An Issue of Compatibility
Will we mourn the loss of the Enlightenment in the future? Conceptualisation of 'democracy' thus fits our expectations of freedom of speech, thought and expression like a square peg into a round hole. Therefore, by simply adopting 'democracy' as defence to fall back on should we have to justify our commitment to preserving the principles we live by each day - that is misrepresentation and should be rectified by exploring which conditions were conducive to the growth of modern reason: Tragically, more than just a handful of individuals actually believe that ideological consensus is a more important objective than the more onerous task of upholding respect for individual opinions and sentiments - this is partially rooted in the sociological concept pioneered by Emile Durkheim: the functionalistic argument that deviance undermines social stability and cohesion, therefore leading to splintering and diffusion of society - the denouement of which would logically be the state of nature. Thus, these individuals do all they can to discredit isolated voices and convince them to join the majority of un-thinkers because resistance is unlikely to result in concessions by the state; in fact, it will most likely guarantee the opposite: castigation and stigmatisation. What the un-thinkers accept as the seemingly altruistic justification of ideological consensus - 'social stability' - is undoubtedly an end in itself: ideological monopolisation conditions the individual to subdue his own sentient self, his propensity to think and decide for himself, and to accept choices made for him by those empowered. Un-thinkers thus embrace conditioning of the self to accept submissivity and dictation, and ultimately to be willingly reduced to facilitate the antediluvian relationship of king-subject. Does it seem coincidental that Islam demands the same from its adherents and non-adherents alike? When an individual decides to absolve himself of all responsibility by submitting his will to that of an over-arching power, ideological or otherwise, it is an attempt to escape from accountability to his own conscience, an abandonment of the individual's task to discern the morality of decisions. To that individual, the choice to forever sacrifice his personal sovereignty is the last act of volition he will ever execute - then, he is released from having to question how morally questionable violence is, rationalising it as an equally justified response to "Western aggression, imperialism and colonialism". To put it simply, even though the visceral visual element of anti-Western riots and brutality against those that dare criticise Islam reflect the irrational, emotional aspect of their coercive argument, they insist that perpetuating evil is rational and justified. Can you begin to see for yourself how insidious this attempt at pandering to our rationality is? Another Trojan Horse we must set ablaze before it reaches the gates of our unsuspecting dhimmi-leaders. The mainstream Islamic website Islam Q & A notes that "...enslavement to Allaah is an honour, not a cause of humiliation. We ask Allaah to make us among His righteous slaves.” Islam thus seems to be entirely comfortable with at least the 'mob rule' part of democracy - Muslims have been indoctrinated since young to accept whole-heartedly the infallibility of their religious scriptures and the leaders who espouse their principles. Dissension and argument are not advised and even deterred by charges of apostasy and blasphemy - sins punishable by death, according to the Koran: I liken this process of consultation to a psychologically troubled patient seeking consultation with a shrink: more often than not, those that want to be treated and cured of their mental illnesses end up visiting the shrink; others who wish to live in denial of external reality will avoid recognising their deteriorating state of mind, resorting to delusional projection and denouncing shrinks as attempting to play up psychological quirks for profit and self-gain. What should be clear is that only if the ruler under sharia feels that he should be constrained in his power will he choose to 'consult' someone. Otherwise, there is little evidence to the contrary that Muslim leaders, firebrands and extremists actually appreciate any form of external control over them. I would liken this to the analogy of the bureaucratic elite first surveying the people surrounding them as equals; as more bureaucratic layers are piled on and on without regard for the cumbersome implications, the elite who are sitting at the top get elevated, and the people around them appear just a tad smaller. Time proceeds and the bureaucracy thickens without review or control, and eventually the elite are so high up that people appear as dots, ever more removed from their power to hold their bureaucratic elite accountable; on the other hand, the bureaucrats are given carte blanche to promote the interests of transnational progressivism, subverting national sovereignty at the highest levels of representation at summits to the gargantuan legislature that is the EU. The elite no longer deems itself responsible for upholding national interest - instead, supranational interests attain paramountcy: Where do these loyalties lie, if not to the Nation-State? The point of asking this should be obvious: we are demanding that leaders who purport to champion national interests and defend the well-being of the populace come forth and explain themselves: have they forgotten their place and why they were elected by the People in the first place? What benefits do citizens gain when national sovereignty is yielded to the European Union, and can these gains be secured without fear of them being taken away at the whim of this supposed transnational authority? Which entity exists that has the propensity and legitimacy to exercise checks against the abuse of power of the EU? Can advocates of transnational progressivism show us - the 'less worldly' - this wonderous self-checking system? Scruton raises some difficult questions: Does globalization make it easier for Muslims to realize the idea of a global Islamic community, which has always been an ideal but far from a practical reality? Does it also put pressure on the territorial integrity of coherent nation states? If so, does globalization strengthen Islam while it weakens Western democracy? What seems logical to suggest is that Islam is expansionist, and aggressively so - much like Hitler's conceptualisation of Fascism, or the Soviet Union's Communist designs on the world. If so, we must accept the inherent risk of simply containing rather than disabusing its adherents of notions of imperialistic hegemony strengthened by religious and ideological consensus. Islam is bound to challenge national sovereignties, and one would be hard-pressed not to acknowledge the ferocity with which Islam is launching its assaults at tenets of liberty and Western civilisation: sending death threats and fatwas against Muslims and non-Muslims alike wherever they may be residing, even at the slightest sign of provocation; convincing Europeans that sharia law is compatible with local laws and thus allow Muslims to cherry-pick what should be obeyed and what can be violated at their whim; according Islam privileged status for protection against discrimination and criticism even as the Nation-State espouses 'equality of all religions'. Islam is not averse to violent revolution as one of the methods: The enemy is, however, more discreet in its methodologies in other cases: "The Project", a top-secret document seized during a raid in Switzerland, betrayed information regarding a Grand Strategy for "cultural invasion" of the West: Thus the myth that we are dealing with a primitive enemy should be forcibly dispelled: the Islamic system of governance, its standards of freedom of speech, of social progress may all prove to be woefully archaic, yet it is precisely this facade of witlessness, primitivity and introvertedness that has fooled a substantial proportion of dhimmi-leaders and their supporters to accord Muslims handicaps in order for them to gain a foothold in society. As aforementioned, Islam itself is anything but introverted: it seeks to impose its presence and reinforce its influence through jihad against Muslims and non-Muslims alike, blatantly riding on the wave of cultural relativism to violate indigenous cultural norms, taboos and eventually legislation as well. Remember Durkheim the sociologist whom we referred to earlier? These cultural norms are what serve as constant, powerful reminders of what is unique to that particular Nation-State and therefore worth preserving, contributing to social stability. But these elements can only be protected if national sovereignty is guaranteed, because in the event that norms are broken by acts of deviance, legislation steps in as the ultimate arbiter to prevent erosion and homogenising of the culture. Diluting the power of jurisdiction of domestic courts and the People will start considering of what use the government is when it is failing to uphold law and order. Social upheaval becomes a natural conclusion. fjordman populates his essay with a multitude of anecdotes of jizya - it is, put simply, appeasement. This ridiculous form of engagement manifests itself on the individual level, but also between larger entities: witness Pakistan's Musharraf desperately paying the Taliban off in hopes the terrorist group will not infringe on national sovereignty despite having already conquered Waziristan with little resistance. Or the disastrous land-for-peace proposals emanating from the Six-Day War in the Middle East, especially in relation to Palestine. When European governments signal to Islamists that they are willing to loosen legislation to allow parts of sharia law to be implemented, that is jizya - it does not have to be monetary, of course. When Trond Giske, Norway's Minister of Culture and Church Affairs, announced that government subsidies for the Islamic Council would be raised from 60,000 kroner a year to half a million, that is jizya. Potentially, any form of concession whatsoever that puts us in an apologetic or guilt-ridden light is jizya. Keep that in mind. This is what I have drawn from fjordman's piece so far, and I hope that this provides for serious material for discourse as I've witnessed at the Gates of Vienna, among a select few blogs. More to follow once I've found more issues within the essay, but for now, pause and take some time to think of these issues. As Descartes famously remarked: I think, therefore I am.
The phenomenal Scandinavian essayist fjordman churns out another must-read piece at baron's and dymphna's blog, Gates of Vienna: Is Islam compatible with democracy?
I suggest you take the time to peruse the lengthy mini-book: it is well worth the effort, and as sentient beings capable of critical thought and flexing of intelligence - as Emmanuel Kant espoused - it provides us with more than enough questions with which to question our commitment to democracy, freedom and the sustainability of a future of which conditions are conducive to our survival and propensity to thrive. For astute observers of our environment and the intellectual climate, there has been a shocking dearth of introspective criticism from select columns of society regarding the illogical and counter-productive actions and speeches these individuals, organisations and parties commit themselves to. Here I refer to the pathogen that is transnational progressivism - an ideology that blatantly espouses the subversion of national sovereignties to a world authority for the benefit of individuals gleefully anticipating the destruction and irrelevance of the Nation-State. a jacksonian and I have covered this in a sizeable number of articles - he has done this much more extensively than I have, and his posts are nothing short of enlightening and stimulating - and readers should take a closer look at this transnational ideology to understand just how widely encompassing and invidious its tenets are.
Not for one moment do these advocates consider this unassailable truth: if the Nation-State had not first and foremost been a creation of the People - who created a social contract that allowed the responsibility of the protection of life, liberty and property in exchange for a few concessions of civil liberties and support for the government (but in no way beholden to the entity) - and gave them peace of mind that the state of society would be governed by laws and jurisdiction; that these laws would ensure conflict and arguments were settled through negotiation and reasoning as rational human beings would; that the Nation-State would ensure no matter what the state of nature as Hobbes had foretold as "nasty, brutish and short" would not plunge society into the chasms of murder and plunder. Only when individuals are convinced of the safety and sanctity of their property - that it will not be violated by the state or any other entity - can they exercise their intellect and power of reason. Through this expression of intellectual thought and capability could individuals apply their strengths to materials: thus borne labour. Then there were philosophers: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Without striking that contract with the government - whose propensity to uphold the contract would be contingent on the entire basis of sovereignty of the Nation-State - there is no doubt that individuals would be scrambling to save their own lives in complete anarchy, instead of enjoying the fruit of freedom: of association, of speech, of thought. What transnational progressivism constitutes is treason - those who milked the benefits of sovereignty have decided to stab it in the back and render it defenceless in favour of retardation to the road to serfdom.
I shall attempt to distill the more salient parts of fjordman's essay, but again I reiterate: read the entire piece. Firstly, when we ask if Islam is compatible with democracy, we must conceptualise these terms beforehand: what is democracy? The word itself contains many connotations, one of which is 'rule by many' as opposed to 'rule by one' (monarchy) or 'rule by a few' (aristocracy). Aristotle criticised the democratic system for he saw it as tyranny of the majority; Jean Jacques Rousseau gave birth to the idea of the General Will, yet the philosopher stopped short of positing exactly the limitations of the power of the People in dictating this Will to all of society, or how multitudinous theses and antitheses could be accommodated, deliberated and ultimately resolved to bring about a single synthesis that would be acceptable to a majority. Therein lies the danger of democracy: individual interests and thoughts are overridden in favour of the collective consciousness, of the societal good. Although the potential for abuse of power and tyranny is indeed there in the democratic model, this potential exists in other forms of government, too. What Plato failed to see was that it could be possible to institute constraints on democracy that would limit some of its potential downsides, although not eliminate them completely. The American Founding Fathers, too, were skeptical of “democracy” in the meaning of unconstrained direct democracy, which they, like Plato, perceived could quickly disintegrate into mob rule. They outlined a constitutional Republic with indirect, representative democracy defined by a constitution. Citizens would be governed by the rule of law, thus protecting the minority from abuse and the potential tyranny of the majority. John Adams defined this as “a government of laws, and not of men.”
[...] In short, if one defines liberty as a condition that best enables the individual to exercise his freedom of choice, then democracy of universal suffrage is remiss on that score.”This was the question taken up by Johann Herder:
“What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn’t he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers?”
[...] how do we treat freethinkers asking sensitive questions in the 21st century West? In my own country, the Ombud for Gender Equality recently became The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud. Its duties include combating “discriminatory speech” and negative statements about other cultures and religions. If accused of such discrimination, one has to mount proof of innocence. In effect, this institution is a secular or Multicultural Inquisition: the renunciation of truth in favor of an ideological lie. Galileo Galilei faced the same choice during the Inquisition four hundred years earlier. The Multicultural Inquisition may not threaten to kill you, but it does threaten to kill your career, and that goes a long way in achieving the same result, whether your crime is claiming that the earth moves around the sun or that not all cultures are equal.
And when psychological power is virtually all but consolidated over the subject, it becomes a slippery slope to defend against any furtherances of infringement by the majority - all aspects of one's existence can be subverted to the cause of strengthening ideological consensus, ensuring that there is no outlet or inlet whereby any aspersions or doubt can be cast on the intentions of those in power. Thus, first the blurring of the dichotomy between the public and private spheres, then slowly but surely the merging of both spheres into a single arena whereby it resembles an air-tight vacuum. Throughout this process, as laws and jurisdiction steadily come under the control of the state, it becomes progressively easier and less questionable to threaten, coerce, penalise, persecute, punish and remove disagreeable individuals. We can see this in motion when fjordman speaks of the Multicultural Inquisition: it has managed to slowly erode the sanctity of freedom of speech - removing the taboo that is associated with Hitlerian and Stalinist totalitarianism, which aims to control all thought and consciousness - and also to bring forth the audacious fallacy of relativism: all cultures and religions are equal, and if you refuse to tolerate the intolerant, you are intolerant yourself and should be labelled as a traitor to the tolerant cause you espouse. Never does it enter the mind of those who accept this fallacious defence that the intolerant intend to exploit tolerance as a Trojan Horse, then convince the majority to accommodate the intolerant to "prove their innocence". Finally, when the intolerant are the majority, tolerance is eradicated without any intellectual basis of argument for the opposite: intolerance allows its advocates to reject whatever it deems abhorrent and expel it from the arena which it thrives in - one can be sure tolerance will be its first victim, and its adherents are unable to utilise any form of Trojan Horse to infiltrate the enemy, for it may be too late.The late American scholar of Islam, Franz Rosenthal, said that an individual Muslim “was expected to consider subordination of his own freedom to the beliefs, morality and customs of the group as the only proper course of behavior. (…) The individual was not expected to exercise any free choice as to how he wished to be governed. In general, governmental authority admitted of no participation of the individual as such, who therefore did not possess any real freedom vis-à-vis it.”
Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina states that “Deindividuation is characterized by diminished awareness of self and individuality. In Islam individuality is denied and the individual’s life is fused with that of Umma. Deindividuation reduces an individual’s self-restraint and normative regulation of behavior. It contributes to the collective behavior of violent crowds, mindless hooligans, and the lynch mobs.” According to him, “Ironically it is the brutality and the repressive nature of Islam, in conjunction with its absolute irrationality that has made this doctrine successful and has allowed it to survive this long.”
But as the esteemed writer F.A. Hayek wrote in his classic The Road to Serfdom:
“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct, but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right. Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them, has our decision moral value. Neither good intentions nor efficiency of organisation can preserve decency in a system in which personal freedom and individual responsibility are destroyed.”According to Adonis, the underlying structure of Arab societies is a structure of slavery, not of liberty: “Some human beings are afraid of freedom. When you are free, you have to face reality, the world in its entirety. You have to deal with the world’s problems, with everything. On the other hand, if we are slaves, we can be content and not have to deal with anything. Just as Allah solves all our problems, the dictator will solve all our problems.”
This is undoubtedly true, and this fear of freedom is not exclusive to Muslims. As philosopher Eric Hoffer writes in The True Believer:
“Freedom aggravates at least as much as it alleviates frustration. Freedom of choice places the whole blame of failure on the shoulders of the individual. And as freedom encourages a multiplicity of attempts, it unavoidably multiplies failure and frustration. (…) We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, ‘to be free from freedom.’ It was not sheer hypocrisy when the rank-and-file Nazis declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the Nazi movement in order to be free from responsibility?”These laws are incompatible with the ancient Western ideas of freedom of conscience and of speech. Thus, sharia is anathema to the goals of democracy. Sharia is also hostile to equality before the law, since Islamic law is based on the fundamental inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, free men and slaves. Moreover, it does not provide any protection for minorities, since non-Muslims are supposed to be unarmed and their lives and property subject to the whims of Muslims at any given moment. Although Islam does contain the vague Koranic notion of shura, consultation, this has never been formalized or concretized, which means that there are no formal constraints on the power of the ruler under sharia. The only thing an Islamic ruler may not do is openly to reject Islam.
[...] However, shura has never been formalized. The most authoritarian and brutal of rulers, such as Stalin or Mao, probably “consulted” somebody every now and then. Even Genghis Khan “consulted” someone as he massacred half of Asia. Thus, “consultation” by itself is meaningless. As long as there are not formal constraints on the ruler forcing him to take the good of the people into account, and as long as real sanctions are not in place if he fails to do so, “consultation” is empty rhetoric.
Let us return to the pathological virus that is transnational progressivism and its largest manifestation (at least the United Nations pretends to pander to selective respect for national sovereignty) - the European Union:Why is the European Union not democratic? One element is its sheer size; another is the massive bureaucracy that has grown up around it. As F.A. Hayek writes in The Road to Serfdom:
“Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the decisions rest with an organisation far too big for the common man to survey or comprehend. Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learnt and practised in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is awareness of one’s neighbour rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of the political measures become so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.”For this democratic process to work there has to be a loyalty and identity that precedes political allegiance. We must have a community that has primary common interests. This has no real counterpart in Islamic countries, where the ideal is the global Ummah and the Caliphate. Concepts such as the nation state or territorial integrity have no equivalent in Islamic jurisprudence, which helps explain why democracy is so hard to establish in Muslim countries.
Scruton notes, however, that the Western personal state is now under pressure from two directions. Supranational institutions are destroying the sense of membership from above, while massive immigration without assimilation is destroying it from below. The European Union, among others, “is rapidly destroying the territorial jurisdictions and national loyalties that have, since the Enlightenment, formed the basis of European legitimacy, while putting no new form of membership in their place.”
The answer is an unequivocal "no" - perhaps because progressivists are loath to admit that their true intention is to wield immense power without accountability. It is really not that hard to imagine how this system would thrive: beleaguered leaders, facing pressures of immigration and slippery slope arguments against hate, racist speech, take the easy way out by absolving themselves of all responsibility through subversion of national sovereignty - better to let the EU decide for the Nation-State since it has the 'bigger picture' view and can therefore macromanage every single aspect of running a transnational network. Tragically, the EU does not realise this terrible burden of Western civilisation and the ideal of freedom foisted on its shoulders - the fundamental burden that it volunteered to take on single-handedly and entice Nation-States to support this venture - and is instead squandering its responsibilities by failing to recognise and safeguard Europe against the invidious, pathological influences of Islam. Let me state unequivocally that nobody asked the EU to take on a task so onerous and thankless, and nobody expected it to succeed phenomenally when singular Nation-States were themselves struggling with those same problems of immigration and freedom of speech.
[...] He (Ali Sina) thinks that the Islamic system of government is akin to Fascism:It is marked by centralization of authority under a supreme leader vested with divine clout.
It has stringent socioeconomic control over all aspects of all its subjects irrespective of their faith.
It suppresses its opposition through terror and censorship.
It has a policy of belligerence towards non-believers.
It practices religious apartheid.
It disdains reason.
It is imperialistic.
It is oppressive.
It is dictatorial and
It is controlling.
The Christian Science Monitor interviewed a group of followers of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, in Jordan. They say that a single Islamic state from Indonesia to Morocco will bring prosperity and let Muslims conquer the West. “Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam,” says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. “And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam,” he says, smiling. “This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light.”
[...] “It is important... [to move] collectively in the Muslim world to demand this change from such influential people in our lands, even if it means spilling onto the streets to create a revolution or staging a military coup,” he (Ashraf Doureihi) said.“In Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood discovered a unique opportunity: Democracy. The democratic system leaves room for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and finances religious communities and religious organizations. This has been utilized by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the Muslim communities, recruit members and build the Islamist networks that have become so visible lately.” Whereas bin Laden uses bombs, al-Qaradawi exploits democracy as a Trojan horse. The Brotherhood gets their activities financed from Germany, England etc. They gain recognition and infiltrate the democratic system.
Among the strategies recommended were the following:
involving ideologically committed Muslims throughout institutions on all levels in the West;
including government, NGOs, private organizations;
utilizing existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam; and
instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals
The strategy advocates initiation of the infiltration approach through universities - the objective is to create a fifth column which would serve as future sympathisers and apologists for Islam. This malaise has been prevalent in the US as anti-military bias has been a constant fixture since the Vietnam War, as I had addressed in a previous post. European universities are undoubtedly more vulnerable to such subversion and ideological corruption since most European Nation-States tend to be torn between competing goals of decentralisation of management (and thus diversification of sources of funding) and ensuring a certain degree of administrative control. Given that on various other fronts Europe has already ceded the initiative and advantage to Islamic adherents, nobody can say for sure that dhimmification of universities has not already begun gaining momentum: as oil money continues to be available, Islamic funding of these institutions will be snapped up by unsuspecting deans everywhere in Europe. Even more disheartening is the recognition of universities being places where critical minds are nurtured: if teachers are allowed to ban free speech in classes, promote Islamic doctrine and punish anyone who does not adhere to dress code and social norms, universities will end up becoming spawning pools for dhimmi graduates with certified credentials (which are only attainable if the undergraduate accepts ideological fallacies as truths). The public, which looks to the new generation of leaders emerging from these institutions, would simply accede to the 'intellectual superiority' - if not strangers, then their own sons and daughters. Al-Mawardi highlights the most significant aspect of this consensus view of the jizya in classical Islamic jurisprudence: the critical connection between jihad and payment of the jizya. He notes that “[t]he enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (1) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however “it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future” (2) Payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established.” Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes.”
So much truth in that statement that manages to encapsulate the very essence of true liberty. There is a place for philosophers in modern society, after all.
Labels:
Islam,
Transnational Progressivism
10 spoke up:
The original thread at Gates of Vienna and your commentary are equally thought provoking. Thanks for your hard labor.
May I offer a short thought for consideration?
Following the lead of Pennsylvania with its ancient and highly successful policy of “Live and let live” on matters religious, the Founders of the United States set out to create an equally tolerant, Judeo-Christian republican system of government. Without hesitation, the foundation of the republic was anchored immovably fast through the Founder’s enunciation of the novel concept that the rights of Americans were not derived from men, including the Founders. Rather, every American citizen was endowed by “the Creator” with unalienable rights. In so saying, the Founders hoped, it might be supposed, that no individual or party could usurp these unalienable rights without first maniacally taking on the mantel of deity. Although some lived to worry through both the French Revolution and the rise and fall of the Napoleonic empire, gaining a foretaste of what was to come, never could the Founders have supposed that nihilistic European philosophers and their willing politicians would not only commit regicides, but that ultimately they would “kill” the Creator. Consequently, what “democracy” and “liberty” would mean to Europeans was foreign to the predominately and long isolated Anglo-American, United States. Furthermore, this remained the case until the great migration of the early Twentieth century and the American intervention in WWI, whereupon it might be argued that the United States became a European power, contracting all the attendant maladies that had bedeviling Europe.
Again, thanks.
Hi Harrison,
Very delighted to see a fellow Singaporean appraising world and domestic issues. I found your site while googling. I don't maintain a blog but post 2-cents worth of comments whenever I felt necessary :-)
I see you link many blogs on yours. There are 2 that I visit almost daily :
1. www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
2. www.clarityandresolve.com
Do take a look as they cover many of the issues as you do but with a strong focus on US affairs and islamic extremism.
I will definitely return to yours regularly. Cheers,
Mike Tan
ex-Tampines :-)
(msgme99)(at)(yahoo)(dot)(com)
harrison,
When I read this book, I may have more to say. From the blurb at Amazon (H/T Instapundit) it looks intriguing.
“If America is a religion, it is a religion without a god, and it is a global religion.”
If America is a religion without a god, it was not always so, as I am sure Dr. Gelernter would admit, I am sure. Indeed, it was reliance upon the “Creator” for the dispensation of unalienable rights that set America apart from Europe. Since he did not write the advertisement, I will withhold judgment.
Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion
***
allen, thanks for that great comment - my take is that European nations were so disenchanted with the Thirty Years' War that they embraced the Peace of Westphalia and the secularism it brought, so much so that the preservation of separation of church and state has become almost irreversibly entrenched as a constant fixture in the minds of the European intelligentsia.
Post-1648 Europe turned and never looked back, but look what secularism has wrought instead; the blame, however, cannot be placed on the shoulders of secularism, but as what you have expounded upon: the reckless abandonment of respect for the Creator, the sanctity of inalienable rights and the inviolable ideal of liberty that sets Western civilisation apart from savage, brutal counterparts in the Middle East. No wonder Europeans found it relatively easier to tolerate dictatorships whereby the Hitlers and Mussolinis acquired almost G-d-like status - the vacuum of spiritual guidance existed, and secular pretenders exploited.
As for the book, thanks for the recommendation - I shall pick it up when it reaches bookstores here! Currently poring through Tony Judt's Post-War, and I'll get back to you as soon as insights can be gleaned from his book.
Again, your insights are greatly valued, and thanks again!
mike, thanks for visiting! Feel free to peruse the articles here - you'll probably find something intriguing to think about. Always glad to hear from a fellow Singaporean!
I would recommend the blogs I've linked to, because they truly represent critical thinking at its best, and the quality of discourse is excellent. Of course, there are many other blogs of such quality, but one has to be selective or will find oneself stuck to the screen 24/7 because of the amount of great material available!
Again, thanks for commenting!
One of the most salient losses for Western thinking is that of Progressivists to remove the concept of the Nation State. The Westphalian Nation State concept, in which the State may have a religion but is not able to force it up on its people is one of the greatest breakthroughs for human liberty ever. Once that was established the Nation State as a concept took off, but in doing that it moved from that original religious liberty concept to one putting more into Nationalism that could allow religious repression by Nations. By not ostracizing Nations that did not adhere to that concept, the very basis for removing religious based warfare for Nation States was also removed. Slowly we have been dragged backwards towards religious based Nation State warfare via Islam that wants there to be *no* separation between religion and State. By the simple totalitarian and, ultimately, Fascist concept of harnessing religion to the State (or vice-versa) the very basis for Westphalian Peace crumbles out from under us.
As there is no common agreement amongst Nations for this, those in Europe wanting to put forth the death of the Westphalian State are, in acutality, moving back to 1600 by absolutely allowing religion to take over States and enforce same upon the people within the State. Of course opposing and ostracizing Nation that have natural resources is a non-starter in today's day and age, and fighting wars to separate States from religion was a non-starter in the last two centuries.
Those that founded the United States saw, within their diversity, that while the Rights of Man as Individual were inalienable, they were also *obvious* to them. While Jefferson had much flowery language, it was Franklin who harshly edited those words and basically put forth that if something is self-evident than *say so*. That endowment crosses all bounds of race, sect, culture and religion, and is a thorough basis for the Rights of Man. Those that utilize the Nation State to elevate the State into position of authority circumvent the need for the Deific by putting a construct in its place. The creation of a secular government held in *common* by the People of a Nation has the virtue of requiring no religion as its basis and, instead, rests upon the commonality of belief for the very basic things that the founders saw as crossing religions. Religious exercise of any sort could *not* be endorsed nor enforced by the Nation State and they, instead, allowed for State religions at the State level, so long as they did not break the overall clauses insuring regularity of laws amongst the States. That is, basically the concept of Westphalian States applied within a Nation to autonomous entities within a Nation.
What is also unusual for the US is that the Constitution is a negative document, compared to all the other Nations of that era. Power is not seen as a government grant, but as emanating from the People who grand limited power to government. That was seen as the way to get around the failures of all other republican democracies that tended to move towards authoritarianism and despotism: limit the power of the State that can be applied internally.
With all due respect to the Judeo-Christian tradition, a number of founders fell well outisde of what we, in modern terms, would consider that tradition. While the injunction following the 'Render unto Caesar...' might be seen as a basis for this, it is, in point of fact, a recognition that purely temporal government has different outlook and basis than spiritual dictates. The limited tradition emanates not from the Judeo-Christian, but from the Nordic tradition of the common assembly, or Thing, having direct power from the People. Kings understood that they ruled the Nation, but they were answerable to the Althing and accountable, also. That took quite some time to meander down into the rest of Europe, and yet that is the traditional form of democracy of Nordic peoples dating back into pre-christian mythology. Even the Deities use this system, so as to enforce acceptable behavior amongst them, which goes quite a bit further than Judeo-Christian teachings.
It is that accountability to the People that is attacked in the West, in an attempt to demean the Nation State. From that tradition of Kings and Nobles held accountable we get the modern Nation State assuming that role with transitory figures at the head of them. Married up to the Westphalian Peace and the Nation State then moves into a realm which has allowable, within it, full expression of human liberty. The erosion at the *lower end* where the State subsumes human liberty is the frightening one of the modern Progressives. Be it in the form of Bureaucratic Nannystate or Caliphate, these endeavors seek to remove the accountability factor from the equation and put the People under the power of the State. Fascistic and Communistic States do this, also, but that is within Nation State framework, but an erosion of it. Transnational Progressivism puts the entire framework within its sights, and wishes to dismantle the entire structure and place rule by Elite over it.
That is anti-thetical not only to the classical Western tradition but to the Nordic as well. Which is why the first real stirrings outside of Poland and the other recently freed European States, is amongst the Scandanavian Nations. That deep history, for all the erasure done by recent Socialism, still hears faint echo.
Islamic Fascistic movements, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are working hard to undermine the State/Religion separation even more than it has been via Islamic States like Saudi Arabia, Iran and, to a certain extent, Pakistan. Their looking to work *with* Progressivists is an understanding that both are seeking the same thing, removal of the Westphalian State and its accountability ethos, and replace it with Empire or Global Autocracy. While the Terrorists and Progressivists each seek to put a different ruling structure up, they both cooperate to remove the basis of resistance. Without these human made constructs there is *no basis* for the Rights of the Indivdual inherent *in* the Individual. That structure of accountability via the People (normally through elections, but also through revolution, coups, and such) comes before any power of the State. Authoritarian States may crack down on such movements, but if such is successful, that is recognized as a legitimate way for People to hold the State accountable to them. The French Revolution removed the accountability factors, and the Communist/Fascist ones suppress those factors. All of them are liable to overthrow as has been seen throughout history. If Nation is *removed* then individuals have nothing to hold accountable. A unitary State world has no diversity within it and no reason to ensure rights of individuals. No group seeking to come to power is any more legitimate than the one IN power, and so has no basis for removing the ruling power and expecting anything better to happen. The very diversity and friction between competing States has ensured a level of accountability and a system of reciprocity that has slowly tamped down on those States seeking complete power over their own people. No Empire has ever *granted* freedom and liberty, instead it has *assigned* rights and deficeits to its People due to the whim of the rulers.
That is the framework that needs to reinforced as it has one, salient feature: it works. Accountability amongst States and of States to their People via recognized means of change, along with minimal intra-State accomodation to religious practice. Remove the Nation/People accountability factor by making the State accountable to a Religion, and there is no basis for human liberty as the State has full purview over *everything*. That is just as, if not more, important than the State to State accountability system.
While the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the colonial administration of a monarch, it was more importantly an indictment of the political cult of human personality. However, to garner public support and carry the day against a universally accepted and millennia long cultural artifact, reliance upon some higher authority was necessary. Hence, the Founders had resort to the highest recognized authority of the time: the deity; from whom, they claimed, emanated “certain unalienable Rights”.
A reading of the Jefferson Bible certainly provides insights into the religiosity of that Founder. It may even speak to the minds of other Founders. Because they were wise men, however, they did not confuse personal preference or prejudice with commonwealth.
Religion in the Colonies
___Virginia
(1617) Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays
a) first violation: stocks overnight and forced labor for 1 week
b) second violation: forced labor 1 month
c) third violation: forced labor 1 year plus 1 day
(1776) [I]t is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other
(1830) End of all religious tests
___New York
(1683) THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ..
(1777) And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls
(1846) End of religious restrictions
___Massachusetts
(1780) Article III. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law
(1780) Chapter VI. Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
'I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion...'"
(1833) End of religious restrictions
___Maryland
(1776) Article XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty
(1776) Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."
(1867) End of all religious requirements
___Delaware
(1701) AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable… to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively...
(1776) That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy equal Rights and Privileges in this State...
(1776) 'I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God…’
(1792) End of religious tests
___Connecticut
(1662) [Conversion to] the Christian faith, which in our Royall intencons and the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon."
(1818) Toleration of all Christians
___New Hampshire
(1784) Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...
President. [H]e shall be of the Protestant religion."
(1819) And be it further enacted, that each religious sect or denomination of Christians in this State may associate and form societies
(1877) Protestantism test ended
___Rhode Island
(1663) And be it further enacted, that each religious sect or denomination of Christians in this State may associate and form societies…
(1842) End to religious tests
___Georgia
(1777) [R]epresentatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...
(1798) Removal of religious disabilities
___North Carolina
(1776) That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State
(1875) All religious references and requirements were eliminated in the constitution of 1875.
___South Carolina
(1778) The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.
(1790) Religious toleration
___Pennsylvania
(1776) Section 10... shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take... the following oath or affirmation:
'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'
(1790) Belief in “God” … made sole requirements
___New Jersey
(1776) [N]o Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles…
(1844) Disestablishment
Religion in the Colonies and the United States
a jacksonian, it seems indeed that secularist gains in 1648 are being reversed in the light of the twin pathologies of Islam and Transnational Progressivism: the former needs the resources, networks and willing propagandists to perpetuate the concept of a global Caliphate, the latter needs a scapegoat for its own failures and thus harangues the Nation-State for every transgression wrought. Regrettably, however, in this epoch of dhimmitude and relativism, how many will openly admit the Islamification process is already gaining ground at the expense of other religions and secularism? Islamic adherents perceive peoples of other religions as kuffar, but views secularism as an even greater sin. If European apologists and dhimmi-leaders are attempting appeasement of Islam by acting on their contempt for Christianity and Judaism (I will address that in a future post), based on the false assumption that once those religions are sacrificed at the altar of Islam that its adherents would live peaceably with kuffar, they are missing the fundamental notion that Islam is irreconciliably opposed to secularism - there will be no end to the onslaught till fusion of state and religion is complete, no quarter given to kuffar till all are vanquished before the sword of Islam.
That had me pondering: usually authoritarian regimes would attempt to delegitimise any form of violation of national sovereignty (even though elites committed innumerable acts of violation of individual sovereignty) in order to protect any form of external instigation of overthrow from within the regime. Singapore may not be authoritarian, but it sure is illiberal. By exploiting its phenomenal economic success in the early post-independence years, Singapore's position of bargaining power was amplified in ASEAN. It kept the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978-9 alive as an issue, hoping to reverse the precedent of a stronger Nation-State able to get away with employing aggression on a weaker state. Singapore's foreign policy has been always to ensure that non-interference should never be violated, which works favourably towards the objective of regime survival.
Russia, Belarus, Egypt and Syria are only a few out of many authoritarian regimes echoing exactly the same demands of non-interference, yet what is telling is the extent to which transnational groups are emboldened enough to risk regime collapse in order to propagate their ideologies. What no single entity or soul within these regimes - especially Arabs and Muslims - want to admit is the delicate fragility of their regimes; yet here they are goading themselves into perpetual anarchy. Just goes to show how warped their psyches are, doesn't it? Their willingness to squander the riches of empires and the sanctity of life blinds them from all reason and rationality - they believe they will find order in chaos, and actively seek to achieve the latter. If chaos cannot be achieved, death is favoured.
What is certain is that Islam will clearly benefit from transnational progressivism, short of the establishment of a global Caliphate . What is less certain is that progressivists will be around to enjoy the poisoned fruits of labour.
allen - That is the Westphalian concept applied intra-State within the US. That said the equal protection and due process eroded at singular internal religions so as to allow equal protection of all religious rights. The 'blue laws' are a major case in point as the changes of culture and viewpoint on keeping the sabbath either would economically hurt those States that kept to them or hinder business of non-practitioners. That and changing technology for transportation and perishable goods also eroded at the concept. Making the trains run on time was also a public good, too. The original conception still stands, however, even when most States no longer pressed the issue. That has been going on for long enough that the legal concept of not enforcing a law rendering it out of practice also come to the fore. That comes more from the Common Law side, if memory serves, which has non-christian roots so that laws that are made are either kept or dropped due to enforcement. Still it is interesting that the 19th century would see the greatest flourishing of new religious beliefs and outlooks due to that freedom to the Rights of the Individual. Entire sects of Christianity formed in that period, as well as seeing other forms of religion arise due to that basic freedom. The 19th century I like to think of as the era of DIY religion and would make the Sect of One possible.
Harrison - The Westphalian State has had its problems prior to the modern era, but the most serious challenge to it grew out of International Socialism, which influenced the Progressivist movements in the US and Europe. Woodrow Wilson was the first to try and formulate that into something workable, but forgot that the very basis for the US rests upon the individual, not the State. Socialism and then Communism would slowly supplant Progressivism in the old style of tinkering with government to make it 'work better' and the International scope of Socialism would be the basis for Transnational Progressivism. In classical Socialist theory, Socialism in one State was a non-starter as the end of the entire Capitalists system should be evident once Socialism starts and the Nation State made a thing for the 'dictatorship of the proletariate'. By not addressing human needs and human nature, Socialism falls flat on its face.... that is even before you hit the theory and practice conundrum. Mind you that is for folks that actually, in theory, have some concept about industrialized societies.
Islam faces multifold problems beyond that and, as Lee Harris pointed out with the Fantasy Ideology concept, the most illiberal and repressive forms are more than willing to move on the basis of fantastical beliefs and expect the impossible to happen for them. By seeing the rest of the non-Islamic world as unworthy of human rights, they then have no basis for constructive outlook based upon the use of those rights. What very few have addressed, and it is an important aspect of Islam, is that the divides *intra* Islam cause even worse in-fighting than that presented outside of it. The current Sunni-Shia sectarian fighting does not start in Iraq and goes back to just a few generations after the death of the Prophet. By the time Islam tried to actually get itself organized, there were multiple sects with multiple holy books and each of those had the recorded sayings of the prophet. The goal of getting a common book together did not unite Islam, by and large, and there are still, to this day, sects within Islam that keep to their own separate holy books and see the Koran as 'common teachings' as opposed to their own 'high teachings'. They can and do unite to go against a common foe... but... and it is a huge 'but'... is the understanding that once the upper hand is gained, the falling out will begin. At no time after the Prophet has there been just *one* version of Islam. So the fantastical outlooks of al Qaeda, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are to something that never existed.
By treating Islam as *one* religion, we lack the skill to understand it and utilize those differences as basis for commonality to hold separation between them and yet the State construct in common. The West has grown so weak in understanding and adhering to religion that it is now beset by cults and sects that grow ever more fractionated and dispersed from each other. That great blossoming of the 19th century has definitely wilted under the glare of technology and Socialist views. Another problem for any religion of 'the book' (taken as generic here) is that it is *static*. Many of those 19th century sects were attempts to put new parts onto the Bible... some survived, most didn't. None of them took a turn for the violent, however, as befits the followers of the Prince of Peace. Islam, not having mortal peace as a goal, has no basis for that same spiritual blossoming unless it is heavily influenced by pre-existing outlooks. Today's factionating of Islam is more of a noxious weed like kudzu than of a true flower. By returning to the idea of personal warfare, the most violent of Islamic groups are moving back to a pre-technological era of indivdiual warriors acting in concert.
Our response to that has been extremely lax because we forget our history and do not wish to acknowledge that the West, too, has similar roots. Transnational Progressivism is hacking at those roots that connect our modern Nations to the past, by attempting the Orwellian task of delegitimizing history. The Islamic side uses force to get the idea across that there is only one, true way to believe in anything. Islam repudiates the works of man even while lusting for them. The Tranzis lust after the rights of man so as to dissolve them for the Elite to dole out. These two utterly fantastical belief systems are based on no greater nor deeper understanding of one's position in the scheme of the universe than a five year old has. Simplistic views, however, have problems coping with a complex world... as the structures to address the complexity refuses to acknowledge that simple driving forces can result in such complexity. By grasping at the simplistic notions of 'government addressing all ills' or 'Allah providing means so you don't have to' one sees a reflection of a nihilistic world view that is something that most children grow out of by the age of 7 or so. These are ways to retreat from a world that requires understanding... requires adapting... and requires holding on to firm beliefs in oneself and one's place in the scheme of things which is *not* the center of the universe. By not accepting that, by and large, both Transnationalism and Radical Islam seek submission of the individual: one to the Elite and the other to the Elite Individual or Groups to bring about the perfect world.
Tyranny and despotism can be perfected. Democracy never perfected, but always more perfect with work left to be done. Tyranny is simplistic views to try and remove complexity from the world. Democracy is an attempt to understand the world and make it a bit better and see how things work out. The politics of the late 20th century headed towards ever more simplistic views as parties and ideologies were frozen during the Cold War. Apparently backbones got crushed by that and now there is no worthwhile ideology left as the politics heads towards simplistic... towards tyranny.
Singapore sounds a bit like a Heisenberg experiment: the ruling power has perfect order whenever it looks at something... which falls back to individual decisions when it isn't looking at other places. The drunk searching for the dropped car keys at night by the lamp post because there is 'good light there' is that formulation of control. It can only do so much and has limits, which fray at the edges. Latent democracy and individualism erodes at the edges and when it shifts vision from one place to another, previous order the controlling power likes is lost in that place. Terrorism, as Saddam proved, can give you that equality of power... but it scrubs out creativity and ability to adapt and advance. And that is what both the Tranzis and the Radical Islamists want: an end to change.
a jacksonian,
Post-war Europe and the repercussions from the ruination and reconstruction of European Nations had been a fixation of the intelligentsia and occupied a sizeable amount of attention and time of policy-makers, political observers and the public. Though the ideological struggle encompassed Nations that spanned from one continent to the next, people were always concerned of the far-reaching consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union on the continent itself. Perhaps during several glimpses of history did attention actually shift towards the Middle East, during the Six Day War, the 1970 War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Lebanese War. Yet public perception of these far-away wars was characterised by simplistic notions of Israel versus "the Arabs" - thereby missing the intricacies of relations between sects, tribes and Nations in this region. Too simple a psychological method of binary characterisation to avoid tackling all those confusing dichotomies that ran - and continue to run - through the Middle East, cutting across borders and nationalities.
Yet even in this present decade, with almost consistent reportage and emphasis on the Middle East, this binary characterisation syndrome still exists like a parasitic scourge of the intelligentsia, especially the Left and the Progressivists. One would think that with more access to information, more in-depth analysis and research could be accomplished with respect to these intra-sectarian faultlines and the irreconciable centuries-old schism between Shiites and Sunnis. If that is not plain ignorance of the utility of understanding the cultures and religions of whom we are attempting to deal with on a day-by-day basis, on the individual and state levels, then I don't know what is.
Harrison - What we see is the limits of time-based video reporting and influence of ideology that has been Stuck on Stupid for 90 years. By being unable to cope with actually having to teach a multiplicity of views on society based on: ethnicity, religion, geography and historical context - what we get is a simplistic view of the world broken down into dichotomies. This is that strange concept of: thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis.
Doesn't work with ideas going beyond the number of 2. Yet the Socialist Hegelian tradition always wants things boiled down into the simplistic formula instead of the simple outlook on emerging complexity. One can teach the former all day and all night and put all sorts of lovely test concepts to it... and then present it with a real world problem, say addressing the pressure in one's water system which is showing irregular results on pressure valves, and not be able to say what a thesis or anti-thesis *is* because there aren't any. It is a dynamic system with single input, but multivariate stresses between pumping station and valve 10 miles away. That does not yield down to Hegelian outlook, but does to basic and old fashioned 'keep on knocking the pipes until you find out what is wrong'.
The television program (of all things!) that attempted to yield this analysis was Connections by James Burke... who then continues on in that same concept into the cyber age. Knowledge, activities and outcomes along with doing new things is seen as a multivariate causal connectivity reaching not only backwards but backwards and forwards and sideways. While any single motive is simple, the interactivity is complex because of the vectors leading up to it. In one part of one history course in high school the instructor tried to do that with WWI - giving the four MAIN inputs into it, Military, Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism. Of course there were more than four inputs, and such minor things as a sub-majority ethnic enclave wishing to associate itself with another enclave only vaguely hits the N on that. But it was that which precisely was the trigger point for that built up complexity of Alliances to then move the entire world to war.
The outgrowth of Communism from the Socialist revolutionary atmosphere put the dichotomy of class warfare above all of that and so reduced the complexity of final addressing to that binary level. But lost the entire panoply of the actual human drives towards culture, society, religion and Nations. In the inter-war years that really didn't spread that far, but the tendrils of it slid into places like Spain to destabilize it. WWII would see the grand blossoming of the all-powerful Nation State and the arising of a true threat to the rights of man: Authoritarian, expansionistic Nation States that are industrialized. The Cold War would *lock* that view into place as being the ONLY one suitable for the modern age - and thus we had the mighty Nation State which had to adhere to Hegelian outlines of which choices became narrowed to 2. The Capitalist side enjoyed that because it made pushing party-lines for establishing more capitalism coupled to Nation State, and the Communists had invented the damned thing so they stuck with it as it kept them more or less alive. Those who thought otherwise were marginalized by the Elite Schools, Foreign Policy Establishment and even in the world of military affairs and INTEL. Thus we had grand and fine pronouncements from the CIA in the early 1980's on how the USSR would be around at *least* until 2030...
Today, with many-to-many media and hyperlinking to join disparate thoughts into a contiguous whole, we are faced with those wishing to push the dichotomous party line as the Only Way To Go.
Thanks, but I will stick to freedom of thought and association, just the same.
The way to counter that is via the multi-vector analysis. Go beyond two inputs and those wishing for a simple dichotomy are left at sea. It takes some of this *real thinking* to join up disparate thoughts and interllink them... well, for most people, for me that IS how I think. Still, stopping when you get to 2 as the number of inputs points to a failure in outlook and the very first thing to do is examine the causations to get to 2 and then widen the view. Do that once or twice and suddenly you will find many things but with emerging and converging themes. Getting one's mind out of the black/white, yes/no, right/wrong, 1/0 thought process can be hard. Everyone *wants* to be fully on one side of things... but life ain't that simple. Life is, surprising, simple to understand if you are willing to accept there are multiple simple strands to it.
That is what we do not learn at school: how to formulate a complex set of simple things into a vast array of problems. Yet we still here this asinine idea that 'Poverty causes terrorism'! Or that 'Free trade frees people'!
So simplistic! So Easy! Quick sound-bites!
And toxically *wrong*.
Our Elite presses simplicity due to their lack of ability to change and actually come to terms with this 'real world'. None are so adrift as those stating they are in a 'real world community' and then immediately try to get things to that lovely choice space of 2.
Freedom is the burden to accept responsibility, come to terms with the world as it is, accept that it has multiple things going on it, and then cope with them. Maybe make 'a more perfect Union' between ourselves.
Those are heavy responsibilities and high goals.
Any that try to lift that burden due to simplicity and perfection are either deluded, authoritarian or unable to cope with the world. All three, usually.
Post a Comment