In the modern world the break has occurred with the centuries-old traditions, that fully turned over the mental and social structures of the modern humankind in comparison with the long millenniums of the past. “Enlightenment”, humanism, rationalism and other “progressist” tendencies put forward the system of estimations and values, fully contradicting the basic orientations of the traditional society. This certainly (and maybe in the most expressive way) touched upon the principle of aggression. The European Age of Enlightenment implanted in people a one-sided view of the aggression, a view from the victim’s point exclusively.
The light side of that phenomenon, based on the will to the Absolute, to attaining the total character, to the maximum extension of a subject up to the sphere of the Divine, discontinued being understandable, concrete and ontologically rooted, and, consequently, was identified with the “survival”, with atavism, with inertial barbarism, with the temporal and in the main rectifiable defect of the civilization. Having lost its metaphysical legitimacy, the aggression became to be perceived as unlawful transgressing the integrity of what was proclaimed the supreme value in itself – a human individual, society, being etc. Hence follows all “natural right” tendency, which has been developed starting from the times of Rousseau. For the existential expansion discontinued being metaphysically justified, the victim put in its own claims to the “total security”, that is to the artificial and raised to the highest ethical imperative defence from aggression. The aggression was in fact outlawed. With this, in particular, the general “democratic” legal statue, which prohibits the propaganda of war, is connected.
It turned to be possible to change the cultural and social foundations of the society, whereas it was naturally beyond anyone’s powers to change the basic tendencies of both cosmos and human beings. Therefore the aggression never disappeared either from history, or from the everyday life, or from the wild nature. It just began to be perceived as the evil, as one limited being’s claim on utilizing another one, which arises spontaneously from time to time.
For the process of subject’s totalization was excluded, the aggression became to be considered as merely quantitative acquiring, piling external subjects, as the trivial and vulgar selfishness, as the fatal “life struggle”. Therefore all of the aggression became to gradually be reduced to merely economic sphere and all its manifestations in other spheres were strictly blamed by “public opinion”. “Total security” and “human rights” were from then on guaranteed by transference of the aggression into the sphere of the abstract material standards – money, capital.
- Excerpt From: The Knight Templars of The Proletariat, by Alexander Dugin
0 Response to “Defence & Aggression”