Politics of Peace, Politics of War

If there be any lingering skepticism about our fundamental thesis — that the modern mind, intellect, or “mental-rational consciousness structure” (Jean Gebser)  is presently in the throes of its own disintegration, fracturing, and decoherence — and if the abundance of compelling evidence for this examined in this blog, and evident in current events, still fails to convince that the personality and character structure of “modern man” is disintegrating or losing integrity, consider what is happening to the meaning of “politics”.

It is not alone the decay of the university into the “multiversity” of overspecialisation that reflects the decay of the unity of knowledge (and thus of the consciousness structure of Late Modern Man), or “the post-modern condition” we now refer to as “the New Normal” of “post-rational, post-truth society”. The commonplace assumption, today, that politics is “war by other means” — a gladitorial contest, a bloodsport such as assumed by Mr. Bannon and his circle — belongs also to the decay and degeneracy of the consciousness structure we refer to as “modernity”. Politics as war is just another aberrant symptom of the disease of post-truth society. It’s here, in this equation of politics with warfare, where the proverb “live by the sword, perish by the sword” finds its proper interpretation and meaning.

Advertisement

In the Dark Places of the World

If you want to understand what “technocratic shamanism” is, and its connection with techno-fascism (and why we should be concerned about this), Carol Cadwalladr, writing in today’s Guardian, has an excellent article on just this — where, we might say, the Shadow of “dark money” meets “dark data” in the “propaganda ecosystem” of the internet. It reveals the very sinister side of artificial intelligence that largely proceeds “under the radar”.

Those behind this are fools. They have no understanding of the consequences of this destruction of the intellect, and the confounding of our perception, and its functions of discernment between the true and the false, or what is and what isn’t.

Trickster

While I was reading a profile of Paul Nuttall, Ukip’s controversial political leader in the UK, in today’s Guardian, I recognised in his profile the classic “trickster” archetype. (Actually, it could be a profile of almost any one of our current political (mis)leaders. It’s a type that is presently quite pronounced and hyper-active). Nuttall’s apparent penchant for self-aggrandising, but untruthful and counter-factual, autobiographical details (– in today’s idiom, for polishing up the “Me Brand”–) has become, rather, part of the “New Normal” of the Great Con — burnishing the public image for mass consumption.

That brought to mind the North American indigenous figure of Trickster — Nanabozho (or Nanabush) amongst the Ojibwe of Eastern Canada or, as he is known in these parts, Wisakedjak amongst the Plain’s Cree or Inktomne (or Iktomi) amongst the Sioux (and whether the name “Bozo” the Clown is derived from Nanabozho is, perhaps, an open question. Also, one of the classic counterparts to the trickster figure in European lore is Baron Munchhausen.)