Around mid-October 2022 news reported that two idiots committed suicide in Yerevan — but be careful, no news defined them as “idiots”. It’s us, who define them as “idiots”. No one else!
But what it is exactly the “idiocy” here?
It’s certainly NOT in the fact that the suiciders were gays, as many other idiots (some even among our readers) would hastily love grabbing the assertion that we were homophobic and that’s why we call them “idiots”. Fortunately not all gays are LGBTQ+ indoctrinated and the smartest ones are even against to it — against being politically manipulated by dirty LGBTQ+ agendas.
Investigating this idiocy one should therefore investigate this suicidal act in relation to the LGBTQ+ endoctrination. It’s here where lies the idiocracy as a systemic social phenomenon. Idiocy as we define here, is not the perpetrators’ peculiar individual property. It’s a particular phenomenon of idiocracy.
Few words on methodology
The proper steps to start thinking on this incident should cover the following points:
- The EGO-IDEAL at work, that is, the show off dimension of their act. Their show off, more precisely, is the perpetrators’ self-identification that is supposed to fit to the audience’s self-identification (the big-Other) in committing the suicidal act. Or in other words, the way the perpetrators imagine the audiences’ perception on their act.
- The IDEOLOGY dimension: What public sentiment is aimed to be promoted by this show off, that is, the resultant public vector that comes out of the audience’s self-identifications. More precisely, the ideology dimension works when the above item (1) is made fullfiled, that is, when the perpetrators’ expectation matches the audiences’ perception (The fulfillment of the interpellation/applause mechanic — Althusser).
- The POLITICAL MANIPULATION: What conceptual contours and affinities are embedded in the media in order to manipulate the public sentiment. And more importantly, through the imposition of these contours and affinities, what it is made not-talkable, in public sphere? Here where the conspiracism matches the systemic analysis. Contrary to prig scholars’ assertion, the two approaches are not contradictory but well complementary. Conspiracy has always been a basic element of human behavior and therefore should be a matter of study in social sciences — of course, next to the systemic analysis. Thus, the manipulative aspect we define here is the agency which makes the perpetrators’ expectations match the audiences’ perception of the incident. This agency constitutes the third element (other than the perpetrator and the audience) in a proper scientific investigation. This third element is not idiot, while the former two are both idiots.
- The LOOP: How do the 2nd and the 3rd items above turn back into shaping the 1st item, that constitute the elements of personal motivation for the suicidal act? This is defining the loop effect between the individual act and the social/ideological perception. The detection of such a loop is essential in doing social science. The efficacy of such a loop is also indispensable for political manipulation. It’s the main trick, therefore it’s often the skipped aspect of the phenomenon by the fake/commissioned “scientists”. In cases when this skipping is committed intentionally, we again run across matching the conspiracy and systemic analysis. For it to be effective, the third element (the manipulating political agent) should be smart, not idiot.
Let’s try to mount the particular incident on the above theoretical scheme then: Emile Durkheim has already pointed out the social dimension of suicide. We used some elements of his cheap taxonomy in our previous Opus “From Sartre to Zizek, freedom or Bashi-Bazouklouk¹”. The four types of suicides he defines are the followings: anomic, fatalistic, egotistic and altruistic. The altruistic type is the distinctive one as opposed to others in bringing heroic associations to mind. The three others somehow overlap by their definitions in being more or less anomic. Among these overlapping three, the fatalistic one is distinguished by triggering the feelings of pity in public perception. That way, it is instrumental within the discourses of victimization.
The show off dimension
As there is no an authentic “self”, there is no an authentic suicide as well. What we call the “self” is always haunted by the superego, which is a constitutive part of it. Mutatis mutandis there is no suicide without it’s show off dimension. This is one thing making the suicidal act irreconcilable with love. The news say that the idiots were in love to each other and that they kissed each other before killing themselves. However, love is, by definition, the most intimate situation one could experience in life which doesn’t need a showing off. Why should they kiss and take selfie of their kissing if they really love each other? In our case, both parties commit suicide simultaneously. It’s not such a case where one of the parties sacrifices itself for saving the life of the other. This what rules out that their suicide was altruistic. Not altruistic means that there is nothing heroic in it. There is neither a heroic misperception as in the case with Pyramus and Thisbe. They are together and the threat is —allegedly— coming from outside: They blame social oppression, as do the media and the LGBTQ+ community.
However in such situations where the threat comes from outside, real love dictates staying alive and fighting against to it. Thus the show off dimension in these idiots’ suicidal act is obvious and determinative.
Why is it anodyne to talk on it…?
All discoursive practices perpetuate by the will to enjoy the other’s situation. We don’t necessarily mean here bullying or having fun out of someone’s difficult situation. Dramatizations are a more common way to enjoy other’s troubles, since they don’t look unethical at first sight. And secondly, one must feel pity to others to enjoy his or her own self-pity — a kind of “plus-de -jouir (surplus enjoyment) in Lacan’s/Zizek’s terms. This villain feature of mediocre people is also what makes a news “interesting” to people and constitutes the logic of achieving high ratings in media. High ratings mean high profiting as well. Upon this proclaim of ours, a leftist idiot would hastily blame capitalism — the profit oriented mode of production — for signifying the depravity of the media. However this would be again a too simplistic and too generalized evaluation — a usual prig-leftist talking. There are decent people living within the capitalist system as well and defining depravity as such a systemic phenomenon would be unfair to these decent people.
When patheticising make a premium
Why Ukraine is often associated with the LGBTQ+? To explain the mechanism let’s go into a more general evaluation on the condition of Western capitalism: Capitalism launders its depravities through patheticising. What generates depravities are rather the specific conditions and types of crises within the capitalism. Capitalism is hypothetically (and also in most of the cases when we define as “normal times”) is a system which allows weak individuals to stay in the game and compete: no matter how stupid or how freak you are, if you work hard, if you earn money, you can run a good or even a luxury life, you can spend a lot and, as a freak, you can even be competitive in sexual arena as well, which would be unlikely in a communist order’s command economy where people’s earnings are more balanced … but in times of crises this meritocratic perception within Capitalism disrupts. Weaks see their weaknesses, strong individuals enjoy their strengths. Therefore in periods of crises, the dramatizations of weaknesses become trendy. This is functional in reconciliating masses with the system. Divulging weaknesses make more premium then usual, since people in weak conditions tend more to identify themselves with others’ weaknesses. Here is the depravity of the Western media which is known as “free” debouches in managing and exploiting this trend: one aspect of it’s “freedom” means that it’s free to maximize it’s profit at the expense of any ethical principle. The stupid leftist talk associating everything of depravity to Capitalism is right only with this respect.
But, the other aspect, which is an often dismissed feature of it, is more prevalent and worth to mention: the Western media’s “freedom” is rather the “freedom” to NOT to talk on a topic which is (often decidedly) to be marginalized.
Defining juxtdisposition as a technique for barring out topics of discussion
And how do we call this particular but also very usual method of political manipulation: a case when something is especially promoted to be talked (underlined, stressed on, brought into agenda…) in order just to avoid talking on something else? How come that a topic is over-emphasized just to curtain another topic? We propose calling this interesting phenomenon: juxtdisposition (the contrapositive case of juxtaposition). The mediocre human brain operates not by logic but by associations. It is therefore prone to get manipulated by any technique of such kind.
How does victimization of LGBTQ+ function as a juxtdispositive discourse? It simply and particularly serves as a curtaining discourse for NOT to talk on Nazism in Ukraine.
A specific political manipulation: why do Russophobia and Ukronazism overlap with LGBTQ+?
First lets admit that LGBTQ+ and nazism bear very contradictory denotations in a mediocre mind: One is conceived as soft, caring, tender, libertarian, the other is conceived as hard, destructive, harsh and oppressive… German Nazism persecuted homosexuals. And out of this historical fact that people still think that Nazism bears some primordially antagonistic features with LGBTQ+.
However these are not logically but contingently correlated historical facts. Second, LGBTQ+ is NOT an analytical representation of homosexuality. It’s a political attribute. It’s a political movement furnished by the NATO scholastic academia pretending to defend the rights of homosexuals (and diverse sexual orientations). The pioneer “academics” commissioned to formulate the fundamentals of the LGBTQ+ indoctrination are all descendents from the Eastern European origin russophobic families immigrated to the US. We defined and disclosed the vanguards of this gang in our previous Opus “From Sartre to Zizek, freedom or Bashi-Bazouklouk¹”: Barbara Risman, Judith Butler…
At the moment when one starts talking about “defending the right of some“, these some are made freaks (not equal humans) needing to be defended against other humans who are —supposedly— hostile to them. This is how LGBTQ+ indoctrination aims rising the stress levels in a society igniting inner hostilities.
Our argument here is even more trenchant than just pointing out the ad hoc character of the LGBTQ+’s the —so-called— anti-nazism. We go one step forward: no matter how the denotations of Nazism and LGBTQ+ are considered as antonymic, their logics are symbiotic. And what if the antonymic character of their denotations function as a dialectical-logical mean for juxtdisposition, that is, as a mean for not to speak on neo-nazism…?
The current symbiosis between the LGBTQ+ and the Ukronazis is a typical manifestation of this juxtdispositive phenomenon: The violence which is implicit in the former, translates into an explicit violence in the latter.
Both are fed out of inner discontent and insecurity. Fabricating a story of victimization is a common feature of fascism. Fascism always legitimizes itself through a victim’s narrative, as exactly does LGBTQ+. And it is apposite to point out right here that this state of mind (the self-patheticising feature of both neo-nazism and LGBTQ+) is categorically against the Russian Spirit. Sergei Polunin in the film Passion Simple (2021) puts it barely: He replies to the french woman who questions his past and insecurities during an after-sex chat: “We, Russians , we don’t like to be weak“. This bare feature of Russian Spirit is also what makes them unbearable for closed communitarian cultures where victimization, dramatization, patheticising play a fundamental role in perpetuating social solidarity. It is especially interesting to remind that Sergei Polunin is an Ukrainian-born ballet and actor. Still, the Western imposition of patheticism doesn’t work in Ukraine since Ukraine has always been more Russia than being a Western county.
… which should be read as:
“we don’t enjoy patheticizing ourselves as you do“.
Patheticism is the enchantment of idiocracy. People bearing this Spirit of Polunin (the Russian Spirit) rejecting this enchantment are destined to win and the ones who cannot bear it are destined to fail. The condition of the Western media known as the “4th power” in the so-called world of democracies is in fact the ultimate totalitarianism and their democracy is eventually the idiocracy, promoting and exploiting the public temper of self-patheticising. Not just the suiciders but all people sticked on the Western propaganda victimizing and patheticizing the LGBTQ+ are idiots too. Here are how the idiocracy becomes a determinant feature of the Western civilization in decay.