indeed, but that’s a truism and explains nothing. what needs to be understood is the behavior of soliciting sympathy, the purpose it serves. here morality becomes weaponized; those who lose must resort to hijacking the conscience of the winners into experiencing feelings of guilt because they lack the means to directly regain power over them. but what is forgotten in the criticism of the ‘loser’ is that the loser is doing the same thing the winner is doing… trying to gain the upper hand. so when the winners win, it’s noble, but when the losers win, it’s ignoble and underhanded.
this demarcation ironically reverses the slave-mentality (i did a vocaroo audio on this very thing a year ago). first we have the stage; slave interprets master’s caprice as bad, as ‘evil’. second stage; winner/master interprets slave’s revolt as ‘bad’, as ‘evil’. here, the master/winner engages in the same weaponized moralizing that the slave engaged in directly following his loss of power. now, it is ‘bad’ to not want to remain the loser, says the winner… and that’s the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
now it becomes especially ugly when we apply this analysis to what has been done, and is being done, in the dialectic between the ruling class and the working class. note that the initial power gained by the ruling class was not established by direct force, but rather through the same kind of underhanded deception that is now being scrutinized in the hands of the losers, the working class. the ruling class was able to convince the working class that something other than a direct show of force gave them their right to their position… and this would involve telling the long story of the rise of the aristocratic class to power (which i’m not obliged to tell because it would take too long). suffice it to say that this initial rise to power was not the result of an affirmative show of strength by the ruling class, but rather the result of a lack of organized effort by the working class to keep their power. and what caused this long, drawn out process of losing executive power to the ruling class was cateorically identical to the moralizing that the losers, the slaves, the workers, now execute in an attempt to regain their original power.
so you have a ‘master’ class that gained its status by underhanded and deceptive means… then has the audacity to try and convince the ‘slave’ class, which it successfully subordinated by weaponizing morality, that they should accept their fate rather than revolt. like i said… the dumbest shit i have ever heard.
i take a great leap here and say something you’ll not understand… something that will immediately shock you and strike you as absurd. i’m using a metaphor you like to think in terms of, here. the aristocratic/capitalistic ruling class’s entire pathos is feminine and ignoble. in the same way you might see women as being experts at manipulation and able to access power through indirect means, the ruling class has done the same thing through ‘philosophy’, through ‘ideology’. the rise to power of the bourgeois class is an activity perfectly characterized as feminine; accessing power deceptively and then persuading those from whom it was taken that they should feel guilty in wanting it back.
now i’d not use that metaphor myself because it over-generalizes… but i did anyway because it’s in a way you might be able to understand. i’m trying to simplify something extremely complicated so it’s easily accessible to you.
it’s another irony i sit nicely on as i watch the political philosophers go with great amusement. conservatism is the very incarnation of the feminine pathos, while… let’s just call it 'marxism ’ because that’s how everyone understands it these days… is at its core is the embodiment of ultra-masculinity and nobility. okay… let’s say that capitalism is dionysian, while socialism is apollonian. will that work for you?
i know, i know. this is probably very disturbing to you and i apologize for that. i’ve been known to turn whole centuries upside down in one fell swoop.