Search
  • Vlad Ivlev

Haunted Ethics and Moral Necromancy


Ever wondered how right wingers can be so evil? How can they genuinely believe in what they say? They have to know its wrong deep down, but they’re either too stupid or angry to admit it. Sounds familiar? You’ve come a long way then. And by long way I mean you must have taken the wrong turn at the intersection with all theses noisy, self-driving trucks blocking the street signs, right into this dark alley, with me, standing below a broken spotlight. These trucks might be driven by some AI, but the Amazon Insulin Premium Package™ is going to a breathing, sweating person just like you. This “person” that you call yourself historically hasn’t changed much in their emotional stimuli. It’s not like the 21st century arrived and suddenly we are all genetically predisposed towards liberalism. We might be more emotionally damaged, spiritually lacking (which could be argued isn’t unique to this era), but at our essence we still employ the same old psychological defense mechanisms. To me personally, an overly conscientious, moralistic individual is more likely than not compensating for an irredeemable, repulsive personality. There must be some implicit, unrelated moral logic as to why you think I’m an unrepentant piece of shit.


“And why should the LEFT have all the glory when we are just as screwed as they are?”, said Ben Shapiro, tiny fists clenched. This might come as a surprise to some of you, but right-wingers actually do come from a position of a moral high-ground. Crazy, whodathunkit? Although this might be reductionist, for the purpose of communicating to my fellow self-loathing leftists, this high-ground can be boiled down to “you should feel guilty because you’re self-sabotaging, only morons do that”. At the heart of the Right-winger’s ontology is individual self-fulfillment qua agency, which manifests in a myriad of aesthetic capacities, be it state-sponsored or state-guaranteed. When the opponent doesn’t show signs of guilt, they can safely assume them to be a self-destructive moron. The important part of that high-ground is “guilty”. It’s known that the liberal left employs guilt tactics to end a good faith conversation before it even started, that’s because of two reasons: 1) liberalism survives, and always has on the basis of a tribalistic binary, essentially, it feasts on its own pushback. 2) liberalism is the spiritual successor to both the decaying grip of Christianity and the falsified promise of enlightenment ideals, because any ethos based on an oppressor/oppressed dynamic leads to a simple inversion of moral truth tables, together with the impatience coming out from the death of modernism leading up to some form of temporal dissonance as to how historical social progress works.


Although superficially the Right exemplifies itself on a lack of self-loathing, at its core it portrays an individualistic paranoia towards liberal antagonism encroaching on a metaphysical personal space, wherein the neccessity of its territorial extension has a corollary relationship with the violation of the sacrosanct tomb of modernism. Imagine, if you will, the right-wing perception of someone who’s about to call you a cuckoid. To them, you are willingly conceding your own individual space for people you don’t know, for people you can’t possibly trust. And you should feel guilty about that, this self-destructive behavior. Now of course this individual space is entirely illusory, as all our ontologies, our value judgments and the language games they rely upon are entirely dynamically derived from the socius. There is no individual. And even if there was, it is a reciprocal relationship between the capacity of self-development of a single desiring node and the outmost horizontal extremities our intersubjectivity has and can reach. Yet, the question is, why are the Left’s guilt-based tactics so well defined, as opposed to the subtler ones of the Right?


Is it a question of efficiency? As in, they are underdeveloped because the popularity of the Right is subject to the Left’s repulsiveness at this point. Partly, since efficiency assumes a memetic quality to them. Therein lies our keystone. At the core of the dynamic is a memetic sequence, how and in which order groups form around the internalization of a relatable sentiment:

No one: Christianity: dies Liberals: This is mine now The Right: No Liberals: You’re evil The Right: Time for a renaissance


The effectiveness of memetic tactics is dynamically determined by its place in the sequence of historicity. Once you account for historicity in memetics you come to a startling conclusion. As the Left cannibalizes the fresh corpse of slave-morality, the Right goes into Enlightenment mode. One step backwards, 3 steps backwards. This should be terrifyingly familiar. Not because of some impending disaster, but exactly because its so familiar. Commodification and the marketable safety of the familiar has rendered us incapable of imagining a new future, so we settle for being haunted by the past. 80s nostalgia, Soviet nostalgia, Enlightenment Nostalgia, pre and post WW2 nostalgia; the moment is gripped by the skeletal hands of the future past. And of course, there is a correlation between moral legitimacy and aesthetic appeal. We are not merely aesthetically nostalgic, we are also morally so. Moral nostalgia, moral necromancy. We can all feel that something big is about to happen, the old order is on its last lap, but we can’t really imagine it without it resembling the past. We’re going in blind. You should not only fear a future that doesn’t look like yours, you should also fear it if it does.

At this point you are left with three possible mindsets: 1) Return to a previous order.

2) Let’s pretend the promises were never broken.

3) Blindfolded, go further in.

You should despair and revel at the idea that an AI can imagine a better future than you can.

0 views

©2018 by Philosophy Anti-Marginalization Union. Proudly created with Wix.com