Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, philosopher, politician, historian, and writer who lived during the Renaissance. He is best known for his political treatise The Prince, written in 1513 where he articulated the Divide-and-Conquer policy. Fast forward to the modern era and there is no denying the fact that the world is more divided than […]What if we are being played?
Not at the table, not at work, not with your family, not in public, better yet, just don’t do it. Be political, that is. “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”(-Eleanor Roosevelt) A political mind knows who he is talking to and entertains that person as the politician meets his/her […]A-Political
In this article I want to show you how a few can control the masses. They don’t need tanks or soldiers, they do it through the mind. Fear has been the power tool par excellence for thousands of years, but so has conditioning. This means of mind control causes the masses to think and act […]The World a True Truman Show – Open Your Eyes
Carl Schmitt is one of the most notorious and important political philosophers of the 20th century. He is an enigma. An unrepentant Nazi Party member, he refused de-Nazification after the war. Despite this, he is a mainstay in the political canon—and, ironically, it is the New Left that has taken up the mantle of Schmitt […]Carl Schmitt: The Concept of the Political
Biopolitics is made of bio meaning life in a vital sense and politics. The word politics comes from Greek polis, city or State. Combining these two words, biopolitics is the power of the State over people’s health as shown in public heath policies, sanitary strategies, awareness, ministries and so on. Biopolitics is an intersectional field between human biology and politics. It is a political wisdom taking into consideration the administration of life and a locality’s populations as its subject. To quote Michel Foucault, it is “to ensure, sustain, and multiply life, to put this life in order.”
2020 was by far the year of biopolitics since the outbreak of covid19 and the vaccines strategies and race between countries as a new type of international politics: whoever produced the most efficient vaccine wins internationally. In other words, a strong country is defined by a strong vaccine. Politicians have become the marketers. However, many people around the world are reluctant towards the vaccine; did anyone analyze this new phenomenon of global mistrust?
Furthermore, does anyone have answers about the origins of covid19? Once, the bat was blamed. Then, it is said it was man made. Then, it was about global warming and massive deforestation. Then… Then….
Should we expect from now on that wars and politics to be defined by pandemics?
Needless to say that freedom of speech is in danger. Needless to say that freedom of speech is misunderstood. Shaming, bullying, harassing, insulting, humiliating are no freedom of speech but a boiling violence. For anyone who is familiar with this issue, it is known that violence is the opposite of freedom. Violence is enslaving and therefore a sign of weakness. Obviously, the main issue is to understand what causes violence everywhere. However, for this post, the topic is about the new phenomenon of “cancel culture”, a direct consequence of violence. So what is cancel culture?
According to the dictionary, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. It is generally discussed as being performed on social media”. But as we witness on daily news, cancel culture can become “cancel physically” by kidnapping or killing a disturbing opponent. Here, there are two different levels of analyzing the problem.
The first one is theoretical. When cancel culture is applied with common sense, it can become a way to shut down violent people, harassers, offensive statements and all the ugly things that we can watch and see or perhaps be victim of. The theory itself is good.
However, the second way is less positive. For example, who decides what is offensive and what’s not? People in charge, usually people of power, do this, but on their own terms. So there is a high risk that decision makers are subjective in their decisions. Hence, journalists being threatened, opponents kept silent, Julian Assange under surveillance for revealing the truth, George Floyd murdered and so on.
Cancel culture is a bitter reminiscence of Nazi, Soviet and Fascist regimes.
I am afraid that these regimes have been globalized.
The White Man is a political concept better known as the Supremacist. The 20th century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze has referred to this concept as “The Face”. It is mainly the Westerner White Man politics that rules the international politics and its culprit is found in the Extreme-Right wing.
However there is a wide confusion between the political concept of the White Man supremacy and the white men who happen to be white genetically. Such confusion doesn’t help solve the problem of racism and fanaticism. Furthermore, considering every white fellow out there as a potential supremacist would turn them into scapegoats.
The question remains: what do we do then with nice white people?
Modern capitalism has ignored the lessons of history in the ignorant and short-sighted pursuit of individual wealth. See for example the article Economics for the People by economic historian Dirk Philipsen in Aeon magazine, from which I quote at length, due to its eloquence: In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the […]We are tired of this blindness
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty In last week’s post […]Classic Liberal Thought by John Stuart Mill
“Est invulnérable non pas l’être qui n’est pas frappé, mais celui qui ne subit pas de dommage; c’est ce caractère que je te montrerai dans le sage. Est-il douteux qu’une force qui n’est pas vaincue soit plus assurée que celle qui n’est pas attaquée? N’étant pas mise à l’épreuve, sa vigueur reste douteuse; au contraire, n’a-t-on point toute raison d’être sûr de la solidité d’un être qui repousse tous les chocs? Sache donc bien qu’un sage à qui l’injustice subie ne nuit pas est supérieur en nature à celui qui n’en subit pas. L’homme courageux, dirai-je aussi, c’est celui que les guerres n’abattent pas, celui qui ne s’effraye pas à l’approche des forces de l’ennemi, et non celui que le repos fait engraisser au milieu des gens inertes. C’est en ce sens que le sage n’est pas exposé à l’injustice : aussi peu importe tous les traits qu’on lance sur lui, puisque aucun d’eux ne peut pénétrer. De même que certaines pierres sont d’une dureté inattaquable au fer, le diamant par exemple qui ne peut être ni coupé, ni entamé, ni même usé, mais qui fait rejaillir tout ce qui le frappe, de même que certains corps ne peuvent être consumés mais conservent au milieu des flammes leur consistance et leurs propriétés, de même que les rochers avancés dans la mer brisent les vagues et, fouettés depuis tant de siècles, ne montrent pas trace de ces attaques, de même l’âme du sage a de la solidité et a rassemblé en elle tant d’énergie qu’elle est à l’abri de l’injustice tout autant que sont à l’abri des coups les corps que je viens de citer”.
Sénèque, De la constance du sage, suivi de De la tranquillité de l’âme, traduit du latin par Émile Bréhier et édité sous la direction de Pierre-Maxime Schuhl, Paris, Folio, « Sagesses », 2016, p. 17-18.