Without a Deadly Hatred, Is Love Possible?

I recently came across this sentence, which I found puzzling and weirdly appealing:

“Without a deadly hatred of that which threatens what we love, love is an empty word for hippies, queers and cowards.”

The sentence is commonly attributed to George Lincoln Rockwell, who was an idiot (an American Nazi after World War II can only be described as such; or worse). Reading the sentence, which is so very much against the 21st century grain, with that awful, awful reference to “hatred,” I wondered to which extent Rockwell was right, though. Is love possible without its counterpart, hate?

In Smashing the Neighbor’s face, an essay available here, Slavoj Zizek argues that, erm, yes, Rockwell was kind of right:

In order to properly grasp the triangle of love, hatred and indifference, one has to rely on the logic of the universal and its constitutive exception which only introduces existence. The truth of the universal proposition “Man is mortal” does not imply the existence of even one man, while the “less strong” proposition “There is at least one man who exists (i.e., some men exist)” implies their existence. Lacan draws from this the conclusion that we pass from universal proposition (which defines the content of a notion) to existence only through a proposition stating the existence of – not the at least one element of the universal genus which exists, but – at least one which is an exception to the universality in question. What this means with regard to love is that the universal proposition
“I love you all” acquires the level of actual existence only if “there is at least one whom I hate” – the thesis abundantly confirmed by the fact that universal love for humanity always led to the brutal hatred of the (actually existing) exception, of the enemies of humanity. This hatred of the exception is the “truth” of universal love, in contrast to true love which can only emerge against the background – NOT of universal hatred, but – of universal indifference: I am indifferent towards All, the totality of the universe, and as such, I actually love YOU, the unique individual who stands/sticks out of this indifferent background. Love and hatred are thus not symmetrical: love emerges out of the universal indifference, while hatred emerges out of universal love. In short, we
are dealing here again with the formulas of sexuation: “I do not love you all” is the only foundation of “there is nobody that I do not love,” while “I love you all” necessarily relies on “I really hate some of you.” “But I love you all,” defended himself Erich Mielke, the Secret Police boss of the DDR – his universal love was obviously grounded in its constitutive exception, the hatred of the enemies of socialism.

Zizek goes on to argue that one can “understand” everything, even the most hideous crime has an “inner truth and beauty” when observed from within:

Recall the refined spiritual meditations of the Japanese warriors. There is a weird scene in Hector Babenco’s The Kiss of a Spider-Woman: in the German-occupied France, a high Gestapo officer explains to his French mistress the inner truth of the Nazis, how they are guided in what may appear brutal military interventions by an inner vision of breath-taking goodness – we never learn in what, exactly, this inner truth and goodness consist; all that matters is this purely formal gesture of asserting that things are not what they seem (brutal occupation and terror), that there is an inner ethical truth which redeems them… THIS is what the ethical Law prohibits: justice HAS to be blind, ignoring the inner truth.

Che Guevara, Zizek reminds us, conceived revolutionary violence as a “work of love”:

“Let me say, with the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love. It is impossible to think of an authentic revolutionary without this quality.”

Therein resides the core of revolutionary justice, this much misused term, Zizek adds, the harshness of the measures taken, sustained by love.

Does this not recall Christ’s scandalous words from Luke (“if anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes even his own life – he cannot be my disciple”(Luke 14:26)) which point in exactly the same direction as another Che’s famous quote? “You may have to be tough, but do not lose your tenderness. You may have to cut the flowers, but it will not stop the Spring.”

What Vladimir Putin Told Tucker About Hitler’s Invasion of Poland

I’ve noticed that the Ukrainian propaganda machine, surely the world’s best-funded, has been running with the story that Vladimir Putin told Tucker Carlson, during their long, recent interview, that Poland was to blame for WW2 because it rejected Adolf Hitler’s reasonable terms for a landbridge to Eastern Prussia.

This is not true, and it matters that it’s not true because I’ve seen many of these claims spread and then be regurgitated for years on end (“Donald Trump said that all Mexicans are rapists“). So let me go to the transcriopt of the Putin-Tucker interview:

In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler — it did collaborate with Hitler, you know —Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship and alliance – we have all the relevant documents in the archives, demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War I this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused. Still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

Tucker Carlson: May I ask… You are making the case that Ukraine, certain parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, in fact, has been Russia for hundreds of years, why wouldn’t you just take it when you became President 24 years ago? Your have nuclear weapons, they don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.

Tucker Carlson: It’s not boring.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Good. I am so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you.

So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

By the way, the USSR — I have read some archive documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.

It’s clear that what Putin is saying is not: wow, the Poles really triggered good old Adolf. He’s making a much more complex argument — that one can agree or disagree with: everyone has an opinion on WW2 shit — that Poland brought German and Soviet hostility upon itself because of short-sighted policies including its very real, very damaging support for a partition of Czechoslovakia, and its refusal to allow the Soviets to act as guarantors of Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty by moving troops there across Poland (I marked the region involved in red in the map below). He’s saying that the Poles played with fire, and got burned. Agree or disagree with the thing that Putin did say, not with BS Ukrainian propaganda.

How Weighted Voting Will Work in the 25th Century

In “Aurora Rising,” one of the novels of Alastair Reynolds’ masterful “Revelation Space” cycle, he describes the way “weighted voting” works in the Yellowstone solar system, inhabited in the 25th century by around 100 million humans, many of whom lived not in the system’s main planet, but in the Glitter Band formed by multiple orbital habitats.

These habitats have many different characteristics, but they’re all subjected to a centralized voting arrangement for important matters, under which each inhabitant has the right to vote: but not with one vote necessarily, but rather through a weighted voted system that provides some with as much as two votes, and many with just over one vote each; Thory, a local at the model habitat of Aubusson, is explaining their system to Thalia, a foreign policewoman:

‘The apparatus is intelligent enough to recognise democratic mistakes like that. It’s also intelligent enough to look back into the records and see who voted otherwise. Who, in other words, could be said to have been right, while the majority were wrong.’

Thalia nodded, recalling details she had once learned and then buried under more immediately relevant knowledge.

‘And then, having identified those voters as being of shrewd judgement, it attaches a weighting bias to any future votes they might cast.’

‘In essence, that’s how it works. In practice, it’s infinitely more subtle. The system keeps monitoring those individuals, constantly tuning the appropriate weighting factor. If they keep on voting shrewdly, then their weighting remains, or even increases. If they show a sustained streak of bad judgement, the system weights them back down to the default value.’

‘Why not just remove their voting rights entirely, if they’re that bad?’

‘Because then we wouldn’t be a democracy,’ Thory replied. ‘Everyone deserves a chance to mend their ways.’

‘And how does this work for Aubusson?’

‘It’s how we make our living. The citizenry here possesses a very high number of weighted votes, well above the Glitter Band mean. We’ve all worked hard for that, of course: it isn’t just a statistical fluctuation. I have a weighting index of one point nine, which means that every vote I cast has nearly double its normal efficacy. I’m almost equivalent to two people voting in lockstep on any issue. One point nine is high, but there are fifty-four people out there who have indices nudging three. These are people whom the system has identified as possessing an almost superhuman acumen. Most of us see the landscape of future events as a bewilderingly jumbled terrain, cloaked in a mist of ever-shifting possibilities. The Triples see a shining road, its junctions marked in blazing neon.’ Thory’s voice became reverential. ‘Somewhere out there, Prefect, is a being we call the Quadruple. We know he walks amongst us because the system says he is a citizen of House Aubusson. But the Quad has never revealed himself to any other citizen. Perhaps he fears a public stoning. His own wisdom must be a wonderful and terrifying gift, like the curse of Cassandra. Yet he still only carries four votes, in a population of a hundred million. Pebbles on an infinite beach.’

‘Tell me how you stay ahead of the curve,’ Thalia said.

‘With blood, sweat and toil. All of us take our issues seriously. That’s what citizenship in Aubusson entails. You don’t get to live here unless you can hold a weighted voting average above one point two five. That means we’re all required to think very seriously about the issues we vote on. Not just from a personal perspective, not just from the perspective of House Aubusson, but from the standpoint of the greater good of the entire Glitter Band. And it pays off for us, of course. It’s how we make our living – by trading on our prior shrewdness. Because our votes are disproportionately effective, we are very attractive to lobbyists from other communities. On marginal issues, they pay us to listen to whatthey have to say, knowing that a block vote from Aubusson may swing the result by a critical factor. That’s where the money comes from.’

‘Political bribes?’

‘Hardly. They buy our attention, our willingness to listen. That doesn’t guarantee that we will vote according to their wishes. If all we did was follow the money, our collective indices would ramp down to one before you could blink. Then we’d be no use to anyone.’

‘It’s a balancing act,’ put in Caillebot. ‘To remain useful to the lobbyists, we must maintain a degree of independence from them. This is the central paradox of our existence. But it is the paradox that allows me to spend my time designing gardens, and Paula to breed her butterflies.’

Thory leaned forward. ‘Since we’ve been on this train, I’ve already participated in two polling transactions. There’s a third coming up in two minutes. Minor issues, in the scheme of things – the kinds of things most citizens let their predictive routines take care of.’

‘I didn’t notice.’

‘You wouldn’t have. Most of us are so used to the process now that it’s almost autonomic, like blinking. But we take each and every vote as seriously as the last.’ Thory must have seen something amiss in Thalia’s expression, for she leaned forward concernedly. ‘Everything I’ve just described is completely legal, Prefect. Panoply wouldn’t allow it to happen otherwise.’

Aubusson is a weird place when it comes to public monuments, Reynolds adds: “There was the ampersand, which had once symbolised a primitive form of abstraction. There was an ever-tumbling hourglass, still the universal symbol for an active computational process. There was the apple with a chunk missing, which (so Thalia had been led to believe) commemorated the suicidal poisoning of the info-theorist Turing himself.”

Praise your Masters: A Theory of Creativity

Presented by Thomas Frank, Salon, 2013:

In “Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention” (1996), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi acknowledges that, far from being an act of individual inspiration, what we call creativity is simply an expression of professional consensus.

Using Vincent van Gogh as an example, the author declares that the artist’s “creativity came into being when a sufficient number of art experts felt that his paintings had something important to contribute to the domain of art.”  Innovation, that is, exists only when the correctly credentialed hivemind agrees that it does. And “without such a response,” the author continues, “van Gogh would have remained what he was, a disturbed man who painted strange canvases.”

What determines “creativity,” in other words, is the very faction it’s supposedly rebelling against: established expertise. Consider, then, the narrative daisy chain that makes up the literature of creativity. It is the story of brilliant people, often in the arts or humanities, who are studied by other brilliant people, often in the sciences, finance, or marketing. The readership is made up of us — members of the professional-managerial class — each of whom harbors a powerful suspicion that he or she is pretty brilliant as well.

The real subject of this literature was the professional-managerial audience itself, whose members hear clear, sweet reason when they listen to NPR and think they’re in the presence of something profound when they watch some billionaire give a TED talk. And what this complacent literature purrs into their ears is that creativity is their property, their competitive advantage, their class virtue. Creativity is what they bring to the national economic effort, these books reassure them — and it’s also the benevolent doctrine under which they rightly rule the world. 

Dark Rule Utilitarianism, or a Great Excuse to Download Movies Illegally

I have this friend with a libertarian bent who hasn’t paid for a movie or a TV channel in years. He basically spends his life downloading movies from The Pirate Bay and premium sports from either Youtube or Rojadirecta.

Now, I find this legally and morally repugnant and I’ve told him many times. He won’t listen. Now I’m worried he may come across this blog post and find ethical backing for his dark ways.

If everyone did as my friend does, the system would be destroyed and no more movies would be made, Scott Alexander argued in this fascinating 2018 essay:

The reason I don’t pirate Black Panther is because, if everyone pirated movies, it would destroy the movie industry, and we would never get Lego Black Panther IV: Lego Black Panther Vs. The Frowny Emoji, and that would make people sad.

But if everyone pirated scientific papers, it would destroy Elsevier et al, and that would be frickin’ fantastic.

Would I be sad if Hollywood, the world’s biggest propaganda machine, ever stopped making movies (particularly shit movies exported overseas) and I was forced to live the rest of my life relying on excellent, subsidized European, Latin American and Asian movies, now free to flourish without the heavy-handed, gangster-style pressures other movie industries and governments receive from Hollywood? Would you?

The biggest question is: can small-time malfeasance helps make the system more honest? We shall see. In the meantime, this friend whose name I will not cite is saving a lot of money!

Universalized it would destroy the system – but the system is bad and needs to be destroyed. And although this would break the law, a very slight amount of law-breaking might be a beneficial solution to inadequate equilibria that could be endorsed even when universalized.

So, when they price movies correctly, I shall stop pirating, my friend says.