The similarity between Lib-Con’s ‘Big Society’ and Confucianism, in brief

"Sometimes", as I said to some Brits some time ago,

"You don’t see it coming. We come from Asia (referring to myself and V - a chinese girl from singapore), and in many parts, fascism thrives in an advanced state....like Singapore, the most successful fascist state of modern times. You don’t know what the consequences are of fascism, in its advanced state. You might not know the many means and methods by which a people are turned into fascists whilst the state in general does not seem to be so, and when it does, nobody recognises as such because they are no different themselves. Then one day, some gal/guy takes the red pill(ref. The Matrix), and realises that s/he’s living in a fascist state, and s/he never knew it because s/he, and everything s/he holds dear, is an integral and indispensable part of it."

if you think about it, This ‘Big Society’ thing has been around for quite a while. The essential identifier of when it started is when the left went right. That is when self-reliance amongst the people truly became a reality with no other alternative.

Look at the Liberal-Cons ‘Big Society’. People get pissed off with it for a host of reasons such as it being exploitative, it making it difficult for certain services to run or run efficiently and sufficiently, etc, etc.

But the most important and insidious effect of this ‘Big Society’ BS is how its going to turn the people into fascists before the state. You can call it bottom-up fascism. It’s quite a simple strategy really, as practiced by the Chinese - imposed by the government in 221 b.c. - for more than 2000 years via the mephistophelean Legalist-Confucian system.


1. The government become unassailable

This is already quite true in the UK. You can’t bring the government down by either protest or the electoral system. Whatever government you have, be it Labour, Lib-Dem, or Conservative, there isn’t much of a difference. With Labour having tap-danced to the right quite a while back and becoming, in Marx’s words, nothing but an ‘executive arm of the bourgeoisie’, the other two can maintain or go further right. The left is just about dead or merely seeking concessions. In that sense, no government can be brought down or voted out without a similar one taking its place. The electoral system in such a case becomes a farce, just like the difference between one party and another.

In such a situation, the government can be said to have ceased to exist. All that exists is the people’s efforts to serve them whilst the government sits back and minds its own business. That is an essential factor of Confucianism where the people are led by their own state-sponsored instinct to do the ‘right thing’ and give to the top whilst taking from each other.


2. The people become self-reliant


In such a situation, the government can be said to have ceased to exist. All that exists is the people’s efforts to serve them whilst the government sits back and minds its own business. That is an essential factor of Confucianism where the people are led by their own state-sponsored instinct to do the ‘right thing’ and give to the top whilst taking from each other.
Cuts, financial pressures, increasings costs, etc, come with any government. So the compensation machinery turns and turns with people doing their best to cut costs, ease pressures through this or that pastime, share ladders and other home maintenance stuff so as to cut costs, wait for erroneous ‘3 cartons of beer for 11 quid’ offers to stock up, turn of the heating during winter, etc, etc.

This tendency is further amplified via the young whom are born and reared within a situation which is new to them. They do not have the first-hand experience of better times compared to their time as do the OAPs. The past, as promoted through pop culture, fashions, the irrelevance of the elders, etc, is cast aside and the present is taken as new. They may kick up a fuss about it, but this fuss is not going to be fuelled by frustration exacerbated by first-hand experience of the past as they weren’t around then.


3. Financial demands from the government continue


Governmental/Corporational demands can continue to increase. They will always have the young whom don’t know better times, the middle classes, and working classes whom are compensating through ‘Strongbow’ or other such ‘drinkem’ and pissem’ out’ pastimes to protect their interests.


4. People compensate for it by becoming exploitative toward each other


What else can be done when top-down pressures come from an unassailable government. Take it out on and out of each other.


5. People can become divided along religious, racial, cultural, etc, lines in order to form unofficial associations through whom they can ‘make it’ despite governmental pressures.


No wo/man is an island. You still need social support. In the face of a society that will have to turn opportunistic in order to survive, ‘gangs’ have to be formed. Along what lines? For the relatively racially-singular Chinese, this takes the form of triad societies (i speak from personal experience here. I know quite a few triad members of both of high and low ranking, both Chinese and Indian.) - overly-lauded, and whose social meaning is thoroughly misunderstood in western films - religions that turn into exclusive self-help clubs, families that focus on producing children so that they might form a ‘gang’ themselves in terms of helping each other stay afloat, etc, etc.

In a multiracial state like singapore, we also have racism, institutional racism, and people have underdeveloped along racial lines to the point that they may deem nothing amiss and stick to their lower positions or particular professions. Thus they try to make ends meet or make a ‘success’ of themselves by whatever is left to them (in the case of the Malays and Indians), or the more that they have access to (in the case of the chinese majority). All of them are used to it and have developed and underdeveloped accordingly to view nothing amiss with such a state of affairs.

But what form is it going to take in the UK? Thankfully, there is quite a bit of cross-cultural/racial appreciation in this country. However, that doesn’t mean that racism might not be relied upon in the future, or isn’t already being relied upon now as is the case via the EU which ensures that everything is a ‘whites mainly’ situation. Few people realise that the EU itself a fascist and racist concept as it favours the whites whom comprise the majority in western Europe and is going to contribute to cultural and racial polarisation across the globe.

The fact that few realise this can itself serve as evidence of the degeneration of the people of the UK and in the western world in the face of the reality of the other points mentioned from 1-4. And I couldn’t help look with wonder at how the people could celebrate, via ‘street parties’, the ‘royal’ wedding of the overly-privileged git, William and his chick, Kate, whilst complaining about cuts. Where do they think a portion of that which they are being deprived of is going? For goodness sakes. Sometimes I think that that coming up with these ‘royal wedding street parties’ and seeing who attends is a good way to identify those whom ought to be afforded on-the-spot ligation and vasectomies so that they do not father their stupidity into the future.


*

In the study of confucian states, i’ve realised that whilst the west might have attempted to bring the horse to the water to get it to drink, the legalist-confucians have perfected the art of inciting thirst in the horse so that it might lead the government to the water which the latter can then privatise and sell to the former. The former would be too fixated on its thirst to realise what just happened.
It is pretty inevitable that such things happen in, generally, the aforementioned order. You can call it a survival mechanism that is quite invariable wherever this ‘Big Society’ thing is instituted - the Chinese are way ahead here with its ‘Big Society’ being instituted in 221 b.c. via the imposition of Legalist philosophy, and shortly with the following period, being complemented with the people-regulating philosophy of Confucianism. I’d say that Legalism-Confucianism is superior to Machiavelli’s statecraft philosophy as detailed in ‘The Prince’. Machiavelli talks about how the people might be controlled by the state. Legalism-Confucianism talks about how the people might be led to give up control to the state. A most indirect and far more effective method effectuated via the evolution of the people via the redefinition and regulation of social relationships. In the study of confucian states, i’ve realised that whilst the west might have attempted to bring the horse to the water to get it to drink, the legalist-confucians have perfected the art of inciting thirst in the horse so that it might lead the government to the water which the latter can then privatise and sell to the former. The former would be too fixated on its thirst to realise what just happened. That is what the Liberal-Con’s ‘Big Society’ is all about mate. But if you think about it, This ‘Big Society’ thing has been around for quite a while. The essential identifier of when it started is when the left went right. That is when self-reliance amongst the people truly became a reality with no other alternative.

Karl Marx spoke about this degeneration of society in his perspective on mutual alienation within the capitalist milieu. However, he was slightly off when he said that all social relationships will melt away. Rather, it would be true to say that new ones will be formed and will serve to deliver the state to fascism and the people themselves will become the maintainers of such a state of affairs by the perspective that rules the new social relationships that are formed. Everything, from marital unions, social circles, the work arena, friendships, the definition of ‘friend’ even, will be redefined whilst new ones formed to make the fascist reality more palatable to the point that one develops the right taste to now baulk at a thoroughly fascist main fare.


ed




0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo