In the society of individuals, the dominant opinion is that there is nothing worse than death (especially since for most of our contemporaries there is nothing afterwards). This opinion is characteristic of all times of decay,
while at other times it is believed that servitude or dishonor are worse than death and that certain causes deserve to be given life for them. Today we are very concerned with the extension of life expectancy, that is, its simple duration; its content is much less worrying.
As the excellent Byung-Chul Han says: “The search for the good life has given way to the hysteria of survival”. Those who most want to survive are also those who have never lived. This is what happens with the “civilizational” aspect. #Benoist
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Stripped of its traditional mediation, society is becoming more fluid and more fragmented, which only makes it easier to objectify it. You live in it suddenly and quickly. With the real disappearance of the main collective ideas that were once carriers of various worldviews,
2/ the religion of the Ego—based on unrestrained freedom and narcissistic desires, created out of nothing—has caused a deterritorialization that goes hand in hand today with the decomposition of all boundaries and all references, making the individual more and more vulnerable,
3/ more and more defenseless and more and more nomadic. Under the guise of emancipatory "modernization", for more than half a century there was an ideological osmosis between the financial right and the multicultural left, meshing economic liberalism with social liberalism, the
1/ Decadence in modern mass multicultural societies begins at a moment when there is not longer any discernible meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation
2/ of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious
3/ of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices. Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected.
1/ As opposed to the centralising tradition, which confiscates all powers to establish a single level of control, as opposed to a bureaucratic and technocratic Europe, which relinquishes sovereignty without transferring it to a higher level;
2/ as opposed to a Eur. which will only be a big market unified by free trade; as opposed to a ‘Eur. of Nations’, a mere assemblage of national egos which can't prevent future wars; as opposed to a ‘European Nation’ which's nothing more than a larger version of the Jacobin state;
3/ as opposed to all of the above, Europe (Western, Central, and Eastern) must reorganise itself from the bottom up, in close continental association with Russia. The existing states must federalise themselves from within, in order to better federalise with each other.
1/ Freedom is not only a personal power. It needs a social field to exercise itself. That is why one could not be satisfied with the definition figuring in Article 4 of the Declaration of Rights of 1789: ‘Freedom consists in being able to do anything which does not harm others’.
2/ On the one hand, individual autonomy & the free expression of capacities & merits are not subjective rights but correspond, on the contrary, to an imperious political & social necessity. (Public education, for example, is not at all the result of some ‘right to education’
3/ without which it would be free, but optional. What makes it obligatory is the recognition that instruction constitutes a social good.) On the other hand, individual freedom is never accomplished in a society that is not free,
1/ The first theoreticians of human rights were not wrong to refer to human nature. But it is the notion that they formed of it that was inconsistent. One knows today—one has known it for a long time—that man is a social being,
2/ that the existence of men did not precede their coexistence; in short, that society is the perspective in which, from its origins, the human presence in the world has been recorded. Just as there is no spirit that is not incarnated,
3/ there is no individual that is not situated in a determined socio-historical context. Membership in humanity is thus never immediate, but mediated: one belongs to it only through the intermediary of a particular collectivity or a given culture.
1/ We know that it is difficult to prioritize information when we are bombarded with news, comments & images that follow one another at breakneck speed. This is the problem of "infobesity". This is nothing new, but the phenomenon has obviously accelerated in the postmodern era.
2/ The transformation of political life into a spectacle, that is to say into a contest of appearances, the flood of images, fraudulent commercial practices, false advertising, the advent of the blogosphere and social networks, the reign of reality TV and "infotainment" (mixing
3/ information & entertainment), the role played by "spindoctors" specializing in the art of telling stories ("storytelling"), the use of algorithms & "filter bubbles", even the rise of narcissism (any individual can become a source of information or disinformation), have greatly