Smarter Than Thou!

THOSE WHO KNOW HISTORY ARE INCLINED TO REPEAT IT

   I believe that Americans have an invalid view of history.  I freely admit that most Americans have no real sense of history, as an academic subject.  TV news shows often present interviews with the “average American,” who, when asked basic historical questions can give no answer—not even an approximate one.  However, there is another type of history that Americans identify with.  It is a different type of history.   It is the type, which is used as follows:  “History will judge X for doing Y.” This is pretty much what Karl Marx meant when he used the word.  It is a mass movement and a spirit of the times that “guide” events in one way and not another.  It is a wide spread sense of what should be, or what will be.  For example, the current rush to legalize single gender “marriages” and marijuana would be considered an “idea whose time has come.”  That is, history will judge and nudge it to be fair, proper and timely. 

    This view of history had the USA move across the continent from the East Coast to the Pacific, conquering or eliminating everyone in the way.  In this view America inevitably grows larger, richer, more powerful, more inventive, etc.  That is, Americans believe in inevitable progress.  The idea that the USA could contract, or lose territory is, literally, inconceivable. 

    Even when they do not expect much progress in the near future (most Americans are not THAT stupid), they feel that progress should occur and that it is an unusual circumstance that aborts it.  I summarize this view as follows:  “America is Number One, and wins in any fair contest.”

    Europeans see things differently.  The educated and ruling classes there know long histories of defeats, of gaining and losing empires, of having their countries conquered, of native territory taken away, apparently forever.  They not only suffer invasions and lose wars.  They also suffer plagues, famines, droughts, savage revolutions, chronic poverty, etc.  They do not necessarily see the future as automatically better.  They do not see themselves as automatic victors in a conflict. 

    Despite all this the European, obviously, still exists.  That is, no matter how bad things can get, they have survived and can survive again.  For example France has been invaded and (essentially) conquered by the English, Germans and Russians.  And France survived.  Hungry was once ruled by Attila the Hun.  The Balkans were enslaved by the Turks.  Poland ceased to exist at one time.  This attitude towards resignation and endurance forms the European personality and policy.    This is why, in my opinion, Europe, even if the current US president were to pressure it, will not support any strong measures against Russian aggression. 

    To them the loss of the independence of the Ukraine is not so significant.  It has been independent before and enslaved before, and probably these will happen again, etc.  There is a fatalistic streak in the mentality of the Europeans, which weakens them.  The Mongols came, saw, conquered… and left.  The new version will probably do the same.    

RETARDED ETHICS

   BACK when the “pro-life” movement was more active and noticeable the members would often have public rallies.  During the rallies something often occurred which I consider, at the least, strange.  Before I mention it, let me comment on the term “pro-life.”  It was an unfortunate choice of self-identification.  It has frequently been used to attack as hypocrites those pro-lifers who also advocate capital punishment (as we all do!).  It also goes directly against Christian values, which teach that a voluntary death for another, and not continued life, is a supreme good.  My point here is that I never met a “pro-lifer” who had any sense.  Personally, I am simply opposed to abortion, as are all moral people.  Period; with no exceptions, ever.  And I am also in favor of executing some people, namely those who do not use turn signals. 

    I return to the rallies.  Often some single mother would testify about how she had considered abortion, and maybe had even gone to the death mill, but some insight suddenly changed her mind.  And her child was now three years old.  This would produce applause and cheers.  The highly moral (irony being used here) pro-lifers would cheer because a significant sinner, self-identifying herself as one, did NOT murder her own child.  Wow!  On this basis Charles Mason also should have been invited to speak. 

   What had happened was that the standards of morality were lowered, radically, and morally based movements became satisfied---even pleased---if people simply did not commit the worst sins too often.  This is probably a sign of our “new world order.”  The world is now satisfied with very little, and expects even less. 

    I speculate that this applies to Vladimir Putin regarding the current crisis in the Ukraine.  I offer that the recent plane destruction was a deliberate act authorized by Putin.  He judged, probably rightly, that this action would benefit him.  He has the following plan.  He behaves like a savage.  If there is no reaction (and I expect no effective attempts at punishment) he then realizes how weak the West is, and he feels free to continue to be ever more aggressive.  If the reaction is strong then he becomes a single mother.  That is, he repents publicly, while denying direct responsibility.  He will be “born again” and, like O J Simpson, will spend his life seeking the real murderers.  And he will be praised simply because he will stop, for a time, killing more innocent people (until the next time). 

    I remind the reader that a few years ago Putin’s Russia invaded Georgia, not the state, but the country.  After acting the international bully the Russians withdrew, which the world approved.  His continued acceptance as acceptable world leader was, in my opinion, based on the fact that he did not kill everyone and destroy the nation. The world simply chose to notice the withdrawal and not the invasion.  The acceptable standards of international ethics are low and are devolving into an even more primitive and crude state. In other words he

   In other words Putin gets praised for somewhat restoring the original situation and will get credit for meeting the minimum standards for decent human behavior, sometimes.  Maybe for an ex Communist this is quite an achievement. 

PRIVATE EXHIBITIONISTS

   IN last installment I dealt with a fundamental defect, and/or self-contradiction, in Conservative political theory.  It is a theory only because, at least as far as I can determine, Conservatives do not practice politics.  They sometimes talk a good fight, but are not willing actually to contest issues in the open forum.  Thus they only theorize about values.  The defect was that, although officially they want the government to be strictly restricted in its areas of activities, they implicitly invite potential government intervention with every private contract.   That is, they make governments a partner in such actions. 

   The problem is this.  Justice comes from laws and government, or it comes from, essentially, “lynch mobs.”  Justice, in theory, means to give to each person what is his due, or, to put it negatively, to prevent a person from losing what he rightly possesses.  This means that, even if the government is limited to this area, it is involved in pretty much every contract, sale or agreement.  The fact that most of these voluntary actions do not get the government involved does not mean that it does not function in these areas.   The government is involved in order to prevent injustice.

   In this installment I offer a fundamental defect in Liberalism.  I assume that the advancement of homosexual “rights” is primarily a Liberal cause.  This movement has, I believe, two parts.  The first is the legal aspect.  This consists mostly of giving people of the same gender the “right” to marry.  The second aspect is social.  This means that the homos are to be accepted as “normal.”  That is, they (as opposed to Christians) should not be rejected because of what they do (or what they are). The problem is this. 

   The movement identifies the homosexual as only being one thing, namely a homosexual.  For years Liberals have been arguing for the extension of the right to “privacy.”  One of the slogans used by the supporters of abortion was “get the government out of my bedroom.”  Now, it is get the government into my bedroom, and everyone else too.  Privacy has been replaced with public and core identification with only one aspect of a human being.  They demand the right to march in parades, identified only as people who practice a private “bedroom” activity.  They claim to want to be accepted as if they are normal, and then make abnormal behavior their defining characteristic.

   Let me contrast these defects in the two movements.  The contradiction regarding the Conservative is that the defect is so obvious, so accepted, and so “natural,” that they fail to notice it.  As fish do not notice the water, the Conservative simply can not see a world in any other way.  The Liberal, however, has reversed a key element.  His is a true self-contraction and a betrayal of a core issue.  The Liberal value system can not be valid as it reverses it sacred principles. 

   The cause is the same in both schools.  Neither will confront reality.  In America this is a hollowed tradition. 

            

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE...

   THE French, so it is said, have a saying that goes like this.  The more things change, the more they remain the same.  That is, according to them, and despite efforts to be otherwise, human nature influences us to behave in certain recognizable repeated patterns.  My effort this time is not exactly based upon the saying.  However, I needed something to fill this first paragraph, so I added it.  And, perhaps only indirectly, my analysis is related. 

    Basically my position is this.  Despite professed and, apparently, passionate political and philosophical “principles,” people tend to do certain things that are actually quite contradictory.  That is, they behave in patterns.  So, perhaps, I should modify the French cliché.  The more people say that they resist something, the less they actually do.  In the interests of attacking equally both extremes of current American political thought, I shall expose this defect in both Conservatives and Liberals.  In this installment I shall attack the Conservatives.  In the next installment, unless something more pressing (and/or easier to write upon) occurs to me, I shall attack the Liberals. 

    I now refer to the Pete Rose affair.  Pete was an exceptional ball player.  He also was a major league manager, who bet on games.  This, for obvious reasons, is an absolutely forbidden activity.  When this was discovered he was fired.  And he did not go home (plate), but went to a court!  He managed to convince a judge that he had enough of a legal right to force the team to rehire him.  That is, he was legally un-fired, for a time.  The team, apparently, did not have a right to fire him, under these circumstances.  Pete argued that the firing was simply unjust, and a court’s job was to prevent, or to reverse, injustice, no?

    Conservatives often denounce the overly extended government, the excessive number of laws, etc.  Yet they want every legal contract to be enforced by law, in court, by government employees.  That is, they want the government involved in quite a few totally private activities, even baseball contracts.  In fact, all contracts carry with it an implied legal enforcement mechanism. 

    What would the alternative be?  It would be that injustice would triumph if and when any crook can mange it.  There would be no enforcement power, except when crimes occur.  Civil liabilities would be non-existent.  Without the court metaphorically looking over the shoulders of everyone who buys and sells business would probably dissolve and prosperity vanish.  My point is that, no matter how much they say otherwise, Conservatives really do want the government as a third party to many---maybe most---private agreements.  And the more they say otherwise, it still remains the same.  It simply would be more honest if they admitted that they DO want an “almost everywhere, almost every time” government. 

 

APPEARANCES CAN BE PERCEIVING

   SOMETIMES people get sentimental about war.  By sentiment I mean a feeling, based upon an impulse or prejudice, that does not necessarily have any basis in reality.  There are usually conflicting sentiments regarding war.  One is to over glorify it.  This is often done by Hollywood movies, etc, showing all the “good guys” as noble, brave and highly moral.  The other sense is to attack all wars, as if nothing good comes about from them. 

    The second view is probably expressed best, in its extreme form, by a woman Congress-human who voted against entry by the US into BOTH World War I and II.  She said, “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.”  However, wars can produce favorable results, even when this seems impossible.  I offer a possibility from a current event.  As is my policy, I refer only to the information available from the Mass Media, and thus may be mostly wrong. 

   As of this writing the forces, mostly from Syria, invading Iraq seemed to have been stopped.  These invaders intended to capture Baghdad and “win” the war, apparently by establishing a new political, and mostly extreme Mohammedean, state.  In fact the invaders moved pretty quickly and with significant successes, at first.  This, based upon improper knowledge of warfare, may lead some to conclude that the war is over.

    The Iraqi government apparently used what I call the “Constantinople Defense.”  Constantinople was established as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire in the early 300’s AD.  The Empire was frequently invaded until it finally fell in 1453.  It survived for over 1,000 years, despite many invasions, and numerous defeats. 

    The emperors seldom tried to defend head on against invaders.  Instead they were allowed, with only minor resistance, to progress towards the capital, using up resources, becoming tired, catching diseases, etc.   Here they would come against the sophisticated defenses of the capital, which they could not capture.  This would stop the invasion.  The enemy forces then needed to retreat.  Often their way back home was over already devastated territory.  The retreat would exact a terrible cost, and invite counterattacks.  The war would be won by the defenders, at the cost of some damaged land. 

   Apparently this is the strategy being used by the Iraqi forces.  The invaders should run out of ammo, supplies, transportation, replacements, etc, soon.  Baghdad should not fall.  Appearances may be deceiving in warfare.  The invaders should be defeated and scattered.  But Iraq will be weakened.  Considering what part of the world in which this all takes place, this should be a win-win situation for the US.  That is, having no strong state in that part of the world is a benefit for civilization.