right-wing

8. Cultivate Detachment and Non-Identification (1)

© Infrakshun

“We live in a society where detachment is almost essential.”

— Philip K. Dick


Reading time: 15 – 18 mins

The quote above highlights a growing shift in the consciousness of Western populations – if not the globe – namely, the detachment and separation from our political system to offer any kind of resolution to domestic and international problems. The defeat of the remain camp in the Brexit exit poll to the election of Donald Trump are both symptoms of disillusionment with establishment politics. They represent a negative detachment of progressive politics not from rejecting the conservative “other,” but from an attachment to a dream of what ought to be, thus in direct oppostion to objective reality.

As Gilad Atzmon notes in his recent book Being in Time: A Post Political Manifesto (2016):

The Post-Political condition is an era defined by a complete failure of politics (Left, Right and Centre) and ‘Grand Ideological Narratives.’ Liberal Democracy, Marxism, communism, capitalism, and free markets are all empty, hollow signifiers as far as contemporary reality is concerned.

Total detachment describes the current relationship between ‘the political’ and ‘the human.’ We Westerners are becoming keenly aware that we have been reduced to consumers. The present role of ‘the political’ is to facilitate consumption. Our elected politicians are subservient to oligarchs, major market forces, big monopolies, corporations, conglomerates, banks and some sinister lobbies.

Liberal Democracy, that unique moment of mutual exchange between humans and the political, has failed to sustain itself. [1]

In the context of politics and culture, non-identification is essential if we are to separate from belief and move toward constructive solutions. Not to play the game of identity politics is to reject the idea that just because there is disagreement with a certain ideology does not mean prejudice against a race, sexuality, gender or religion. Identitarians would have us all categorised into rigid groups of tribal affiliations according to opinions, feelings and surface image rather than the logic and plausibility of the idea itself. Since identity is enmeshed in ideology and persona, to oppose an ideologue is to launch a personal attack. A specific defence mechanism is thus created to maintain this triad.

Examples of this would be:

  • Being white and male you are privileged and inherently racist
  • If you vote for Trump you are sexist, misogynist and a white supremacist Nazi.
  • Everyone knows there is a rape culture and if you deny it you support it.
  • If you disagree with pre-school education on transgender sexuality means you are transphobic
  • Criticising Islamic extremism means you are “Islamophobic”.
  • Criticising Israel’s human rights record against Palestinians means you are anti-Semitic
  • If you stand against police brutality you support radical anarchists like antifa
  • Institutionalised racism exists and police target black people as a result.
  • All those who criticise the science of human-global warming are “climate deniers”.
  • Being pro-Brexit and skeptical of the EU means you are xenophobic and right wing

Such identitarianism is spellbound by image and feeling rather than reason an logic. There is no room for nuance or complexity. With identify politics, radical feminism and social justice groupings, group identity and its beliefs take precedence over individual belief and autonomy. Any attack against the group is an attack against personal identity, the latter of which the individual give ups to further group cohesion. The ability to discriminate and critique based on reality rather than personal sensibility is lost. As such, it is a collective defence mechanism called “splitting” which we will look at later on.

To identify with someone’s pain or difficulties is to engage empathy. But when we identify with the ideology and belief – regardless of good intentions –  we limit our ability to see outside that ideology. It is then that empathy becomes politicised and distorted toward power and projection fuelled by the momentum of the group itself.

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and The Loss Of Free Speech II: Microaggressions and Trigger Warnings (2)

“Trigger warnings might also communicate to people that they’re fragile, and coax them [to] interpret ordinary emotional responses as extraordinary signals of danger.”

— ‘Trigger warnings do little to reduce people’s distress, research shows’


The New Lexicon of “Offence” and Para-Morality

In the West, we are already suffering from information overload and a loss of quality communication. It seems people are more afraid of exchanging pleasantries with a stranger than ever before thanks to an overemphasis on negative news in the media as well as the addiction to our smart phones. If you simply want to say “hi” to an attractive man or woman; to chat with someone you don’t know over the deli counter, the gas station or in the street while waiting for a bus… there will increasingly be this niggling thought of saying the wrong thing and offending someone through a cultural programming that is changing our language as well as restricting it. We have a very real collective fear of saying the wrong thing that is causing a conformity to a flawed consensus that doesn’t exist, except in the minds of those who get paid to push this agenda. The Orwellian Offence Police are active in entertainment, universities, the work place and in government, with numerous examples of the most insane persecution imaginable.

The following phrases are in most left-liberal academic and social justice warrior’s lexicon wrapped up in the desire to virtue signal – that now overused phrase from the right –  used to dismiss the logic of free speech advocates and ordinary people in their daily lives.

Trigger Warnings According to the Oxford English Dictionary a trigger warning is: “A statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content)”. This is a very convenient way for the Establishment to make sure that its population self-censors. Trigger warnings were originally developed by psychologists for war veterans, victims of sexual abuse or common trauma as a means to flag content which might stimulate a re-run of painful memories. Unfortunately, this has now been extended to the university campuses and the arts & entertainment industry (which is perhaps less of an issue given the state of graphic sex and violence on TV) and is now used to provide protection from words and opinions this precious generation doesn’t like; any discomfort at all in fact, a far cry from the preventative measures designed for genuine victims of war, violence and/or sexual abuse.

This postmodern paranoia has infiltrated minorities and student life with a vengeance. Sex, race and politics are all foci for trigger warnings causing protests, demonstrations, self-important letters with lists of demands for faculty members and even their removal due to perceived bias, sexism, racism or the violation of their hallowed safe spaces. [1]

Trigger warnings have been imposed in many university curricula due to students’ demands. The control of university policy – whether it is ethnic minority students feeling victimised or screaming young feminists demanding attention – any kind of encroachment of reality and therefore distress has led to warnings on such books as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald, and The Merchant of Venice. Yes, now Shakespeare is deemed threatening, a  trend that is also taking place in Britain, with Cambridge University picking up the PC gaunlet. [2]

To pander to this inner health and safety zone one student offered his university faculty tips on how to proceed: “For instance, one trigger warning for “The Great Gatsby” might be: (TW: “suicide,” “domestic abuse” and “graphic violence.”) […] Thanks to the vague tags within the warning, readers and unaffected students alike can approach a narrative without the plot being spoiled. Yet, at the same time, students who are unfamiliar with these works can immediately learn whether courses will discuss traumatic content. […] Professors can also dissect a narrative’s passage, warning their students which sections or volumes of a book possess triggering material and which are safer to read. This allows students to tackle passages that are not triggering but return to triggering passages when they are fully comfortable.” [3]

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech II: Microaggressions and Trigger Warnings (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

“Never has never there been a modern age more saturated in irony and hypocrisy, where blind emotion shreds any semblance of measured reason.”


In the last post we explored the bedrock of postmodernist thinking which informs so much of the present left-liberal system of beliefs. The ridicule and disdain of so called conspiracy theorists – most of whom are merely highlighting the camouflaged nature of social and geopolitical realities – is a frequent hobby of the postmodernists who delude themselves and others into thinking that social constructivism and the very notion of free speech is …a delusion! Certainly, there is a case to made that much of our world is socially constructed and deterministic – especially when we factor in social engineering. However, broadly speaking, for postmodernists subjectivity is an end in itself, nullifying any attempts to arrive at an objective appraisal of reality, and thus the search for truth that potentially binds us together. It is a vacuum of endless open-ended relativity that shuns solutions in favour of an intellectual and epistemological void where anything goes because nothing really exists – its all in the mind as a materialist soup of interaction without practical meaning. Such people draw their emotional succor (masquerading as intellectualism) by focusing on a perceived institutionalised racism, sexism, and a social science that has over emphasised the ‘nurture’ interpretation of social dynamics. This has produced an unhealthy, wholly out-of-balance platform for change, elevating the rights of minority groups over the majority.

Being against Monsanto, the evils of capitalism and the general tenets of anti-globalisation is laudable on paper. However, what use is protest if one is high on the drama of division rather than solutions? Engaging directly with the beast merely feeds it. Peaceful protest is necessary but only as an adjunct to creating alternatives. It’s even worse if you are unknowingly in the pay of Establishment minions like fake philanthropist George Soros who funds various left leaning organisations and activist groups for an entirely different agenda. Hugely important issues raised from the spectre of of 9/11; state-sponsored terror; the weapons industry; child sex rings; human trafficking; the modern-day infiltration by CoIntelpro or even the obvious and continuing conspiratorial nature of the National Security State as a whole, are deemed strangely unworthy for much of the left and radical left, thus easily dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense.  (Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn are prime examples of this conscious or unconscious gate-keeping).

We have witnessed how easily activists on the radical left have fallen for obvious psyops and limited hangouts which mobilised progressive and anarchist movements on behalf of the Deep State. Left academics lament Trump while ignoring overarching realities which encompass patterns of criminal corruption that traverse the right-left divide. Meanwhile, their erstwhile activist colleagues on the street demonstrate Trump and on occasions, turn out to be more violent than the local Neo-Nazis whom they frequently bait.

The wish for a just society and equality for all is the reason for this type of social activism, we are told. Yet, it can be as superficial as it is disingenuous, often based on nothing more than personal dissatisfaction with one’s lot and the sense of power and meaning that comes from being a member of a cause. It emboldens the ego and the individual’s idea that s/he is socially significant; that s/he has earned a self-righteous badge of honour in fighting for freedom and the emancipation of the oppressed. If you cannot or do not wish to see the core reasons for how easily crowd psychology can be used against you, that one is merely a pawn and fighting for nothing but one’s own fragile identity, such energy can be swiftly exploited for all its transient worth by those in power. Without the wisdom to accompany this adherence to “social justice” more false narratives and ineffective “solutions” will nibble at the edges of resolution.


“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”

— Henry Louis Gates Jr.


Identity politics reflects the same unhealthy postmodernist programming and activism of choice. Whatever dark projections of unresolved trauma one wishes to externalise in order to exercise meaning and/or exorcise pain – group identity becomes the arbiter of reality rather than substance and facts.  Of course, like any addiction that just makes it worse for the individual and much worse for all of us who have to deal with the psychic pollution and material chaos it creates. We don’t have social activism on the real issues. Instead, we have the collective hissy fit best represented by the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) who are neither warrior-like or just. We have the violent emergence of Antifa who label themselves as anarchist and anti-fascist yet in truth, they are about as far from true anarchism as it is possible to be, whilst employing distinctly fascist methods to impose their views.

(more…)

The Hissy Fit Generation and the Loss of Free Speech I: Postmodernism (1)

By M.K. Styllinski


Freedom of Speech

Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint. – Encyclopedia Britannica

***

Hissy Fit

uk /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ us /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ informal: a sudden period of uncontrolled and silly anger like a child. – Cambridge English Dictionary

 


What Happened?

No, the above sub-heading is not a reference to Hillary Clinton’s embarrassingly awful publishing deal in which she attempts to cast herself as saintly victim of (non-existent) Russian malfeasance.  This is about what happened to the principles of the left and its liberal brother; why we are seeing such psychological chaos rising up through left-liberal activism and the younger, socially-minded generations.

Take a look a some of these headlines from the past few years:

Institutional child abuse: First grader sent to principal’s office after ‘misgendering’ classmate

Denmark Offers Homes, Education To Jihadists In “Hug A Terrorist” Rehab Program

Stanford University course to study ‘abolishing  whiteness’  

Teacher suspended after ‘calling a trans boy a girl’

SJWs finally lose it: California college students claim no such thing as truth, ‘Truth’ is a tool of white supremacy

Berkeley snowflakes protest mid-term tests, demand ‘take-home’ exams instead 

Compelled speech comes to Canada: Citizens using the ‘wrong’ gender pronoun could be accused of hate crimes

Collapse of masculinity: Millennial men turning to plastic surgery to increase self esteem  

Hyper-activists target Confederate monuments across U.S. as Baltimore calls for them to be torn down

France may set age of consent at 13 after man acquitted of raping 11yo

Fired Google engineer Damore says the company is hiring and promoting workers based on race or gender 

Swedish Left Party Chapter Wants To Make Urinating While Standing Illegal For Men 

Black Lives Matter: Being born a white person automatically makes you a racist 

———————

Alarming no?

30 years ago when I was a young, very bewildered 18 year-old, I was firmly of the belief that environmentalism and a liberal sprinkling of old school Marxism was just the ticket for a more humane and just society. Times have radically changed. Or maybe I just grew up. If my 18 year-old self could have had a brief window into his 48 year old future self that now sides with conservative values over left-liberal activism, he would have shook his head at the horror of it all.

Admittedly, I often think I’ve of stumbled into an alternate reality.

The truth is, I don’t naturally resonate to conservatism, moderate or otherwise. If you had to rubber stamp my forehead with an “-ism” then it would have to be agorism with a dash of old, peace-loving anarchism in the truest sense of the word. Nevertheless, I count myself as a liberal on certain issues, more libertarian or conservative on others. Call it a pick ‘n’ mix position of the best that our philosophical and political traditions can offer.

Shouldn’t that be the whole point in a sane and rational world?

Most political ideologies – much like most religions – have at their inception nuggets of golden knowledge which can potentially enrich societies. Obviously, that approach is not what we have in the world;  only “My way or the highway” rules the day. Equally, this is not about whether we are left or right-leaning in our worldview and further entrenching the problem along partisan lines. This is concerned with upholding free speech for everyone so that reasoned discourse can be given the chance to prevail. Such a principle is unalterable for very precise reasons, as we will discover over the course of this series.

When I use the terms “moderate conservatism” and “left” or “left-liberal” I refer to the mindset rather than whatever political party is in power. The latter is irrelevant since the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK and the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States are still very much under the yoke of the (Deep) State’s social and economic dictates. It is this essential point that much of the left-liberal worldview is missing and gives nourishment to far right fringe groups by adopting an increasing and equally authoritarian line. This may sound very odd indeed if you consider yourself a traditional fighter of the liberal-left. But we will be explore how much of the left has been comprehensively ponerised i.e. infected by radical beliefs, in turn, turbo-charged by pathology and the implications for free speech.

I also want to make it absolutely clear that I am not throwing the baby out with the bath-water and suggesting that there is no racism, sexism or bigotry in general or that it should somehow be ignored. It does occur and it should be called out – if it is genuine. There has been great strides in addressing these issues, far greater progress has been made than one would think if listening to 3rd wave feminists, anti-racists and the like.

Which is why the focus is about those who have a vested interest in perpetuating and inflaming these “issues” due to their own psychological predispositions rather than any genuine wish to see a more equitable and fair society.

As the world becomes increasingly unstable (particularly in America) this mindset is growing like a virulent fungus and represents a dangerous threat to free speech and expression. It will mean whether we live in a democracy (however fragile that may be at present) or a form of soft totalitarianism that sometimes crudely or very subtly determines what you say or think. In other words: fascism. This is a shift which has developed through a form of neuro-hacking over decades, creating division and apparent tribalism, yet paradoxically encouraging conformity through a form of vertical collectivism. As I stated in World State Policies I:

So, what form has this “socialism” in the West actually taken? Simply put, collectivism is the opposite of individualism, where group thought, philosophy, action and principle overrides the needs of the individual. The term can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. The former is collective decision-making among largely equal individuals, and is therefore based on decentralisation, while the latter is drawn from hierarchical power structures and socio-cultural conformity, and is based on centralisation. While such a drive to group endeavour can bring out the positive aspects of our interdependence and our shared experiences across the planet, the kind of collectivism we will explore is an overreaching form that employs both vertical and distorted horizontal forms into one vast entity – its expression having been ponerised by emerging strains of psychopathy. The onset of ponerogenesis will manifest by whatever channels deemed suitable in order to achieve Pathocracy. Remember that none of these ideologies are evil in themselves, but used in a pathocratic context, they become tools of destruction.

It is manifesting in complex, perhaps irreversible ways, through the very traditions that ostensibly speak up for the oppressed and disenfranchised. Such a collective social conscience is in danger of being replaced by a something quite different. It is being seeded in the younger generations who are least able to process its effects, therefore becoming it’s primary foot-soldiers. Since they are our future, this should be a concern to us all.; if that is, we can step outside our political allegiances and look squarely at the nature of the beast.

(more…)