The Web Of Soothing Lies
From the desk of George Handlery on Wed, 2015-01-21 04:31
A lesson from mankind’s experience is that all past generations have lived “interesting times”. Popular amnesia likes to lose sight of this; therefore, we think our day’s vicissitudes are unprecedented. That said it appears that we are departing from the cast of the past in a way that shatters patterns. Below follows a move through time to the discernible future in our present.
During the development of “Western Civilization”, our relationship to authority changed significantly. We went from chaos to submission and then, once order returned, we grew into a participatory system based upon delegated power. This is the condition of our day that might be surpassed through that new departure.
The classical age had its center in the Mediterranean. It expressed itself through an intellectually Greek and politically Roman order. It disintegrated due to a combination of inner decadence and outer pressure. Instability undermined civilization; an age of anarchy, the “The Dark Ages” dawned. Europe sank into barbarity and into the degradation of its powerless peoples. The system that emerged in the context of backwardness resembles Mafia rule. A difference between systems that traded protection for subservience is that, for centuries, no gangbusters were around.
Consolidation set in by the high Middle Ages. Although the implications are not PC, we see a third world order that heaved itself to where growth became a system. Progress involved the development of crafts, sophisticated exchange and trade. Significantly, power structures fractured with the rise of self-governing cities and their new class. Politically, secular monarchs and the Church competed for supremacy. Cracks appeared that were widened by the independently thinking tribe of the learned. Their findings challenged the dogmas of science and theology, the intellectual foundations of the immutable order of an intentionally static civilization.
This recovery had a blemish, which also happened to be one of its preconditions. To provide stability and security, the state had to be empowered. Its rise and the expansion of its authority contained problems for the future that became our present.
The amalgam of these self-generated traits created an inquisitive and innovative culture. It had lost the fear of the unknown of the classical civilizations that the West was surpassing. What emerged departed not only from its limiting tradition but also from the traits of other traditional civilizations. The age of progress, expansion and self-enhancement, brought political maturity. It expressed itself through actions that changed the order of Absolutism in 17th century England.
Bits of economic progress lead to a tad of political progress. By the 19th century, progressive democracy went beyond theory and converted its ideas into practice in an overseas mutant. In time, advancing entities installed representative democracy, which delegated the community’s power to elected bodies empowered by a majority to act in its behalf. While the result was not immaculate, the system worked. That was because the people’s agents felt obliged to respect their people’s will. Even so, mistakes were made which could be corrected by “throwing the rascals out”.
Like all human constructs, representative democracy had corruption in its DNA. Established, self-contented, and alternatively ruling parties emerged. Power was found to be profitable and they discovered in the state an instrument to benefit themselves and their supporters. Elections contested by differently labeled segments of the political elite, brought the expansion of the class that gained from governing. Statism enhanced the power of the state-class that made gifts with what it took from those deemed to possess in excess. Redistribution bought the votes that legitimized the scheme. The scheme? Some provided gifts, others cast votes.
Here our narrative can shift from the past to the present tense. Once administrators have a grip on the system that empowers them, they create an ideological justification for their role and privileges. Accordingly, the moment’s “liberal” dogmas are cemented in “political correctness”.
Note that this dogmatic standard is now the “opium” of the political class and its media. Enlisted by the grants of elites, artificial visions can be projected. The “ersatz” image is sold as “truth” to those that still trust what they see in print.
That part of our present that points to the future follows from the growing inability of the engineers of consciousness to suppress real-life experiences by their make believe. In a growing number of countries, people discover that the official truth is falsehood and that the banned perception of what “is”, is what reality happens to be.
There is a growing discrepancy between the fake that we are commanded to accept as truth, and the facts that are overlooked because the theory denies them. In many areas, the delusion propagated to expel an obstructed truth is not apparent to the duped. How many can see through the manipulation of credits, bad debts and the hushed-up deficits cultivated by central banks?
On the other hand, there are areas in which the gap between what “they say” and what “we know” is discernible. A case is that of uncontrolled migration and the cultural clashes all experience. The denial of reality in the name of the myths of multi-cultural bliss is challenging our governors. PC-thinkers that claim to represent democracy refuse to recognize threats and to hinder modernity’s foes.
Once, the political class could use the liberal consensus to impose its view in the conflict between the real world and their pretension. This ability to tell the governed how to think correctly is wearing thin as elites are losing their credibility. Awakened, the masses are discovering that, they are, that is the people are, in opposition.
The upshot is not alienation from politics but estrangement from traditional politics and its magicians. New movements express this dissatisfaction with the governance practiced by those entrusted with the task. They share a rejection against the stymied truth preached from above. These new forces are accused of being “Nazis” even if they only reject the practices by which they suffer in the service of political correctness. Everyone knows what a much-cursed Premier dared to articulate, namely, that the soothing lies of political correctness do not protect from terrorism.
The era that seems to dawn signifies a new relationship to the state. The rebellion of the mass – feeling “they up there” and we “down here” - does more than to ignore traditional leaders when it intends to limit these in the control of the state. What we see is not modern anarchism; direct democracy is searching for instruments to assert itself. In an age, when all persons became connected, but within the confines of the national state, movements are emerging that coalesce around similar issues. Such is the wish to “feel at home” in one’s home, protection from privileged criminals, and an economic order that does more than to postpone bankruptcy. Also wanted is an education that educates before it distributes diplomas and a measure of social security that rewards the thrifty and not the profligate.
Beyond the single items stands the central demand articulated by these budding movements. Even if the challenged political class describes its disobedient wards as extremists, the uppity feel that as practiced, politics exploits them while it fails to serve them. The point of consensus is that the emerging forces of popular power wish to govern from below and that they want to take back their system to reassert their sovereignty. Calling those names by the discredited that offer old answers to new problems, will not end the ongoing uprising of the masses.
Will a portion of political power be taken back by making the people truly sovereign? If this happens then a turning point in our development will be achieved.
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2015-03-10 22:15.
1) Nice attempt of marcfrans linking people´s will to warmongers. It seems he forgot that only few people gain with warfare, thus claiming that war is part of human nature.
2) Only a handful of people want war, inoumerous people don't want it. Quite different of driving a car. But he obviously wants to protect the elite and ridiculise the masses.
3) Evildoers. By marcfrans' definition/example/illustration it's Putin. He wouldn't think of other mass murderers much more prominent in history. By the way, even if we consider that the Crimeia landtake was illegal, it seems it is at the moment the most peaceful place in the region. And people's morality in this case was guarded by a referendum (of course marcfrans will dismiss that as totally unacceptable, how can people pronounce themselves, while Russian soldiers are on the terrain!).
4) I understand that marcfrans considers weakness in any doubt when it comes to the question to attack (Bush jr.: prevail) and subjudge other people (action).
ps: Mr Norris would be an adequate contributor to this journal. I think you'll agree.
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2015-03-09 11:26.
We may think about former times in our own subjective view: 'democratic greeks', 'strong romans', 'faithful middle ages', 'powerful nationalism', 'singing internationale', 'mass communication manipulation'. All ends up in wars between people and ideas, and all mythtification of 'values' is potentially hazardous. I fear a 'strong Russia' as much as a 'strong Germany' or a 'strong America'. People who lead these countries are serving lobbies, tiny influent groups which determine War or Peace. If the Breedloves, Nulands, Netanyahus, Erdogans, Camerons, Abes, Poroshenkos and uncounted others continue their way, war is implacable.
People's will, or people's confusion?
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2015-03-09 14:34.
There are few "people" who want or like war. So, war is not "people's will", as Kappert naively thinks. Furthermore, war is unavoidable, because evil is part of human nature. But, war cannot be "implacable", as Kappert confusingly asserts, only an enemy can be implacable.
Kappert's selective list of presumed evildoers reveals a confused mindset. He cannot distinguish between victims and genuine evildoers. To make that distinction one needs a developed capacity to make moral distinctions between conflicting motivations of different people. And he has never learned the crucial lesson of history, which is that weakness invites aggression. Given that confusion in Kappert's and so many other (Western) contemporary minds, war indeed is....unavoidable.
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2015-03-10 13:50.
Here we are again. War is not at all people's will, as you falsely cite my thread. I listed a few warmongers, there are thousands more, as you know. You claim that war is unavoidable, because evil is part of human nature. Funny, I know inumerous people who never went to war, nor killed another person. Your assessment seems to be faulty. Given your distinction between victims and 'genuine' evildoers, I like you to define the latter. Weakness invites aggression? Define weakness! I suspect you mean pacififists, handicaped, women, children, unemployed, elderly, ... as being weak. Chuck Norris is already 75, he will die soon!
Stupid is not funny
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2015-03-10 18:29.
Let's investigate, once more, the illogic of Kappert.
1) He writes a piece on presumed "warmongers" under the heading "Peolple's will" (sic), without a question mark, and then charges me for "falsely" citing his thread. Could this be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, or is it a case of neither hand knowing what they are doing!?
2) I know "inumerous people" who never had a car accident. Would that disprove the perpetual reality of traffic accidents in human history? Kappert seems to think so, judging by his nonargument of "inumerous people".
3) K wants a definition of "evildoers". That' s his way or cop-out for denying the obvious, i.e. that he has to make a good-faith or honest effort at making moral distinctions, which seems an impossible task for him. Let's use the very topical subject of the ongoing Ukraine crisis to illustrate this point. Kappert presented his own selective list of presumed 'evildoers', by which he means "warmongers", and included Porochenko but not Putin (the obvious nemesis in that crisis). I am sure that neither man is morally totally pure, nor totally devoid of any moral sensibility, but if Kappert cannot or will not see which man in this specific case is the genuine "warmonger", then he is living in a Kafka-esque world in which victims become perpetrators and vice versa.
4) K also wants a definition of "weakness". Again, that's his way of denying the obvious, i.e. that there are inumerous forms of weakness and that the weak need to be protected by the strong against predators. Weakness nor strength in itself has no moral connotation. It is the intended actions, and also inaction, of humans that do. There can be no doubt about the mortality of both Chuck Norris and of Kappert, but I have the distinct impression that Norris has a better understanding of the imperative of human morality than Kappert seems to.
Nomenclaturocracy? What a laugh!
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2015-02-22 17:57.
@ Ivan D
I have read your piece on "Nomenclaturocracy" with some interest, and have seldom read so much gobbledygook in just a few pages. It is a melange of old-fashioned Marxist-inspired economic determinism, infantile anti-Americanism (Putin's propaganda seems to be working!), and confusing thoughts.
If one wants to replace the word "elite" by the word "Nomenclatura", that is fine. Just remember that there are positive forms of elitism and negative ones. And never forget, that man (also the common man) is commonly afflicted by contradictory emotions and aspirations. Neither history nor economics are easily understood without some effort reflecting elitism of the mind.
So "direct democracy" can be useful to some extent, for instance through the principle of subsidiarity in fiscal policy, but it is no panacea for anything. Ultimately what counts is moral education, especially honesty. And that is another long story.....
Submitted by Ivan Daraktchiev on Sun, 2015-03-08 11:23.
I have already mentioned to you (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/5115#comments) that I do not aspire for your liking my statements: they are aired for everyone to read and draw their conclusions. That you choose to laugh is your prerogative; I can only share here my observation that TBJ has degraded enormously in terms of quality, compared to the times Paul Belien has run it.
I could agree in calling the NomenKlatura “elite”, provided we have in mind the elite of human trash.
Since you drew my attention, in the abovementioned exchange you have disputed my statement about the events in Ukraine being part of the US proxy war against Russia. In case you are interested in another laugh, please take a look at https://www.academia.edu/6847478/Explaining_Ukraine – it may as well prompt you to revisit your statements.
Laughing or crying?
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2015-03-08 19:45.
Perhaps crying is more appropriate after reading this latest piece of Mr Daraktchiev. Apparently there are not only positive and negative forms of 'elitism', but also of nationalism. And this 'ode to Mother Russia' is a clear example of negative nationalism. Mein Gott, one feels transported in time to the 1930's in nazi-Germany. The same mythical motherland that needs to be defended (indefinitely) by the inevitable 'strong' leader (with sticky fingers) against nefarious forces from abroad. It is another reminder that fascism and communism are two sides of the same totalitarian unfree coin. In Russia just as much as in the Muslim world, China, or among South American Caudillos.
The irony is that this ode to perverted nationalism comes right after the previous advocacy of so-called "direct democracy". Apparently, those poor people in Russia's "borderlands" are not going to have a serious say in the matter.
In life, individuals cannot choose their (biological) parents, and for many of them that is a genuine tragedy. The same applies for peoples who cannot choose their neighbors. Even today in the 21st century, as always, ask the Tibetans, ask the people from the Baltic states, etc....And yet, there are many naive Westerners who believe in (moral) human progress...! They must be wearing sun glasses.
Submitted by Ivan Daraktchiev on Wed, 2015-03-11 13:41.
Mr. or Mrs. marcfrans,
Your hotch-potch of clichés and generalities reveals confused mind and clouded thoughts: I for one can not make much sense of what it is that you want to convince us into. The only conclusion I can draw is that you might be on the payroll of “The Knights Of The Round Table” (per Jon Rappoport) with the minimal obligation to keep firing at anyone who opposes their cause.
On Direct Democracy, it is well known that – even though it is half way – the Swiss system is a practically proven demonstration of its superiority. That is a common knowledge among the majority of the intelligent professionals, world wide, and it goes well beyond those many of us foreginers who have resided there and can make the comparison in practical terms, not just theoretically. Your singular opinion is irrelevant, much the same way as in your comment №1 to Mr. Nikolaas de Jong’s paper (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/5115#comments). Writing “1) It is not because a government has been "democratically elected" that its choice should be "respected".” reveals that you are used to producing nonesense (perhaps with the excuse that you are being paid for it?): are you the speaker for God who is authorized to select whose choice should be respected and whose not? If so, please make the announcement loud and clear so we all should hear it. Or, is it the speaker for PNAC/NWO authors, typically the US President? You seem to believe to be in possession of some higher knowledge that we, the commons do not have a clue about...
On Ukraine and my paper, I will refer again to your comment №1 to above paper: First of all, unlike here, it shows clear mind and consistent thoughts, whether they are correct or wrong (in my opinion, they are just serving a job that might be on the life support by “The Knights”). You – surprisingly – issue a very reasonable statement: “4) Mr de Jong makes many interesting comments and illustrates well how "the West is no longer true to its ideals". But, he would do well to consider how the East Europeans, whom he calls the "last of the Europeans", view the Ukrainian conundrum. After all, they are more concerned than West Europeans in this matter, and perhaps they still can better or more accurately judge degrees of unfreedom.” How come, then, Mr. or Mrs. marcfrans, that you do not respect your own advice to listen to us, East Europeans? You could have boosted – and rightfully so – that I have written my article on Ukraine prompted by writings like yours. I doubt you’ve missed to read – mentioned in some of my papers – that I am exactly one of those East-and-West Europeans most suited to give the opinion in question. Or, if not found in the papers, a quick research in Google would provide the clarification as well.
Hence my question here: are you going to disregard you previous writings every time? Are you changing your mind every next time, or is it that you just have to write something, for the sake of saying something. At one point in time, nobody will take you seriously, my friend.
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2015-03-12 03:04.
@ Ivan D.
You raised 2 serious points. The superfluous/unserious ones I will ignore.
1) On the matter of "respect". Democracy is better than autocracy, viewed from many perspectives, but it cannot be the sole nor ultimate criterion to judge whether a particular action deserves respect. To illustrate, if the Germans 'democratically elected' Hitler and the nazis into power in the 1930's, that does not mean that anyone should "respect" that particular choice. Neither you nor I are "the speaker for God", sir, but we both have a moral duty to make our own judgments concerning what deserves our "respect" and what not. Our disagreement is not about "nationalism" per se. On the contrary, I am very much in favor of nationalism, but not your perverted notion of it. In my worldview, any political system ultimately needs to be judged by the extent to which it can reasonably serve the goal of preserving individual freedom (in the sense of equality-before-the-law, not in terms of equality in any other sense). By that standard, the Swiss indeed have so far succeeded pretty well, but may perhaps no longer in the future.
2) My advice to Westerners that they should listen to East Europeans still stands. They should indeed listen to the voices of East Europeans whose fragile democracies are threathened, once again, by imperialistic ambitions of perverted 'nationalists'. They should listen to Poles, Baltics, Ukrainians, etc... I only speak for myself, but you, sir, have implied either to be speaking for all East Europeans or to be the "most suited" voice to speak for them. And that, "my (facetious) friend", reveals extraordinary mental arrogance.
Submitted by Ivan Daraktchiev on Thu, 2015-03-19 22:22.
Unfortunately we arrived at the same point as in our last exchange a year or so ago. You have not learnt a bit, so I’ll stop wasting my time.
Before I go:
1) No individual or group can claim the prerogative to be selective in terms of respecting democracy, period. Otherwise we would all be complicit with the proclamation of American “exceptionalism” – and as a consequence should share the guilt for the international crime called “regime change”.
2) You apply selectivity to nationalism too: Poles, Baltics and Ukrainians are allowed to be nationalists but the others are perverted, right?
3) Arrogant or not, I do stand by my previous judgement!
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2015-03-20 03:24.
Remarkable, but further clarification seems to be needed.
1) I am afraid that Mr Daraktchiev seems to have very simplistic notions of a difficult concept such as "democracy". Instead of getting into a semantic excursion, I want to make a clear distinction between democracy as a political system and many of the results that can derive from political processes that may have some (always limited) degree of democratic legitimacy. The easy example of the democratically elected nazi-party should have made that clear. Apparently Mr Daraktchiev's moral sensibility cannot distinguish between a superficial method and goals/results. After all, what could democratic legitimacy mean, for example, in an environment in which there is no genuine freedom of speech, or in which the integrity of the ballot is not guaranteed?
2) In principle, everybody should be entitled to be a nationalist or a patriot. That does not mean that everything a political regime does in the name of nationalism would necessarily be morally acceptable. Life, and certainly history, is not that simple, and grownups should know that.
3) Indeed, I did not expect anything else. Fundamentalism (holding beliefs with absolute certainty) and arrogance are very closely related, and almost always go together.
This is indeed the dawning of
Submitted by Ivan Daraktchiev on Sun, 2015-02-22 15:18.
This is indeed the dawning of the Age of Direct Democracy. It has been announced, and discussed in some detail in https://www.academia.edu/4439386/Nomenklaturocracy_or_what_exactly_was_O... .The two options in front of mankind in terms of the road to it are presented in https://www.academia.edu/5804006/The_Revolution_within_Democracy . Hence now the challenge is how to overcome the poisoning effect by "the web of soothing lies" and manage the peaceful transition.