Civilizational Conspiracies: Peace and Pacification
Philosophy Podium: Civilizational Conspiracies: Peace and Pacification
One of the greatest inventions of the political world and one of the greatest revolutions introduced to humanity is, without a doubt, the sense we have of what we call the movements of masses. Mass movements, theoretically, are born of the popular will to transform qualitatively the society and social structures. Even though this definition appears understandable to us, it stops us from seeing that our philosophers and social politicians, by not defining what they are calling qualitative transformation, are turning the society into a field of ideological conflicts. In other words, the politicians teach us that since the arrival of humankind on Earth, they have not resolved the fundamental questions of a society - questions like how to manage the resources of the planet or how to allow a good functioning of a society as a community united by the necessity to protect the individual, etc.
If we consider the state of mind of the first human ancestors (those science defines as primitive), the nomads living from hunting and gathering, etc., we can understand that for these first humans to accept the creation of a society, they must first be seduced by that society; that society must offer to the individual what he has difficulties finding in the nature as a loner: security and the ability to enjoy the wealth of nature. The ancestor of the human has accepted to live in the society because it was offering the peace he was looking for and the serenity that was needed for his happiness. A few hundred thousand years later, the new and modern educational system is presenting to us the image of a world in which humanity appears to be stuck in the first stages of human evolution. Without a society, a human being does not need a language. And the security, the need for solidarity, etc., are the reasons that have forced the human being into recognizing the importance of his neighbor to the point of accepting to join forces with him. One does not look for one's own kind so that one can fight them. Unless the neighbor is perceived as being part of the environment or decor through which we are evolving.
If philosophically, the neighbor himself is comparable to a rock on which we are sitting, the path on which we are walking, the obstacle on the path of our happiness, etc., we can already forget the the idea that we live in a society. The question of knowing why we find ourselves ruled by the same law or even speaking the same language or having the same beliefs, etc., can be honestly asked of the leaders of the community.
The reality is that we are not honoring human intelligence if we accept that humanity has not solved the questions in relation to the individual and his society. Contrary to what the political leaders want to make us believe, one cannot form a society by presenting the individual laws that he must follow. Our ancestors, for a very long time, have accepted the fact that there cannot be a society of law. This human reality is the greatest obstacle in the path of those who have the ambition the political domination of humanity. There cannot be a society of law, a society based on law must first convince the individual of the validity of these laws and why he must respect them.
A society based on law only relies on a procedure of retaliation as a way of motivating the individual into respecting these laws. In a society of law, there is a need for a body that will secure the fact that the law will be respected, and that body, by itself, will need another body to secure that it, too, will respect the law, and so on and so on and so on. The peasant on his farm will need someone behind him to ensure that he will respect the law, and that person will also need to be followed by another one, and that other one by another one, etc. A society based on law can only collapse on itself because the production force will find itself astronomically overwhelmed by the forces destined to guarantee the legality of every individual's actions.
Even though we have a tendency to believe that it is the politics that manage the society, we can see that politics do not have the legitimacy they allocate to themselves in one way or another! It is clear that on the individual level, one does not join a club or a group on the basis of the restrictions that group will bring to one's life. situation of fait-accomplice This is only possible if one finds oneself already in a or if the anger, oppression, or destructive force will be unleashed against any individual who refuses to become part of the politician's vision.
The society of law is, by itself, an expression of the colonization of humanity by the politician. The situation of conflict born from the desire of the politician to place people of diverse cultures in the same territories comes to legitimize the law that he brings as rules generally perceived as impartial, despite the fact that they will only appear logical to the groups that have colonized the others. These rules always come with a background of a threat of the invading force on whoever will dare to reject them. The society of law only has the kind of legitimacy the destructive force that accompanies it allows as a force of colonialism. But before all, there can only be a society of humans. The society of humans is the one that honors the individual and the reasons for his existence. If we accept the fact that a society is a community of individuals, these individuals find themselves united by their preoccupations, and for these preoccupations to unite them, they can only be more or less external to the individual, but at the same time linked to the destiny of the human being in this existence. we are finding more and more difficult to understand. Humans, in reality, are only linked by existential questions. The society must give us satisfactory reasons for us to be able to get out of our bed every morning; the society must simply and honestly answer the questions that the individual asks. And all these existential questions are simply too complicated for a politician. We all know that a politician only has his ambitions and as a method of education, he only knows the technique of the carrot and the stick: reward the individual that obeys and beat, imprison, and kill the one that disobeys. In other words, reducing the individual to the state of an animal and making him see in the carrot that is being offered to him the message of the society telling him that he is on the right path and the encouragement of the political leaders.
In a society called a society of law, if the politician cannot answer an existential question the individual asks, he is only left with the option of making sure that the individual does not stay preoccupied with existence. "To eliminate the possibility of asking a question becomes a way of avoiding having to bring an answer to it." It only takes to keep the individual continuously distracted from his reality to keep him in a sort of philosophical and spiritual passivity. Instead of a reasoned approach to life, the system will encourage an emotional approach. The belief, being a feeling that does not tolerate contradiction, the politician quickly understood the value of a religion as a means of social pacification. This technique has been used in most societies until the moment when the political option as a way of life became mature enough and sure that it will survive the individual reaction. Most of the kingships then presented the king as a descendant of Gods. This is from the usurpers of the Pharaonic thrones to the kings of the Jewish, Sirians, Romans, Greeks, etc.
The logic in these times was simple; humanity had its face turned toward Gods. Polytheism was not serving the ambition of the politician because the politician needed the people to become nationalists, meaning that instead of worshipping their Gods, they celebrated the union with their neighbor. The human being should make a society the reason for his existence. If we replaced all the Gods with divine concepts it will become very easy to unify all the concepts into one God that is supposed to be supreme and at the same time far away enough from the individual to allow the emergence of a space for a politician between the individual and his divine concept: the modern religion is born! It will introduce diverse cults that are destined to give the individual the impression that he is addressing his God, the God in the name of whom so much blood will be poured. Our great God which suddenly becomes the one that needs our protection...and with time, the actions we do not commit because of our consciousness of the existence of Gods and what these Gods expect from human beings, become the same actions we will be committing because we want to protect our concept of the divine and our way of life!
The politics and religions have found a subtle way to drive the human being back to the level of the animal! The politician has become capable of bringing humanity back to the state of barbarism. The best proof of the intellectual and spiritual apathy in the modern human being can be found in the fact that the same people who, through their authority, have succeeded in convincing us that they are looking for our "good" take the lead when it is to teach us the divine commandments like thou shall not kill, thou shall not lie, thou shall not do evil, etc., yet still find themselves in front of us to convince us of the need to kill those they are calling our enemy, to lie if it serves their interests, to do evil if that allows them to expand their power… And all this without giving us a chance to realize the hypocrisy and contradictory nature of the political leaders and the clergy of the modern religions.
The politician can make himself useful to the functioning of the society, but we can say with no risk of being wrong that if placed between the individual and his Gods, the politician will build his power on the control he has over the human beings' means of accessing what is dear to him: his Gods. This situation is, by itself, what makes the religions a matter of organization of power with the goal of affecting human destiny. If the educational system of the individual is supported by the politician and the clergy, that will only be on the basis that this system will serve their vision; the individual will come out of that education system believing in the divine concepts that have been sold to him by the dominating religion and believing firmly in the ideological concepts that have been established by the politician. The future of humanity will only be determined by the level of clairvoyance that is shown by the individual and his ability to recognize that besides what the society is presenting to us, the existential question is still sitting unanswered. Since the modern society is trying to replace nature as the field of individual evolution, we can say that just like the nature, the modern society does not feel obliged to answer all the questions asked by the individual; it will only reveal itself in relation to the method of investigation. The answers we will reach will always be in relation to the questions we ask and the seriousness of the interest we are allocating to existence, Gods, ancestral spirit, etc.
It is all these elements that are confronted by human consciousness. This situation of conflicts that humanity has been trying to answer, the reasons that we are giving for these actions, etc., that determine the movement of masses in the level of society and the direction that this mass movement takes. But on the level of the politicians, this represents a situation of peace because the individual will spend most of his energies surviving the contradictions and conflicts in the middle of which he finds himself and will not have enough energy left to question the directions the politicians are taking us toward.
