathematical analysis.

Continental philosophers tend to view language as a way to explore the world, making their prose seem impenetrable and self-indulgent. Theirs is a more right-brain, creative, persuasion.

True intelligence is in fact a wholesome combination of both intellect and creativity, a fact lost on most academic researchers, whether philosophers or not.