1: The belief in evil.
2: The belief: "Love will overcome hate" / "Love conquers fear"
3: Countercultural nostalgia.
1 is now present in a similar way to, say, the frenzy of ignited passion directed at child killers (Thompson and Vennables) or school shooters - as in a belief that someone is somehow inherently evil opens the door to them being banned from our lives and our thoughts (this this is obviously unworkable and perhaps the action of banning is comes from a knowledge that them and whatever the deed that assigned them in us to the nomination 'evil' will be forever present, that we need a section to put them safely into) - that they must be stopped. This does not combat what they are doing, it refuses to question what violence is. It can help initially to comprehend and protect our trauma (this is a complicated motion. On the one hand the comprehension of horrific trauma as horrific, and to realistically say it is almost impossible to deal with. This is an initial comprehension of trauma where we are understandably overwhelmed. In this motion trauma becomes a protected category. Protection can render it almost permanent), but it is also in itself a symptom of trauma that will persist and will not be satisfied by fulfilling itself. When somebody acts against a moral code in situation of diminishing returns it is one thing to want them to not be present, to not be putting others in danger. It is quite another to consciously or unconsciously begin to believe that the individual is completely evil. This is a thing which happens to us. We can hate things without a belief in evil. The perceived contradiction is important.
2 is sometimes perhaps similarly a subset of trauma. It is a patch, and a very real hope. It is also subjectively abstract and is just as truthfully used by people who contain or believe in very different kinds of love - different ideals but who will recite their love against one another. Christian love conquers communist love, which is not love at all and vice versa. Again it is based on an abstraction, love as a precondition. It relies on the idea that if everything is stripped away there are certain human compulsions that are entirely kind. This is similar to modern comprehensions of Christianity wherein the characterisation of God as more human they actually are becomes more of a character(istic) and less of a human, less of something that is also us / inside us. God becomes unattainable. The question of our journey towards what may be fulfillment in them becomes an abstract request to a now emptying caricature. A relic God who is not God at all but a kind of symptom beyond God that doesn't work for anyone. A speeding destructive force where subjectivity is shortened and cut off. Prayers become erratic and non meditative. They become unpoetic - a simple unthought callback to an abstract hope rather than the practiced diligence of love or the unpracticed instance and ongoing improvisation of it: "love conquers fear - now I am terrified". Basically "love will overcome hate" is made of fear and perhaps it is also afraid (unconsciously) of trying to let us work out or feel what love is or can be. Try saying "no it won't" or "no it doesn't" next time you hear it.
A very simple graphic of point one and point two might look like this:
I do not believe in evil.
Dick Cheney is not evil.
I am not able to love Dick Cheney.
Love conquers fear; I am terrified.
3 a callback to the "fuck you" / set apart 'otherness' of previous countercultural moments where subjects were way braver - a thousand times bold in the face of heavier oppression than we can now imagine. This is a historical myth, and it refuses to understand the way that hegemony eats culture. Most of the counterculture that is preserved for us is preserved because of the hegemony of dominant narratives or else because what it did became acceptable in place of the questions of acceptability it demanded being answered. In perfect contradiction the counterculturists and vanguardists argue that the 'culture of offense' (as some proponents codify their opponents on the left) are asking for too much acceptance from 'the mainstream'. This is because it is reassuring to be a part of a thing that isn't the thing you see as the thing you stand against. It is far more terrifying to consider what powers you come from, are subject to and that you in turn subject your world to. There are many contradictions inside ideas of counterculture (the most obvious being the 'inside' / 'outside' [or 'drop out'] paradigm, but it is important that whilst not throwing every single one of them into the shredder we ask questions of these very closely. It is also important within the comprehension of subject lives that we perhaps allow the fact that sometimes we are living inside a hobby. We are collecting, we are experiencing and chasing after enjoyment, which is okay. The overarching moralism that becomes attached to cultural artifacts at once deradicalizes them and establishes a historical persuation that, along with its militaristic metaphors and obsessional thrusting forward honestly wants taking to the fucking cleaners.
Here's Ellie to sing us out. Happy new year!!!!