Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Culturist Liberals Unite!!
Gays, feminists and the liberal intelligentsia should adopt “culturism” as their motto. There is a misconception that culturism is only a “right-wing” philosophy. And culturism does advocate immigration restriction and does seek to unify western citizens around an appreciation for western values. But culturism does this in order to secure the West. And western values include the acceptance of a relatively large separation of church and state as well as rights for gays and women. If you believe in these liberal values, you should support the West, call yourself a “culturist” and back the agenda of culturism.
Western civilization’s trajectory has sent it in the direction of protecting vulnerable groups such as women, gays and atheists. The Greeks fought two wars against the Persians in order to resist theocratic tyranny. Plato wanted society run by “philosopher – Kings,” but he held that women could occupy these positions. Jesus made the least among us sacrosanct. Martin Luther King died for the rights of Americans of African descent. And his Civil Rights efforts, in turn, inspired the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Just as liberals do, Culturism celebrates this progression.
Has the West been perfect? No. But herein we find a huge, giant and extremely large failure in the liberal perspective. Liberal academics tend to judge the West against abstract ideals of perfection. In Universities’ gay, lesbian, straight and transsexual as well as women’s studies departments, examine how sexual and gender roles get imagined and implemented. This is fascinating and important work. But the very fact that we explore such ideas shows the West’s extreme liberalism. In the real world, we can only make choices between different levels of limitations. No total freedom exists. Decrying the West because it does not deliver unbounded identity choices ironically leads liberals to identify with illiberal Islamic tyrants.
Gay rights activists and liberals might say "We don't have rights here!" Again, they search for ideals and miss the real. In Islamic nations homosexuals are hung. No rights movements are allowed in China. Women’s’ opportunities in Africa and Latin America pale in comparison to ours. In contrast to the alternate systems in the world, we represent liberal values and freedoms. An academic might say, third world oppression only reflects our having created a world of economic stratification. Again, we must deal with the real illiberal world, not postulated paradisiacal states. All societies have always had stratification; outside of the West no nations have been liberal. The West has flaws. But, after dismantling the West for not giving you all the rights you demand, regardless of public opinion, you'll become nostalgic about the right not to be hung for organizing.
Multiculturalism is based in idealistic and unrealistic thought. It holds that deep down all cultures are liberal. But in the real world, as Obama is finding in his “negotiations” with Iran, disagreement, diversity and evil exist. In this world, we must choose between existing options. Geopolitically, since they are in conflict, you can either side with Islam or the West. Standing up for liberal values requires standing up for western culture and its sovereignty. Multicultural academics that support Islamic immigration to the West imperil women’s rights and gay lives. Consistency demands that western academics, above all others, scrutinize our nations for flaws. Consistency also demands that liberal academics do not support those who would undermine our freedom of speech and thought. At the end of the day, the existence of liberalism requires a solvent West. To protect the rights of gays and women, all liberal academics should become fervent western culturists.
Western civilization’s trajectory has sent it in the direction of protecting vulnerable groups such as women, gays and atheists. The Greeks fought two wars against the Persians in order to resist theocratic tyranny. Plato wanted society run by “philosopher – Kings,” but he held that women could occupy these positions. Jesus made the least among us sacrosanct. Martin Luther King died for the rights of Americans of African descent. And his Civil Rights efforts, in turn, inspired the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Just as liberals do, Culturism celebrates this progression.
Has the West been perfect? No. But herein we find a huge, giant and extremely large failure in the liberal perspective. Liberal academics tend to judge the West against abstract ideals of perfection. In Universities’ gay, lesbian, straight and transsexual as well as women’s studies departments, examine how sexual and gender roles get imagined and implemented. This is fascinating and important work. But the very fact that we explore such ideas shows the West’s extreme liberalism. In the real world, we can only make choices between different levels of limitations. No total freedom exists. Decrying the West because it does not deliver unbounded identity choices ironically leads liberals to identify with illiberal Islamic tyrants.
Gay rights activists and liberals might say "We don't have rights here!" Again, they search for ideals and miss the real. In Islamic nations homosexuals are hung. No rights movements are allowed in China. Women’s’ opportunities in Africa and Latin America pale in comparison to ours. In contrast to the alternate systems in the world, we represent liberal values and freedoms. An academic might say, third world oppression only reflects our having created a world of economic stratification. Again, we must deal with the real illiberal world, not postulated paradisiacal states. All societies have always had stratification; outside of the West no nations have been liberal. The West has flaws. But, after dismantling the West for not giving you all the rights you demand, regardless of public opinion, you'll become nostalgic about the right not to be hung for organizing.
Multiculturalism is based in idealistic and unrealistic thought. It holds that deep down all cultures are liberal. But in the real world, as Obama is finding in his “negotiations” with Iran, disagreement, diversity and evil exist. In this world, we must choose between existing options. Geopolitically, since they are in conflict, you can either side with Islam or the West. Standing up for liberal values requires standing up for western culture and its sovereignty. Multicultural academics that support Islamic immigration to the West imperil women’s rights and gay lives. Consistency demands that western academics, above all others, scrutinize our nations for flaws. Consistency also demands that liberal academics do not support those who would undermine our freedom of speech and thought. At the end of the day, the existence of liberalism requires a solvent West. To protect the rights of gays and women, all liberal academics should become fervent western culturists.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Culturist Economics
Culturism and economics intersect at several places. In fact, our culture has been very important to our economic development. And, a strong economy is important to our culture. We as a society are paying for our lack of culturist thought. Immigration and globalization are driven by multiculturalism. We must again become culturist to undo their damage.
Dropping out of school early and having several children is a formula for personal poverty. Statistics show that this is a cultural distinction of many cultures. In many cultures women are expected to do this. And, shy of that, there is no shame in it. In their home countries, such people are poor. In the first world West they lean on our social services. When you combine this fact with not having ever paid taxes, you have the perfect storm for the creation of a second or third world economy.
Welfare is cultural. All laws are culturist. Welfare only works if people are ashamed to take it. Once everyone thinks it is okay to take it, you get more people taking from the system than paying into it. Without a sense of responsibility and shame, welfare is unsustainable. Laws are culturist in that if you get rid of value judgments and encourage people to take free lunches you sap initiative and responsibility. Culture and social services are intimately intertwined.
We are now at the point where people think that handouts are a right. They do not beg with shame; they demand with all their self-worth. Notice that these attitudes towards social services result from ideas; they are cultural. One is based on Marxist thought that the rich are holding the wealth and we deserve ours. The other comes from the republican capitalist view that wealth comes from generating services or products. We need to teach about the ravages of communism and dangers of demagoguery.
Culturist problems do not only lay with the poor. The business class have taken our manufacturing industries and moved them overseas. This reflects globalist thinking. And this, like multiculturalism, stems from an inability to realize that we have a culture, a side, to be loyal to. This, in turn, has a double effect in that the understanding of factories and how things are made is also goes overseas with the factory; the idea of starting a machine shop to make a part your factory needs disappears. Thus businessmen’s lack of attachment to our nation has undermined our economy. On this note, they also do not seem to mind Sharia financing. They think they are post-modern, post-cultural beings. This is a dangerous fallacy.
Teaching American history is important to the economy. The Founding Fathers spoke often about the importance of self-reliance and the unique nature of our culture. Teaching about western civilization is important. When you do so you realize that cultivating our commitment to the individual took a long historical struggle. Businessmen need to be loyal to the West. Economics must be taught. We have forgotten that Keynesian stimulus requires local factories to be stimulated by purchases. We now are only stimulating China. And economics and history intertwine in the lessons about the evils of communism. A functioning economy requires basic cultural precepts. We need to teach our basic cultural precepts again.
A combination of multiculturalism and globalism has undermined our ability to teach about the importance of culture to an economy. Since multiculturalism teaches that all cultures are equally wonderful and businessmen have no side to be loyal to, we can no longer, as we used to, discuss the intersection of values and economics. This is dangerous. Economics undergird our being the land of opportunity. If the West falls our vision will fall with it. We are not the world. We have nowhere else to live. We are the West. Sustaining the West and its vision requires a realistic sense of responsibility towards it. It requires a sense of culturism.
Dropping out of school early and having several children is a formula for personal poverty. Statistics show that this is a cultural distinction of many cultures. In many cultures women are expected to do this. And, shy of that, there is no shame in it. In their home countries, such people are poor. In the first world West they lean on our social services. When you combine this fact with not having ever paid taxes, you have the perfect storm for the creation of a second or third world economy.
Welfare is cultural. All laws are culturist. Welfare only works if people are ashamed to take it. Once everyone thinks it is okay to take it, you get more people taking from the system than paying into it. Without a sense of responsibility and shame, welfare is unsustainable. Laws are culturist in that if you get rid of value judgments and encourage people to take free lunches you sap initiative and responsibility. Culture and social services are intimately intertwined.
We are now at the point where people think that handouts are a right. They do not beg with shame; they demand with all their self-worth. Notice that these attitudes towards social services result from ideas; they are cultural. One is based on Marxist thought that the rich are holding the wealth and we deserve ours. The other comes from the republican capitalist view that wealth comes from generating services or products. We need to teach about the ravages of communism and dangers of demagoguery.
Culturist problems do not only lay with the poor. The business class have taken our manufacturing industries and moved them overseas. This reflects globalist thinking. And this, like multiculturalism, stems from an inability to realize that we have a culture, a side, to be loyal to. This, in turn, has a double effect in that the understanding of factories and how things are made is also goes overseas with the factory; the idea of starting a machine shop to make a part your factory needs disappears. Thus businessmen’s lack of attachment to our nation has undermined our economy. On this note, they also do not seem to mind Sharia financing. They think they are post-modern, post-cultural beings. This is a dangerous fallacy.
Teaching American history is important to the economy. The Founding Fathers spoke often about the importance of self-reliance and the unique nature of our culture. Teaching about western civilization is important. When you do so you realize that cultivating our commitment to the individual took a long historical struggle. Businessmen need to be loyal to the West. Economics must be taught. We have forgotten that Keynesian stimulus requires local factories to be stimulated by purchases. We now are only stimulating China. And economics and history intertwine in the lessons about the evils of communism. A functioning economy requires basic cultural precepts. We need to teach our basic cultural precepts again.
A combination of multiculturalism and globalism has undermined our ability to teach about the importance of culture to an economy. Since multiculturalism teaches that all cultures are equally wonderful and businessmen have no side to be loyal to, we can no longer, as we used to, discuss the intersection of values and economics. This is dangerous. Economics undergird our being the land of opportunity. If the West falls our vision will fall with it. We are not the world. We have nowhere else to live. We are the West. Sustaining the West and its vision requires a realistic sense of responsibility towards it. It requires a sense of culturism.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Culturist Foreign Policy
Culturism leans towards isolationism, but has a foreign policy. But. first culturism is situational and pragmatic. And reasonable culturists may disagree on roll back, containment or isolation. I will give specific culturist policies herein. We may disagree on particular situations. But, as a culturist, I hope you agree on the precepts.
First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can and should have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in the Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.
Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.
Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. They deserve our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.
If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.
Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes culture and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.
Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere. And, worse yet, remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. Then the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten neo-con dreams.
First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can and should have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in the Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.
Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.
Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. They deserve our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.
If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.
Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes culture and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.
Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere. And, worse yet, remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. Then the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten neo-con dreams.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Help Wilders' Culturist Crusade
Geert Wilders, a Dutch parliamentarian, was refused entry into the UK. The Muslim community threatened to riot if his film FITNA screened in parliament. Ironically, the Muslims objected to the film’s portrayal of them as intolerant! And since freedom of speech is so central to a functioning democracy, this censorship threatens the continuance of western civilization. In appreciation of Wilder’s efforts, I would like to offer him the intellectual gifts of ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist.‘ Using them will ease and hasten his victory over multiculturalism.
On his website, www.geertwilders.nl, Mr. Wilders posted the speech he was going to read to parliament had he cleared customs. At the end of the speech he blamed “the multicultural project” for undermining western civilization. As a culturist I agree. But the best he can offer is a condemnation of multiculturalism. We need solutions. Culturism provides lots and spreads them cheaply and easily. If he does not use these words, few will remember the ideas in his speech. They will be spun by media and read by few. His ideas will spread quickly if he announces, “I am a culturist and believe in culturism!”
Because multiculturalism is already a household word, citizens of Britain would instantly know what he means by culturism and culturist when he used them. Multiculturalism holds western nations have no core traditional cultures to prefer, promote and protect. Intuitively understanding the opposite of multiculturalism, the Brits would say “Yes,” we do have a core traditional culture and a right to protect it.” They would recognize that all nations are culturist and that our schools and our laws should reflect and protect our traditional cultures. And they would be able to communicate this sentiment as easily as multiculturalists now do theirs.
Wilders’ ban from Britain was partially justified by his being prosecuted for racism. He now has to repeatedly announce that he does not hate all Muslims and that he is not a racist. And this is fine and good, but he would be better off advocating a positive program than defensively refuting what others say he is. He can do this by simply saying he is “culturist” not “racist.” He could help people make important distinctions by explaining that while racism is stupid and dangerous, because cultural diversity is real, culturism is necessary. Then the multiculturalists could defensively explain why diversity is not important. The multicultural lefts’ flip abuse of the word racism would diminish immediately.
Then, once the distracting charges of racism were diminished he can focus on the positive culturist agenda. He can explain that western schools should teach western virtues and history. He can convey that western nations should only recognize western legal systems. Culturism’s taking diversity seriously will give him a basis upon which to argue that freedom of speech is a western value that needs protection. Culturist logic will give him a rational basis upon which to discuss border regulations. He can affirm his language. Rather than just be against multiculturalism, Wilder’s using the word culturism will teach people about the positive western agenda and history he promotes.
Geert Wilders has risked his life for the West. Yet his own western governments vilify him as a racist. He is a hero whose case should be celebrated by all western culturists. In the speech he was not allowed to give, he identified multicultural ideology as the enemy of the West. In gratitude and solidarity I offer him the use of the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism.’ As a culturist I encourage you to help Wilders in his fight by also identifying yourself as a culturist. When someone mentions multiculturalism, tell them you prefer culturism. When they brand those who discuss diversity as racist, tell them the discussion is culturist. These are politically correct and assertive ways to fight our destruction. Back Wilders. Back his mission for the West. Help him spread the words.
On his website, www.geertwilders.nl, Mr. Wilders posted the speech he was going to read to parliament had he cleared customs. At the end of the speech he blamed “the multicultural project” for undermining western civilization. As a culturist I agree. But the best he can offer is a condemnation of multiculturalism. We need solutions. Culturism provides lots and spreads them cheaply and easily. If he does not use these words, few will remember the ideas in his speech. They will be spun by media and read by few. His ideas will spread quickly if he announces, “I am a culturist and believe in culturism!”
Because multiculturalism is already a household word, citizens of Britain would instantly know what he means by culturism and culturist when he used them. Multiculturalism holds western nations have no core traditional cultures to prefer, promote and protect. Intuitively understanding the opposite of multiculturalism, the Brits would say “Yes,” we do have a core traditional culture and a right to protect it.” They would recognize that all nations are culturist and that our schools and our laws should reflect and protect our traditional cultures. And they would be able to communicate this sentiment as easily as multiculturalists now do theirs.
Wilders’ ban from Britain was partially justified by his being prosecuted for racism. He now has to repeatedly announce that he does not hate all Muslims and that he is not a racist. And this is fine and good, but he would be better off advocating a positive program than defensively refuting what others say he is. He can do this by simply saying he is “culturist” not “racist.” He could help people make important distinctions by explaining that while racism is stupid and dangerous, because cultural diversity is real, culturism is necessary. Then the multiculturalists could defensively explain why diversity is not important. The multicultural lefts’ flip abuse of the word racism would diminish immediately.
Then, once the distracting charges of racism were diminished he can focus on the positive culturist agenda. He can explain that western schools should teach western virtues and history. He can convey that western nations should only recognize western legal systems. Culturism’s taking diversity seriously will give him a basis upon which to argue that freedom of speech is a western value that needs protection. Culturist logic will give him a rational basis upon which to discuss border regulations. He can affirm his language. Rather than just be against multiculturalism, Wilder’s using the word culturism will teach people about the positive western agenda and history he promotes.
Geert Wilders has risked his life for the West. Yet his own western governments vilify him as a racist. He is a hero whose case should be celebrated by all western culturists. In the speech he was not allowed to give, he identified multicultural ideology as the enemy of the West. In gratitude and solidarity I offer him the use of the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism.’ As a culturist I encourage you to help Wilders in his fight by also identifying yourself as a culturist. When someone mentions multiculturalism, tell them you prefer culturism. When they brand those who discuss diversity as racist, tell them the discussion is culturist. These are politically correct and assertive ways to fight our destruction. Back Wilders. Back his mission for the West. Help him spread the words.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Celebrate Diversity!!!
Those who take our values for granted, those who claim that we have no culture, need to watch this video. In nature, mankind is brutal. Honor killing is not an aberration it is normal. Most cultures throughout history have considered killing and pillaging a source of honor. The West's enshrinement of rights, democracy, relative separation of church and state, freedom of speech and the valuing of human life ARE NOT universal traits. They are unique and rare in world history and in the world today.
Multiculturalism is wrong; diversity is real. We must be culturist. We have traditionally considered our culture to be special and delicate and therefore in need of protection via education and immigration laws. Since the Puritans designated us as a city upon a hill, we have been a culturist nation. We are special. And if we do not practice culturism, if we do not protect, guide and promote Western civilization, we will continue to look more and more like Mexico.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Sting of replacing Hail to the Chief is no laughing matter
There has been a lot of chuckling about Obama’s replacing Hail to the Chief with a rotation of songs that includes Sting’s “Desert Rose.” The laughing has come from people that consider it ironic that we move towards a song with Arabic content during the War on Terror. But this is no laughing matter. It is a matter of life and death. We do not see this because of the illusion of progress.
History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.
Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.
The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.
Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.
The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.
During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.
Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.
History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.
Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.
The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.
Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.
The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.
During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.
Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)