The propensity to conduct observances such as “2-minute silences”, particularly in the face of national tragedies, lies at the root of social evils that depend on nationally familial contradistinctions to exist.
The 2ms, amongst others, is a symptom of the (nation-centred) paradigmatic malaise that is necessary to realise those conditions that had culminated in the London bombings. In other words, if it was not for the perspective underlying the 2ms, the bombings might never have occurred. Ironically, the observance of the event serves to further reinforce the paradigm necessary to ensure the escalation of this global crisis. Thus, whilst attempting to value human life through the observance of the 2ms, it reinforces the paradigmatic conditions for the further devaluation and destruction of human life. This is most pronounced in the contradiction between the slogan, “One City, One World”, which aims to promote global solidarity, whilst paying its 2 minutes worth of reflection and bereavement for those considered to be “their own” - a natural corollary of the nation-centred paradigm. This event, by its mass practice and the absence of significant criticism, serves as a simultaneous validation of both the naturalness of such sentiments, and consequently, the naturalness of the paradigm itself from which it, amongst other divisive practices, emerges.
Underlying this practice is a conception of the “self”, appreciated in “national” terms, that is incongruent with the transnational “self” of the imperialists or bourgeoisie. The citizenry is confined within a conception of the “self” that draws its attitudinal and behavioural impetus from the idea of national familialarity and patriotism whilst the imperial and bourgeois collective relies on such global human dislocation to pursue their interests abroad unhindered in any significant way from their subjects at home.
The combination of familialarity and patriotism dictate the means and methods that may be legitimately utilised in the national registration of dissatisfaction with either local or “foreign” events. In fact, the idea of “locality” as it is understood today is itself a function of the nation-centred paradigm. This immediately installs a continuum within the nationallycon fined minds that has placardism and violence occupying opposite ends. It is the degree of national familialarity with the sufferer that will determine which end of the continuum ought to dictate the attitudinal and behavioural reactions of the great brainwashed.
Thus, the nationally retarded mind depreciates the significance of the evil it confronts prior to determining the appropriateness of either placardism or violence. How can one say that she recognises the significance of an evil if she reacts differently when it occurs to one as opposed to another? Well, the nation- centred mind is most adept at performing this feat.
For instance, the use of placardistic techniques to register disapproval when local governments butcher people in “foreign” lands is deemed to be “appropriate” as these “foreigners” occupy the less familial end of the continuum dichotomising the “divine family” and the “holy family”. All humanity, since that suspiciously happy time when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued, has been deemed “Holy.” Human life is precious. However, the existence of the antiquated nation-state ensures that Holiness is hierarchically subdivided in a manner not unlike the Great Chain of being in “Catholic” medieval Europe which created divisions between the terrestrial and celestial and other subdivisions that determined the type of value that was to be legitimately apportioned between them. The “Great Chain of Being”, at present, whilst illustrated in a variety of dimensions, is largely divided in a way that places a greater value, and thus, “divinity”, within the local nation-state, whilst “holiness”, in respect of the U.N. Declaration, is magnanimously accorded to “the rest of” humanity. This is one of those instances that render any claims that the “church” and “state” have been separated one of the greatest lies of the era and surest signs of global naïveté. A substitution of idols is not evidence of the disappearance of the altar. Thus, in contrast to the utility of placardistic techniques, allegedly “socially conscious” “activists” would instinctively and vigorously agree that waving placards and chanting slogans in rhythm with a bongo-player in a colourful hat in a festival-like atmosphere would be highly inappropriate if it was their own nation that was being assailed by forces licensed by their counterparts in other states. In such an event, the cry goes out, “self-defence!”, and the placard is hurriedly, and reflexively, cast aside for that which does more than ruf- fle hairs. Placardism, however, is reserved for the “holy family”, who, being “foreigners”, are still expected to be grateful for their placardistic and token “defence” of them even when it is their government which is subjecting them to various forms of assault.
In this we may recognise the propensity underlying the 2-minute silence. Perhaps, a “2-minute Interlude” would be a more accurate term - an “interlude” serving as a respite in the mass-sanctioned continuous butchering of “foreigners.” I say that this is mass-sanctioned because of their failure to register effective opposition as they most certainly would have if it was them who were on the smoking end of a gun.
It is this very propensity, a natural corollary of socialisation and indoctrination within the nation-state that sees different responses – placardism vs. violence - to the same murderous action. A transcendent sense of morality does not only distinguish right from wrong but does so in responding in a selfsame manner regardless of who the perpetrator or victim is. The value of evil can never be objectively appreciated and effectively countered unless it is preceded by an objective appreciation of the value of humanity regardless of any artificial or incidental boundaries. The failure of the allegedly “socially conscious” whom had taken part in the mass festival “opposition” to the government prior to aggression in the Middle East enabled the respective governments to do unto others that which the local populace would not have done unto to themselves by recourse to means other than placards, which at a distance, inevitably seem like the white flags of non-resistance to the government.
As I had stated initially, it is this divisive approach and the statesponsored depreciation of the signi ficance of evil that has enabled governments to do as they will to the nationally disparate. It is unfortunate that when we allow our servant to do harm to others, we cannot simultaneously dictate how these injured and maimed others ought to respond. Perhaps the Londoners thought that the parents of dismembered children and the children of murdered parents in the Middle East, and elsewhere, should also have availed themselves of placards. The only defence against “terrorism” is refraining from causing harm to others. When we have adhered to this rule, and have simultaneously ensured such adherence amongst those who purport to represent our interests, than we can go on to pursue a “war on terror”, as it can only then refer to the exceptionally pathological. As this has never been significantly effected, with much thanks to the antiquated nation-state, the consternation and incredulity exhibited by Londoners, and much around the world, at the London bombings is itself deserving of consternation, incredulity and utter disgust.
Those allegedly “socially conscious” individuals straining their triceps under the weight of placards in London would do better channelling and concentrating their efforts with the aim of turning their nationally located “centre of placardistic opposition” to a globally familial “centre of effective defence.”
Till then, I’ll reserve my silent participation for those observances that bereaves the loss of life. Regardless of nationality.
Republished in cooperation with:
www.the-heretic.org