From Empathy Through Sympathy to Advocacy

From the desk of George Handlery on Wed, 2006-08-16 18:29

The modern world and its order – “Western Civ” would be, due to decades of global development, a dated term – has been repeatedly challenged by the foes of popular government and its economic pendant. The Fascist, National Socialist and Communist threat was repulsed when the states headquartering them were sunk. Still, the rejoicing in 1989 expressed more our euphoria than realism. A two-pronged leftist challenge remained. One comes from minor and therefore left-over rogue states committed to violent collectivism and self-genocide. It is welded to a third-world based racial-national world-view that is strong on mythology and weak on facts. The other, more dangerous wing of the assault comes from within. Not sailing under ones own flag has its advantages – the term “stealth” occurs. So this Left calls itself “Liberal” in the US and “Social Democratic” in Europe. If words have a meaning they are neither of these.

This moment’s main intellectual-military challenge flows from a re-thread. Its fountainhead is an ideology that differs in a detail from the threats already listed. The not-so-subtle reference is to the Islamic states and movements.

While the leftists are atheistic and some Jihadists label themselves as the “Party of God,” the seeming difference does not imply incompatibility. Once we penetrate the membrane of official atheism and religious nut-hood, the strategic nexus prevails. The Nazis, Communists, Fascists and Islamists share defining mutual dislikes. Beyond that, while they use a different vocabulary, the catch-words that express their hates are, once “translated,” identical. These movements share, a common “enemy-of-the-moment.” All are ideological, regardless of whether their creed is secular or religious. All allege that “history is on our side” and consider their “cause” predestined to triumph as this victory represents the will of the Force that moves mankind. The movement’s Truth is Success. All agree that the enemy is, to the extent of its seeming success, decadent and therefore destined for the garbage heap of history. All demonstrate, being carriers of a cause of the “chosen”, an inclination to disregard the risks created by their comportment.

This feature implies that rational dissuasion is unlikely to work in dealing with such entities. Pre-destination also brings about the conviction of infallibility. That, combined with embodying “the logic of history,” leads to the emergence of a Leader. He is the Rousseauian crystallization of the movement and thus represents the “New Man” to emerge at the end of the educational process the totalitarian dictator conducts as an agent of “History.”

Quite in tune with the logic of its assumptions, this foe is tenacious, fanatical and thus willing to pay any price for “final victory.” Here the term needs to be elaborated for those who have not lived under totalitarianism. Final victory is not a “place under the sun” – what entities such as Israel but also many Western countries covet. Totalitarian ideology is always global (a consequence of the term “total”) and sees its destiny as becoming identical with mankind. In case of Mussolini, Hitler and the USSR, the idea was ridiculous – but at least a spiced version of the imaginable. With North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or Ahmedinedjad’s Iran, the discrepancy between the ambition and the means is striking. To the reasonable observer, that is. But it is exactly the delusion implicit in such creeds that makes what is unachievable a (costly) goal.

It is the thesis of this essay that, regardless of what the outsider might dismiss as “insanity” and therefore as something that is “not meant seriously,” such programs are as “sincerely meant” as their leaders allege. Therefore, these “Leaders” and systems are committed to the madness’ implementation. The commitment means that the stated goal’s pursuit is “serious.” This is the case, regardless of what sane persons might consider to be the inadequacy of the means for turning the world upside down. The same applies to the price to be paid by the luckless under the control of the dictatorship pursuing the project.

It is at this juncture of criminal lunacy that one encounters a factor working to the advantage of such projects. North Korea’s baby-faced murderer aiming a nuclear lance, Iran’s soon-to-be atomic Mullahs and the rocket-slinging Hezbollah – have you noticed that they only kills Israelis but never innocent civilians? – get political support that is of greater value than their armaments are. After all: weapons are not worth more than the political context in which they are applied. Violence-prone extremists are largely effective on account of the under-reaction of their direct victims, and especially through the inaction of their secondary foes, who think they enjoy immunity earned by good behavior.

Significantly, the above applies to the radical Islamists. Their characteristics enable them to exploit the misjudgment of their intended victims. Consider this: Islamists are a religious movement. We are told to respect the religion of others (more than our own) as we are committed to the freedom of religion. Furthermore, ex-colonial peoples – even if, when they had the strength they subjugated others – enjoy special rights. Then there is “multiculturalism.” Whatever can be covered by this label is to be tolerated, even greeted, unless one wishes to appear a redneck. Finally, being anti-Western demands tolerance by those who view the spots on their own civilization with a magnifying glass while scanning the inadequacies of other cultures through a wide-angle lens. Let those who apply such standards be called “emphatizers” below.

Those, who for whatever reason are committed to empathize with whatever selected groups might do, are quickly self-tagged as being “reasonable” for their comportment. This term suggests that a compromise might be possible with those who are made unbending by a principle that supercedes logic. Pleading for “understanding,” at least inadvertently, a modicum of acceptance is created, whereby those who oppose extremist impositions are disarmed. The moderate empathizer’s plea for the tolerant understanding of radical policies (they like to call them momentary and isolated excesses provoked by the frustration of an original “victim”) legitimizes these. Especially so when it is secretly assumed that cooperative inaction is safer than outright opposition.

The role played by these sympathetic empathizers – insightfully Lenin called them useful idiots – is manifold. For one thing, undaunted by the atrocities they pooh-pooh, it is suggested that a compromise with forces that regard giving an inch to gain a foot as unprincipled, is possible. If effectively presented this prevents prophylactic action against extremist threats. Once the menace is muted into action, one-sided empathy “explains” the motives by putting the blame on the injured party. On the heels of such admonitions follows the warning that restraint is to be used in responding to the tort. If not then more radicalism will the consequence. Steps leading from “understanding” to “advocacy” and then “support” follow. Much of it is embedded in slogans such as “violence does not solve anything” and that “root causes” but not the (embarrassing) case at hand must be dealt with. The unintended effect: for the want of resistance the use of force becomes a rewarding tactic.

In part, the peace-lover’s fact-defying kindness toward violent movements is an imposition of the “Gutmensch’s” projection of his own values on extremists. In this light radicalism is not “normal” and must therefore be a regrettably exaggerated reaction to some major injustice. Separating oneself from this past wrong in the present is thought to placate those moved by history’s inequities. This fallacy is supported by a self deceptive interpretation of the “Weltanschauung” of the perpetrators.

Sympathizers judge the creed that determines the methods and the goals of extremists organized on its basis by a few carefully selected components. Thus one could once argue that “Nazis only want a well functioning disciplined community that guarantees fairness and respect.” Likewise, Marxists mainly “wish to create a fair society where all are equal.” Can you skeptical folks see how much this resembles the claim that it is “self-evident that all men are created equal?” The trick of delusion and self delusion transforms the black bull into a white Billy-goat. It also makes out of beliefs, whose practical success derived from their ability to mobilize for war, into creeds of peace. The characteristic of such self delusionary disinformation is that it creates a paralyzing mirage by refusing to consider the entire ideology and its universal ambition in the light of the actions taken under its guidance.

The outcome creates the illusion of a respectable movement that merely seeks justice based on reason that makes it ultimately compatible with the values of modern democratic culture. With that accomplished the circle that started from well meaning empathy leading to sympathy and then proceeding to protective advocacy is closed. The result is that a chronic and doctrine-based threat is not perceived as such. Its peril grows, to the extent that its inadvertent advocates camouflage it, to be greater than its objective means alone would allow it to be. The upshot is not unlike the case of an uncovered man-whole along the sidewalk. It can break your bones only if you overlook the trap lurking once the fog descended.

head in the sand....again

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-08-18 23:49.

@ pvdh

Get your facts straight, please. 

-- Israel has not kept any 'arabs' in "refugee camps".  Only Arab governments have done that, and for the reason already explained. 

-- At the time of UN-mandated partitioning, more jewish refugees from arab countries came to Israel than there were arab refugees who left 'Israel'.  About seven hundred thousand jewish refugees and about six hundred thousand arab refugees.  But then, numbers really don't matter.  It is the principle that matters, and it is Arab governments that kept their 'palestinians' in "refugee camps".

--  That LATER many more jewish immigrants came from Europe (mainly Russia and Eastern Europe) is irrelevant.  Their number is certainly much smaller, by many millions, than the number of Arab immigrants to Europe over the last 40 years or so.  Why are jewish 'European' immigrants to Israel a problem, and Arab immigrants to Europe  not?  Reverse 'racism' perhaps?  Should be investigated by that famous Leman-Centre in "democratic" Belgium?

-- If the Arab/muslim lies get repeated enough by naive-leftie Europeans, and absurd moral (non)equivalencies get asserted enough, then you might perhaps succeed with your historical revisionism.  After all, the Iranian President pretends to think that the nazi-holocaust did not take place.  You are well on the way to becoming a "useful idiot" (Stalin's original phrase, not mine) for the next holocaust.

Debate 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-08-18 17:07.

@ Kapitein

....

3) "Palestinians left stateless in refugee camps for decades" 

-- The only people who have left 'Palestinians' stateless in "refugee camps" are THE ARABS THEMSELVES.   The Israelis certainly have not kept their jewish 'refugees' (from Arab countries) in refugee camps, nor do arab Israeli citizens live in "camps".  And, since you claim to have an "educational background", you should know that there were more jewish refugees than arab refugees at the time of (UN-mandated) partitioning in 1948.

-- The reason why Arab governments kept their refugees in "camps" is to foster 'revanchism'.  They have always seen the 'palestinians' as a useful tool to prevent 'Israel', i.e. a nonmuslim-dominated democratic country in the Middle East.  It would be a 'bad' example for their own oppressed peoples.

-- If the Germans had behaved like the Arabs, after WW 2, and kept all the German refugees from 'eastern lands' in "camps", European history would surely have more closely resembled Arab modern history. 

My conclusion is that you are willing to 'justify' bad behavior, by labeling it "based on injustices".  But poorly thought-through "injustices", that imply absurd moral equivalencies.   That is of course reflective of the naive-left Zeitgeist in Europe, which is not only applied to geopolitics.  The same absurd behavior can be observed with regard to internal politics, for example vis-a-vis crime, or welfare-abuse, or 'illegal immigration', etc... 

refugees

Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2006-08-18 23:13.

The only people who have left 'Palestinians' stateless in "refugee camps" are THE ARABS THEMSELVES.

I’m getting sick and tired of this crap. As if one wrong doing (the expulsion of jews out of other arab coutries) is making an other wrong doing wright. Besides, most of the jews living in Israel didn’t come from any arab country. They came from Europe and the US, living on land that once was owned by ordinary decent Arab people. People with their towns and cities, churches and mosques, shops and farmland. They fled for a war, and were not allowed back in. that’s etnic cleansing. That’s all there is to it. Of course the expulsion of jews out of Arab countries is also a crime. Of course the fact that those arab countries don’t give citizenship to those Palestinials is repulsive. But all that doesn’t erase the crime of the theft of the land and homes of those refugees. Can’t you see that just this kind of rethoric keeps this wars going on and on.

Debate 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-08-18 16:47.

@ Kapitein

....

2) "...living under Western-backed...authoritarian rule" 

-- In what sense are authoritarian governments in the world "backed" by the West?  And not by China, Russia (Soviet Union), Brazil, Indonesia etc....in other words... the rest of the world?   What do you think is most relevant?  The 'fact' that the theocratic regime of Iran TODAY is "backed" by China and Russia, or the 'fact' that the shah's (modernizing) regime was "backed" by Paris, Washington and Brussels THIRTY YEARS AGO?  Which one of these two 'facts' better justifies nihilistic terrorism today?   

-- Don't you think that all peoples are responsible themselves for the way they 'organise' themselves politically and economically?  Why blame the "West" for authoritarianism and totalitarianism elsewhere? 

-- If you would care to make factual observations, instead of parroting naieve-left nonsense from the 'useful-idiot'-media, you would know that the most egregious authoritarian governments today in the world are precisely NOT BACKED by the WEST.  Apply this to Africa, for example, and look at Zimbabwe and Sudan today.   And, I don't have to remind you how the 'Arab street' thinks about the attempts of the US government of backing 'democratic' political forces in the Arab world.   Perhaps, it is time that you hold Arabs responsible for their own 'authoritarian' preferences?   Or, ..are we not there yet?   You still need some more nihilistic terrorism, and especially closer to 'home', before 'common sense' can overcome your ideological 'attachments'?

OK, debate, not rethoric

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-08-18 16:26.

@ Kapitein

Your attempt to separate out "Britisch, Americans, and Israelis" from other westerners was certainly "small minded" and very shortsighted from a long-term perspective of western survival.  But let's 'debate' three of your silly "injustices".

1)  "Having to provide cheap oil to the West". 

--  Where do you get the notion that this was 'compulsory'?  At least over the past half century.  Sovereign nations make their own decisions about their economic institutions and organisation.  They are responsible for their own governance, including in economic matters.  And, how is this different from the West providing "cheap" computer software to oil producers?   Did the latter participate in the development of this software, etc..?

-- And why single out "the West"?   How about "...to the world".  Oil markets are linked and on a world scale.   Perhaps, you listen too much to perverse western selfhaters in academia?

.....

Rhetoric not debate...

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2006-08-18 15:34.

In reply to the "education comment": if neither of you can properly read to the end nor understand my post, than commenting on bits and pieces of it taken out of context is not debate...

The only personal opinions I expressed were: "a) the collision with Islam was inevitable, (b) that multiculturalism and political correctness are relatively new phenomena, and (c) that while Westerners may have tried to stop playing the "game," every other ethno-national group is up to their neck in it," and, "...the proponents of social justice included idealists, heroes, and in some cases deliberate saboteurs..."

This seems to cover all you've been spewing, without the anti-Communist and Christian Right rhetoric...

I was describing a specific Western stereotype of thinking, but instead of debating the validity of that, you two would rather seize on various parts of the post to argue them to death. And recon, if you're so gung-ho against Islamists and perceived leftists, why don't you enlist or something. That would accomplish two things: (1) you would appear less wannabe, and (2) you would be unable to waste my time with useless arguments.

The Palestinians and Israelis are both Levantine peoples, the former Arabized, the latter Europeanized. Must I list where Israeli leaders were born? If the Palestinians are not a nation, than neither are the Lebanese, who are equally divided by religion and to some extent ethnicity.

Lastly, don't comment on my educational background or political leanings, you don't know them, nor in a million years could you debate me and win. Your idea of debating is to insult and browbeat because otherwise you'd have to prove a point with facts and perhaps compromise or at the very least take the blinders off.

Kapitein the clown .

Submitted by long range recon patrol on Sat, 2006-08-19 04:49.

LOL. nice try Kapitein, or should I call you "the Clown".

last things first : i proudly served my country in the U.S. Army and was honorably discharged back when you were still frigging yourself to select passages of mein kampf. And since you brought it up, why dont you join the global jihad seeing as how you carry these deep negative convictions about Israel, America and Britain . we BOTH knwo why you cant and wont (refer to previous personal insult about COWARDICE.)That would accomplish two things: (1) you would appear less wannabe, and (2) you would be unable to embarass yourself with your useless arguments that have neither any point, nor delusions that you somehow made one. Specifically about your (lack) of education, I could care less. now that you made these bold comments which had been adressed in multiple replies, somehow I'm taking it out of context ? LOL. As if someone ELSE made the comments and now, coincidentally, you want to conveniently ignore them ? true personal attacks are a bit immature but not quite as ridiculous as your limp wristed sputter about attacks only on israel, UK and USA. and while your at it, why dont you list all these israeli leaders who were born outside israel (perhaps an hour or so on the WWW can save your ego). however we both know WHY you didnt list any previously ( in response to my comment about Arafat? LOL) In a million years I couldnt debate you? debate WHAT? I see absolutely nothing in your pathetic thread constituting debate other than your whimperings about the west and your delusional tirade about injustices committed against muslims. Iam sincerely pleased that my reply touched a nerve (again, we BOTH know why) and I encourage you to continue amusing me with your feeble attempts at 'telling it like it is', without blinders of course. hmmm.... must be that 'religious right' LOL

@LRRP: it is now obvious

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2006-08-19 05:29.

@LRRP: it is now obvious that you have no intention to properly debate me, rather you continue to spew a narrow band of rhetoric, and are interested purely in insult matches. You continue to direct personal insults at me with no regards to the issues being discussed, take my words and comments out of context, and level ridiculous accusations e.g. "Mein Kampf," "Jihad," "Cowardice," etc.

W.r.t. Yasser Arafat, he was born in Egypt to Palestinian parents, which he, and Palestinians consider to be a bona fide ethno-national group, your opinions notwithstanding. Nor do Egpytians consider themselves Palestinians, or obviously, visa versa. Similarly, Germans were born in Poland and Czechoslovakia of German parentage, and Hungarians are born in Romania of Hungarian parentage, etc, etc. Don't confuse ethno-nationality and citizenship, they don't always completely overlap. You should know all about that with your Mexican problem...

You're making this thread far too personal. You don't know me, and I don't know you. I don't care to read your biography, you're just not that interesting or important to me. I have no way to verify your service record, so I'll have to assume your lying.

And why all this? Because I didn't place Israel on a pedestal, applaud the War on Terror, and dared to hint that many Westerners continue to cling to ideas of social justice. If you are against liberal democracy there's nothing wrong with that, just take it out on someone else you lame Internet nerd.

This is the last post you'll see directed at you from me. You can reply to your heart's content, I'll just ignore you. In other words (that you can understand): piss off.

well.. that wasnt very nice but you make a good point

Submitted by long range recon patrol on Sat, 2006-08-19 05:42.

Well Kapetein... you make a good point about personal attacks. And i stand corrected. it is inappropriate to turn this into a personal attack and I was wrong in that respect. However the specific 'issues' being discussed WERE adressed (albeit with sarcasm and/or unneccesary personal comments by me). I will endeavor to avoid this manner of immaturity in the future. Naturally you can assume whatever you wish, it is irrelevent. if you desire to know my personal history then backtrack to 'your not interesting/i assume you are lying' i will be more than willing to accept private emails from you to quench this curiousity.however for someone whining about personal attacks you sure have made plenty of your own. my feelings are hurt (more sarcasm). I find it interesting that in the giant smoke screen you call a response, you fail again to adress the very comments you (must have been your alter-ego?) made previously which elicited my response. coincidence ? doubtful.

Small minded

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-08-17 17:45.

@ Long range re...

Let's not be too hard on the 'Captain'.  The article in question is a difficult one.  And, he did write that he agreed with "much of the article". 

But, he lives daily in a culture that has become very "naive-left", which means characterised by extreme moral-relativism and naivete about the nonwestern world.  Hence, some of his 'gaffes'.  Like his almost-endearing (naive) 'certainty' about "the achievements of the 1960's".  Or, his parroting of absurd victimisation theories about the "Arab-Islamic" peoples.   He certainly 'buys' into the nutty attempt (mainly by European 'elites') to break up the West into "Britisch, Americans, Israelis" and the 'rest', thereby illustrating that he did not understand a major point of the article.  That point was the futility of "sympathetic empathisers" or "useful idiots" (in Lenin's term) to think that they could "enjoy immunity earned by good behavior" when faced with any kind of totalitarianism.

It is obvious that the education system did not enlighten him about the victims of "Arab-Islamic peoples" (no, the focus there was all on the 'victims' of western cultures!), and hence his inability to have a 'balanced' view on these peoples, or any other peoples for that matter.   And, while the 1960's did have some positive 'achievements' in parts of the world, including the West, they have also contributed mightily to create perverse western selfhatred, which will probably ultimately destroy the West.   But, all civilisations go up and down.  Phenomena like the 'Kapitein' are just manifestations of the advanced stage of the current process of western 'decadence'. 

cont'd for you ...

Submitted by long range recon patrol on Thu, 2006-08-17 16:55.

Palestine:

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence,
at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history
and find the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary
unit against other world currencies on that date.
12. Have the Palestinians left any artefacts behind?
13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?
14. Finally, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
15. If the Palestinians are anything other than Arabs collected from all over the Arab world, if they have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered defeat by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

the cliff notes ...

Submitted by long range recon patrol on Thu, 2006-08-17 16:56.

1) There never was a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather; they are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including "Palestine."
2) Israel did not go to war against a Palestinian state and occupy its land. Rather, Israel was attacked by six Arab countries at once. She defended herself, defeated her attackers, and won the so-called territories, not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt.
3) Jerusalem was never the capital of any state but Israel. It was certainly never the capital of a country that never existed. Why should the Palestinians get any part of it? Because they want it? Because they have terrorists?
4) Jerusalem, under the current Israeli control, is a free and open city. Israel, as a democracy, guarantees freedom of religion within its borders. Contrast this fact with areas that have come under Palestinian occupation. What percentage of Christians have left in recent years because they cannot stand the harassment and persecution?
5) Most Arabs living in Palestine today are not indigenous to the region. It was not until after the Jews had changed deserts and swamps into a productive and thriving land that the Arabs started migrating there. Arafat himself was born and raised in Cairo

do they really buy that out there ?

Submitted by long range recon patrol on Thu, 2006-08-17 16:53.

" loath to give up their seemingly just accomplishments merely because of some terrorism mostly directed against the US and UK. In fact, some believe that the Arab-Islamic peoples are justified in their anger against the British, Americans, and Israelis due to the injustices they have faced e.g. having to provide cheap oil to the West, living under Western-backed military or tribal authoritarian rule, and the Palestinians left stateless in refugee camps for decades."

LOL (laughing out loud)  "loath to give up".. i love it. nice try.

'mostly directed against the UK and USA' .. youd LOVE it if that were the case (and in a world of true justice you would be dragged by hook from the pit of your cowardly heart into the abyss you deny.

do you even have a CLUE ? no disrespect. do you live in a hole in the ground ????????????????????

'Arab-Islamic peoples are justified in their anger ...' the anger is multiplied infinitely from those of MY WORLD. if that is your perspective than plz elaborate on anger. anyones angry. about anything. anger justifies.... ?

'provide cheap oil'   are you serious? are you on drugs? do you even have a point???

'living under Western-backed military'  SEE ABOVE !

'tribal authoritarian rule'  YOUR ALL OVER THE MAP. does your pathetic, comical, blame-something/its got to be America coz theyre the 'superpower' garbage (insert repeated 'imperialism tirade here) EXCUSE (look it up) seriously make you sleep good at night or what...

Palestinians left stateless in refugee camps for decades (are you just brainwashed, seriously.. or did you wake up one day fancying yourself a posterchild for the 'gullible champion of who they told me were oppressed' fan club. cont'd.

Appeasement not Advocacy...

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2006-08-17 15:07.

While I agree with much of your article, I believe that you dismiss Western achievements in social justice far too quickly: many Westerners are in denial, loath to give up their seemingly just accomplishments merely because of some terrorism mostly directed against the US and UK. In fact, some believe that the Arab-Islamic peoples are justified in their anger against the British, Americans, and Israelis due to the injustices they have faced e.g. having to provide cheap oil to the West, living under Western-backed military or tribal authoritarian rule, and the Palestinians left stateless in refugee camps for decades.

Thus, it is difficult for some to realize that: (a) the collision with Islam was inevitable, (b) that multiculturalism and political correctness are relatively new phenomena, and (c) that while Westerners may have tried to stop playing the "game," every other ethno-national group is up to their neck in it.

The proponents of social justice included idealists, heroes, and in some cases deliberate saboteurs; our current challenges do not negate the achievements of the 1960s anymore than Fascism negated the West's attempt at peace and collective security.