Part of me is still amazed by the everyday absurdity of most self-professed "people of compassion". Their thought process is far from what I consider rational.
Let us take the subject of crime. The acts of crime are generally cruel as are the punishments. By punishing such acts though, the total cruelty of the crimes drops due to less frequent occurrence. The use of coercion may seem to be cruel but overall the effect is to make life more livable for the weakest. The in low crime areas, poor businessmen may still sell without fear of robbery, the elderly can go out and lead a more active and hopeful life, and children can play and experience more of the world without parents rationally locking them indoors for their own safety.
Order is essential for most aspects of what we consider civilized life. Other aspects also include the reduction in cruelty when possible. None but a sadist would desire more cruelty than necessary but the disagreements are generally over what is necessary for what. If the concern is over allowing people freedom to travel around their city, laws punishing assault would be in order. If the goal is to allow different neighborhoods to develop separately, they would see no problem with an assault of an outsider. The goal of reducing cruelty calls for the least severe punishment that gets the job done. A person focused on separate development would consider a prison sentence for assault to be excessive and thus sadistic. A person who believes in a unitary city would consider beating someone up for trying to buy a house to be excessive as well.
The consideration then is in how one approaches a situation to reduce unneeded cruelty. The "Compassionate" argue against prison discipline despite the preferences of most prisoners to live under the stern (sometimes brutal) rule of the warders instead of the consistently brutal rule of their fellow inmates. The compassion is made manifest in the periodic murders of prisoners by prisoners in gang violence continuing in prison.
Such compassion is more concerned with the procedure of law (a good thing to prevent random acts or some deliberate miscarriages of it) in cases involving a violent crime with a harsh punishment (imprisonment or death) than for child custody cases where the crime is usually minor and the punishment excruciating (almost all parents agree that separation from their child is more painful than death). The frequent violations of procedure and the extremely incompetent nature of the US child protection bureaucracies warrant inquiry. They go by various names but frequently employ people of little intelligence whose sole claim to employment is that they are willing to sit through the inanities of bureaucratic life. Such organizations often degenerate into job schemes for the least skilled and such people get some petty fulfillment by flaunting their power.
This comes in many ways. Humiliating a family by driving up in a marked vehicle (knowing that it will render neighbors suspicious of wrongdoing even in the most innocent of cases), making decisions without actually examining the subjects in question (frequently the worst of the lot simply talk to the parent and leave without even asking to see the supposed object of their investigation), and using their bureaucratic-knife-fighting skills to press an obviously innocent case as a test of their power when the victimized family has no recourse to the courts.
Technically, they can go to a family court but the judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and assorted activists, bureaucrats, and assorted ilk all know each other violating one means of assuring a fair trial, anonymity not in identification but in interests. The entire system is incestuous but the poor education of most of their victims or their timidity makes them unlikely to carry it even that far. These are what some might otherwise characterize as "the weak".
The interest of the "compassionate" disappears for those trapped in such a system pleading for a more uniform legal system where the same standards of evidence would be used as in a criminal trial. The poor, uneducated, and timid are usually used as justifications for the conspicuous acts of government compassion advocated for by the "compassionate" but the actual plight of many is ignored.
Why? Their compassion is naught but an outgrowth of their selfishness. They are self-obsessed but some dim glimmer recognizes it and attempts to correct it. The healthy state of balance in a human being entails some concern for others. There is a phenomenon that people carry on their personal struggles into the public sphere. People who have negative views of another ethnic group might take up their cause in politics or society as a means of purging their own bigotry. The individual selfishness then gets translated into the public sphere as a call for collective actions and concern. One example might be that Jakie Kennedy was a strong advocate of government largess but she herself was very careful with money.
The resulting system is one in which parents cannot raise children without the collective call for "society" doing something to help. Society does not mean private associations helping bring food or clothes. It does not mean home-school coops. It means government intervention. The upside is the vast resources of the government. The downside is that all government activity is essentially based on coercion. Even if actions are voluntary, the taxes to support it are not.
Much as aristocratic Romans would compete for the loyalty of their patronage circles and the glory of their political careers by acts of largess. The "compassionate" do the same in their circles but merely to maintain the lie to themselves that they are not unhealthy people who only care for themselves.
In this state, they care more for the sentiment expressed than the truth or effect. It is in this vein that Oprah has become so popular with the obligatory nods of commiseration or agreement and the murmurs of disapproval for anyone who challenged the atmosphere of therapeutic agreement by actually invoking facts and judgments. It is also in a more political environment that one man praised Ted Kennedy for his stand against welfare reform. Ted Kennedy expressed outrage at the idea on the grounds that it would cause suffering for single poor mothers who could not get a job. The eventual statistics showed his fears to but unwarranted but the man praising Kennedy did so because this mistake was one on behalf of compassion.
Such compassion might be seen more clearly in the welder who is given the rest of the day off and who in his excitement forgets to weld part of a bridge support. The concern that might have motivated the foreman to give the man time off might be sound but the consequences of a bridge collapse are far worse than his individual problem.
Such compassion does not prioritize because priorities conflict with comfort. One would rather live in a society with less "compassion" unless one were one who lived by guile. As it stands, that is exactly what rent-seeking is. Seeking to manipulate the government or other large concerns in order to support an unprofitable endeavor.
This much should be obvious but sadly there are many of genuine goodwill who simply follow the trail of "compassionate" topics because they lack the interest or imagination to evaluate the priorities of actually helping people.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
A Brotherhood of Nations(in the Manson family)
German politicians humiliate a Czech President and give him a new flag to fly. 1938? 2008.
That was a translation from a statement made on President Klaus' website.
The bullying of President Klaus of the Czech Republic is of great concern. While it is a practice that countries fly the European Union Flag (I will not conflate the EU with all of Europe), the concept of sovereignty would allow each country to decide its own actions.
In this case, President Klaus, as a democratically elected Czech official, had the right to decide if a flag would be flown. The EU officials gave him a new flag (Klaus was famed as an Euroskeptic and had decided not to fly the EU flag from public buildings) and hectored him about his domestic policies.
The self-obsession of some of the EU partisans might be seen from this part of the exchange.
The supposed concern for democracy becomes questionable when internal political decisions in a country not noted for discrimination becomes a matter for EU hectoring.
The supposed modernism of the EU was based on mutual respect, democracy, and a peaceful resolution of disputes. That is not the case in practice and this in part likely stems from the actions of an ideological group who view the EU the same way others saw the Soviet Union. Not as opponents but as idealists who hoped to create a perfect society and were willing to override democracy, sovereignty, and individual rights to do so.
The result is that the famous claim that "George Bush is undermining the international system that has been built up since the Treaty of Westphalia" might be better used to describe the EU.
That was a translation from a statement made on President Klaus' website.
The bullying of President Klaus of the Czech Republic is of great concern. While it is a practice that countries fly the European Union Flag (I will not conflate the EU with all of Europe), the concept of sovereignty would allow each country to decide its own actions.
In this case, President Klaus, as a democratically elected Czech official, had the right to decide if a flag would be flown. The EU officials gave him a new flag (Klaus was famed as an Euroskeptic and had decided not to fly the EU flag from public buildings) and hectored him about his domestic policies.
"Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP (co-president of the Greens): I brought you a flag,
which - as we heard - you have everywhere here at the Prague Castle. It is the
flag of the European Union, so I will place it here in front of you."
"[On Lisbon Treaty:] I don't care about your opinions on it. I want to know what
you are going to do if the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the Senate approve it.
Will you respect the will of the representatives of the people? You will have to
sign it."
"President Vaclav Klaus: I must say that nobody has talked to me in such a
style and tone for the past 6 years. You are not on the barricades in Paris here. I
thought that these manners ended for us 18 years ago but I see I was wrong."
The self-obsession of some of the EU partisans might be seen from this part of the exchange.
"President Vaclav Klaus: This is incredible. I have never experienced anything
like this before.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Because you have not experienced me.."
The supposed concern for democracy becomes questionable when internal political decisions in a country not noted for discrimination becomes a matter for EU hectoring.
"Daniel Cohn-Bendit: We have always had good talks with President Havel.Given the margin by which the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty, it would seem to indicate that the claims by Mr. Crowley that most Irish want the treaty to be dubious.
And what will you tell me about your attitude towards the anti-discrimination law?"
The ostensible acknowledgment of sovereignty by EU officials is compounded by their lack of respect for the workings of democracy in their own countries.
"President Vaclav Klaus: Thank you for this experience which I gained from
this meeting. I did not think anything like this is possible and have not
experienced anything like this for the past 19 years. I thought it was a matter of
the past, that we live in democracy, but it is post-democracy, really, which rules
the EU.
You mentioned the European values. The most important value is freedom and
democracy. The citizens of the EU member states are concerned about freedom
and democracy, above all. But democracy and freedom are losing ground in the
EU today. It is necessary to strive for them and fight for them.
I would like to emphasize, above all, what most citizens of the Czech Republic
feel, that for us the EU membership has no alternative. It was me who submitted
the EU application in the year 1996 and who signed the Accession treaty in
2003. But the arrangements within the EU have many alternatives. To take one
of them as sacrosanct, untouchable, about which it is not possible to doubt or
criticize it, is against the very nature of Europe.
As for the Lisbon Treaty, I would like to mention that it is not ratified in
Germany either. The Constitutional Treaty, which was basically the same as the
Lisbon Treaty, was refused in referendums in other two countries. If Mr.
Crowley speaks of an insult to the Irish people, then I must say that the biggest
insult to the Irish people is not to accept the result of the Irish referendum. In
Ireland I met somebody who represents a majority in his country. You, Mr.
Crowley, represent a view which is in minority in Ireland. That is a tangible
result of the referendum.
Brian Crowley MEP: With all respect, Mr. President, you will not tell me what
the Irish think. As an Irishman, I know it best"
ADDENDUM OUTSIDE THE TRANSCRIPT:The demand for a dignified treatment of others in the EU (made in a later discussion) does not seem to extend to the Czechs. One can only be skeptical of such a system.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit had something to add to Czech reporters after the meeting:
“Your president is a toxic virus of Czech politics.”
The supposed modernism of the EU was based on mutual respect, democracy, and a peaceful resolution of disputes. That is not the case in practice and this in part likely stems from the actions of an ideological group who view the EU the same way others saw the Soviet Union. Not as opponents but as idealists who hoped to create a perfect society and were willing to override democracy, sovereignty, and individual rights to do so.
The result is that the famous claim that "George Bush is undermining the international system that has been built up since the Treaty of Westphalia" might be better used to describe the EU.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Centralslav Culture
A new perspective is needed if Centralslavia is to exist. Such an alliance will be short lived if the only purpose is diplomatic or economic. A change in orientation and perspective is needed.
To simply imitate American popular culture (or German, or whatever) is not going to help. The matter must be one of values. What do other regions value? What do you value?
This does not mean that one should express disdain for all that is Western or Eastern. It means that the actual values of the societies viewed are not the same as the ideals they talk about. This is not often intentional. Most Americans say they value education. When asked if they would walk five miles to school with their child so the child could go to a good school and not a poor one, they would not. The actual values of Centralslavia would hopefully be closer to what the West was like before the post WWI nihilism.
Life is suffering, that does not deride the beauty and hope of life. Life is hard, do not denigrate those who labor. The way of life and the assumptions about responsibility and respect for others needs to be where Centralslavia becomes a beacon of civilization. The West has grown weary of being civilized and is too lazy to stand up for it or even be it. Russia is tired and its leaders will not find the path to a common state of civilization easy. The nihilism of Moscow and St. Petersburg are making things hard to adjust.
Centralslavia has the benefit of historically being more organized than Russia but the suffering under Communism ironically preserved a more sensible outlook that was wiped out in the West by essentially Marxists of a more radical approach than either Stalinism or Maoism. Western Communists are not real Communists but madmen. Eastern Communism was tempered by the realities of life.
Concepts that the West lost are the ability of Centralslavia to exploit. Craftsmanship is to make creating a thing of grace, elegance, and efficiency. To make labor not a drudgery but a joy. Family is not a random biological pairing but a thing to be looked after. The husband and father must look after and listen to his wife and the same to his children. Men are men, Women are women, and children need not ape a hyper-sexualized culture. Life is to be treasured at all ages. The cult of youth is not a good one. The elderly have a different perspective and their wisdom must be cherished.
Religion now in parts of Centralslavia is ignored. People do not go to church nor do they think about moral issues. That must change. If it were to change, Centralslavia would have a major advantage over Western knee-jerk reactions. The Western lack of detail in approaching things is the key weakness of the West, it can be more easily avoided by Centralslavia. The concept of a classical education, detail, study, and debate needs to be brought back. These will bring good governance and that brings most good things.
The important thing is not what you do when you think, it is what you do when youdon't think.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Pope in WWII
The Catholic Church in WWII
The situation in WWII is far more complicated than even the word muddled gives it. The Pope does not seem to have been anti-Semitic but elements within the church hierarchy were. The nature of the church hierarchy is the element that adds the most to complexity. The Catholic Church is organized along national lines for administrative purposes. These divisions had great latitude on practical matters and could act for the most part autonomously.
Right-Ustashi posing with a Serb head. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
That autonomy gave the national branches of the common organization a different character than that in the Vatican. The preferences of the Pope often clashed with those of some advisors, the advisors with those of the local clergy, the local clergy with the local authorities and so on. One of the main concerns of the Pope and many other Catholic thinkers was the tendency of local authorities (governments) to attempt to subsume religion into their political apparatuses and the local clergy that sometimes viewed the totalitarian ideologies as an extension of their Catholic
faith.
The Italian Fascist state under Mussolini tried to co-opt church participation in his state by including clergy input on some small matters and praising the specific legacy the Catholic Church had on Italy. There is famous footage of nuns marching in a fascist parade. Such images are evocative and were intended to be. The Fascist state was attempting to give people the impression that the legitimacy of the Catholic Church was being extended to include the state.
The legacy of popular Catholic intolerance for religious minorities included anti-Semitism. Such sentiments tended to be more imbued in the national church structure than in the Vatican. The effort to unify all members of the Austrian Empire by using the Catholic Church as the tool also drew upon inspiring intolerance of non-Catholics.
The legacy of this was a degree of Clerical Fascism among all the states in the former Austrian Empire. The worst impacted were the Hungarians and Croats. The groups made the most uncomfortable by this were the Jews, Serbs, and Romanians. The Jews were Jewish (evidently) while the Serbs and Romanians were Orthodox. By the time that the Austrian Empire was broken up by the Allies, popular Catholic sentiment had accepted a considerable amount of hatred.
This hatred was easily transferred into fascist ideas with a slight clerical twist. In Austria, the country’s leadership did not give full reign to the urges. The government of Horthy in Hungary was less in control but also was not favorable to Fascism in any variant. In Jugoslavia, the urges did not find a political outlet other than theorizing.
The strategic situation in the build-up to WWII changed the landscape dramatically. The decision of the Hungarian and Romanian governments to ally with Germany meant that they had to accept German pressure to legalize their own Fascist parties. The Hungarian fascists were brutal but were sometimes kept in check by the Horthy government. Only when the Hungarian state did not have control of an area could the Hungarian fascists carry out atrocities.
The Romanian government was similarly unenthused about Fascism. It took a degree of pressure from Germany to legalize the Iron Legion. They were kept under control but the government caved into pressure to deport Jews to Germany. The acquiescence to German plans for genocide says little regarding the dispositions of the local population. The leadership of Gen. Antonescu was protective of Romanian Jews due to a close friendship between Antonescu and his Jewish college friend Dr. Filderman.
Croatia after the German defeat of Jugoslavia was radically different. Unlike any other country’s participation in the Holocaust, Croatia had wide public support for genocide and this was in part due to explicit support from the Croatian Catholic Church. The moral sanction of the national Catholic Church allowed far ranging support for the crimes of the Ustashi.
Left-1940s — Fascist Croatia committed a genocide against Serbs, Jews and Gypsies: Entrance into Jasenovac death camp number 3, with the sign presenting it as a “Labor Service of the Ustasha Defense - Concentration Camp No. III” The coat of arms above is inscribed: “Everything For the Fuhrer, Ustasha Defense.”(Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
The actions of the Ustashi were unlikely to be favored by the Vatican. The Pope had tried quietly to slow down the Fascist search for people in Italy and there were a number of people hidden in the Vatican. What is most probable is that the Croatian church establishment did not inform the Vatican about its actions in the Balkans. While the Croatian church was overt in the Balkans, the general disinterest in the Balkans made it possible to keep the actions of the Croat church quiet.
Dr. Johnatan Levy: “...the real impetus behind the Second World War slaughter of Jews, Serbs, and Roma by the [Croat] Ustasha was clerical fascism.” Before joining the Ustasha, Croats had to swear an oath on knife, hand-grenade, pistol and Roman Catholic Crucifix. (Taken from Byzantinesacredart.com)
During that time, the Ustashi was deeply intertwined with the Croat church and one had to swear an oath to the Catholic Church in order to join the Ustashi. The closest parallel is the Mafia. While the activities of the Mafia utilized the Catholic saints for ceremonies, the Catholic Church kept silent about their activities in Sicily and in America. That did not mean that the Vatican knew that the mafia existed until it leaked out to the general public.
The actions of the Croatian Catholic church are some of the most horrific in WWII however they were probably smart enough to keep their actions quiet from the Pope. The Pope’s other actions particularly diplomatically and in Italy reveal a man trying to keep a clean conscience while slowing down the German actions to the Holocaust, not a man trying to commit it.
Kafka's Tolerance
I am puzzled by those who do not find the rise of tolerance as an overriding value troubling. Tolerance seems to me as an extremely brutalizing factor when taken as an independent good.
Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).
The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.
Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.
In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.
The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.
Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.
The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.
Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.
Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.
This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?
Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.
Is that intolerant?
By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.
Let us take the example of the Former Jugoslavia. Serbs and Jews were exterminated together by the Nazi-backed Croats. The Croats in WWII were more open and vicious in their genocidal actions than Nazi Germany. The Bosnian Muslims were also allied with Nazi Germany and part of the WWII Croatian state. Serbs in the 90’s did not want to be part of any state run by people who tried to revive the Croatian Ustashi past (Franco Tudjman) or who had worked on behalf of the Nazi war effort (Alija Izetbegovitch was a recruiter for the Muslim SS divisions).
The Serb unwillingness to tolerate living in a state run by Nazi sympathizers made them intolerant of the national groups that Tudjman (Croats) and Izetbegovitch (Muslims) claimed to represent. That was therefore intolerant of the Serbs. Such intolerance is a sin against Tolerance and therefore the Serbs needed to be exterminated again. No better tools existed than those who had done the job back in WWII. Sadly for the Tolerant, some Croats sided with the Serbs in their intolerant desire not see Jugoslavia broken up, some Muslims did not want to live in an Islamic state and followed Fikret Abdic when he decided to set up a separate state in Bihac allied to the Serbs, and those famous intolerant Serbs got along well with people who did not shoot their civilians or side with those who did.
Tolerance demands that Jugoslavia be broken up because self-determination demands the right to form a country for a group that demands it while those who do not want to live in the new state be bombed into submission. Those who protest at the inconsistencies and who worry at the character of the new state are also cursed by Tolerance.
In a less bitter vein, let us consider the impact of prizing tolerance. Tolerance understood as being able to live together without coming to blows is necessary for any human endeavor such as simply living. Tolerance understood as accepting and respecting (beyond simply being human) the culture and values of others is more totalitarian. I am willing to understand the origins of forced marriage of children, I am not willing to tolerate it and if given power, will not sanction it and will seek to eradicate it. That means that those who make forced marriage of children a priority and I cannot exist peacefully unless there is a greater force that restrains both of us.
The assumption that Tolerance trumps all means that any conflict will be seen as a lack of tolerance on one side and therefore, any means are acceptable to eliminate the threat to global tolerance. Bigotry is the only possible cause for conflict and thus those who give in to it must be worthless human beings. This permits any tactic including accepting the existence of concentration camps and the strafing of civilians.
Any accusation of intolerance is thus a death sentence for the accused and they do not have a presumption of innocence. There is the modern social principle that the greater the accusation, the lower the burden of proof. This makes defeat an unbearable cost for any human government that does not want to see its civilians massacred. It also makes the conduct of a war difficult as well.
The gravity of the accusations assures their use if politically feasible by parties not constrained by moral instincts. Propaganda and false accusations are elements of any war. Tolerance makes them more potent weapons than ever before. Previously, war was considered a practical matter that could be conducted rationally. Emotional tools were employed but the decision to conduct a war and the reasons were accepted as part of the political process of states. Now, war for concepts like preserving the state, accomplishing national goals, and providing security for the main nation and its citizens is considered despicable and those who undertake this fundamental element of state action are considered criminals.
Tolerance has transformed a rational process into a crime and punishes the loser. This makes losing an unacceptable price and ensures that conflicts will be protracted while sentiments rise against the ignominies of one’s leaders being treated as criminals for preserving the state or its people.
Tolerance is also an unlimited ideal. Is the desire to live with those who are similar or a distrust of other groups intolerant? People may band together out of common ideals, priorities, or outlooks. Jews living in New York lived together and could enjoy easier access to religious services, cultural centers, acceptable butchers, and generally enjoy the benefits of specialization and not need to worry about misunderstandings with non-Jews.
This may cause problems in some cases and not in others. Is the desire intolerant?
Christians in Lebanon are unlikely to trust Muslims. Given the brutal civil war, is that irrational? They are in contact with Muslims on a daily basis but still do not trust them to look out for their interests or even survival. That is perfectly rational when one looks into the specifics of Islamic ideology and the actions in Lebanon over time. Where the Muslims move in, the Christians move out.
Is that intolerant?
By Tolerance the idol, the answers are yes. The conclusion then is that those who exhibit such concerns must be suppressed by any means possible. Instead of rational and sometimes emotional disagreements, you have a much more bitter conflict sanctified by the self-righteousness of those who may proclaim one tolerant or not.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Strategic Thoughts on Centralslavia
If a united Centralsalv alliance is achieved, Turkish expansion would likely grind to a halt due to a lack of weak targets to pick off. The increasingly Islamic nature of the Turkish government makes this a very real concern. The ideological imperative for Western elites to back the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanians would have to be weighed against a much more heavy concentration of powerful opposition from a major power block.
The discrediting of absolute state power justified by “technocratic skills” that now dominates Western European governments gives Centralslav governments a better restraint. That restraint gives a more realistic assessment as to where their strengths and priorities lie. Unlike the British government, deciding what people’s diversity schooling is less important than deciding the national security strategy. Generally, greater experience and less trusted governments give Centralslav nations an advantage as they are likely to be more realistic.
Russia is a force as is Western Europe. Both are led by nihilist elites. The West fails as its elites grow more autocratic as the day passes while the lack of direction and feedback stymies Russia. Neither is a good force. Independently, each country in Centralslavia would be vulnerable to either and be led by them culturally as well as in other aspects. Given the dead ideologies of the two major blocks, this is a danger to the survival of the various nations.
As there are far fewer Muslims in Centralslavia and the various nations possess greater historical sense and common sense, the onslaught of Jihad is likely to be more effectively combated by Centralslav nations than by Western ones. Russia sadly lacks the larger social framework to support a modern society and would not be as effective for that save its position.
By forming a major barrier between the West and Russia, a degree of neutrality would be needed given the inherent fear of siding with one or the other.
The discrediting of absolute state power justified by “technocratic skills” that now dominates Western European governments gives Centralslav governments a better restraint. That restraint gives a more realistic assessment as to where their strengths and priorities lie. Unlike the British government, deciding what people’s diversity schooling is less important than deciding the national security strategy. Generally, greater experience and less trusted governments give Centralslav nations an advantage as they are likely to be more realistic.
Russia is a force as is Western Europe. Both are led by nihilist elites. The West fails as its elites grow more autocratic as the day passes while the lack of direction and feedback stymies Russia. Neither is a good force. Independently, each country in Centralslavia would be vulnerable to either and be led by them culturally as well as in other aspects. Given the dead ideologies of the two major blocks, this is a danger to the survival of the various nations.
As there are far fewer Muslims in Centralslavia and the various nations possess greater historical sense and common sense, the onslaught of Jihad is likely to be more effectively combated by Centralslav nations than by Western ones. Russia sadly lacks the larger social framework to support a modern society and would not be as effective for that save its position.
By forming a major barrier between the West and Russia, a degree of neutrality would be needed given the inherent fear of siding with one or the other.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Centralslavia
http://www.polskapanorama.org/plightofeuropean.html
Upon reading this interesting article, a number of thoughts came to mind.
The viability of a union of Centroslavia is unlikely but closer cooperation is more likely to work. The interests of the supposed allies or partners are always a secondary priority for the major power as it has other interests and a limited attention span. From this, a Centroslav alliance would be more likely to police itself keeping its members honest and provide a large enough force to leverage honesty out of those interacting with it.
The worry is that a unified set of principles would have a lot of trouble getting agreed upon but most importantly, is there the ability to produce a coherent cultural transformation. Most simply the question is “What vision of life and the world will be held?”. The Nihilism of the Russian elites and the stupidity of Western elites discredit them. But is there a credible force to act within Centroslavia?
Germany still possesses considerable economic power and diplomatic contacts. Any such effort would be likely hampered by German influence attempting to convince the US and the West of its position as the “modernizer of Eastern Europe”. The interest of the US in it is a somewhat transient phenomenon given the number of matters a global power must deal with, the competition international concerns hold versus domestic ones, and just plain lack of an attention span.
Putting ones security needs and cultural needs (not to mention economic ones) in the hands of a senior state is unlikely to prove beneficial if the senior state shares neither a common outlook nor frequent attention in the area. This is true of all major powers as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. Russia has some interests but the failure of leadership and the focus on other concerns makes Russia unlikely to protect the interests of the nations in Centroslavia.
What countries does it refer to? It would of course include Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, the Republica Srbska (if possible), Moldova, and Bulgaria. It might be extended to include the Baltic states, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Cyprus. It would not include Albania, Bosnia, and Croatia for their support of Jihad and their war crimes.
How close a Union? Perhaps monetary union would go too far but certainly free-trade between the members would be essential. Agreement by all parties regarding tariffs outside the Union would help build mutual interests. Most importantly is that the Union would provide close diplomatic support for members in conflicts like those that ravaged Yugoslavia in the 90’s and that gave Kosovo over to Jihadists. Greek concerns with Cyprus are another case.
A cultural element is crucial to such an undertaking. There must be a common understanding about the world that differs from the West as it currently stands. This does not mean disagreement with the West’s fundamental ideas from long ago but with the fanaticism of the current leadership class. Centralslavia is not against the free-market but against the cronyism of the state support for major companies in the West. Centroslavia is not against the ideas of Free Speech and Liberty, just against Jihadist propaganda and immoral publications that degrade the humanity of people. Centroslavia is not against a secular government, just against the atheism and war against religion that poses for secularism in the West.
Upon reading this interesting article, a number of thoughts came to mind.
The viability of a union of Centroslavia is unlikely but closer cooperation is more likely to work. The interests of the supposed allies or partners are always a secondary priority for the major power as it has other interests and a limited attention span. From this, a Centroslav alliance would be more likely to police itself keeping its members honest and provide a large enough force to leverage honesty out of those interacting with it.
The worry is that a unified set of principles would have a lot of trouble getting agreed upon but most importantly, is there the ability to produce a coherent cultural transformation. Most simply the question is “What vision of life and the world will be held?”. The Nihilism of the Russian elites and the stupidity of Western elites discredit them. But is there a credible force to act within Centroslavia?
Germany still possesses considerable economic power and diplomatic contacts. Any such effort would be likely hampered by German influence attempting to convince the US and the West of its position as the “modernizer of Eastern Europe”. The interest of the US in it is a somewhat transient phenomenon given the number of matters a global power must deal with, the competition international concerns hold versus domestic ones, and just plain lack of an attention span.
Putting ones security needs and cultural needs (not to mention economic ones) in the hands of a senior state is unlikely to prove beneficial if the senior state shares neither a common outlook nor frequent attention in the area. This is true of all major powers as far as Eastern Europe is concerned. Russia has some interests but the failure of leadership and the focus on other concerns makes Russia unlikely to protect the interests of the nations in Centroslavia.
What countries does it refer to? It would of course include Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, the Republica Srbska (if possible), Moldova, and Bulgaria. It might be extended to include the Baltic states, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Cyprus. It would not include Albania, Bosnia, and Croatia for their support of Jihad and their war crimes.
How close a Union? Perhaps monetary union would go too far but certainly free-trade between the members would be essential. Agreement by all parties regarding tariffs outside the Union would help build mutual interests. Most importantly is that the Union would provide close diplomatic support for members in conflicts like those that ravaged Yugoslavia in the 90’s and that gave Kosovo over to Jihadists. Greek concerns with Cyprus are another case.
A cultural element is crucial to such an undertaking. There must be a common understanding about the world that differs from the West as it currently stands. This does not mean disagreement with the West’s fundamental ideas from long ago but with the fanaticism of the current leadership class. Centralslavia is not against the free-market but against the cronyism of the state support for major companies in the West. Centroslavia is not against the ideas of Free Speech and Liberty, just against Jihadist propaganda and immoral publications that degrade the humanity of people. Centroslavia is not against a secular government, just against the atheism and war against religion that poses for secularism in the West.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden on NATO
The return of Biden and the Idealists.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden threatened Romania to block its NATO entry
August 28, 2008
SERBIANNA
Former US ambassador to Romania Jim Rosapepe says that he witnessed Obama's vice-presidential pick, Joseph Biden, shout at Romanian officials of whom he was seeking information on Serbia and its politics in order to inflict political and diplomatic damage.
Rosapepe says that the most extraordinary meeting Biden and him had was with the president of the Romanian Senate, Petre Roman, whom Biden met before but this time "Biden grilled him on Serbian politics" and Roman "helped defeat Milosevic in the 2000 elections".
However, when Biden asked the Romanian delegation why Romania seeks NATO membership, Biden was offended at the answer.
"'If we're in NATO,'" Romanian said "'we won't have to worry about NATO attacking Romania over our relations with our Hungarian minority the way you attacked Yugoslavia. Since Turkey has been in NATO for decades, you let them do what they want with the Kurdish minority.'"
Biden got visibly angry that former communist Romania has an existential reason for joining NATO so Biden "rose from his chair, leaned across the table and said: 'If that's why you want to get into NATO, I'll make sure you never do!'" writes Rosapepe.
Biden has long been on the payroll of Kosovo Albanian extremists so that he can lend support for their desire to annex Serbian province.
During the ongoing Democratic Convention, Biden met with the separatists.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Biden threatened Romania to block its NATO entry
August 28, 2008
SERBIANNA
Former US ambassador to Romania Jim Rosapepe says that he witnessed Obama's vice-presidential pick, Joseph Biden, shout at Romanian officials of whom he was seeking information on Serbia and its politics in order to inflict political and diplomatic damage.
Rosapepe says that the most extraordinary meeting Biden and him had was with the president of the Romanian Senate, Petre Roman, whom Biden met before but this time "Biden grilled him on Serbian politics" and Roman "helped defeat Milosevic in the 2000 elections".
However, when Biden asked the Romanian delegation why Romania seeks NATO membership, Biden was offended at the answer.
"'If we're in NATO,'" Romanian said "'we won't have to worry about NATO attacking Romania over our relations with our Hungarian minority the way you attacked Yugoslavia. Since Turkey has been in NATO for decades, you let them do what they want with the Kurdish minority.'"
Biden got visibly angry that former communist Romania has an existential reason for joining NATO so Biden "rose from his chair, leaned across the table and said: 'If that's why you want to get into NATO, I'll make sure you never do!'" writes Rosapepe.
Biden has long been on the payroll of Kosovo Albanian extremists so that he can lend support for their desire to annex Serbian province.
During the ongoing Democratic Convention, Biden met with the separatists.
Thoughts on Kafka
Franz Kafka is remembered as the author of several surreal novels where strange irrational things affect characters who are treated with bigotry in response. The most famous such book is Metamorphosis. The focus on difference and bigotry was likely the result of the eternal question of Jews, “why do they hates us, is it because we are different?”.
Kafka aside, life in the supposedly tolerant modern society we know as the West is getting stranger and stranger with added portions of bigotry. Ironically, the worst perpetrators of irrational bigotry are those who focus upon being good or who are regarded as good by society.
I mentioned my strong dislike of Rap “music” to a person and what person apparently assumed that my reference to the cultural elements of it (Gangsta culture) as an object of disdain was proof of my racism. Where I thought that I was talking about music, the other person assumed that race and music were the same.
There certainly is an overlap between ethnic groups and music. We talk of Celtic music being a genre and refer to Chinese music being atonal whatever more modern composers have produced. There is a close relationship between music and a culture. It is hard to imagine the English-speaking Atlantic fishing and whaling industry without its shanties and songs.
The same might then be said of Rap music and Blacks? The applicability here is hampered by the question of race. When Americans use the term Black or African American, they assume they are the same thing. They are not. Suppose that a Boer emigrated from South Africa to the US. He would be an African-American (being from Africa) but not Black. The conflicts between Black immigrants from the Carribean and Blacks more entrenched in American culture also indicates that perhaps the relevant term is not of race but a racial term used when the meaning is ethnicity.
The meaning is the specific American sub-culture produced in relationship to African Blacks brought from Africa centuries ago and holding a continuity with that history as a cultural and ethnic identity. The term used to denote this is “Black” or “African-American” when the actual meanings of those terms is very different. Nigerian Ibos are not included in some cases despite clearly having high melanin content as they do not always identify with “Black culture”.
Even still, there are multiple cultures within this already fractious term. There is more than just the Black Gangsta or Hip-Hop culture. Only the KKK and Black activists try to equate Gangsta culture as the whole of Black society and culture. A statement regarding Rap and the sub-culture associated with it should not be considered as regarding general Black society as if Rap were all that popular among the Yoruba or Masai and people would drop suites for the garb of American Black hoodlums.
Rap extends beyond just America and has impacted Western and finally Eastern Europe. The themes are sometimes different. The operative word is sometimes. Most often the themes of greed, power, violence, and sex and a purely animal act abound in other countries’ Rap cultures.
Here is some French Rap and it is just as disturbing as American Rap.
A more acceptable evolution of Rap music's interaction is this but the aggressiveness remains.
Despite whatever different messages are presented, the medium (if not all) is at least a major part of the message. The aggressive beat of Rap and the melody convey ideas and attitudes beyond whatever the words are. Music invokes emotions and, in doing so, evokes them. The emotional effect of a dirge with violins and cellos is undoubtedly different from a song of spring with a flute even if the words were reversed.
Let us compare this mild video with visible themes of money and opposition to the law. The references are not the heart of the core message of the video but essential peripheral concepts. The questions posed to the woman he refers to indicate a severe lack of discipline in referring to an affair as "mistakes we make". It is almost touching but still the beat must draw back to a certain hardness that the rest fails to temper.
A much worse one is this video about sex. No respect is paid to women or sex. Little more need be said.
On criticism brought of in defense of Rap is Christian Rap. That is not a sufficient argument. The lyrics may say one thing but the overwhelming aspect is the beat and melody. Christian Rap is best understood as an ideologicaly driven imitative parasite on the body of Rap. Rap is itself a parasite on society at large. It harms not just organized governments or groups by urging on disrespect of authority but the beat and melody are aggressive in nature and listening to it has an effect.
Society is built upon individuals coming together and suppressing their aggressiveness for a common purpose that may yield them benefits. Mindless aggression is not likely to keep society together unless it can be controlled. Often this is done with force or the threat of it.
Do the defenders of Rap really want to equate it with Black Culture? Do they really want to make its themes those of Black society?
Kafka aside, life in the supposedly tolerant modern society we know as the West is getting stranger and stranger with added portions of bigotry. Ironically, the worst perpetrators of irrational bigotry are those who focus upon being good or who are regarded as good by society.
I mentioned my strong dislike of Rap “music” to a person and what person apparently assumed that my reference to the cultural elements of it (Gangsta culture) as an object of disdain was proof of my racism. Where I thought that I was talking about music, the other person assumed that race and music were the same.
There certainly is an overlap between ethnic groups and music. We talk of Celtic music being a genre and refer to Chinese music being atonal whatever more modern composers have produced. There is a close relationship between music and a culture. It is hard to imagine the English-speaking Atlantic fishing and whaling industry without its shanties and songs.
The same might then be said of Rap music and Blacks? The applicability here is hampered by the question of race. When Americans use the term Black or African American, they assume they are the same thing. They are not. Suppose that a Boer emigrated from South Africa to the US. He would be an African-American (being from Africa) but not Black. The conflicts between Black immigrants from the Carribean and Blacks more entrenched in American culture also indicates that perhaps the relevant term is not of race but a racial term used when the meaning is ethnicity.
The meaning is the specific American sub-culture produced in relationship to African Blacks brought from Africa centuries ago and holding a continuity with that history as a cultural and ethnic identity. The term used to denote this is “Black” or “African-American” when the actual meanings of those terms is very different. Nigerian Ibos are not included in some cases despite clearly having high melanin content as they do not always identify with “Black culture”.
Even still, there are multiple cultures within this already fractious term. There is more than just the Black Gangsta or Hip-Hop culture. Only the KKK and Black activists try to equate Gangsta culture as the whole of Black society and culture. A statement regarding Rap and the sub-culture associated with it should not be considered as regarding general Black society as if Rap were all that popular among the Yoruba or Masai and people would drop suites for the garb of American Black hoodlums.
Rap extends beyond just America and has impacted Western and finally Eastern Europe. The themes are sometimes different. The operative word is sometimes. Most often the themes of greed, power, violence, and sex and a purely animal act abound in other countries’ Rap cultures.
Here is some French Rap and it is just as disturbing as American Rap.
A more acceptable evolution of Rap music's interaction is this but the aggressiveness remains.
Despite whatever different messages are presented, the medium (if not all) is at least a major part of the message. The aggressive beat of Rap and the melody convey ideas and attitudes beyond whatever the words are. Music invokes emotions and, in doing so, evokes them. The emotional effect of a dirge with violins and cellos is undoubtedly different from a song of spring with a flute even if the words were reversed.
Let us compare this mild video with visible themes of money and opposition to the law. The references are not the heart of the core message of the video but essential peripheral concepts. The questions posed to the woman he refers to indicate a severe lack of discipline in referring to an affair as "mistakes we make". It is almost touching but still the beat must draw back to a certain hardness that the rest fails to temper.
A much worse one is this video about sex. No respect is paid to women or sex. Little more need be said.
On criticism brought of in defense of Rap is Christian Rap. That is not a sufficient argument. The lyrics may say one thing but the overwhelming aspect is the beat and melody. Christian Rap is best understood as an ideologicaly driven imitative parasite on the body of Rap. Rap is itself a parasite on society at large. It harms not just organized governments or groups by urging on disrespect of authority but the beat and melody are aggressive in nature and listening to it has an effect.
Society is built upon individuals coming together and suppressing their aggressiveness for a common purpose that may yield them benefits. Mindless aggression is not likely to keep society together unless it can be controlled. Often this is done with force or the threat of it.
Do the defenders of Rap really want to equate it with Black Culture? Do they really want to make its themes those of Black society?
Thoughts on Georgia
The media response in even the more analytical organizations is disappointing. The assumptions the organizations are relying upon are that the Georgian government is trustworthy, the Russian Government is not, that International Law dictates that infringement into a country is impermissible, and that the US must back the Georgians.
Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.
Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.
Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.
The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.
The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.
All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.
McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.
International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?
International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.
Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.
With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.
Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.
Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.
Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.
The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.
The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.
All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.
McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.
International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?
International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.
Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.
With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Thoughts in Defence of Prudery
Sex is one of the greater desires and pleasures of life. People do not need sex for their own survival but are willing to place sex and love above their own survival as tales of boys who would go to bloody wars to impress the objects of their desire attest to. Sex then is one of the major human desires.
Sex is a desire of animals (yes, I am aware that Humans are mammals but there is a fundamental difference hence the distinction between animals and humans is made in defiance of normal taxonomy) as well but the focus is not individual pleasure but procreation in all but mammals and apparently only dolphins engage in it for pleasure instead of procreation. Humans then are distinct in enjoying sex.
But one also asks, why are the limits placed upon such desire? We live in an age where the seeking and attainment of pleasure is viewed as a good in of itself. If sex is desirable and pleasure should be maximized, shouldn’t we eliminate the restrictions on sex and unleash our animal desire and enjoyment? The answer is that we are humans who are rational actors and who can appreciate not only our own pleasure but the other person. Love is a desire for the other person. Their body might be a means unto pleasure but the relationship is the core of love and the physical pleasure is an auxiliary to it.
The emphasis on immediate physical pleasure leads to actions that cauterize the ability to build up a different type of pleasure. There is a type of pleasure that is being in the presence of a person whom you desire but without any physical stimulus you feel pleasure. The pleasure comes from your relation to the other person. The person is the desire, not a physical aspect. This may give an almost (and sometimes) physical tingle but the power of it leaves any physical aspect in awe.
The lack of available sex seems to be the problem for those whose focus is on immediate pleasure. Consider which video seems the most exciting. Note that the videos are Afrikaans as the goal is that the tone and actions are what is looked at, not the specific words.
One observes radically different tones. One focuses on the physical bodies of females while the other depicts the relationship as a partnership of two individual personalities. The actions of the people in both videos likely resulted in sex but the approach to it and the meanings attached to it are radically different. One depicts sex as a pleasurable activity with an emphasis on the physical. The other depicts the relationship of the two people and their joining. The other focuses on the relationship.
The dryness of the second video is predicated on the excitement of overt sexuality. The preferences for the videos likely will reveal that disproportionately large numbers of men like the first while women like the second. This likely results from the differences in male and female perceptions of physical and emotional pleasure. Men focus more on the immediate physical pleasures as there is greater neurological pleasure from the physical while the emotional is not as endowed. Females have the reverse. These are generalities and exceptions certainly exist. There are men who have managed to focus on the emotional while some women are obsessed with physical pleasure.
The physical and emotional are both essential elements for human beings and the ability to appreciate one and not the other is true dryness. It does little good if one may contemplate the finest relationship when all around you is dust but to be surrounded by the physical with no emotion is to be lost. We are human beings, not lab rats in a behavioralists study nor beings of pure spirit. We are as C.S. Lewis put it well, amphibious creatures in between pure spirit and pure matter. We feel both emotion and the physical, we desire both company and solitude. What we desire then are often many contradictory things an we prioritize among them.
Human beings are also unnatural beings in that humans alter the environment around them, including the human environment. Our physical nature urges immediate physical pleasure while our emotions are dissatisfied by such things. It is the marvel of our humanity that we have managed to rise above our physical desires by love. Love may be a social construct, it may not be. What is clear that love allows us to focus on the emotional side of pleasure which is deeper. The social restrictions placed upon sex allow love to flourish without the risk of the physical obsessions uprooting it before the physical can be integrated into a combined pleasure.
If the social restrictions are not inherent to animal nature? Then let us thank our unnatural state for the ability to enjoy a pleasure beyond the pure physical. These social restrictions allow the two pleasures to form into one structure that enhances both and that reinforces each other. The reason for this is long forgotten in the mists of time. With the demand that all must be justified by pure logic, the forgotten reasons were unavailable to defend those restrictions and the emptiness and dissatisfied lives we see now are the result of the losses of these inhibitions.
Sex is a desire of animals (yes, I am aware that Humans are mammals but there is a fundamental difference hence the distinction between animals and humans is made in defiance of normal taxonomy) as well but the focus is not individual pleasure but procreation in all but mammals and apparently only dolphins engage in it for pleasure instead of procreation. Humans then are distinct in enjoying sex.
But one also asks, why are the limits placed upon such desire? We live in an age where the seeking and attainment of pleasure is viewed as a good in of itself. If sex is desirable and pleasure should be maximized, shouldn’t we eliminate the restrictions on sex and unleash our animal desire and enjoyment? The answer is that we are humans who are rational actors and who can appreciate not only our own pleasure but the other person. Love is a desire for the other person. Their body might be a means unto pleasure but the relationship is the core of love and the physical pleasure is an auxiliary to it.
The emphasis on immediate physical pleasure leads to actions that cauterize the ability to build up a different type of pleasure. There is a type of pleasure that is being in the presence of a person whom you desire but without any physical stimulus you feel pleasure. The pleasure comes from your relation to the other person. The person is the desire, not a physical aspect. This may give an almost (and sometimes) physical tingle but the power of it leaves any physical aspect in awe.
The lack of available sex seems to be the problem for those whose focus is on immediate pleasure. Consider which video seems the most exciting. Note that the videos are Afrikaans as the goal is that the tone and actions are what is looked at, not the specific words.
One observes radically different tones. One focuses on the physical bodies of females while the other depicts the relationship as a partnership of two individual personalities. The actions of the people in both videos likely resulted in sex but the approach to it and the meanings attached to it are radically different. One depicts sex as a pleasurable activity with an emphasis on the physical. The other depicts the relationship of the two people and their joining. The other focuses on the relationship.
The dryness of the second video is predicated on the excitement of overt sexuality. The preferences for the videos likely will reveal that disproportionately large numbers of men like the first while women like the second. This likely results from the differences in male and female perceptions of physical and emotional pleasure. Men focus more on the immediate physical pleasures as there is greater neurological pleasure from the physical while the emotional is not as endowed. Females have the reverse. These are generalities and exceptions certainly exist. There are men who have managed to focus on the emotional while some women are obsessed with physical pleasure.
The physical and emotional are both essential elements for human beings and the ability to appreciate one and not the other is true dryness. It does little good if one may contemplate the finest relationship when all around you is dust but to be surrounded by the physical with no emotion is to be lost. We are human beings, not lab rats in a behavioralists study nor beings of pure spirit. We are as C.S. Lewis put it well, amphibious creatures in between pure spirit and pure matter. We feel both emotion and the physical, we desire both company and solitude. What we desire then are often many contradictory things an we prioritize among them.
Human beings are also unnatural beings in that humans alter the environment around them, including the human environment. Our physical nature urges immediate physical pleasure while our emotions are dissatisfied by such things. It is the marvel of our humanity that we have managed to rise above our physical desires by love. Love may be a social construct, it may not be. What is clear that love allows us to focus on the emotional side of pleasure which is deeper. The social restrictions placed upon sex allow love to flourish without the risk of the physical obsessions uprooting it before the physical can be integrated into a combined pleasure.
If the social restrictions are not inherent to animal nature? Then let us thank our unnatural state for the ability to enjoy a pleasure beyond the pure physical. These social restrictions allow the two pleasures to form into one structure that enhances both and that reinforces each other. The reason for this is long forgotten in the mists of time. With the demand that all must be justified by pure logic, the forgotten reasons were unavailable to defend those restrictions and the emptiness and dissatisfied lives we see now are the result of the losses of these inhibitions.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thoughts on Idealism
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.
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.
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.