Thursday, March 23, 2006

False consciousness and false organising

We have two things below, related, one hopes, to our struggle against Islam and Left dhimmi fascism. First a look at false consciousness; the second a fiasco of anti-jihadi organising.

Some of ours will fall by the wayside in our process. We learn in this process, and some wil learn the hard way, by failing. We will do well to understand what our goals are, and by knowing what we are fighting against. We must be clear in our own minds what we want and what we do not want, and how we will know the difference.

If we follow the Left dhimmi fascist concept of socialism and collectivist phantasies, we will buy into the idea that others are falsely conscious if they do not agree to our special knowledge. we will remain mired in phantasy land with the dhimmis. Such, I argue, has happened in our struggle to organise against jihad and dhimmitude, as we will see in the second piece below. It is a process, not a failure per se, that we are facing a crumbling of our group effort against jihad. We'll see where we have gone wrong in our assumptions of consciousness over reality in the second piece here. Some of ours, thinking themselves knowledgeable in spite of reality, have blown the game for themselves. Gnosticism first and then Voltaire, organiser.

We can see the origins of the classical gnostic dismissal of the material world and the demiurge in Plato's later dialogues, and so clearly that only the most obsessively blind can miss them. We can see the fascist origins of the Marxist concept of false consciousness in Plato. We can see the gnostic visions of our Left dhimmi fascist intelligentsia too clearly by looking at the television or the Internet. But what does this mean?

We stare dumbfounded (or maybe it's just me) at the insanities pouring out of the minds and mouths of our intellectual classes, insanities such as "Islam is the religion of peace." We find equally ignorant and repulsive insanities from the Left who make such noises as "No war for oil." We look at our world, we see our world, we think, and we find we are in strong disagreement with those who say they know the truth about what we see and think. Something is wrong because our vision of reality doesn't match up with what we read in the daily papers, see on television, read on the Internet, hear in our lecture rooms. Ah, it is we who are misinformed by our own minds. We, like the slaves in Plato's cave, are living in states of illusion, seeing shadows and mistaking them for reality. Little do we know just how naive and stupid we are to be fooled by the clever and evil geniuses who run the whole show in the back of the room. It takes those who have a special knowledge of the true reality to explain it to our dull minds, and when we still don't get it, to relieve us of our mental and emotional burdens, to take such burdens upon themselves and to rule us for our own good. We, the dullards and the masses, the iron people who think we are gold, we must leave to the aware and the enlightened the hard tasks of understanding those things too difficult and deep for us to trouble our little heads over. We must leave the thinking and the knowing to the gifted and the special, to the intelligentsia and the highly developed moralists among us.

We here have written numerous times on the topics of infantalisation, of the Left dhimmi fascists who think of themselves as adult while the masses are treated as children by politicians, the welfare statists, the academics, and anyone with a job in government. Infantalisation is the outcome of socialism. Some people love it.

We have written here often of the philobarbarist obsession with the primitives of the world, the socialists having abandoned the working classes of Europe in favor of victims more amenable to their infantalising programmes.

And we have written in great detail bout the ecologists who have abandoned all to the fascism of gnostic anti-Humanism. There is mmore and there will be more to come after that. But first we might look at why we are so stupid as to miss what the gnostics among us know. We are falsely conscious.

False consciousness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False consciousness is a Marxist hypothesis that material and institutional processes in capitalist society mislead the proletariat — and perhaps the other classes — over the nature of capitalism.

The concept flows from the theory of commodity fetishism — that people experience social relationships as value relations between things, e.g., between the cash in their wage packet and the shirt they want. The cash and the shirt appear to conduct social relations independently of the humans involved, determining who gets what by their in-built values. This leaves the person who earned the cash and the people who made the shirt ignorant of and alienated from their social relationship with each other.

Although Marx frequently denounced ideology in general, there is no evidence that he ever actually used the phrase "false consciousness." It appears to have been used — at least in print — only by Friedrich Engels. (See Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso, 1991), p. 89.)

Engels wrote, in "Letter to Mehring" (1893), that: "Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces."

False consciousness is theoretically linked with the concepts of the dominant ideology and cultural hegemony. The doctrine of false consciousness has also been used by Marxist feminists in regard to other women.


Thursday, March 23, 2006

Muslims are Welcome: No Danish cartoons, please.

At the very start of this campaign, we said this is a march in support of freedom of expression, not a march against Muslims. We meant it. But there has been a lot of mistrust about this from Muslims, and some disappointment from those who would like to use it to attack all followers of Islam. The latter is of no consequence to us; the former is a great concern.

Comments here have been illuminating. Particularly striking has been the use of the "First they came for..." motif both by people who feel under attack by Muslims, and by Muslims who feel under attack in Britain and Europe. Let's ignore whether these sentiments have reflected reality. The fact is they do represent the way people feel. People feel under attack from each other, there is vast mistrust and misunderstanding.

At the outset, we said that displays of the Danish cartoons would be welcome on Saturday. No, let me rephrase that: At the outset, I, Peter Risdon, said the cartoons would be welcome. I am going to take full responsibility for this. I now think that was a mistake.

In practice, Muslims who wholeheartedly endorse our statement of principle, as quoted below by Peter Tatchell in his superb essay, who abhor the threats made against Danish cartoonists and believe people should have the right to publish things they themselves find offensive or abhorrent would be UNABLE to come to our rally on Saturday, because to be surrounded by these cartoons, now, in the present context when the BNP are using them as a rallying point, would be intolerable.

So I now appeal to people not to bring the cartoons on T-shirts or placards.

Instead, because the principle of free expression must be upheld in this context as well, we will arrange a forum in which they can be seen and debated without this being, in context, intimidating to anyone.

The principle of freedom of expression is used, by some, as a Trojan horse, as a proxy for racism and islamophobia. Not by me. Not by us. Not by this campaign.

posted by Voltaire @ 11:20 AM


And the reaction to those who do not understand that they do not have a special understanding of reality that the rest of us miss is to their shame. The gnostic babysitters blew it. We are not so stupid as they would think us. I urge all to forego the grand schemes of marches and rallies for this or that until such time as we have made our own local cadres unified and coherent. To sort out our agendas on a man to man basis is our strength at this time. To meet in the open in our own locations with others of like-mind is to orgainise properly for the struggles against fascist Islam and Left dhimmi fascism. To rely on others to campaign for us, to set our agendas for us, to decide for us what we can and cannot do is to exchange one group of gnostics for another. Let them live in their state of bliss and let us carry on in our own confident manners, throwing off those who accuse us of false consciousness, and that we meet each other on Thursday evenings to know who and what we are as individuals unbeholden to the idiot schemes of grand organisers who know better than individuals together.


John Sobieski said...

What is the purpose of the 'freedom of expression' march if you can express that freedom by displaying the cartoons? This makes no sense to me.

Always On Watch said...

There is no sense to this restriction on displaying the cartoons.

dag said...

It's devastating. Voltaire has been with us for a very long time and he knows the intricacies of this debate as well as anyone. I have worked with him on a number of projects, and I can't understand what's going on.

My option, were I able to attend the rally, would be to meet other people like-minded and go on without the organisers, sorry to say. Voltaire knows better than this, and I need some frist-hand explanation for this-- fiasco.

Again, I urge us all to by-pass the dramas of big-time events and work on the grass-roots work of meeting our neighbours. That might be the hardest thing we'll ever do in life, judging by the endless disappointments t-ham and maccusgermanus and others withstand weekly. But the disappointment of this rally is far worse. We have to rely on our own efforts as individuals, meet people we know and trust, find out our own concerns and ways to work with our communities, and then we might move on to saving the world.

My guess is that Voltaire is too busy to be explaining this to me, but I do want some explanation. What a major piss-off. And what a way to learn about organising at our neighbourhood level.

Sophia Sadek said...

Dag, thanks for the posting. It's quite a blog.

One of the problems of infancy is the inability to comprehend adult language. The child hears words without understanding the meaning of those words. They may even mouth them back at the adults without having a clue as to what the words mean or what they are saying.

When adults use a word like "fascism," they refer to a right-wing political tendency that romanticises Roman imperial culture. It is a pining for the good-old-days of slavery at home and foreign domination abroad.

Now, an uninformed child may associate fascism with Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist totalitarianism. They may even associate it with the emancipation of slaves or the granting of civil rights to the children of same-sex parents.

Should such a child be thought of as fully adult?

dag said...

Thanks again for your comments, Sophia. You continue to amaze me.