The big British whinge off

thirdform

Well-known member
one for @luka, @version and @shiels

6.2. Self-assured submissiveness: the political “we”
In the civic “we” that he insists on using when discussing every affair of state, the modern individual aligns himself in all
his righteousness with the rule he submits to. He generously overlooks society’s antagonisms and discusses himself and his
interests as the actual purpose of political power. While those who have a say and benefit from the relations of power that
protect person and property always say “we” when making demands on the losers, the latter allow themselves the noble
gesture of consenting by merely complaining that this “we” is poorly realized. The submission they have carried out customarily becomes an argument for the right to make critical comments, so that these comments never lose their character
of expressed disappointment. The ploy of being a taxpayer, with which one proves oneself definitely entitled to get worked
up over some government measure, illuminates the desolate need of citizens who are so smug about their blasé attitude
toward power: their declared interests always boil down to their wish that the state not bestow so many favors on others, or as
the case may be, that it has to be stricter in dispensing justice to them, while the complaining individuals pose as its
legitimate victims. When regulars talking politics at the pub resort as citizens to badmouthing injustice from those “on top”
like this, their objection ends all debate: they don’t find some deplorable state of affairs, get incensed about it and then seek
the reasons for it; much less ponder the question, “What is to be done?” 18 because the pride of a righteous person displeased
with his government has been fully satisfied with his expressed disappointment. Statesmen of all orders of magnitude are
well aware of this and “explain” their every action as helping to assert the inalienable right of taxpayers. No matter whether
they are putting up nuclear power plants or building up the army and celebrating public tattoos to swear in drafted recruits —
they always land at the satisfaction being given to the esteemed taxpayer.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Why do we surrender knowing that surrender automatically admits inferiority?

Certainly the feudalists can justify this with the divine right of a king or sultan to rule. But for secularists who have transcended the humdrum of religion and who aren't marxists or anarchists or whatever, is not a nebulous human nature just as religious?
 

thirdform

Well-known member
what has your isolation taught you about Kings, Lucius? Does the psychedelic avantgarde in daily existence require unwavering tyranny?
 

thirdform

Well-known member
If I were the guy who hacked Twitter, I'd get Erdogan's account to start a war with Boris Johnson over him, to atone for his disowning of his links to the Ottoman bloodline.
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Many a statesman must put up with being attacked as a would-be benefactor because he is unable to cope with his party, this
or that force, or just “developments” per se. Such phantom issues, which make ruling so difficult, are conjured up in reams by
an “ordinary person” — without a first-class diploma or professional license — when he certifies one politician as being
“incompetent” while announcing his trust in another for being equal to the “problems”: the arms race, wage-price spiral,
bureaucracy, technical progress, growth, political apathy, national debt — and whatever other things one might dream up that
politicians have to cope with.
The harsh criticism with which the individual, fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, finally resolves to make his
choice at the polls always goes essentially along the same lines: incompetence in achieving everything the citizen thinks
matters in politics. As a voter, the self-assured citizen either allows that his rulers “know their business” or else denies it, and
in this method, which reflects little knowledge of what goes on in politics, the loyal subject achieves his finest quid pro quo:
he manages to act as if he were the inspector and touchstone of a political power solely out to use him — but only by once
again making the refutation of his standpoint part and parcel of it. He votes for the “lesser evil” and even thinks he’s clever
for realizing that his wishes will not be fulfilled by the future government. That is why he attaches little importance to the
dim view he takes of politicians — he simply votes for the “evil” that most appeals to him personally, because it presents
itself entirely the way he as a citizen would act if he were a politician!

So perhaps Theresa May was right in her own way, there is no such a thing as citizen of the world. However Theresa is invested in citizenship. Must we be?
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Crime I: Terror as a just use of force, autonomously
Finally, the question of the breeding ground for terrorism would be taken care of if something other than the criminal
nature of the deviance were attested to. For it is the hypocritical demand to “get involved,” with which especially political
reps on the campaign trail try to induce young people to join in constructively, that is taken dead seriously by terrorists in
their own way. They are also quite taken with the thinking of politicians that a juster use of force can achieve a lot of good.
They even appreciate the advice, “If you don’t like it here, get lost!” which attests to democratic longing for appropriate
treatment of leftists: some people just “deserve” freedom and others don’t. Since terrorists of “leftist” origin are thus by no
means cynical, instead directing the weight of morality against its hypocritical beneficiaries who always use force, they turn
into advocates and engineers of quite exquisite crimes that are committed not out of self-interest but for the people.
Terrorists from the “right,” who condemn the people in the name of law and order and are not squeamish about
executing their verdict, complete the wealth of alternatives exhibited by the democratic reconciliation of “theory and
practice,” discontent and action. So there is no lack of opportunities for true democrats, who consider their submission to be a
nonviolent state of affairs, to be alarmed by “the use of force as a means of politics” — otherwise, especially in wartime, they
don’t have time to be.

Tony Benn created Abu Hamza.
 
Top