Concerning Violence
is a documentary film from 2014 by the Swedish director Göran Hugo Olsson. It
is highly acclaimed and has won three major international awards. How it came
to my attention is unusual. I found its DVD lying in a box outside a house; one
of those "please take" kind of things. The film is rated
"E", exempt from classification. The movie consists of a series of
scenes consisting mostly of archive footage of various wars for independence in
Africa during the 1960's and 70's. Accompanying this is
a narration by the American singer-songwriter and actress Lauryn Hill. She
reads passages from a book called The
Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon. The author was a political activist
from the Caribbean who one might describe as the first
"new leftist" or "wokie". By that I mean he builds on the
ideas of Karl Marx, but instead of seeing society as a product of class
struggle, he believes it is born out of racial struggle. The bourgeoisie and
the proletariat are substituted exactly by different demographics. Today this
is one of the most widespread notions in the modern Western left; but Fanon,
writing in the 1940's and 50's, pioneered the concept. The film is extremely
well edited. It shows various scenes of colonial infamy with white people generally
behaving badly, as we are wont to do. That is hardly original in this day and
age, but it is depicted very powerfully. One scene that is etched on my mind is
a heartrending shot of a young woman, probably just a teenager, nursing her
baby while having just lost an arm. There is an older black-and-white video of
some white South Africans patronizing and demeaning their black servants. The
main thrust of the narrative is that guerrilla warfare is justified and good.
It "gives a man back his self-respect" as the author puts it. It is
released by a distributor with a great name: "Dogwoof", see here for the
trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLmYWL4TIEc.
It is now available on a number of streaming platforms.
As I've said many times, the fixated sense of victimhood is
a major malady, even if it has a legitimate cause. This is because it is
highly addictive and often becomes central to the addict's identity; and even,
in a strange way, their self-esteem. People dosed up on victimhood will often
sacrifice everything, including their best interests, to any player who
promises to rid their lives of whatever finger-pointed boogieman they have decided
upon. That player is very often worse than the boogieman and knows very well
the psychology of its targets. There are too many examples in history to list,
including some of those featured in Concerning
Violence, in which a manipulative Third World
grievance-monger wins support by promising to free the people from
"oppression!" They then institute a regime more terrible than any
European colonial government. This pathology is not confined to the Third
World , in fact it is a problem in my own country, see: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2025/02/irish-cvd-bull.html.
The film is also a spiteful and frenzied white guilt trip, one of the worst
I've ever seen; and, let's face it, they are everywhere! I reject and defy that
call to self-loathing I constantly hear because of the colour of my skin. I
should also emphasize that I oppose terrorism and political violence; not
because I am a "privileged white male!", in fact I don't believe such
an animal exists. I oppose it because, leaving aside the moral issues, it is
impractical. It cannot work in the long-term. The state can do violence so much
better than anybody else that is it invincible at that game. It's a battlefield
we must never enter. "What is your solution then, Ben?" I hear you
ask. I think because the current conflict is so unique and unprecedented in
history, its solution has to be too. It is something we have not yet thought
of; but it is there. I am looking out for it every day. I promise I will be writing
about that very subject in the very near future.
See here for background: https://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2021/08/political-correctness-portal.html.
See here for background: https://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2021/08/political-correctness-portal.html.

I've not seen this film but get quite a clear picture of what it's like from your description. The opening part of what you are saying makes sense but you've lost me with your last few sentences when you say the state is so good at violence that we must not be tempted to enter that battlefield.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you revere Boudicca because that's exactly what she did. There was never any realistic prospect of her defeating Roman power but she was driven by either her ego or her moral compass (that's a separate debate) to fight nonetheless. In so doing she wasted the lives of thousands of the finest young men from her own tribe and from among her closest allies. She also slaughtered hundreds of innocent Romano-British civilians in Camolodunum and Verulamium.
I think whether or not you attack the state with violence should be a matter of pragmatism rather than principle. You can argue that Boudicca's choice was right in principle and that it served as a beacon or inspiration for further resistance but in purely practical terms it was a disaster.
The state is not only good at violence but also at deception and it's arguably the latter which constitutes the source of its power at the moment. Unpicking the deception should always take precedence over violence. Towards the end of your article you mention the "current conflict". I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I mean the final battle between free humanity and the Illuminati. I actually don't think Boudicca wasa being pragmatic. She was after revenge over the murder of her husband and abuse of her two daughters. Also the way the Romans stole her tribal lands. I know that sounds hypocritical on my part and I don't know how to answer that. I'll have to think about it.
DeleteI don't think you have a hypocritical bone in your body Ben, and I'm glad you are thinking about it. In your interview with Julia Anchorhaven you said you wished more people would share your interest in illuminati control of Rome. Perhaps few people would accept that the Roman Empire was under illuminati occupation at the time of Boudicca (I don't know but I for one wouldn't). I think the illuminati operate through faux spiritual notions which demand obedience and surrender of any belief that humanity can do anything to solve its own problems. This demand becomes backed up by military power. So I think Rome came under illuminati occupation in 313 AD when it adopted Christianity. From that point on citizens were led to believe they were inherently sinful from birth and by default condemned to eternal fire unless redeemed by the blood sacrifice of a Messiah. Quite a powerful deception if you think about it. "You're going to hell but don't worry we've got that covered. Just worship here, pay taxes here, sign up for the military here and you are guaranteed an eternity in paradise instead, it doesn't matter what else you do."
ReplyDeleteThanks, MT. I do try to watch myself in that way. Yes, the Roman Empire was indeed Illuminati controlled from its very inception in the days of the Republic. In 313 AD its control changed to a different form. Off-the-shelf package religions were their strategy for the new millennium. They abandoned the brute force of the Caesars. The way organized religion controls us is well summed up by your example.
Delete