Reblogged from kittysjones:
nihilismˈ
noun
1.
the rejection of all political, religious and
moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. “Insistence that
man is a futile being”
synonyms: negativity, cynicism, pessimism; rejection,
repudiation, renunciation, denial, abnegation; disbelief, non-belief, unbelief,
scepticism, lack of conviction, absence of moral values, agnosticism, atheism,
non-theism.
NO PRINCIPLES.
The road to nowhere, dissolution.
In short, it’s the absence of belief in anything meaningful, positive,
celebratory or decent. No acknowledgement of our remarkable potential as human
beings. No faith in anything – its grubby, and leaves you groundless, rootless,
and in a no-place, with no escape.
Russell Brand is a “trendy” nihilist.
However, this is not simply another article about Brand, but rather, I want
to use this as an opportunity for discussing critical thinking. Brand is as good
a case as any to use to explore this and propaganda techniques.
My friend, Charles Britton, commented on an article I wrote about the Russell
Brand interview with Jeremy Paxman, and it’s a brilliant comment, because it
shows a step-by-step process of critical thinking and analysis that exposes
something that many seem to have have missed: an absence. A void. Brand used a
lot of words that say nothing at all. Here is the
comment:
“When I saw the argument between Russell Brand and Paxman,
there were things he said that were clever, and which I liked and there seemed
to be a real passion.
Apart from the not voting, I thought, I couldn’t agree with
that.
And apart from the revolution idea because a) they are bloody, b) you
don’t know who’ll you’ll end up with in charge (you may even lose the vote), and
c) we do have the vote.
If there were enough of a groundswell of
anger about how we are being treated to spark a revolution, then it would show
in how people voted (and how we campaigned). We’d vote out the bastards without
needing a revolution!
(I’m fairly
certain that if people can’t be bothered voting, they won’t be bringing on a
full-blown revolution any time soon either. Anyone out there got one booked?
Please do pencil me in.)
I still liked some other things he said. Apart from the implication that
the parties are all the same. That’s the kind of thing you hear from
most of the ”cutting-edge” (aggressive and politically ignorant) stand-ups on TV
panel shows and celebs guesting on Question Time.
Sadly, this
blanket cynicism tends to win-over the politically illiterate of the
crowd.
Eventually I realised that there wasn’t really anything much in his
statements apart from a certain confident, [apparently] eloquent
style.
I’m left confused by this, wondering why his Newsnight
interview was so “sensational”!
I have also pondered why Brand has such undeserved attention at the moment,
and why some seem to think he had something to say, I clearly missed something,
so I studied his interview with Paxman carefully.
One thing that really struck me is that Brand completely failed to recognise
and acknowledge that it wasn’t the same under the last government. We didn’t
have austerity, there were not thousands of sick and disabled people dying, and
there was no substantial increase of absolute poverty and wealth inequalities
under the Labour government, because of their policies, but these things are
happening now. Labour created human rights and equality
policies, and the Tories are steadily unravelling those. Only the wealthy and
the indifferent nihilists can afford indifference regarding the fundamental
contrasts of Labour and Conservative governments.
Brand’s self-serving claim that “they are all the same” only echoes what
many of the most disruptive, aggressive and very divisive anarchists, militant
greens, narxists and trotskyites have been using to misinform anyone who will
listen. But a look at the differences in policies shows clearly that there are
fundamental differences between the Conservatives and Labour. (For example, See
here: Political Parties – NOT all as bad as each
other).
So why would Brand or anyone else, for that matter, offer such a dangerous
idea up – that voting is futile – especially when the consequence is likely to
be further divisions amongst those on the left, whilst the right-wing
supporters, who ALWAYS vote, will simply ensure we have another Tory government
in office in 2015? How will that help the situation Brand outlined and
criticised? And why is it ever okay to advocate no action? How about encouraging
people to take some responsibility for how things are, and to work together to
change things for the better?
I’ve written elsewhere about Brand’s narcissism and a fundamental lack of
concern for others. As empathy, emotional sustenance and support, solidarity,
loyalty, and a sense of belonging all become relics of a fast receding past due
to the policies of the Tory-led Government, which act upon citizens as if they
were objects, rather than serving them, as human subjects, the mass victims of
anomic trauma put up as primitive, last resort narcissistic defences. These, in turn,
only exacerbate the very traumatic conditions, social dislocations, and
experiences that necessitated their deployment in the first place. But our
ability to organise, self-assemble, and act in co-operation and unison is in
jeopardy, as is our future as a society, yet Brand advocated no action.
He also used propaganda
techniques in his interview with Paxman that signpost people to a variety of
typified meanings, without actually meaningfully exploring any of them, using
superficial Buzzwords (and phrases,) and Glittering Generalities.
The narrative isn’t coherent and meaningful, has no real depth, but what
Brand does very well is implies – “signposts” you – via common stock phrases,
creating the impression he understands and sees the world as you do. He creates
a faux sense of rapport by doing so.
But if you look elsewhere, the clues about Brand are there, in his books,
articles and other interviews. It soon becomes clear that he does not connect
with people, he doesn’t seem to relate. He generally seems to others as a means
to his own ends, and tends to exploit them. Those that that have a joke at the
expense of others have little empathy, and tend to be unsurprisingly
exploitative and cruel. That’s all Brand does, and even in the interview with
Paxman, when he was asked something he couldn’t answer, he resorted to talking
the piss out of Paxman.
It’s worth bearing in mind that when someone speaks or writes, they are
trying to convince you of something. Ask yourself what it is that they want you
to believe, then analyse their basic proposition carefully. Examine what they
are saying, look for consistency, coherence, reasoning and logic, and look for
the evidence to support the proposition. Analyse what he actually said – there
is NO proposition there at all, he used a lot of words to say nothing – it
really is a cul-de-sac.
Buzzwords and phrases are a propaganda technique to shape people’s
perception, and persuade them that you “know” about their lives, situation and
that you have insight. Management jargon is an example – the familiarity of the
words and phrases lulls you and fools you into feeling some important
recognition has been made.
Here are some of the buzzwords and phrases Brand used to get your attention,
gain your credibility, admiration, create a false sense of rapport; people,
power, hierarchical, paradigm, serves a few people, humanity, alternate,
alternate political systems, destroy the planet, economic disparity, needs of
the people, treachery, deceit, political class, disenfranchised, disillusioned,
despondent, underclass, represented, social conditions, undeserved underclass,
impact, but that’s all just semantics really, political or corporate elites,
serve the population, currently, public dissatisfaction
Glittering Generalities is a propaganda technique, arises very often in
politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have
different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly
valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without
thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved.
Brand made use of these Glittering Generalities; socialist, egalitarian,
massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations, massive
responsibility for energy companies, environment, profit is a filthy word,
global utopian system, genuine option (amongst several others).
The whole dialogue is a propaganda vehicle that aims to deliver one message:
there’s no point voting. Go back to sleep.
There are darker fifth column ideologies of nihilism and anarchism which
have continued to gain popularity among some of the left wing. Such anti-values
of hopelessness and rejection of organised government are a toxic brew for a
nation that desperately needs to rekindle respect for humanity, human rights,
equality, and shared societal values of compassion, hope and community. Nihilism
attacks the very worth of humanity itself – because it’s based on the view that
“nothing really matters, nothing has worth or meaning”.
There is a link with nihilism, and the egocentricity of psychopathy. First
of all, psychopaths may be regarded as moral nihilists. Secondly, psychopaths
like an apathetic, disengaged society, where citizens lack conviction, and
there’s an absence of moral values. Psychopaths regard the rest of us as
defective, and seek relentlessly to remake the world in their own image, to
proselytize their viewpoint and to “teach” their “defective” empathic fellows
to think like them.
Unfortunately, they can. A psychopath can never learn to think like an
empathic person. But people with a normal capacity for empathy can turn off that
capacity and think like psychopaths. Language is a powerful thing, and normal
human beings need linguistic cues to switch to “psychopathy mode”.
The ancient Greeks and the Founders of our country understood the
devastating destructiveness of the language of demonising hate, particularly to
democracies. They called the charismatic psychopaths who excelled at its
practice “demagogues.” More recently, neuroscience has provided evidence that
such demonising and hate radically alters the way the human brain processes
information, making subjects immune to reason, increasingly intolerant, and very
easily manipulated.
Divide and conquer is the Tory way.
By now, I am sure the link between nihilism, psychopathy and conservative
ideology will be apparent to most reading this. Research has found significant
correlations between key antisocial personality traits and bedrock conservative
views. Specifically, the research claims to find elements of
narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism in conservative subjects. The
conservative ideological justification for the destruction of the social
unit, promotion of competitive individualism and “survival of the fittest”
principles, the shrinking of the State and deliberate destruction of public
belief in government overall is psychopathic.
By focusing on individualism as the primary method of improving the economy
and society, conservatism is an inherently misanthropic ideology; as all motives
are seen through pure self-interest, cynicism in human nature becomes the norm.
If people exist to simply get what they can for themselves, the motivation for
sociability and co-operation decreases. We become insular, fragmented.
The characteristic of the psychopathic value system is its somewhat Manichean world view - idealised me
versus demonised him, idealised us versus
demonised them, reflecting the echo-other world view of the
pathological narcissist or psychopath. The Tories deliberately create anxiety
about others, divide social groups, reduce social cohesion, and create folk
devils to bear the brunt of the blame for consequences of Tory policies. By no
coincidence at all, those folk devils also bear the brunt of inhumane Tory
policies, too. The Labour government didn’t get everything right for everyone,
but Labour have never persecuted social groups like the Tories have, or wilfully
destroyed state support for the most vulnerable citizens.
If we don’t vote, then that leaves the Tory supporters, who will simply vote
the Tory authoritarians back into Office, and guess what? That doesn’t affect
Brand at all. Well, except the standard £107, 000 that all millionaires get
under this Government, each, per year, in the form of a tax break.
We can politically engage, campaign, lobby politicians, and take some
responsibility, rather than shrugging, disengaging, and ensuring that nothing
will change. Authoritarian governments require a passive, disengaged public to
emerge and to maintain their power. We have a duty to challenge and to push back
– to demand positive changes and shape a society that supports those that cannot
support themselves, that’s the mark of a civilised society. We simply have to
fight our way back to decency. We have to reclaim the progress we once made in
an evolved human rights orientated culture. The Tories have undone many decades
of hard work and struggle to establish those rights. We have to act, and we must
vote. Vote Labour.
This is also worth reading: “They are not all the
same. ‘They’re all the same’ is what reactionaries love to hear. It leaves the
status quo serenely untroubled, it cedes the floor to the easy answers of Ukip
and the Daily Mail. No, if you want to be a nuisance to the people whom
you most detest in public life, vote. And vote Labour.” Robert Webb - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand
Thanks to Robert Livingstone for his brilliant artwork
