About religious beliefs, fundamentalism - and collective passivity…

Barbara Ehrenreich.

Ehrenreich said at the Meltdown Forum that “we” have believed that the market will take care of everything FOR us and all poor will eventually become wealthy, that everything eventually will become okay. Like a religious belief.

A belief on a higher power that will take care of everything, a power that’s fair, just and caring about us all. We shall just trust and rely on this invisible power.

She also spoke about a collective passivity in the footsteps of these beliefs (in the market and capitalism). A belief and "reliance" that we don’t have to concern ourselves with all injustices and human poverty we see around us, and following this the invisible hand will eventually come there and smooth everything out (after some of us have suffered a little bit, maybe not really died on the cross, but maybe not so far from, sacrificed for "the sin of man", again an invisible power?). Trusting that everything will eventually become fixed.

We can just lean back and trust that invisible power (and leave the responsibilities to this invisible power). Just like believing in a god (another invisible power) or a father, as small kids?

And see what Owe Wikström has written about the back-leaning indifference and indifference as hidden violence (an indifference that can result in cruelty).

Market and capitalist fundamentalists believe that the market will eventually fix everything for us.

Has this been the way of truly solving problems? Waiting for a higher power (a nature law, the nature in man?) or a (deputy) father to fix everything for us? And why hasn't this model worked so far? Because the imperfectness in man? Not because any imperfectness in this idea?

And this reliance, on a fair power (not God in this case, but capitalism and the market) excludes all true, real, flesh and blood actors? Nobody are sacrificed in the name of the market or capitalism? Or maybe who? The ones causing crisis's? Or the ones with less power and sometimes totally innocent to the crisis's? Who have done nothing but been working hard? Who are punished? And who are not punished? Is this a fair model?

Maybe there are no perfect models, but are there models that are a little more fair, to most people in the population.

How are those religious beliefs handled and by whom? In nobody’s interest? By nobody?

And they, the actors on the market, not least those with most power and money, what are they doing? Working for all our bests?

Are they almost like deputy priests for many of us? However, they aren’t named priests. And they aren’t standing in any pulpits in any churches preaching to people. Meaning that they don’t try to preach and influence us, the not questioning “congregation”? They are not making us join in the choir? And if we sing falsely, then what?

Their (our) “trust” in the market and capitalism as a power that will eventually fix everything, is that a back leaning indifference (even resulting in cruelty sometimes)? And are those relying on this power not active, but how?

Are they maybe saying that they are leaving everything to “the nature”?

And what is this “nature” actually? How is the “nature” of man? A genetic thing? A question of character?

No, I don’t think we are born evil. But there are certainly evil people in this world. And I don’t think we are born with drives for destruction, but destruction and self-destruction definitely exists…

Addition just before lunch: see the blogpostings "The Psychopath Machine" and "Crisis potential"... (both in Swedish).

Our innate sinfulness…

we celebrate June 6, our national day, today. Not something I am very eager about though...

The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes (pages 62-65) that traditional religions legitimizes and enforces the Primary defence (to blame oneself). Many religions consist of a core conviction that we humans are basically sinful, unworthy creatures, and only by following the religion’s rules and rituals there might be hope for us she thinks.

She means that this can have a destructive effect on our self-perception. Yes, I’m not worth a better treatment than this, because I am so bad - and sinful. I deserve being treated like this. It’s for my own good .*

She means that these religious ideas about our “true nature” can feed right into the Primary defence, leading to intense suffering (not always conscious? And all don’t have emotional contact with these feelings?) caused by negative thoughts and feelings about ourselves (which some deny, even powerfully deny and convince themselves about other things?). At the same time an almost insurmountable fort of defence has been erected.

She quotes a client saying:

“You could say that it was offered to me on a silver platter. What else could I do? I couldn’t do anything but accept. I couldn’t do anything but envelop myself in feelings of guilt. In this way I didn’t have to feel anything else. /…/ I only had to feel guilt. The church obliged me to feel guilt. Didn’t that come in handy, my rescue. I flee in feelings of guilt. I can handle those, because the church tells me they are good. Not knowing what I’m doing to myself. With this I kill every other feeling inside me and with that I kill every bit of life in me. Then I stop being alive. Only in that way can I continue, can I survive. There is no other way.”

This woman was raised in a strict Christian religion which teaches its followers that mankind is sinful from the moment they are conceived; that although mankind does not deserve to live because of his sinful nature (they shall be grateful and bow their heads?), people are alive and so must do penance daily; that it is vital to acknowledge just how sinful mankind is; that man shall live in continuous fear of God, that Jesus died for mankind’s sins etc.

Although not all Christian traditions preach such severe concepts, the idea of being guilty by nature is a basic premise in Christianity.

And therefore one needs to be educated, even as grown up, by other, better people, people that are enlightened and on the right side?

On the other side of God, good and power, is mankind, evil and powerless, the psychologist Aleid Schilder writes.

“Not capable of any good, but prone to all evil… The almighty and all good God has created as his opponent sinful, guilty and powerless mankind.”

It stands in the Dutch confession of faith (article 15) about

“…Adam’s disobeyance has extended the original sin to all of mankind’ which is a wickedness of all of nature, with which even small children in their mother’s bodies are contaminated, and which causes all kinds of sins in mankind, being in him as the roots thereof, and she is therefore so gruesome to God, that she is content in dooming mankind.”

The depth of these ideas of being sinful and guilty just for being part of mankind, and as a part of our innate nature, is maybe most clearly illustrated by the Christian idea that Jesus, as the son of God, took mankind’s sins on his shoulders (showing how sinful mankind is) by going to the cross and dying for mankind. This idea is at the very heart of Christianity and still is very much alive today.

She also writes that compared to Christian religions we tend to see Eastern religions as more positive toward us human beings. However, outward appearance can be deceptive she thinks. She means that similar guilt messages can be found in Eastern traditions.

She writes about the Tibetan Buddhist religion which for example tells how important it is to concentrate on the following points: The individual don’t really exist. Any identification with needs is therefore an illusion and induces attachment and suffering (false power - denial of needs). We need to come to understand that everything is ‘empty’.

Within the realization of emptiness (no ego, no attachment, no need) there has to be focus on compassion towards others (false hope). Anything that is done with an individual motivation is not done in ‘the right way’ (false power – denial of needs?). No matter how much good you do, if you do it to attain enlightenment for yourself instead of doing it for humanity, it is not desirable (denial of needs?).

We need to purify ourselves (the need for purification implies that we aren’t pure, that purification is necessary implies that we aren’t clean in some way). We can do this by engaging in rituals, meditations or through direct blessings from and devotion to a guru (guruism).

A closer look at many religious and spiritual teachings often reveals these defensive tendencies.

“Our suffering is caused by our own impurity, our guilt and sinful nature. We need to be strong and do our best.”

What happens to the child early in life and the influence hereof on our feelings and behaviour when we are adults is not addressed. Emotional problems are often seen as sand in the wind.

This demonstrates a Denial of the truth of the emotional suffering that was caused during our childhood because we didn’t get what we needed (then). The old pain won’t “blow away” until we face it, acknowledge and feel it, she thinks. The idea it will is an illustration of a denial of needs defence.

She writes about guilt-ridden religions, and the need for spiritual masters NOT linked to dogmatic, rigid, hierarchical religions based on power structures. Power structures and ideas of sinfulness that provide them with power over their followers. But she thinks that also in these new ways of thinking, the far-reaching effects of our childhood are overlooked nevertheless.

But Miller writes somewhere that we are neither as guilty as we believe nor as free from guilt as we maybe also believe. With this she means that we feel guilt for things that were done to us and for this we aren’t guilty. But later on, as adults and grown ups, we have done things we of course are responsible and guilty for (in my interpretation and understanding of her).

See similar ideas, but in other forms, about our innate evilness, in psychiatry, psychology, therapy etc. Freud's version of it with our innate drives (of sexual nature) and Melanie Klein and HER ideas for instance... I think many working in this field still believe in innate drives as the roots of our problems... Miller writes about her thoughts on Melanie Klein and her concept in the book "The Body Never Lies" for instance.

Miller has written (see this posting):

“Sigmund Freud himself, and above all Melanie Klein, Otto Kernberg, their successors, and the ego-psychology of Heinz Hartmann have all ascribed to the child what was dictated to them by an upbringing in the spirit of Poisonous Pedagogy: children are evil by nature, or 'polymorphically perverse."' (In Banished Knowledge I have quoted an extensive passage by the highly respected analyst Glover on his view of children [he was psychodynamically oriented?]). All this has very little to do with childhood reality, and certainly with the reality of an injured and suffering child."

See earlier posting "Parent's rights contra children's..."

*it stands about Miller’s book “For Your Own Good – Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence” at her site:

“In this book, Alice Miller opens our eyes to the devastating effects of education and care purporting to have ‘the child's best interests’ in mind. She does this first by analyzing what she calls the ‘pedagogic approach’, and secondly by describing the childhood of a drug addict, a political leader (Adolf Hitler), and a child-murderer. Her book succeeded in conveying not just factual (and hence uninvolving) but also emotional awareness of the way in which psychoses, drug addiction and crime represent a deferred and indirect expression of experiences undergone in early infancy. For a child to develop naturally, it needs respect from its caregivers, tolerance for its feelings, awareness of its needs and sensibilities, and authenticity on the part of its parents. This authenticity manifests itself in an upbringing style in which it is the personal freedom of the parents - and not educational dogma - that imposes natural limits to the child.”

Proportions…

Hermann Hesse.

Things triggered the following words, words which I threw down on a paper before my first pupil came: What is sin, shame? What is downright criminal?

What does Miller write about this? (I thought that somewhere she does, but where? About a talented boy growing up in a religious home).

And what does Jenson write about shame?

How is it with proportions here?

Yes, Jean Jenson writes at page 150-151 in the Swedish edition of “Rediscovering the True Self…” that shame is a feeling which is caused because we were treated as if we were bad, mean and evil when we were children. She thinks this has to do with that parents are learned to believe that human beings have an innate tendency to be evil, and Jenson adds that this doesn’t mean there aren’t evil grown ups.

We accept with a childish confidence without further notice that we have a malignant, malevolent nature which has to be controlled and if we don’t succeed doing this we ought to be ashamed.

“You ought to be ashamed!!”

Jenson is convinced that the feeling of shame is created when one is badly treated during childhood. And I think she is right. To survive this, the child blames itself.

Yes, Miller writes about that with proportions in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” in the chapter about contempt, the part about Hermann Hesse, at pages 130-136 in the Swedish paperback edition in the chapter “Det ‘fördärvade’ i Hermann Hesses barndomsvärld som exempel på det konkreta ‘onda’.” Translated it is something in the style “The ‘depraved’ in the childhood world of Hermann Hesse as example on the concrete ‘evil’.”

Hesse was left alone in a home impressed by goodness and purity; there was no room for anything else. Quite hypocritical. The boy was left alone with his sin and feels awful. Miller thinks Hesse reveals quite peculiar ideas in his (autobiographical?) book “Damian.” “The depraved” (?fördärvade) is quite harmless actually. Like stealing a fig in his beloved father’s room to have something that had been close to his father (so he didn’t even eat it either, did he)!!! Plagued after this with feelings of guilt, fear and despair in his loneliness. Followed by the deepest humiliation and shame when “the evil deed” is discovered. Steeling a whole fig – how awful!!

I think this can be applied to other things today too to small children. We who are much younger than Hesse have experienced similar things and maybe (or probably) felt awful shame over “deeds” and “crimes” that were quite harmless in fact, compared to other crimes. So ashamed, so in the worse cases we hardly didn’t want to live further. It was absolutely forbidden doing things (anything) wrong (at least in the small child’s world, with a more or less insensitive environment). Forbidden doing in fact quite harmless things wrong. Forced doing things right and perfectly. Or at least the child put these high demands on her/him?

And some people have the ability to infuse this feeling in us later on, even as grown ups, probably because THEIR problems with these things?

Struck me in the car to work about the topic file sharing which has caused a hot debate here; common among young people, for whom this is nothing which bother them. They do it gladly and a lot I can imagine.

And some can’t even steal a cake…

Many years ago I used to watch “Summer-morning” at Swedish TV. A programme for children with summer vacation. It was so nice creeping into bed again after breakfast watching this. I slept in a cottage at my parents’ and there was a TV on a lower cupboard so I could lie in m bed watching.

But there was something I reacted on in the young programme leaders (early twenties); how they reacted over a person’s behavior or what he/she/they said. I don’t remember the details now, but I remember their and my reaction. This got stuck obviously! Their shame on behalf of other people. And I reacted on behalf of those they got ashamed over!

Would anyone be ashamed over the things they became ashamed of if there wasn’t something in their background I thought already then. Would these things bother a mature human being? I don’t think it would!

But I think many reacts as these programme leaders did…

I don’t say I am free from this though… Hopefully I am much less today. The blood sugar low here, I hope one doesn't see it in the text! I just need to get something in my stomach and want to post this item nevertheless.

And at last, I also found these words at page 113 in “The Drama…” My amateur translation:

“The contempt is the weapon of the weak and his protection against feelings bringing the old life-history to life.”

“Föraktet är den svages vapen och hans skydd mot känslor som väcker liv i den egna livshistorien.”

Addition May 2: Compared to crimes committed in this world… Real atrocities. Homicides even. Serial murders. Soul murder. Terror attacks. Economical crimes. Real abusers. And other sort of crimes of different sizes...

Getting blushing red over what? How are the proportions? Do all these criminals get blushing red? Do they regret what they have done? Do they feel guilt or shame?

And are the worst criminals always punished?

All of a sudden I came to think of a friend who was son to a high boss in an old, venerable company where I live. In the news one evening they said that xx had died, and nothing more. Later they revealed he had committed suicide. He had taken a gun and shot himself in the mouth. This felt so awful. At this time I was round 24 or maybe a little older I think. My friend six years younger, and he was his parents youngest child.

This high boss was about to get fired from his job. And later it was revealed that his wife had had an affair with another man, and I don't know wanted to leave the marriage. This was too much? The shame too big? So he saw no way out but to end his life? He drove out to the country-side and shot himself if I remember right.

His life was less worth than the "honour"?

Who are silenced and who not?

Some silent reflections...

What is sound, healthy, justified, constructive anger?

Thinking further on a tour to look for a new TV, but there were so many people in the store so I left…

On the bike (it was really cold, blowing through my woolen duffel-coat/coat, through the very marrow of my bones, my body, soul and heart should need being warmed it felt??):

Are we after all born evil? And antisocial? Paranoiac? Psychopathic? Stepping over boundaries? How do we handle this evilness, paranoia, lack of feeling for boundaries etc. then? How do parents and environment handle what adults and children are born with? Are we all born with this? Is there any hope for mankind then? Or are some of us born with this and others not? Some are better people than others by nature? Who is what? And who are capable of judging about this?

And if we are born with these bad sides do we have responsibility for expressions of these sides or not? Is that person granted discharge for his/her behaviour?

Or is early abuse so difficult or maybe even impossible to cure sometimes, so… What would that imply? Could we avoid incurable harm, shall we do that?

How have we seen on these tings so far? Has this changed? Has treatment improved? Shall some not be allowed to reproducing, radically? And who shall be allowed reproducing? Who are actually reproducing? Those which would be the best parents, who has the “best genes” etc.? (maybe it’s a luck I have no children, quite ironical??)

A male cousin of mine has been reacting on “unnecessary talk”:

”What is that to talk about? If one doesn’t have more important things to talk about… (then one can keep quiet)!”

The strange thing (or not) is that this person is fairly good himself in talking… As his dad was… And as another brother of his is… I don’t use to react, but here I do… And that about the content and importance in what is said… Politely and as the well-mannered girl I am raised to listening though.

And how is it actually in this world? Who are talking, the most intelligent and who have most to say? About what are those raising their voices talking? And how much? Who are keeping quiet? Who and what are we seeing through our fingers with and who/what not? Who do we judge and who not? Do we treat all with the same respect? Are all allowed the same things? O not and why is that?

Yes, it ought to be as van Dyke said:

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."

Or, some should really keep quiet? Be really ashamed? Have blushing cheeks?

About the card:

"En glad påsk. Hand i hand framåt. Uppå grönklädd stråt. Vandra vi så kärligt. Uti månens sken. Med en vän så vän. Är ju lifvet härligt."
Avstämplat Odengatan Stockholm 31/3 1907. Porto 5 öre.
Sänt till Fröken Alma Almgren, 29 Roslagsgatan 29, Ingeniör Söderberge. Här (Stockholm).

Translated it would be (I THINK!!):

"A Happy Easter. Hand in hand forward. Upon a green path. We wander so loving(ly?). In the moon-light. With a friend so fair and graceful. Life is lovely you know."

Is it always?

From a Charles to an Alma, March 31, 1907.

Evilness and responsibility...

Katrin Himmler.

When I come back from work I would like to blog about this blogposting. I needed to digest it for some days... This posting was great!!!

---

A Swedish woman, Katrin Kielos, has written a summary * of a lecture held by a Katrin Himmler in Uppsala recently. Katrin Himmlers grandfather was brother to Heinrich Himmler.

Anja is referring to this summary.

In this Kielos writes that the psyches of the SS-men have been studied by psychologists. And these studies shows that these men get high scores concerning authoritarian tendencies **, a general cynicism, a feeling that the world is evil (which Anja thinks can be used as an alibi to be evil oneself, “eat or be eaten”-arguments), identification with the power and a resistance towards human softness and weakness.

But Kielos draws conclusions that these tendencies laid there slumbering in the personality and wouldn’t have come to expression if the spirit of the age hadn’t allowed it. Anja doesn’t agree with this. She thinks that human beings have always found ways of expressing their personality and of giving vent to their needs of oppression/oppressing. She thinks a special permission isn’t necessary for this. She rather thinks that we have become well too blind to the evilness in everyday life.

But of course the men who had the ideas about this project – the Holocaust, to kill all Jews (and other not desired) – had great use of a certain sort of people, and without this sort of people this project wouldn’t have been able to perform.

The problem with the notion that ”the society sanctions evilness” is that this frees the perpetrators from (any) responsibility and gives the responsibility to the people who didn’t act. A classical manoeuvre. The one that has acted wrongly can with a thesis like this in his (her) back always ask

“Why didn’t anyone hinder me from committing those inhuman crimes?”

Another problem with this thesis is that one makes an assumption about the silent mass’s obvious goodness. Where does one get this from? If the big mass in Germany, let’s say 75% of the population, in fact thought it was RIGHT to kill the Jewish part of the population, their neighbours and co-workers, how can one then see this mass as good? Isn’t it a big difference if one is a viewer/bystander to what’s happening because you agree, or if you are a bystander/viewer because you belong to a minority and you are scared to death?

Isn’t it a big difference for how we see the world, and on a, supposed, “innate evilness which can lie slumbering in us ALL” which comes to expression when the environment sanctions this? Blaming that, instead of taking responsibility?? Hiding behind this explanation??

Kielos sees it as a mystery that “ordinary people commits wholesale murders", but think if evil people in fact are common?? We would want that good people were the most common, but think if the world doesn’t looks like that? If evil people who in fact CAN hurt others very badly, deliberately, in cold blood, are common, how shall we then view the world?

During the homicide in Rwanda almost all ordinary people joined the murdering. But all didn’t join. All couldn’t just go from being ”ordinary people” to effective and cold-blooded murderers. And isn’t it more interesting to emphasize this – that ALL in fact aren’t capable of hurting their fellow human being – than nagging about “the mystery about evilness” as if we can’t do anything about the evilness, as if it was a natural law, a law saying that we all can have this evilness in us. Couldn’t we welcome the fact instead that there are people who succeed in resisting the environments sanctions of sadistic behavior and in spite of this don’t revert to cruelness themselves?

Couldn’t we assume that we ALL can become as these persons, that goodness and integrity in fact is slumbering in us all??

Anja refers to another woman touching this topic too she thinks, and if she interprets her right she says that:

“The notion/idea that injustices are maintained through ‘unconsciousness’ I see as a typical cowardly resort for liberals (and for many other bullies)…”

And the oppression of women is a consequence of thousand years of old thinking in which women ARE less worth, and thus deserves their lot in life - and deserves their destiny and the treatment they are exposed to.

Seen in its historical perspective neither massacres of whole populations nor oppression of women are mysterious.

And how hurt you have ever become this is no excuse for your own bad behavior - either… It can be an explanation, but not an excuse…

But there are also differences on the crimes that are committed and to whom they are committed!?? Some are worse than others… And the relation (not least seen to power) also contributes to how big or little harm that is done…

But I think it is true that societal approval can be dangerous, too… And lift lids... But crimes or abuse are not excused with that you yourself have been abused, neither as a child nor as grown up??

See about Trent Scaggs for instance too.

Addition February 22: So neither maternal NOR paternal abuse we were exposed to is an excuse for our (whether we are women or men) abuse of neither children (own or others) nor other adults (lovers, friends, coworkers, colleagues, employees etc.)...

And, yes, men are bullied too!!! By not only other men, but also by women. And of course that's wrong, independently of how much or little that man (or woman) is capable of protecting him (her)self properly!!!

Yes, are we allowed to behave badly towards "weak" people?? Does it matter if the other part is "strong" or "weak"? Of what reason that person is "strong" or "weak"?? Yes, that about contempt for weakness!!?? To which the "weak" sex belongs too??

Yes, I know of men contemptuous over weakness in their wife and children, "weakness" in both their daughters and in their sons... An enormous contempt even, pushing them forward in a queue!! And who made them so careful (and/or unsure of themselves) in the first place I wonder quite ironically.

What is this contempt about? A contempt seen as justification for (in the "best" cases) lecturing the weak, unknowing, a permission to teach her/him (in general or to teach her/him a lesson), or in the worst cases for the most heinous abuse (in the worst cases to murders). You are "allowed"(are you? Who have given you that permission?) to pour contempt, including everything ranging from irritation to anger, over the "weak" (contempt for what actually)?

Justification for contemptuous behavior - and lack of respect and sensitivity in different degrees (or lack of "understanding").

** High-scoring when it came to authoritarian tendencies as:

• Enclosing conventional bourgeois values
• Uncritical attitude towards authorities
• A wish to punish persons breaking conventional values
• Resistance to subjectivity and imaginativeness [being alive, living, feeling, sensing etc.]
• Belief in the destiny’s predestination
• A belief on the world as a dangerous place
• Identification with the power
• A general cynicism

---

Jo, visst är det en backlash i samhället!! Maria-Pia Boëthius skriver som vanligt bra och intressant i sin krönika "Manligheten spänner musklerna", se också "Liberalismen är lagligt våld" av Petter Nilsson om hur våld definieras- och om legitimerat våld!! Och slutligen bloggen "Ett hjärta RÖTT" om vissa debattörers härjande i bloggosfären och via nätet... Och allt detta tycker jag hör ihop med de senaste blogginläggen här!

Boëthius skriver bland annat (nu citerar jag friskt nedan!!):

"En hotad manlighet mobiliserar. Med våld. Med allt som spränger bort inbillad vekhet och kvinnlighet. Det handlar om en massiv backlash./.../

Ett nytt ord för fria män skulle hånas sönder och samman av dagens makt och dess medier. Det ingår i deras uppgift./.../

Spännande forskning och böcker berättar om vad som händer när kvinnors frigörelse går 'för långt'. Den mest kända är Klaus Theleweits bok om upprinnelsen till andra världskriget: Mansfantasier./.../

...när kvinnor börjat frigöra sig svarar makten med krig för att återföra männen till den 'äkta' manligheten och sätta kvinnorna på plats./.../

När talibanerna grep makten i Afghanistan på 90-talet var deras första åtgärd att frånta kvinnorna alla mänskliga rättigheter, stänga in dem i hemmen och lagstifta om att de måste dra en säck över huvudet i form av burka om de visade sig offentligt./.../

...mäns feminisering och försvagning nu måste hejdas [ja, absolut!!!].

...alliansregeringens nu påbörjade nedmontering av Sverige som världens mest jämställda land./.../

Att ha fel eller få rätt är inte det viktiga, alla tankebanor är värda att pröva [därför ger Boëthius sig tillåtelse att göra detta i denna artikel?]./.../

Enligt gammal maktteori är det bara ett krigshot mot Europa som skulle kunna blixtena européerna./.../

Männen måste återmobiliseras till krigiskhet i det 'förslappade' väst [ja, det är ju verkligen nödvändigt!! Hur ska det annars gå?]. /.../

...vädja till manlighetens ansvarskänsla. /.../

...detta Carl Bildt jobbar för, knappast [för] Sverige, som han ju ser som en omodern statsbildning [för en så modern man som han!?]./.../

För alla de män som inte känner igen sig är det också dags att mobilisera – i helt nya tankebanor."

Och Nilsson (samt se kommentarer och reaktioner på den citerade texten här, med mer om vissa debattörers debatteknik):

"Den kontroversielle slovenske filosofen Slavoj Zizek har i dagarna kommit ut med en ny bok om våld. Vad är det då som är kontroversiellt med hans senaste bok? Han diskuterar vilka kriterier som avgör vad som ska betraktas som våld och kommer till slutsatsen att själva de mekanismerna är våldsamma./.../

...lära oss att se sammanhanget mellan subjektivt våld, symboliskt våld och sådant våld som håller systemet i gång [men vad är det för slags system som måste hållas igång med våldsmedel??]. Den första sorten är den som bekymrar västerlänningar i allmänhet och ges stort utrymme i medierna: busar på gatorna, ungdomar i förorten, terrorister i turistparadiset. De två övriga bekymrar oss mindre än de borde. Språket är inte bara ett medium för kärlek, fred och förståelse, utan också ett redskap för våldsutövning./.../

Jag skulle definiera våld som att en människa på något vis försöker tvinga någon annan att ingå i en viss relation, att agera mot sin egen vilja. Enligt den definitionen så är våldet allestädes närvarande i vårt samhälle [jo, jag tror att han har rätt; det finns en massa våld omkring oss som vi inte erkänner - eller vill se!?]./.../

Således är privategendomen eller ägandet av produktionsmedel, även om vi tar ett extremt (men högst realistiskt) exempel där någon lever i enormt överflöd bredvid någon som svälter ihjäl, inte att se som en våldsrelation.

Det är, i den vardagliga debatten, mindre våldsamt att låta en person svälta ihjäl i enlighet med rådande egendomsförhållanden än att ifrågasätta dem [dessa egendomsförhållandena] genom att ta av överflödet och fördela det till de svältande.

Stöld är således mer våldsamt än döden genom svält. Strejk är mer våldsamt än invaliditet genom arbetsskada. Att paja en ruta är mer våldsamt än att stödja den etniska resningen på västbanken osv [ja, nog är det bakvända världen!!!].

Det stora problemet när vårt våld ifrågasätts är helt enkelt att det våld på vilket det liberala samhället bygger varit så effektivt i sitt osynliggörande av sig självt. Därför är det svårt att övertyga människor om att status quo är ett våldsamt tillstånd./.../

Det är inte fel i sig, de flesta kommunister jag känner har ägnat mycket tid till att kritisera realsocialismens misslyckanden. Men när får vi se en upplysningskampanj om imperalistiska kapitalistiska krig?

Hur många skolbarn vet att 'världens största demokrati' störtade demokratiska regeringar i Chile, massmördade opposition i Nicaragua, sköt sig fram i Dominikanska republiken? Kort sagt, varför får vi läsa om Gulag och inte om School of the Americas?

Vi vet alla att liberalismen påstår sig stå för individens friheter och möjligheter, en jämlik demokrati och den bästa av alla världar. Vi borde också få lära oss, att likt realsocialismens försök, är realliberalismens verkliga resultat något helt annat. För där bomberna slår ned bryr man sig inte om de kommer i frihetens namn./.../

Detta innebär givetvis inte att alla som segrar borde anses som rättmätiga segrare /.../

Man kan i strikt mening inte rättfärdiga medel med mål, eftersom man i efterhand aldrig kan säga exakt vilka medel som var nödvändiga för vilka mål."

Se tidigare bloggpostningar om "Altruism" och "boundary violations".

* "En god [??] bror.

Katrin Himmlers farfar var bror till Heinrich Himmler, ledare för SS i Nazityskland. Så länge hon kan minnas har hennes familj gömt, glömt och stoppat undan. Men när hon förälskade sig i en judisk man började hon rota i sin egen historia.

Resultatet blev boken Die Brüder Himmler utifrån vilken hon i går talade i Uppsala.

Heinrich Himmler var en ung man på 43 år, djupt förälskad i sin sekreterare och en engagerad far när han som huvudarkitekt för Förintelsen administrerade mord på sex miljoner människor. Katrin Himmler beskriver hur åren mellan 1933 och 1945 var lyckliga och harmoniska för hela släkten. Just att den personliga lyckan kunde ligga tillsynes parallellt med ondskan gav hennes farmor svårigheter att i efterhand reflektera över vad hon varit en del av. Ljuva minnen ställde sig i vägen.

Katrin Himmlers bidrag till bilden av sin farfarsbror är att förmedla den respekt han fick från familj och vänner. Heinrich Himmler var inte det svarta fåret i den fina högborgerliga familjen. Tvärtom.

Den fina högborgerliga familjen stödde Heinrich ideologiskt och profiterade ekonomiskt på nazismen men var mer pragmatiska. De blev inte massmördare./.../

...de fick höga värden på vad psykologer brukar kalla för F-skalan, ett personlighetstest för auktoritära tendenser: Omfattande av konventionella borgerliga värderingar. Okritisk attityd gentemot auktoriteter. Önskan att straffa personer som bryter mot konventionella värderingar. Motstånd till subjektivitet och fantasifullhet. Tro på ödets förutbestämdhet. Tro på världen som en farlig plats. Identifikation med makten. Allmän cynism."