#ressentiment

A propos de Nietzche et de sa « Généalogie de la morale », qui tente de défendre sa classe comme il peut, il faut tout de même voir une chose, c’est que sa pensée sous-tend un présupposé (religieux) tel que les classes sociales auraient un sens profond, caché (uniquement ironiquement « rétributif » (mais pour tous et de manière paradoxale !) dans un sens, oui), sans quoi cette idée que seuls les dominants seraient dénués de ressentiments dans leur volonté de pouvoir, ou bien que seuls les dominés en seraient dotés, tombe à plat ! Au contraire même, si la volonté de pouvoir existe sans ressentiment, alors celui qui aurait le plus de cette volonté « à l’état pur » serait celui qui en a le plus besoin, pas le contraire : celui qui en rajouterait inutilement pour en être totalement aliéné et malade ! Mais il faut dire que Nietzsche, qui “à part ça” avait tout de même conscience qu’il ne fallait pas trop se gaver, ne prend en considération que la soi-disant volonté de justice du dominé et de ce point de vue certes n’a pas tort : celle-ci mène facilement à des faussetés voire aberrations « masochiques »… Mais un communiste vrai lui (1), chose qui n’existe pas pour Nietzsche ou bien est ignorée, ne restera « juste » (et le devra) que tant qu’il pourra s’en payer le luxe… Enfin pour finir, il y a le symétrique du « pauvre assoiffé de « justice » » sous la forme du complexe de supériorité, qui fait tant souffrir le « pauvre » (2) dominant (surtout si c’est par héritage, c’est rarement pas du tout le cas d’ailleurs), dont la moitié se sent obligée de se prouver à longueur de temps qu’elle est féministe, humaniste etc. (et l’autre « généreuse », « nécessaire » etc. quelques rares cas, comme (le prince de caste guerrière !) Bouddha, expriment qu’il n’y a rien d’inévitable, pas d’essence définitive, fort heureusement (3)), ce qui engendre de détestables perroquets donneurs de leçons aussi « éclairés » qu’ignorants d’eux-mêmes et de la « réalité », du sexe et du « genre » en particulier (au même titre que les masculinistes, faux opposés, comme la réalité politique finit par le trahir d’ailleurs…), se sentant soutenus par l’amour des femmes pour cela, femmes qui finiront toujours par préférer les faibles (dits « équilibrés » (4), encore mieux « puissants »), paradoxalement (enfin c’est assez - doublement - logique et compréhensible, si on réfléchit un peu à la généalogie du genre, pour le coup). Grand mal leur fasse (et qu’on ne me dise pas illogique, à moins de l’être soi-même), eux qui d’ailleurs finiront par devoir admettre que leur propre « amour » a ses conditions, son impermanence. Est-ce que ça le rend moins fou pour autant ? C’est que le temps et l’impermanence sont eux-měmes un point de vue.

Part of what is bringing authoritarian nationalists to power is a mobilization of this ressentiment and transmuting the humiliation, the suffering, and the displacement that this group feels into a form of very powerful political xenophobia…

Resentment.

“In ressentiment morality, love for the “small,” the “poor,” the “weak,” and the “oppressed” is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: “wealth,” “strength,” “power,” “largesse.” When hatred does not dare to come out into the open, it can be easily expressed in the form of ostensible love—love for something which has features that are the opposite of those of the hated object. This can happen in such a way that the hatred remains secret. When we hear that falsely pious, unctuous tone (it is the tone of a certain “socially-minded” type of priest), sermonizing that love for the “small” is our first duty, love for the “humble” inspirit, since God gives “grace” to them, then it is often only hatred posing as Christian love.”

Freedom from ressentiment, lucidity about ressentiment — who knows how much I ultimately have to thank my long sickness for these as well! The problem is not exactly a simple one: you need to have experienced it out of strength and out of weakness. If there are any drawbacks to being sick and weak, it is that these states wear down the true instinct for healing, which is the human instinct for weapons and war. You do not know how to get rid of anything, you do not know how to push anything back, — everything hurts. People and things become obtrusive, events cut too deep, memory is a festering wound. Sickness is itself a kind of ressentiment. — The sick person has only one great remedy for this — I call it Russian fatalism, the fatalism without revolt that you find when a military campaign becomes too difficult and the Russian soldier finally lies down in the snow. Not taking anything else on or in, — not reacting at all any more ... The excellent reasoning behind this fatalism, which is not always just courage in the face of death, but can preserve life under the most dangerous circumstances, is that it reduces the metabolism, slows it down, a type of will to hibernation. Taking this logic a few steps further, you have the fakir who sleeps for weeks in a grave ... Since any sort of reaction wears you out too quickly, you do not react at all: this is the reasoning. And nothing burns you up more quickly than the affects of ressentiment. Annoyance, abnormal vulnerability, inability to take revenge, the desire, the thirst for revenge, every type of poisoning — these are definitely the most harmful ways for exhausted people to react: they inevitably lead to a rapid consumption of nervous energy and a pathological increase in harmful excretions, of bile into the stomach, for instance. Ressentiment should be what is forbidden most rigorously for people who are sick — it is their great evil: and unfortunately their most natural tendency as well. — This was understood very well by that profound psychologist, the Buddha. His 'religion', which could be better described as a hygiene (so as not to confuse it with anything as pathetic as Christianity) — the effectiveness of this religion depends on conquering ressentiment: to free the soul of this — the first step to recovery. 'Enmity will not bring an end to enmity, friendship brings an end to enmity': this is how the Buddha's teaching begins — this is not the voice of morality, this is the voice of psychology. — Born from weakness, ressentiment is most harmful to the weak themselves, — wherever rich nature is presupposed, an overflowing feeling, a feeling of maintaining control over ressentiment, is almost the proof of richness. Anyone who knows how seriously my philosophy has taken up the fight against lingering and vengeful feelings, right up into the doctrine of 'free will' — the fight against Christianity is just one instance of this — anyone aware of this will understand why I am calling attention to my own behaviour, my sureness of instinct in practice. When I was a decadent I prohibited these feelings being harmful to me; as soon as my life became rich and proud enough again, I prohibited these feelings as being beneath me. I showed signs of that 'Russian fatalism' I mentioned by sticking doggedly (for years, even) to almost intolerable situations, places, lodgings, company, just because they happened to come my way, — this was better than changing them, than thinking that they could be changed — than rebelling against them ... At that time, I took mortal offence at any attempt to disturb me in this fatalism, to snap me out of it: — which would in fact have been mortally dangerous as well. — To accept yourself as fate, not to want to 'change' yourself — in situations like this, that is reason par excellence.