While I do not consider myself a postmodernist, I happily brood over such ideas as the structural or conceptual consequences of the reductionism of the scientific revolution which beams every topic through a prism spectrally divvying the world up in truths and falsehoods.
Here is one obvious consequence: You may not understand the intricacies of a certain conflict, but if you are made aware that one party constantly tries to work in the shadows, spreads false information and mislead its surroundings, you now ask yourself why this party acts in such a way.
Don’t you? Of course you do. In fact, we consider that party reproachable. They don’t deserve to get away with it.
But the first part, the one about not understanding the conflict? It becomes largely irrelevant, since a much larger verdict on a much more severe topic can now be made: Nobody transgresses the border between good and bad.
All so-called “debunking” analyses ever written uses this tactic. It follows a very specific formalism:
- The opponent is always described as attempting to “deny” or “dismiss” some material or historical reality.
- Proof is established that reality doesn’t fit with that dismissal.
- Implicitly this means that the opponent’s perverse attempt at altering reality has been thwarted. The good guys won over the bad guys again.
It only takes an adequate level of adulthood to see through these simple mind games.
Did Russia amass troops prior to February 2022? Yes, on several occasions.
Did they deny it? Yes, certainly.
Aha! Caught redhanded. We have satellite photos. Now we can all see what lying bastards they are. What their intentions are should be obvious from the fact that they try to hide it.
I can inform you, that once you start spending time reading internal discussions, everything starts to fall into place. This is why I am now reading German Nazi literature. What we sorely need as a species is practice in the fine art of transcending our worldview right on the spot. We must train the ability to habitually enter new territory, to sincerely
If it was a street brawl, then events would transpire like this:
Two guys are fighting it out outside the pub. [Sorry about the stereotype.]
Two bystanders argue over how it began.
“Guy #1 provoked and then attacked.”
“Like hell he didn’t. Guy #1 is civilised. He wouldn’t be involved unless guy #2 dragged him into it or some minor skirmish escalated out of control.”
“Here! Surveillance photos! #1 punches his fist right in the face of #2. You see, you moron! #1 is exactly the brutal, evil bastard we all knew he was. Does anybody have the right to lash out like that?”
The bystanders argue principle and will do so forever. Meanwhile, let’s move the mic to the two people actually fighting.
“Goddamn, I punched him yes. I wanted to rip out his brains too, but his skull is too thick. He slept with my wife.”
“She prefers me over your stinking body, buddy. And you hit like a girl.”
Less principled, but much closer to reality.
Upon hearing this, the bystanders turn to a very special mindset which we, the current generation of media savvy middle aged people, specialise in. Rather than admitting that all our theories are pure crap, we start to embed these new revelations into our world codex of morals and justice.
“A wife sleeping with someone else can be considered an act of self defence under certain conditions, if the husband of said wife displays authoritarian behaviour.”
Never elevate or transform the original fight.
As you can see from my other stories on this website, I am a firm believer in the duty to remove the cruft: If A and B are mad at each over over a woman, say it like it is. Don’t invent higher order complications.
Throw your morals on the bonfire while you’re at it. Let me correct myself: You can keep the ethical rules you entered the arena with. But stop creating new ones amid a conversation. I can spot immediately when you are rationalising your prejudices using on-the-fly arguments rather than founding your decisions on tested and tried rules that have value irrespective of their beneficial outcome to you or your beliefs.
Awareness about rules of the game poses a strong incentive to play by (perception of) the rules. This sadly works to create even more self fulfilling prophecies. Taking our friends from before to court:
“Mister A. You are well aware of the penalty for hitting someone in public. Were you or were you not seen shouting at the defendant B by several witnesses.”
Mr. A looks around. The entire altercation with B seems small compared to the grave faces of judges and attorneys whose disapproving eyes he now starres into.
“Mh, well, eh, B, you know. We ended up the same place. But I would never hit him! In fact, I like the guy.”
Which is not entirely untrue either. Some things are simply not permissible to utter in public. On a political level, what matters is ability to integrate a story into the major global themes which also change constantly. It’s a plug and play system. Change the overall sound, and a lot of old explanations fall out and whither. Diligent actors are always working to snuff out their nations enemies’ national narratives from the globalised system out of purely unselfish motives.
Why do I care?
Because that stupid game leaves us blind.
Russia invaded Ukraine because a massive amount of its constituents were growing sick with the lack of solution to the Donbas conflict, which gave political mandate to its leaders to pursue action. Accept it. Did the higher echelons have other plans as well, relating to Europa’s security design? Probably and irrelevant. The political mandate had to be there.
If you kept your hand in your pockets while this conflict developed, all I can say is: Damn your ethics. Contribute to its solution. If your entire contribution is to choose sides between two guys fighting it out, you are as valuable to me as a boxing match spectator.
International law? Irrelevant. Why? Because YOU would have done just .. the .. same if you had been in Russia. Everybody would have done what everybody did in any conflict in any part of the world. Humans all come from the same factory.
“Not me! I was raised with better values!”
Amazing. Even if that were true, it’s a self-defeating argument: Same human raw material, different upbringing.
The only unique thing about a human body is the fact that it cannot be in two places at the same time.
What I do not want you to miss is the sleight of hand that takes place when we face conflict as presented by partisans of one viewpoint. Within seconds, the whole logic of the conversation is defined. We speak in the terms handed out which is always bad historical study practice. Especially troublesome is it when we realise we are no longer able to read an internal discussion originating from the other side. We can no longer see past our own propaganda.
We pride ourselves in “learning from history”, but that is a fallacy. We scout for overall rules, and find many candidates. We tell ourselves that we can detect nazism whenever it is on the rise, and we claim certainly on this.
All we gain is to remove ourselves from historical ground zero, the moment, the experienced reality. The initial forces, the ordinary human condition is no longer in plain view. Those urges have a bad tendency to surprise us and overwhelm us once it becomes our turn. Then we repeat history like everybody else.
Now you know how I prefer to operate. Locate the core of the conflict, stick to that. Stuff your ethics, which I in 99% of all cases correctly identify as a thin veneer covering your own prejudices. I have yet to see a conflict that does not have humans on both sides.
/PARADISE LOST