RESENTMENT

#Resentment is annoyance based on the idea that some issue is somebody else's fault or it is the result of #Envy. It easily becomes hate. Roger Scruton, the eminent philosopher tells us, in his article, #As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up that it is the key to understanding #Marxism.  Russian peasants had plenty to resent but they had far more to endure when Comrade Lenin & Joe Stalin got to work on them.

Nowadays some, probably most agitators, the annoyed have much less to complain about so they invent reasons. The idea is encapsulated in the title of a 1955 film, #Rebel Without a Cause .

One such is their complaints about gender as distinct from  sex. They have recently [ circa 2017 ] invented different genders; rather than the two, fairly obvious sexes. There are other causes taken up by the Lunatic Fringe and marketed by Useful Idiots.

Some of their predecessors were Puritans, who, annoyed because the Church of England did not bully Catholics enough to suit their tastes, made off to America. One of their descendants, Hiram Maxim said of them that:

They went to New England so that they could worship the Lord their God as they saw fit AND stop others doing the same.

Was it arrogance? Yes. Self righteousness? Yes. Were they full of #Resentment  and hatred? Yes.

As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up
As the left surges back, Marxism’s bloody legacy is covered up
Monuments to the victims of fascism exist everywhere, but communism’s victims are hardly remembered at all As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it is fitting to ask whether we have learned what it tells us about its ideological root. Do we now appreciate that the Marxist ideology destroys legal order, political opposition and human rights? Do we have some idea of the death toll that has in every case followed the triumph of the ‘vanguard party’? Do we have an inkling of the human cost of collectivisation, or of what the gulag meant in terms of the humiliation and destruction of its victims?

Of course the answer in each case is no. Our school curriculum dwells incessantly on the Holocaust. Several states have made denial of it into a crime, and museums and monuments to the victims of Nazism and fascism exist all across the continent. But communism’s millions of victims are remembered hardly at all. One standard history of modern times, widely used in our schools, praises the Russian Revolution as aiming at ‘the complete destruction of the Russian and European bourgeoisie’, necessary for ‘the victory of socialism’. This history (Eric Hobsbawm’s Age of Extremes) does not mention the abolition of the law courts, or the establishment of the Cheka (the secret police), or the vicious expropriations that destroyed the Russian economy, or the mass starvation inflicted on the Ukrainian peasants. It is inadmissible for a historian to write in any but disgusted terms of the Nazi destruction of the Jews; but the equally cruel ‘destruction of the bourgeoisie’ can be described in terms of unqualified approval.

The term ‘bourgeoisie’ is a technicality of the Marxist theory. But it has a real human reference, and that reference is you and me. We who own property, deal in markets, collect salaries, have spouses and children, and live by the ordinary day-to-day morality of neighbourliness, are the people whom Lenin set out to destroy. We are the targets of resentment, and Marxism [ the Politics of Envy, which the Wiki chooses not to explain ] the theory of that resentment.

One thing we should surely learn from the Russian revolution is that resentment is always on the lookout for the theories that will justify it. And the lesson that bore in on me in vivid and unforgettable ways during my own journeys behind the Iron Curtain, is that resentment, when it finally takes power, spells the death of politics. The real purpose of politics is not to express resentment but to contain and conciliate it. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, leading political figures began calling for a ‘day of rage’, and for the requisitioning of bourgeois property, I heard again the voice of that old resentment. And I asked myself how could it be that the lesson has not been learned?

The problem is not a lack of literature. Invocations of communist terror abound, and include masterpieces that all educated people should know, such as Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. However, resentment easily overrides the evidence. Just as anti-Semitism has survived constant reminders of the Holocaust, so does the Marxist vision survive the accumulated testimony to its murderous legacy. Resentful people cherish their hatred more than they respect the rights of those who arouse it.

For this reason it is surely time to establish museums devoted to the Marxist legacy. We have a model, indeed, in the House of Terror, established in Budapest in 2002 under the directorship of Maria Schmidt. This commemorates the victims of both fascism and communism, and has been controversial for that very reason. Even in Hungary, leftist intellectuals tell us that the two evils cannot be compared, and that to commemorate their victims in a single museum is to deny their most important difference: that the aims of communism were good, those of fascism bad. It is precisely in order to counter that kind of apology that Maria Schmidt has turned the same light on both ideologies. The aim of both, she insists, was the same. What difference does it make that one focused its resentment on the Jews, the other on the bourgeoisie, when the primary aim was in both cases the mass murder of their victims? Or do we say, with Eric Hobsbawm, that in the one case, but not in the other, the end justified the means?

As the Momentum movement seduces more and more people towards historical oblivion and utopian exultancy, the need for a programme of public education about these matters is ever more urgent. But I fear that it may be too late.

 

Resentment ex Wiki
Resentment (also called ranklement or bitterness) is a mixture of disappointment, anger and fear.^[1] It comprises the three basic emotions of disgust, sadness and surprise—the perception of injustice.^[2] As the surprise of injustice becomes less frequent, so too fades anger and fear, leaving disappointment as the predominant emotion.^{[citation needed]} So, to the extent perceived disgust and sadness remain, the level of disappointment also remains.^{[citation needed]} Resentment can be triggered by an emotionally disturbing experience felt again or relived in the mind.^{[citation needed]} When the person feeling resentment is directing the emotion at himself or herself, it appears as remorse.

Robert C. Solomon, a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, places resentment on the same continuum as anger and contempt, and he argues that the differences between the three are that resentment is anger directed toward a higher-status individual; anger is directed toward an equal-status individual; and contempt is anger directed toward a lower-status individual.^[3]

Resentment is the foundation of hatred.^{[citation needed]} It is not one of Paul Ekman's six basic emotions (surprise, disgust, happiness, sadness, anger, and fear).

The word originates from French "ressentir", re-, intensive prefix, and sentir "to feel"; from the Latin "sentire". The English word has become synonymous with anger and spite.

 

Envy ex Wiki
Envy (from Latin invidia) is an emotion which "occurs when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it".^[1]

Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness.^[2] Not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his or her envy, Russell explained, but that person also wishes to inflict misfortune on others. Although envy is generally seen as something negative, Russell also believed that envy was a driving force behind the movement towards democracy and must be endured to achieve a more just social system.^[3] However, psychologists have recently suggested that there may be two types of envy: malicious envy and benign envy—malicious envy being proposed as a sick force that ruins a person and his/her mind and causes the envious person to blindly want the "hero" to suffer; on the other hand, benign envy being proposed as a type of positive motivational force that causes the person to aspire to be as good as the "hero"—but only if benign envy is used in a right way.^[4][5] Envy and gloating have parallel structures as emotions.^[6][7]

 

Rebel Without a Cause ex Wiki        
Rebel Without a Cause is a 1955 American drama film about emotionally confused suburban, middle-class teenagers. Filmed in the recently introduced CinemaScope format and directed by Nicholas Ray, it offered both social commentary and an alternative to previous films depicting delinquents in urban slum environments.^[3][4] The film stars James Dean, Sal Mineo and Natalie Wood.

The film was a groundbreaking attempt to portray the moral decay of American youth, critique parental style, and explore the differences and conflicts between generations. The title was adopted from psychiatrist Robert M. Lindner's 1944 book, Rebel Without a Cause: The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath. The film, however, does not make any references to Lindner's book in any way. Warner Bros. released the film on October 27, 1955.

Over the years, the film has achieved landmark status for the acting of cultural icon James Dean, fresh from his Oscar nominated role in East of Eden and who died before the film's release, in his most celebrated role. This was the only film during Dean's lifetime in which he received top billing. In 1990, Rebel Without a Cause was added to the Library of Congress's National Film Registry as being deemed "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant".