possibly contrarian but deep nonetheless!

Popcorn, i liked this part of what you shared: It's kind of flaunting a superiority but in a psychotic way, and that leads to masses of male youth and young men in this kind of society incarcerated, labelled, shamed humiliated and ostracized. -- i think of the psychotic as having to do with a war society's desire to have empire, and thus the need to mobilize all resources towards that alleged value. Everyone under that tyranny goes insane as they twist themselves in order to not only live within that tyranny (a tyranny buttressed by thugs, directly attacking or "making examples of" some) but also to "serve" it's "interests". When other states that DO NOT seek empire act in this way, i see them acting as subordinates to empire. In today's world, according to a quote i read from M.Gaddafi (Libya's assassinated head of state), there is no realistic alternative to the empire's reach, at least when it came to banking. So with that kind of sobriety i say these things. On the other hand, what do folks think of the following anarchist critiques of morality (one for communism, the other against): For a World Without Morality by anonymous and Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values by J.M. The first one is the pro-communism one (small 'c' usually means anti-state, i think). Quotes from both. The first: "From Stoicism, the dominant outlook during the Roman Empire, Christianity adopted the double concept that: 1) sex is the basis of pleasure; 2) therefore it can and should be controlled. The Orient, for its part, through an open affirmation of sexuality (and not just the art of making love), tends towards a pan-sexualism where sexuality must of course be mastered but in the same sense as everything else; it is not given a privileged position. The West does not control sexuality by ignoring it but by thinking of nothing else. Everything is sexualized. The worst aspect is not that sex is repressed by Judeo-Christianity, but that Judeo-Christianity was dazzled by it. And not that Judeo-Christianity kept a lid ’ on sexuality, but that it organized it. The West has made sexuality the hidden truth of the normal conscience. But of madness (hysteria) as well. Just as a crisis of morality was getting underway, Freud discovered that sexuality was the big secret of the world and of civilization as a whole. "Sexual misery comes from an interaction between two moral orders, the traditional and modern ones which cohabit, to a greater or lesser extent, in the minds and glands of our contemporaries. On the one hand we suffer from constraints of morality and work, which keep us from attaining the historical ideal of a sexual blossoming and of a blossoming of love. On the other, the more we free ourselves from these constraints (in our imaginations in any case), the more this ideal appears unsatisfactory and empty. "A tendency and its transformation into a spectacle should not be taken as a totality. If a relative liberalization has occurred during our era, the traditional order has far from disappeared. Just try being openly “pedophile.”" (...) " Our era is one of a coexistence of moralities, of a proliferation of codes, not their disappearance. Guilt (being afraid of violating a taboo) is juxtaposed with anguish (a sense of a lack of guideposts with respect to “choices” to be made). Narcissism and schizophrenia, the maladies characteristic of our period, replace the neuroses and hysteria of the previous era. "What guides people’s behaviour today is less and less an unquestionable ensemble of dictates which is transmitted by a father or a priest than a sort of utilitarian morality of personal improvement that utilizes a fetishization of the body and a frenzied psychologization of human relations. An obsession with interpretation replaces confessional rites and the examination of conscience.[2] "Ahead of his time, de Sade simply announced our own, one in which, until people become themselves, there is no moral guarantee." (...) Read the entire text: https://anarchymag.org/2015/12/for-a-world-without-morality/ Question: Does anyone know what that last emboldened portion of text is getting at? Demoralizing Moralism with J.McQuinn, excerpts: (...) Compulsory morality involves self-subjugation to a system or set of values that are, for one reason or another, believed to require mandatory compliance — even if the person believing this is unable to — as the cliché goes — “live up to them.” Although compulsory morality can potentially be grounded within an individual’s subjective experience, it is almost always instead grounded somewhere outside the realm of directly lived human experience." (...) "Whatever the specific content of compulsory morality, the effects are basically similar. A person’s ability to think clearly and act decisively in his or her own interests (within appropriate contexts) is compromised or sabotaged. If people are not able to consciously act in their own individual and communal interests, they will almost certainly end up acting instead in the (alien) interests of another in some fashion. In most forms of compulsory morality this other around whose interests values are oriented is an abstract idea rather than a person or persons: God, Science, Nature, one’s Country (or Nation-State), the Economy or Ecology, etc. (Although there are always real people, social groups and organizations just waiting to exploit the victims of morality by acting as mediators between them and their abstract ideals.) Even in those cases in which values are explicitly oriented towards people or groups of people (for example, the class-struggle morality that puts the Working Class at the center of value), these values usually remain oriented much more towards the abstract idea of the person or the group than towards any actual, concrete, living persons: the fetishized idea of the Proletariat or the Party (rather than actual living and breathing workers or the individual members who make up the party), Humanity (in the abstract rather than in the form of an aggregate of concrete individuals in all their interrelationships), the State, etc. People whose compulsory moralities are organized around these abstract ideas attempt to force themselves to follow their demands because they have displaced (projected or alienated) their own subjectivity onto them, usually through the influence of years and years of alienating and demoralizing socialization and indoctrination. Rather than understanding and acting for themselves the victims of morality attempt to make themselves the puppets of the abstract ideas they fetishize." (...) "Without a consciously understood subjective locus of understanding, without a clear focus on one’s own personal and social interests, it is impossible to develop a critical social theory that can comprehend social alienation and the possibilities for its supersession. (...) "Only by developing and maintaining a self-critical understanding of oneself and one’s world can people make comprehensively rational decisions about what their most genuine interests are and how to pursue them (rather than making narrowly or partially rationalized decisions which won’t accurately reflect themselves or their overall context)." (...) "Alien values are implanted into the lives of the people, precisely through the children; alien, not merely in the sense of foreign or exotic, but alien to humanity: a commerciogenic identity is formed. At first it was partly resisted, but with time, it became more and more acceptable, until it has now become a major determinant on the lives of the young, displacing all earlier forms of acculturation, other ways of answering need, other ways of being in the world. This process of forgetting, beyond recall, but perhaps not quite beyond reclamation, is a form of colonialism far more effective than that which held so much of the world in thrall in an earlier empire." ----Jeremy Seabrook in 'The Metamorphoses of Colonialsm' (https site) Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values by J.McQuinn [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst]