Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

lauantai 13. helmikuuta 2016

Biovalta ja liberaalin politiikan alkuperä (edit)

Foundations of social and political morality:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

In this small article I map concisely why we are in this situation from the macro point of view.

---> Modern liberalism and democracy started by espousing, developing and using various ways to prevent tyranny; domination of powerful groups over weaker groups; and power of single men. Liberalism divided power, balanced one power with opposing power(s), made the duration of power fairly short, and made laws and people in power changeable. In liberal society politics is always frustrating to people, because division of power ensures that nobody and none of the groups can attain all their goals and fulfill all their wishes. This is exacerbated by the fact that peoples imaginations and unsatisfiable emotional needs can always create much more needs, goals and wishes that can be realistically fulfilled.

---> Commercial and public bureaucracies want as much as possible interchangeable, atomized and homogenous work force and consumers, and they have used their influence in in various ways to change society to this direction. Bureaucracies weaken sanctity, authority, loyalty and liberty (substituted by giving more personal, non-social and non-political freedom to people) among people, and scrape them more to bureaucracies to specific uses. Bureaucracies emphasize ubiquitously care/harm and justice/injustice moralities, and oppression avoidance mainly outside bureaucracies. Liberal elites dream of or strive towards cosmopolitan, international, world federation or world government goals. Why would the people of the world accept such goals? The liberal elites abstract answer is: Universal equality, equal opportunities, justice, redistributive justice, human rights, cooperation, harmony, dimming and ultimately removing the potential autonomous social sources of conflict like religions, ethnicities, cultures, traditions or any other independent and permanent social continuities, consumer utopias, where consuming is the materialistic purpose of life, the ultimate purpose of life, ubiquitous race mixing, creation of hotchpotch of intermixed variations and ultimately one grey race, the most important loyalties and obediencies of people to authoritative central bureaucracies, etc.

---> Leftist tyrannies, communism and national socialism, and two world wars cause a shock to the Western world. The present liberalism is a reaction to these. (In the following text racism -word is not used as a political smear word, but as a politically neutral descriptive word, denoting abrupt separation between ideological ingroup and outgroup, and intense hostility towards outgroup).

Liberal power, like communism and national socialism, is biopower (Foucault), which means it is at the same time discipline and order power and regulation power. Discipline and order power concerns individuals, regulation power concerns population level phenomena. Population is a neutral term, and can mean any ideological, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. groups which populate a country. Biopower regulates life, death, health, illnessess, risks, accidents, work, production, economic activities, etc. Liberal biopower sees world ultimately through secular and materialistic lenses, and functions according to such principles. This is the case even if majority of population and elite of a liberal country are religious. Liberal biopower has decisive influence on peoples lives and deaths, and gives rights, rules, laws, obligations, orders, etc. connected to them. In biopower's processess each citizen, group and even population is in neutral middle state between life and death (almost like Schrödingers cat), and biopower decides which way the scales tip, does the life continue or death happen.

In the context of biopower, racism is death function, the precondition for death. In biopower context racism makes from opponents political, biological or ideological enemies, which by existing and functioning obstruct, harm or destroy population's, ideological ingroup's, race's or other group's welfare, life, success possibilities, procreation and/or expansion. In biopower context racism makes from opponents political, biological or ideological diseases, which must be destroyed, overcome, subordinated, isolated, weakened, expelled and/or suppressed, a disease which must be prevented with all possible means. In biopower context the most optimal resistance method against disease, which racism defines, might be enemy's total mass murder and destruction.

What is totalitarian and tyrannical biopower, like communism or national socialism? Totalitarian tyranny is the intensification of all moral foundations to extremes in a central bureaucracy and as consequence in its spheres of influence: 1) Care/harm: Totalitarian state has almost monopoly of taking care of peoples needs, and almost monopoly of deciding their good or bad fate, including death. 2) Fairness/cheating, justice/injustice: Totalitarian state has harsh monopoly justice, dividing line between good and bad is steep and sharp. Elites lives may be luxurious, but if they err or go to a wrong direction, or lose their usefulness, it might mean death sentence. Citizens are human resources, and in principle same kind of justice applies to them as single persons or as groups. Justice is often purposefully arbitrary and groundless to increase fear and feelings of insecurity in the population. When nobody feels safe, submission increases (to avoid harsh punishments) and fanaticism increases (to prove dashingly to everybody that they are loyal, impeccable and excellent citizens). 3) Loyalty/betrayal: Fairly absolute, immeadiate and exclusive loyalty to the leader, the state, and the collective and groups it creates. Betraying them are the worst crimes, political crimes, from which follows the most severe punishments. Normal crimes might be punished leniently or in any case in more leniently than political crimes (compare; e.g. hate crimes legislation in liberal societies). 4) Authority/subversion: The leader, ruling group and their representatives have unconditional authority, and their orders, teachings, advice, examples, choice of words, arrangements, way of doing, manners, etc. must be obeyed, followed, imitated, learned, used, etc. 5) Sanctity/degradation: The state teaches, proclaims, informs and propagandizes political purity, and demands it from the citizens. The citizens must know the rules, the latest political trends, the right words, the right attitudes, the right actions, the right authorities, etc. The totalitarian state watches citizens and registers their actions. The state uses surveillance, informants, spies, secret police, etc. Anybody could be informant, and state could watch citizen at any time. Citizen doesnt know who to trust, what place is safe and what careless actions or words might be dangerous. Arbitrary grim sentence might fall on him, so he must always do as the state says, or pretend or lie believably, or use corruption. Or watch and learn how the system works, take calculated risks, and work around the rules. Disobeying in one way or another is often crucial for surviving and necessary for relative prospering, and paradoxically also necessary for the functioning of the totalitarian state. When majority or nearly all of people have to disobey the laws and rules of tyrannical state for various compelling reasons, this makes majority of people "criminals". If the state wants to murder someone, extort him, expell him, demand more from him, assign him to a dangerous spying job, etc., the state has to just watch that person more closely, and it gets the incriminating evidence it needs. The tyrannical state could do this without the evidence, but it is mutually and societally more convincing when "crime" really has happened. When bureaucrats of the tyrannical state have to get part of their income by corruption, the state saves money and almost every bureaucrat is a "criminal". The state can then extort bureaucrats as needed, and more easily and with less opposition assign to them difficult tasks, such as mass murders. And of course the state can with its evidence of corruption do anything it wants to its bureaucrats. Thus in corrupted tyrannical states it is normal that laws order severe punishments for corruption. Corruption in tyrannical state separates the interests of bureaucrats from the interests of the people. The bribes demanded are often fairly arbitrary in their quantity, on average relatively large and they often fall on citizens fairly randomly. From citizens point of view they are often undeserved, too large and illegal punishments and extortions. Citizens start to hate bureaucrats. People have psychological tendency to change their self-image according to their actions, and image of the object of their actions according to their actions. When bureaucrats often treat people badly, unjustly and free ride at their expense with corruption, they start to see people in more negative light. Bureaucrats are dependent on reluctant, passive-aggressive and hostile people, but are hierarchically above them. This creates fears, resentments and hatreds against the people in bureaucrats. This separation of interests of people and bureaucrats makes it less likely that they form alliances against the leaders of the tyrannical state. 6) Liberty/oppression: In the totalitarian state there is fairly little liberty and the state defines it. Oppression of varying intensity is often the normal state of the system, and it intensifies if there are problems or "problems" emanating from the citizens, system, ideology, outgroups, nature, orders of the leader, etc.

Note that the dominating bonds in totalitarian state are between atomized citizen and the state, which ties them together to a collective. According to the state, there should be no such familial, ethnic, reciprocal, warm, empathetic, close, economic, practical, etc. bonds between people, which would mitigate, moderate, and humanize the bonds between the state and citizen, although such bonds are often necessary or crucial. As bureaucracy is as close to a social machine people can generate, when all intensified extreme moral foundations are installed into the social machine, it can unleash cold machine like, psychopathic social storm.

Because of this the liberal system has clinged more intensely to the 2-3 moral foundations and opposed more irrationally the 3-4 rest.

---> According to post-modern political philosophy, which followed, almost everything in societies and among peoples is relative and socially constructed. Societies and peoples are formed by different opposing forces, always changing, always vying for power and domination. Societies, cultures and peoples can be understood fully and properly only by inside view. There is no ultimate truth, knowledge or goal, and only trustworthy things are rationally and socially constructed repeating social patterns and processess in liberal bureaucracies, thus they should be given the leading roles, and they should be arbiters of disputes. According to this view men and society are fragile, always changing, untrustworthy, irresponsible, selfish, ignorant, power hungry and prone to disorder, chaos and violence. The words of men are often weapons in a political power struggles, which aim to political dominance. Political dominance is always in varying extent tyrannical. Mens words are hence always suspect, and often dangerous and hurting. They might break the liberal consensus, maybe creating irruptions of violence, and various threats to the liberal authority. Liberal consensus might the only thing separating us from the tyranny, war and genocide. The liberal society has taken this view, but added to it the somewhat paradoxical unfounded optimism of liberal progressive thinking, which created the political correctness and policies in politically sensitive areas we see around us. Fading out, mixing, changing, modifying, etc. the roles, identities,  expectations and compositions of men and women, families, ethnic groups, cultures, religions, social groups, authorities, etc. are part of the intensified liberal post-modern process of dividing, weakening or removing potential non-liberal opposition and social threats, which are marketed as individual freedom. 

Hence conservative and liberal parties in the liberal system have taken the following political roles:

a) Liberals are metaphorically and/or practically feminine, nurturers, gentle, resource-consumers, ones who are maintained, negotiating, conciliating, peaceful, conversational, understanding, forgiving, empathizing, etc.; teenagers or neotenic, irresponsible, lazy, badly behaving, disobedient, rebelling, etc. / but paradoxically politically dominating, trail blazing, leading, dominating discussions; liberals blame and vilify conservatives, demand and often get expiation, submissiveness and apologies from conservatives; liberals are state-oriented, more totalitarian, more conformist, etc. [notice that those liberals who are educated and productive have mostly conservative morality in their personal life, mostly without understanding that it is so]

b) Conservatives are metaphorically and/or practically responsible strong father figures, masculine, productive, entrepreneurial, free, outspoken, dominating, virtuous, disciplined, determined, leaders, community oriented, financially independent, religious, etc. / but paradoxically politically more submissive, weaker, clumsy, trail-following, one who brakes, but is dragged inevitably to the liberal direction ten years behind liberals, apologizing, more careful with words, fastidious, etc.

Conservatives are not conservatives, just slightly more conservative liberals than liberals. Conservatives lack strong conservative direction, and they never seriously rollback liberal advancements. The general and overall direction of society is always more to the liberal direction.

Conservative and liberal elites have made a silent agreement where the stronger and more dominant, and (so they think) more dangerous conservative morality takes the weaker and forever losing role, and the weaker and submissive liberal morality takes forever the dominant and leading role. There have been several reasons for this, but one of the main reason for this is to prevent the dominating and masculine full spectrum moralities of conservatives from turning into tyrannical and/or totalitarian forms in a bureaucracy. Liberal conservatives channel conservative tendencies to a "safe" liberal channels. But all people have full spectrum morality, there is no such thing as liberal morality, there is only natural and socially constructed variations in conservative morality. Conservative morality is human morality. Blindness to own morality leads to irrational and uncontrolled increase of those elements in bureaucracies. Acknowledging, governing and refining own morality prevents tyranny in social life and in bureaucracies.

Because of this, liberals always suspect and blame innocent and normal conservatives of fascism and racism, of which the latter is political smear word, which is meant to devalue and prevent such traditionally good values as loyalty to own ethnic group, helping own ethnic group, empathizing with own ethnic group, preferring own ethnic group, being endogamous inside own ethnic group, etc. Conservatives dont want tyranny or totalitarianism, they are against conservative values. Conservative morality is personal, social community and social network morality, not machine morality of bureaucracy. The bigger and more dominating the state is, the smaller the citizens become, thus the smaller conservative / normal human morality becomes. The increasing pathologies we see around us, are effects and consequences of abnormal liberal machine morality. 

This contradiction between conservative strong morality and it's good and rational effects on the grass roots level, and it's weak, submissive and losing political results, and the consequent increasing problems in peoples lives create a constant tension and schizophrenia in conservative grass roots minds, which produce increasing dissatisfaction and radicalization in the long run. This leads also naturally to the widespread conclusion among conservatives that their conservative leaders are weak, not conservative and colluding with liberals.

When policies are formed by a few men, the reasons for them are understood better. As generations go, the reasons for policies are understood less and less well, even among elites, and they become more and more natural societal environment, what we have learned from the beginning, among what we have always lived. Whatever the dominating policies are, all kinds of interest cling to them, and become dependent on them. Policies become more and more rigid and hard to change, and even if there are increasing problems, they cannot be changed. To create more political freedom, more political choice possibilities, the historical origins and reasons of policies and historical alternatives have to be understood.

7 kommenttia:

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

" Policies become more and more rigid and hard to change, and even if there are increasing problems, they cannot be changed. To create more political freedom, more political choice possibilities, the historical origins and reasons of policies and historical alternatives have to be understood."

Yksi hyvä ja nykyaikana erittäin ajankohtainen esimerkki on Geneven pakolaissopimus ja se, mihin sen noudattaminen on johtanut/johtaa koko ajan. Pitäisi miettiä vaihtoehtoja sille. Painostaa päättäjiä, että ihmisten tänne ottamisen sijaan valtiot alkaisivat järjestää työ- ja opiskelimahdollisuuksia (myös etänä) pakolaisleireille, terveydenhoitoa, ihmisarvoiset asumukset, jne.

Kommentoija

Valkea kirjoitti...

Edit on seuraavan tekstin lisääminen kirjoitukseen: "When majority or nearly all of people have to disobey the laws and rules of tyrannical state for various compelling reasons, this makes majority of people "criminals". If the state wants to murder someone, extort him, expell him, demand more from him, assign him to a dangerous spying job, etc., the state has to just watch that person more closely, and it gets the incriminating evidence it needs. The tyrannical state could do this without the evidence, but it is mutually and societally more convincing when "crime" really has happened. When bureaucrats of the tyrannical state have to get part of their income by corruption, the state saves money and almost every bureaucrat is a "criminal". The state can then extort bureaucrats as needed, and more easily and with less opposition assign to them difficult tasks, such as mass murders. And of course the state can with its evidence of corruption do anything it wants to its bureaucrats. Thus in corrupted tyrannical states it is normal that laws order severe punishments for corruption."

Valkea kirjoitti...

Edit on seuraavan kappeleen lisääminen tekstiin: "Corruption in tyrannical state separates the interests of bureaucrats from the interests of the people. The bribes demanded are often fairly arbitrary in their quantity, on average relatively large and they often fall on citizens fairly randomly. From citizens point of view they are often undeserved, too large and illegal punishments and extortions. Citizens start to hate bureaucrats. People have psychological tendency to change their self-image according to their actions, and image of the object of their actions according to their actions. When bureaucrats often treat people badly, unjustly and free ride at their expense with corruption, they start to see people in more negative light. Bureaucrats are dependent on reluctant, passive-aggressive and hostile people, but are hierarchically above them. This creates fears, resentments and hatreds against the people in bureaucrats. This separation of interests of people and bureacrats makes it less likely that they form alliances against the leaders of the tyrannical state."

Valkea kirjoitti...

Kommentoija,

juuri sitä varten olisi tarpeellista selvittää tuonkaltaisten kansainvälisten sopimusten synty- ja kehityshistoria. Juuri se poistaa niiltä välttämättömyyden, väistämättömyyden ja luonnollisuuden illuusion. Pakolaisleirien auttaminen on hyvää politiikkaa laajassa mittakaavassa kaikille osapuolille.

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

"Conservative and liberal elites have made a silent agreement where the stronger and more dominant, and (so they think) more dangerous conservative morality takes the weaker and forever losing role, and the weaker and submissive liberal morality takes forever the dominant and leading role. There have been several reasons for this, but one of the main reason for this is to prevent the dominating and masculine full spectrum moralities of conservatives from turning into tyrannical and/or totalitarian forms in a bureaucracy. Liberal conservatives channel conservative tendencies to a "safe" liberal channels. But all people have full spectrum morality, there is no such thing as liberal morality, there is only natural and socially constructed variations in conservative morality."

Tarkoitatko tuolla täyden spektrin konservatiivisella moraalilla esimerkiksi sitä, että hyvän jakamista (kuka saa kansalaisuuden, sosiaaliturvaa, koulutuspaikan Suomesta, jne.) on rajoitettava ja hyvän tekeminen on oltava asteittain laajenevaa: ensisijaisesti omille ja jos hyvän laajentaminen omien ulkopuolella ei haittaa omaa sisäryhmää, niin sitten voidaan auttaa muita. Hyvän antaminen voidaan jättää myös tekemättä, jos arvellaan/tiedetään, että se johtaa pahuuteen. Esim. tietynlainen apu Somaliaan menee pikemminkin Al Shabaabille, tms. Ja ruoka-apu pikemminkin lisää väestönkasvua.

Kertoisitko joitakin esimerkkejä täyden spektrin konservatiivisesta moraalista tai miten se ilmenee?

Olisiko tämä hyvä esimerkki konservatiivisesta moraalista: kansalaisuuden saantimahdollisuuksia kiristetään niin, että on täytettävä tietynlaiset etnisyyteen liittyvät ehdot ja sosiaaliturva on vain niitä varten (ja ilmainen koulutus, jne.), jotka täyttävät kansalaisuuden saamisen ehdot.

Ulkoryhmiä voidaan kuitenkin auttaa (jos taloustilanne sallii): parantamalla pakolaisleirien oloja, tekemällä molempia osapuolia hyödyttävää kaupankäyntiä kehitysmaissa, jne. Tämä auttaminen on kuitenkin erilaista kuin oman sisäryhmän auttaminen, eikä kukaan pyri tekopyhästi teeskentelemään, että sen kuuluisikaan olla samanlaista. Ulkoryhmien auttaminen tapahtuu myös oman maan rajojen ulkopuolella kun taas oman sisäryhmän auttaminen tapahtuu ensisijaisesti kotimaassa.

Olisiko tämä esimerkki liberaalista moraalista: kaikki ihmiset laitetaan täysin samalla viivalle. Suomen kansalaisuuden ja ennen pitkään myös kaikki sosiaaliturvaan liittyvät osa-alueet saa käytännössä kuka tahansa (nyt 86 % hakijoista). Vaikka abstraktian tasolla pyritään tasa-arvoon, käytännössä maahanmuuttajat saavat enemmän sosiaaliturvaa ja etusijan esim. Helsingin kaupungin asuntojonoissa. Tasa-arvo johtaa väkisinkin epätasa-arvoon ja suomalaisten elämän kallistumiseen ja huonontumiseen.

Tasa-arvoon pyrkiminen saa aikaan senkin, että ei saa/voida ottaa huomioon sitä, että maahanmuuttajien kannalta heidän elämänlaatunsa paranee, kun taas kantasuomalaisten huononee. Kun otetaan huomio sukupuolen, tulotason, asuinalueen, etnisen ryhmän jäsenten lukumäärän, jne. kaltaiset muuttujat, niin huomataan, että Lähiidästä ja Afrikasta tulleet miehet syyllistyvät 13-kerta suomalaismiehiä todennäköisemmin raiskauksiin. He myös tekevät kantasuomalaisia miehiä huomattavasti useammin ryhmäraiskauksia ja puskaraiskauksia, joissa uhri on ennestään tuntematon.

Konservatiivista moraalia noudatettaessa edellä mainittuejn ryhmien maahanmuutto lopetettaisiin käytännössä kokonaan, koska oma sisäryhmä on etusijalla. Liberaalia moraalia noudatettaessa heidän maahanmuuttoaan jatketaan, koska globaalin tasa-arvon vaatimus ei tyydy vähempään.

Kommentoija

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Suomenkielessä on myös sanonta: kun yhdelle kumartaa, niin toiselle pyllistää. Liberaali moraali yrittää kumartaa vuorotellen ja yhtäaikaa kaikille ihmisryhmille mikä ei tietenkään onnistu.

Ruotsi on täydellinen esimerkki liberalin moraalin noudattamisesta, mutta myös muut länsimaat kuten Suomi tulevat perässä. Muuten, kirjoitit (muistakseni) Miksi maahanmuutto? -kirjoituksessa 2014, että suomalaisilla on taipumusta globaalin tasa-arvon ihannoimiseen tms. En muista sanatarkasti. Tarkoitatko tällä sitä, että suomalaiset ovat tasa-arvoisen hyvätahtoisia ja empaattisia (abstraktilla tasolla) kaikki etnisisiä ryhmiä kohtaan heidän kotimaissaan ja toivovat muiden saavuttavan saman kuin suomalaiset vai tarkoitatko myös, että suomalaisilla on psykologinen taipumus asettaa ulkoryhmät samalla viivalle kanssaan myös kotimaassaan Suomessa?

Suomalaisille ei siis riitä, että ulkoryhnät saavat kaikkea hyvää omissa kotimaissaan, vaan suomalaiset haluavat antaa samat oikeudet ja tasa-arvon heille myös omassa kotimaassaan?

Kommentoija

Valkea kirjoitti...

Kommentoija,

täyden spektrin konservatiivinen moraali voi toki tarkoittaa juuri sitä minkä mainitset, mutta se kattaa myös hyvin paljon muita asioita. Esimerkiksi kun konservatiivit pitävät auktoriteetteja tärkeinä, se tarkoittaa sitä, että opettajilla on tärkeä ja arvostettu asema, ja lapsilta edellytetään asiallista ja asianmukaista käytöstä opettajien seurassa. Tai että vanhemmat eivät ole yksinomaan lastensa kavereita, vaan myös opastavia ja ohjaavia auktoriteetteja, jotka ottavat merkittävällä tavalla vastuuta lapsen kehityksestä ja toiminnasta, kasvattaen lasta itsenäisyyteen, omatoimisuuteen, tekniseen osaamiseen, ja monenlaisiin sosiaalisiin taitoihin ja periaatteisiin. Kirjoituksen alussa olevasta linkistä voit tutusta konservatiivisen moraalin osatekijöihin ja varmasti päätelläkin niiden perusteella pitkälti mihin kaikkeen ne vaikuttavat.

Suomessa on vähemmistö, joka ei ole niinkään sisäsyntyisesti kosmopoliittinen, mutta jolta puuttuu niin suuressa määrin sisäsyntyinen etnosentrisyys, että he ovat muita alttiimpia kannattamaan liberaaleja ideologioita ja maahanmuuttoa, muita alttiimpia katsomaan sormien läpi maahanmuuton ja kansainvälisyyden ongelmia, muita taipuvaisempia työskentelemään globaalin tasa-arvon puolesta, jne. He ovat myös taipuvaisia "rakastamaan" kaikkia maailman ihmisiä. Maailman kaikkien ihmisten "rakastaminen" ei vaadi oikeastaan mitään käytännön tekoja, joten se on helppoa. Raamatussa kehotetaan rakastamaan omia maanmiehiä, oman kansan jäseniä, naapureita, joka vaatii konkreettisia toimia ja ponnisteluja, ja se voi joskus olla vaikeaa. Sen ajoittainen vaikeus ei ole kuitenkaan syy olla tekemättä niin, koska se on tärkeää. Siksi siihen kehotetaan, eikä jätetä sitä henkilökohtaisten oikkujen varaan. Ihmisten hyvä toiminta on tärkeämpää kuin heidän kulloisetkin tunteensa tai mielentilansa. Vaikka ihminen sattuisi olemaan jonain hetkenä pahalla tuulella, hän on silti velvoitettu toimimaan rakastavasti omaa kansaansa kohtaan.

Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä

Lukijat

Blogiarkisto