I wonder at the great and little crimes of the age and wonder at the perpetrators. The motivations are usually clear enough overall that the wonder is only the initial phase. The greater question is the observer. There are usually four sides to a conflict. What one side sees, the other side’s perspective, the independent observer’s views, and finally what actually happened. With a complex world, any conflict is decided mostly by the views and support of outside forces based on what observers report. Why do observers report as they do? We live in an age that prizes idealism as an end in of itself.
Let us take the case of Darfur. What is occurring is almost universally considered atrocious and most at least offer lip-service to calls to end it. What is not being asked is the reason for the conflict or its relation to other similar conflicts in the same country. One observes the idealistic outcry over Darfur but heard non over the similar conflict in Southern Sudan where Black Christians and Animists were being massacred, sold into slavery, raped, and generally mistreated by the Sudanese Islamist government. There was some outcry but it came from the Christian human-rights organizations. There is incomparably more outrage now that a smaller number of Black Muslims are getting killed.
When speaking with an idealistic young campaigner attempting to raise funds for the UN peacekeepers in Darfur, he was offended at my strategic analysis. I viewed the priority to be a comprehensive strategy that would take long to implement but would save more lives in the medium and long-run. The suggestion was taken to indicate a lack of caring about the situation. The effort to raise funds for UN peacekeepers was unlikely to produce anything more than a slight reduction in the death toll. My view was that idealism was nice but idiocy is morally reprehensible.
But Idealism is more than that. The foreign diplomats, reporters, and actors in the Former Yugoslavia believed that the Serbs were viciously trying to recreate the Holocaust when they had so grievously suffered from the real one. Idealists did not understood the language of Serb concerns in Bosnia as it involved the extreme suffering Serbian society had endured under the Turks. To Westerners that simply seemed like ethnic hatred and idealists are trained from birth to despise hatred and racists. To non-idealists, they saw a reasonable connection between the Bosnian Muslim government’s praise of the Ottoman Empire and desires to re-impose those policies. As most people act, they transform the object of fear into one of hatred as a psychological mechanism to strengthen their resolve. To idealists the Serbs were paranoid thugs who had to be defeated.
That defeat would come at a high price for whatever Serb was left under foreign rule. The Slovene government deprived Serb citizens of the right to vote. The Croatians chose to expel a million Serb citizens from their home (hence the founding of the Republica Srbska Kraijina) while the Izetbegovic government in Bosnia posed a severe concern for Serbs. Izetbegovitch praised the old Ottoman Empire and condemned the new Turkish state as atheist, a complaint commonly made by Islamicists. The other actions of the Bosnian state in regards to minorities were not encouraging and the Serbs decided that the risk was too great to remain as part of Bosnia and seceded to form the Republica Srbska. The breakaway Serb state was seen as aggression by the idealists of the world who believed the (English language) affirmations of a multicultural, democratic, and secular Bosnian identity.
Idealists, who get their information in English as befits good observers, believed the affirmations of the various new Balkan states. The propagandists of the new states had found a way to play upon the idealism and naivety of the reporters. The suffering of the Bosnians Muslims gained the world’s attention and idealists declared their intent to involve themselves in Balkan affaires as a result. They condemned the partial siege of Sarajevo and the internment camps run by the Serbs. They saw no problem with the massacres of hundreds of villages by the likes of Nassir Oric and must have thought the Croatian and Muslim concentration (run far more harshly than their Serb counterparts) were no problem. Idealists pick a side that is idealistic and will not deviate from it based on petty things such as evidence. Aggressive questioning of the right side is seen as the utmost corruption.
Idealism seeks not to improve the world but to be idealistic. It is a self-perpetuating system that provides a great ego to those who are idealists and are not forced to see things on the ground. Idealists listen in English and rarely know local languages (they are cosmopolitan after all) thus their first recourse is to English language statements made by one party. Their second means is by acquiring interpreters that have absolutely no connection with any warring party despite all accusations otherwise. The usual means employed by journalists and diplomats is to rely on the judgment of those who have gone before them without re-examining the perspective.
The protesters of 1968 who caused so much societal upheaval were idealists. They viewed authority as inherently oppressive yet they saw no problem cooperating with the highly disciplined and hierarchical Viet Cong when trying to work their idealistic plans for the overthrow of American society. LBJ was an idealist whose War on Poverty has worsened the lot of those trapped in the Welfare-Charity-Victimology complex. They are still remembered fondly not for their failure but for their idealism which is seen as a redeeming trait that overrides the suffering inflicted upon those it impacted.
Most people would not regard Hitler and the Nazis as idealists given that they were thugs and sought to inflict suffering. They were however motivated by a desire to help out the community, saw the conventions of bourgeois society as needing to be transcended, and attempted to use the power to help people. The brownshirts burning books believed in what they were doing as a good thing. The SS thugs who killed people thought they were improving the world. The Nazis were idealists who sought to remake the world in their image. The Communists also had their idealism. People lost rights because the idealism of the Bolsheviks saw their own wisdom as being able to order things better than the individuals they ruled. The cruel civil war was fought out of a desire to help the masses and modernize the country and the world. The terror and suffering from the five year plans were possible because of the idealism of officials who desired to rid the society of enemies and their willingness to tolerate the temporary suffering of the masses so that there might be a better tomorrow.
The Bolsheviks believed in what they were doing. The NKVD believed in what they were doing. The Soviet planners believed in their plans. Hitler was an idealist who sought to improve the lives of Germans and to make Germany a great power according to a racial ideology. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk all believed firmly in the Communist ideology.
Today the idealists of today do not see the incongruity of praising idealism in the Islamic world when that idealism is directed towards forming the Caliphate that would defeat the infidels and subjugate the world. The Hamas members to seek to kill as many Jews as possible are idealists. The Islamists who sought to topple the Algerian government and impose a totalitarian system were idealists as are those trying to do the same to the Egyptian government. Idealism in the Islamic world is seen in performing the duty of Jihad. They are idealists.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
The journalists failed to report on Muslim and Croatian concentration camps out of idealism. Idealists failed to report on the crimes of the Nazis once they gained power in Germany for fear that it would provoke a second World War. Idealists refused to condemn the Gulags and suffering in the Soviet Union and China out of idealism. Idealists today refuse to permit people to say that Islamic doctrine enshrines Jihad (as Holy War, not as an “internal struggle”) as a key duty of believers.
This is Idealism. Lies become truth because idealism is not about desiring to help people but about being idealistic. Millions can die but idealists must not have their idealism questioned. They are more concerned with the state of their souls (any serious question sullies it) than with the state of the lives of others. Idealism is all about the idealist and so is the height of Narcissism.
Monday, May 19, 2008
A common puzzle
Upon encountering an individual who had made it a point of enjoyment to scream while playing video-games, I asked him to stop. The request was not due to the discomfort the noise of the intermittent electronic noise but by the screaming that triggered concern over a residual fight or flight response.
Screaming, if listened to, is varied given the purpose. A joyful scream might scream as such: Yaaaaa! A battlecry tends towards the Yaaaaghhhh! direction, while a panicked cry for help might be Ahhhhh!. Some cultures, in order to eliminate any confusion on the matter, restrict screaming to emergencies and use other means to express happiness, excitement, of pleasure. America is not one of those cultures. In the age the infantilized adult, one encounters people who have no compunctions about screaming at whatever they choose. Those ungraced by such inhibitions do not feel the need to restrain themselves in crowded living conditions.
Upon attempting to request that the individual in question desist from hi noisome activity, I found failure as a result of his not even opening or communication when I knocked. He was quite clearly present but chose to wait out the complaint. Upon calling on a building administrator, his response was one gratuitous insult. Upon a latter encounter, I asked the reason for his reaction. He agreed to speak on the matter and he sent forth a litany of further insults and vulgarities with little connection to the matter at hand but only a statement that I needed a thicker skin related to the subject.
The first of the two puzzle I can only begin to wonder at is that some would treat the invocation of “fight or flight” so casually and be willing to cause such reactions in others by screaming in vain pursuits. The second I am astounded by is the crudity of the response and the unrelated nature to the matter at hand. I can understand circumstances where the breadth of the vulgar vocabulary might earn some respect when direct to the matter at hand (ie. Combat or when insulting someone for clear reasons) but to do so randomly without connect to the topic is incomprehensible.
The man’s father was similarly vulgar when encountered and spoke in gratuitous terms regarding me even when I was clearly present. Such a disrespect for social norms of politeness and mores regarding the treatment of persons is perhaps more comprehensible in light of a statement made that seemed unrelated at the time. Shortly preceding the more notorious stream of obscenity, he declared the “I can do whatever I want!”. I initially disregarded it as the raving s of a lunatic to be pitied but in retrospect such absurdities might stem from a culture of pleasure.
His comment would by normal minds be seen as solipsistic but was probably the logical extension of the belief that his desires held precedence over the needs of others. Such would likely also explain the disrespect shown to people directly by using obscenity at them and responding to people with casual vulgarity. How could such a situation come about? His father displayed similar attitudes and one may reasonably conclude that the perspective was passed down without further reflection.
But merely filial piety would not seem the only factor in this regard. The larger culture does not deem obscenity or vulgarity reprehensible and so demeans the people such norms are designed to ennoble. The gravity of vulgarity seems to be sapped by the attitude of it merely being old norms of politeness. The disrespect of persons was clearly present in his words and behavior. The emotionalized demeanor was also seen by his willingness to scream and the emotional nature of the response instead of having bearing and responding as man. By responding as a man, I refer to having dignity, maintaining it, proceeding logically, and having respect for others and placing others before you. None of those was seen in his narcissistic behavior.
This demotic trend is most unpleasant and is unlikely to end well as some seek more forceful ways to constrain untoward behavior and others seek the respect so clearly denied by a solipsistic culture.
Screaming, if listened to, is varied given the purpose. A joyful scream might scream as such: Yaaaaa! A battlecry tends towards the Yaaaaghhhh! direction, while a panicked cry for help might be Ahhhhh!. Some cultures, in order to eliminate any confusion on the matter, restrict screaming to emergencies and use other means to express happiness, excitement, of pleasure. America is not one of those cultures. In the age the infantilized adult, one encounters people who have no compunctions about screaming at whatever they choose. Those ungraced by such inhibitions do not feel the need to restrain themselves in crowded living conditions.
Upon attempting to request that the individual in question desist from hi noisome activity, I found failure as a result of his not even opening or communication when I knocked. He was quite clearly present but chose to wait out the complaint. Upon calling on a building administrator, his response was one gratuitous insult. Upon a latter encounter, I asked the reason for his reaction. He agreed to speak on the matter and he sent forth a litany of further insults and vulgarities with little connection to the matter at hand but only a statement that I needed a thicker skin related to the subject.
The first of the two puzzle I can only begin to wonder at is that some would treat the invocation of “fight or flight” so casually and be willing to cause such reactions in others by screaming in vain pursuits. The second I am astounded by is the crudity of the response and the unrelated nature to the matter at hand. I can understand circumstances where the breadth of the vulgar vocabulary might earn some respect when direct to the matter at hand (ie. Combat or when insulting someone for clear reasons) but to do so randomly without connect to the topic is incomprehensible.
The man’s father was similarly vulgar when encountered and spoke in gratuitous terms regarding me even when I was clearly present. Such a disrespect for social norms of politeness and mores regarding the treatment of persons is perhaps more comprehensible in light of a statement made that seemed unrelated at the time. Shortly preceding the more notorious stream of obscenity, he declared the “I can do whatever I want!”. I initially disregarded it as the raving s of a lunatic to be pitied but in retrospect such absurdities might stem from a culture of pleasure.
His comment would by normal minds be seen as solipsistic but was probably the logical extension of the belief that his desires held precedence over the needs of others. Such would likely also explain the disrespect shown to people directly by using obscenity at them and responding to people with casual vulgarity. How could such a situation come about? His father displayed similar attitudes and one may reasonably conclude that the perspective was passed down without further reflection.
But merely filial piety would not seem the only factor in this regard. The larger culture does not deem obscenity or vulgarity reprehensible and so demeans the people such norms are designed to ennoble. The gravity of vulgarity seems to be sapped by the attitude of it merely being old norms of politeness. The disrespect of persons was clearly present in his words and behavior. The emotionalized demeanor was also seen by his willingness to scream and the emotional nature of the response instead of having bearing and responding as man. By responding as a man, I refer to having dignity, maintaining it, proceeding logically, and having respect for others and placing others before you. None of those was seen in his narcissistic behavior.
This demotic trend is most unpleasant and is unlikely to end well as some seek more forceful ways to constrain untoward behavior and others seek the respect so clearly denied by a solipsistic culture.