On power relations.

On power relations.

When we cast our eye upon the food chain and our own projected beliefs we come across a strange peculiarity between morals and power relations. One main aspect of human projection is a belief in the Benign - may it be a god, state, parent, person, or nature. In regards to war, one may call himself a pacifist and take pride in such an expression. But that which we call humility, or modesty, is merely a [literal] curling up, so one does not get stamped on, or more colloquially, reduced to size. We see this even with domestic animals, a cat will act with gentleness towards a human and yet, anything which the cat can overpower or master, it will pounce and attack. Insects or rodents will attack any size or power but that is merely a lack of intelligence. In regards to pacifism, it is the mere waving of a ‘white flag’ - because this attitude is a literal lying down - I won’t fight, so don’t hurt me.’ - This attitude makes perfect sense to those who will lose, or are weak, such as the Geneva convention, or even the mosaic laws of the Old Testament - but one can see in the historical record that such laws have no inhibitory effect, and in regards to will, such laws are superfluous. However, if morality is a herding instinct and the weak making laws, it is still crucial to civilization and human relations, but one must not forget that force rules the world, and not rationality and laws. Therefore one has to take a stance of incredulity when one maintains that the state is good, or humans are intrinsically good, or such corporate conspiracies cannot happen - It is a mere fact of life, and anything other than this view can be characterised as a mere projection. If we take this view to its extreme connotation, one must be pro war, even if the war is not morally justified. - Imperialistic conquest can be seen as a pro emptive attack on that which would devour if not devoured before it gain strength. However, the end game of such a relation would be the complete devouring of the world. - which ultimately may come to pass under its multitudinous disguises.

However, there is a reversal to this - and yet, it is not a solution. If one wants to reign in the financial disparity and power, if one wants to end suffering and violence - through neurological and chemical conditioning - we enter a Orwellian and Huxley dystopia. One where all our needs may be satisfied but without suffering and without violence there is no meaning, or value. A race who’s sole means of meaning would lie in material production/re production - and thus enables Eugenics, anti depressants, I.D, mass herding and surveillance, and servitude…. And yet, ostensibly, we are slaves to either the instincts or a master herder who banishes such instincts. The only difference lies in ‘social progression’ - without identity or meaning, other than the collective. - The very term ’social progress’ reminds one of making morality a clutch, as the ’working class’ make their ’we the working class’ a worship of their own failure - Or, ‘Instinctual discharging’ and yet, meaning in a hostile world which will duly wipe itself out, or at least, those who cannot succeed in the game; however, there may be the possibility that a new order will form, likewise, as the old present order formulated itself, but one can quite clearly see we are entering a ‘post democratic‘,[ even if that term is a joke] ‘post American’ world.