Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...
–Dwight Eisenhower, Apr. 16, 1953.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
How CNN covered the wikileaks Iraq revelations
CNN reporter ... faced with documents revealing the killing/murder of over 100 000 people in Iraq ... completely ignores this ... and instead launches into some weird character-assassination attempt on the messenger (Julian Assange):
The interview starts with something like: "There have been 'a lot of reports' of internal disputes within Wikileaks .... 'People' have said that they've quit etc...". The CNN "reporter" then has to admit that the whole "internal disputes" tangent has been constructed for her around just one former staffer (who had been suspended by wikileaks) ... she nonetheless continues to try and make the whole interview about that disgruntled former employee's personal views of Lassange ... spouting doozies like: "this criticism that the story around you is eclipsing the work of Wikileaks ... must concern you ... etc". The irony in her own line of questioning (culminating in that last question) apparently didn't strike her .
And one wonders if this astoundingly stupid (or "sold-out") reporter really considers herself to be doing ... "journalism". I'm surprised Lassange didn't tell her to go f***k herself. Yet this kind of drivel passes for serious news-coverage in the USA. One can imagine that this is meant to make everybody forget the very real, very serious and very troublingly "newsworthy" (and legal) questions that are raised by the death of these many tens of thousands of people.
The interview starts with something like: "There have been 'a lot of reports' of internal disputes within Wikileaks .... 'People' have said that they've quit etc...". The CNN "reporter" then has to admit that the whole "internal disputes" tangent has been constructed for her around just one former staffer (who had been suspended by wikileaks) ... she nonetheless continues to try and make the whole interview about that disgruntled former employee's personal views of Lassange ... spouting doozies like: "this criticism that the story around you is eclipsing the work of Wikileaks ... must concern you ... etc". The irony in her own line of questioning (culminating in that last question) apparently didn't strike her .
And one wonders if this astoundingly stupid (or "sold-out") reporter really considers herself to be doing ... "journalism". I'm surprised Lassange didn't tell her to go f***k herself. Yet this kind of drivel passes for serious news-coverage in the USA. One can imagine that this is meant to make everybody forget the very real, very serious and very troublingly "newsworthy" (and legal) questions that are raised by the death of these many tens of thousands of people.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Though Charlemagne has always tended to be hostile to Europe, as is typical of the Brits, last week's 'The Economist' does not simply display its customary anti-European slant, it does so in an especially nonsensical manner. And that is disappointing. I've long been a fan of 'The Economist' magazine, considering it be one of the precious few sources of intelligent current-affairs analysis in English.
To illustrate, the article starts:
"VIEWED from afar, Europeans are a complacent, ungrateful lot. Nannied from cradle to grave by the world’s most generous welfare systems, they squeal like spoiled children when asked to give up just a few of their playthings."
"Squeal", "spoiled children" and "playthings"?!? And of course what this author is referring to as "playthings" are useless toys like ... a decent healthcare, a decent standard of living (for regular citizens) and ... generally ... a government doing the job it is meant to be doing ... namely to try and improve the lives of its citizens. Brits are 'subjects', as opposed to 'citizens', and maybe they forget what a government is for, but still ... WTF?
And it's like that for the whole article:
"Even President Nicolas Sarkozy, usually averse to abstract nouns, has spoken of “the politics of civilisation” and asked economists to measure output in terms of happiness, not just [economic] growth. Put simply, if Europe stands for something, it is decent treatment for all. To this way of thinking, to guarantee a comfortable retirement is akin to banning child labour or giving women the vote: not optional perks, but badges of a civilised society. Such social preferences are what Europe is for, and what makes it different from America"
And according to this author this is a bad thing!!! He offers "America" (the United States of ) as the 'right' model. He seems to consider that a "high standard of living" ... ought not to be shared by the majority of citizens but must instead be reflected by bizarre extravagance from some economically boated multi-gazillionaires ... the lifestyles of whom the majority of citizens may vicariously enjoy through vacuous 'lifestyle' TV and magazines.
The article ends thus:
"Until now, much of Europe has chosen to put its values before growth. In reality, the 35-hour working week in France was not a mark of progress, but a brake on job creation and a spur to deindustrialisation to lower-cost countries; the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it. Retirement at 60 in an ageing society is not a sign of civilisation, but a cruel joke played on the next generation. The Euro-zone crisis has exposed such hypocrisy. It may still take time before Europeans conclude that they must compromise their ideals in order to secure the growth needed to preserve what they can of their lifestyles. But if they did, that would be real progress."
So, this guy scoffs that "the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it". Well, how much money do you really need to read Montaigne in a park, meet a friend at a cafe, invite friends for a spaghetti-dinner or take your family on a pick-nick in the beautiful French countryside? Instead, this article is basically advocating unhappiness for the sake of stuff like 'job creation', 'economic growth' and 'more money'. Stuck in a 'going to the mall' mentality, for him, 'free time' can only mean 'time to consume stuff'. It's simply idiotic!
The Economist's Charlemagne
To illustrate, the article starts:
"VIEWED from afar, Europeans are a complacent, ungrateful lot. Nannied from cradle to grave by the world’s most generous welfare systems, they squeal like spoiled children when asked to give up just a few of their playthings."
"Squeal", "spoiled children" and "playthings"?!? And of course what this author is referring to as "playthings" are useless toys like ... a decent healthcare, a decent standard of living (for regular citizens) and ... generally ... a government doing the job it is meant to be doing ... namely to try and improve the lives of its citizens. Brits are 'subjects', as opposed to 'citizens', and maybe they forget what a government is for, but still ... WTF?
And it's like that for the whole article:
"Even President Nicolas Sarkozy, usually averse to abstract nouns, has spoken of “the politics of civilisation” and asked economists to measure output in terms of happiness, not just [economic] growth. Put simply, if Europe stands for something, it is decent treatment for all. To this way of thinking, to guarantee a comfortable retirement is akin to banning child labour or giving women the vote: not optional perks, but badges of a civilised society. Such social preferences are what Europe is for, and what makes it different from America"
And according to this author this is a bad thing!!! He offers "America" (the United States of ) as the 'right' model. He seems to consider that a "high standard of living" ... ought not to be shared by the majority of citizens but must instead be reflected by bizarre extravagance from some economically boated multi-gazillionaires ... the lifestyles of whom the majority of citizens may vicariously enjoy through vacuous 'lifestyle' TV and magazines.
The article ends thus:
"Until now, much of Europe has chosen to put its values before growth. In reality, the 35-hour working week in France was not a mark of progress, but a brake on job creation and a spur to deindustrialisation to lower-cost countries; the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it. Retirement at 60 in an ageing society is not a sign of civilisation, but a cruel joke played on the next generation. The Euro-zone crisis has exposed such hypocrisy. It may still take time before Europeans conclude that they must compromise their ideals in order to secure the growth needed to preserve what they can of their lifestyles. But if they did, that would be real progress."
So, this guy scoffs that "the French may have more time on their hands, but they have little money to do anything with it". Well, how much money do you really need to read Montaigne in a park, meet a friend at a cafe, invite friends for a spaghetti-dinner or take your family on a pick-nick in the beautiful French countryside? Instead, this article is basically advocating unhappiness for the sake of stuff like 'job creation', 'economic growth' and 'more money'. Stuck in a 'going to the mall' mentality, for him, 'free time' can only mean 'time to consume stuff'. It's simply idiotic!
The Economist's Charlemagne
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Democracy: The European Parliament Elections
"From Strasbourg with indifference
The rich world’s biggest election, with 375m potential voters, ought to be both exciting and uplifting. Yet campaigning ahead of this weekend’s election (June 07, 2009) to the European Parliament has been neither. Almost everywhere it has focused exclusively on national issues, not European ones. In several countries a ragbag of extremists, nutcases and xenophobes look set to win seats. And the turnout, which has fallen in every European election since 1979, may yet sink to a new low.
The fact is that Europe’s electors do not care about their parliament. Most do not bother to vote. Those who do take the excuse to cock a snook at their national governments and boost fringe parties. In so far as they have any view about the European Parliament, they see it as a talking-shop with no influence—a place that lavishes its unknown members with pay, pensions and expenses and wastes oodles of euros every month on a ludicrous commute from Brussels to Strasbourg.
Some (but not all) of this is either unfair or plain wrong. The European Parliament has real power—and will become still more powerful if the European Union’s Lisbon treaty is ratified (see article). In many ways MEPs have more say over legislation than do most of their national counterparts. In recent years a few hardworking MEPs have wielded a decisive influence on the final shape of EU directives that ranged from chemicals and services to animal rights and working hours. And the parliament has, in effect, arrogated to itself the power to reject national governments’ appointments to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. Even its much-abused expenses system is being cleaned up, though at the cost of higher salaries for most MEPs."
Complete article at the Ecomomist.com
The rich world’s biggest election, with 375m potential voters, ought to be both exciting and uplifting. Yet campaigning ahead of this weekend’s election (June 07, 2009) to the European Parliament has been neither. Almost everywhere it has focused exclusively on national issues, not European ones. In several countries a ragbag of extremists, nutcases and xenophobes look set to win seats. And the turnout, which has fallen in every European election since 1979, may yet sink to a new low.
The fact is that Europe’s electors do not care about their parliament. Most do not bother to vote. Those who do take the excuse to cock a snook at their national governments and boost fringe parties. In so far as they have any view about the European Parliament, they see it as a talking-shop with no influence—a place that lavishes its unknown members with pay, pensions and expenses and wastes oodles of euros every month on a ludicrous commute from Brussels to Strasbourg.
Some (but not all) of this is either unfair or plain wrong. The European Parliament has real power—and will become still more powerful if the European Union’s Lisbon treaty is ratified (see article). In many ways MEPs have more say over legislation than do most of their national counterparts. In recent years a few hardworking MEPs have wielded a decisive influence on the final shape of EU directives that ranged from chemicals and services to animal rights and working hours. And the parliament has, in effect, arrogated to itself the power to reject national governments’ appointments to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. Even its much-abused expenses system is being cleaned up, though at the cost of higher salaries for most MEPs."
Complete article at the Ecomomist.com
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Elections in the usoA
Elections in the usoA
Or how a bad president can be good for a country.
It has traditionally been an unspoken rule in the usoA, that presidents are males from good, rich, politically connected, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant families. People have subconsciously associated these types with that “right stuff” needed for their presidency. It looks quite likely however, that his year the next president of that country will either be a democratic woman or a … half-Negro/black/person-of-colour/African-American (or whatever one must say is according to the PC Gestapo) from a Muslim family … in any case … somebody who doesn’t fit the “typical” description.
Should this be surprising?
Of course not! The last time … the usoA elected just the “right” kind of president. His name, as we all know, is “George W. Bush”. He was of the right gender, from the right family of the right religion who went to the right schools and belonged to the right clubs. But he turned out to be such an appalling disaster that worse could not be imagined even for use in fiction.
George W. Bush has managed the almost impossible feat of combining all the potential faults that can be crammed into just one person. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Mr Bush is stupid … and we are talking borderline retarded here (no offence to the mentally challenged). This genius furthermore believes himself sanctioned by God, with Whom he apparently likes to have daily conversations, giving us a pretty good indication that he is also a religious fanatic. And that the fact that, as commander in chief, he basically ordered the purposeful murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal attack on their country also means that if evil if what you want, he’s your man. An added bonus of this of course is that the use of false pretences to launch his country into an unjustified war also makes him a traitor. And … well … let’s just leave it at that for now, as the point I’m trying to make here should already be fairly clear:
The citizens of the usoA figure that if the “right” kind of president ends up being a stupid, fanatical, evil, traitor … well maybe it’s time to look around for more options. It would basically be impossible for the “wrong” kind of president to be as terrible as that guy. It is thus a ironical fact that in a way, Bush has achieved a great act by having turned out to be such a piece of scum. He opened up the field to more options. Thanks to him the first woman or black man in the history of his country will take the office of president.
I imagine that if a Black Muslim lesbian woman in a wheelchair could have been found for candidacy … the trouble of elections could even have been avoided altogether … they would have moved her right into the Whitehouse! :)
Cheers!
Or how a bad president can be good for a country.
It has traditionally been an unspoken rule in the usoA, that presidents are males from good, rich, politically connected, white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant families. People have subconsciously associated these types with that “right stuff” needed for their presidency. It looks quite likely however, that his year the next president of that country will either be a democratic woman or a … half-Negro/black/person-of-colour/African-American (or whatever one must say is according to the PC Gestapo) from a Muslim family … in any case … somebody who doesn’t fit the “typical” description.
Should this be surprising?
Of course not! The last time … the usoA elected just the “right” kind of president. His name, as we all know, is “George W. Bush”. He was of the right gender, from the right family of the right religion who went to the right schools and belonged to the right clubs. But he turned out to be such an appalling disaster that worse could not be imagined even for use in fiction.
George W. Bush has managed the almost impossible feat of combining all the potential faults that can be crammed into just one person. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Mr Bush is stupid … and we are talking borderline retarded here (no offence to the mentally challenged). This genius furthermore believes himself sanctioned by God, with Whom he apparently likes to have daily conversations, giving us a pretty good indication that he is also a religious fanatic. And that the fact that, as commander in chief, he basically ordered the purposeful murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal attack on their country also means that if evil if what you want, he’s your man. An added bonus of this of course is that the use of false pretences to launch his country into an unjustified war also makes him a traitor. And … well … let’s just leave it at that for now, as the point I’m trying to make here should already be fairly clear:
The citizens of the usoA figure that if the “right” kind of president ends up being a stupid, fanatical, evil, traitor … well maybe it’s time to look around for more options. It would basically be impossible for the “wrong” kind of president to be as terrible as that guy. It is thus a ironical fact that in a way, Bush has achieved a great act by having turned out to be such a piece of scum. He opened up the field to more options. Thanks to him the first woman or black man in the history of his country will take the office of president.
I imagine that if a Black Muslim lesbian woman in a wheelchair could have been found for candidacy … the trouble of elections could even have been avoided altogether … they would have moved her right into the Whitehouse! :)
Cheers!
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Nuclear Weapons: Iran and North Korea
Most people (outside of Iran and North Korean) would probably tend to agree that it is preferable for the types of "unfriendly"(?) governments, characterised by these two countries, not to have nuclear arsenals.
If so, we must decide what kind of coherent policy civilised countries can advance to deal realistically with the phenomenon.
We must take tangible steps to make the argument credible ... that if such governments decide to opt out of developing WMD arsenals ... they will nonetheless be safe. We must be weary (to say the least) of Bush-type imbeciles being allowed to commit international crimes. By now, few people ignore that International law, human rights and the principles of civilisation were not taken into account during the invasion of Iraq. This means that countries like the usoA, traditionally a voice of reason, have no ethical legitimacy to speak of anymore. This makes everything more difficult.
And it was all foreseeable.
And those surreal infomercials that pass for “news”, "debate" or 'analysis" in the usoA don't help. It's like a good-cop-bad-cop routine with CNN and FOX playing each role. Thing is ... the world is much less stupid than the neocons seem to think it is.
What did they think would happen when they responded to Iraqi disarmament by promptly invading that weakened country!?! Did they really think that they would get away with killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands ... then have the bad taste to try to prop up a puppet regime made of any corrupt -or desperate- Iraqi they could find (including the worse among the thugs from the previous regime) ... and then tie a ribbon around it all and try to call it ... “Iraqi democracy!”?
Won’t some people realise that it’s most peculiar that a “democratic government” should need some foreign invasion force to protect its members from being lynched by the people?
At this point neocon actions have made people all over our planet ask themselves: How dearly can we make them pay if they attack us? And feeling under threat, people are reverting to primordial instincts, as they always do. This tends to favour all kinds of dictatorial immune responses. And everyone is trying their best to arm themselves as lethally (WMDs), as fast, and as covertly as possible. They figure that they need to, just in case.
Basically, the principles of civilisation, international law and enlightened reason have been hit hard. And we are now facing the possibility of new dark ages. And we must work hard to avoid that. Things are worse off than they should be ... but still solvable.
If so, we must decide what kind of coherent policy civilised countries can advance to deal realistically with the phenomenon.
We must take tangible steps to make the argument credible ... that if such governments decide to opt out of developing WMD arsenals ... they will nonetheless be safe. We must be weary (to say the least) of Bush-type imbeciles being allowed to commit international crimes. By now, few people ignore that International law, human rights and the principles of civilisation were not taken into account during the invasion of Iraq. This means that countries like the usoA, traditionally a voice of reason, have no ethical legitimacy to speak of anymore. This makes everything more difficult.
And it was all foreseeable.
And those surreal infomercials that pass for “news”, "debate" or 'analysis" in the usoA don't help. It's like a good-cop-bad-cop routine with CNN and FOX playing each role. Thing is ... the world is much less stupid than the neocons seem to think it is.
What did they think would happen when they responded to Iraqi disarmament by promptly invading that weakened country!?! Did they really think that they would get away with killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands ... then have the bad taste to try to prop up a puppet regime made of any corrupt -or desperate- Iraqi they could find (including the worse among the thugs from the previous regime) ... and then tie a ribbon around it all and try to call it ... “Iraqi democracy!”?
Won’t some people realise that it’s most peculiar that a “democratic government” should need some foreign invasion force to protect its members from being lynched by the people?
At this point neocon actions have made people all over our planet ask themselves: How dearly can we make them pay if they attack us? And feeling under threat, people are reverting to primordial instincts, as they always do. This tends to favour all kinds of dictatorial immune responses. And everyone is trying their best to arm themselves as lethally (WMDs), as fast, and as covertly as possible. They figure that they need to, just in case.
Basically, the principles of civilisation, international law and enlightened reason have been hit hard. And we are now facing the possibility of new dark ages. And we must work hard to avoid that. Things are worse off than they should be ... but still solvable.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Biology vs religious "biology"
Let us perform a “Gedankenexperiment”:
Let us imagine an ideal rational thinker in a jungle studying earth biology. He is not influenced by any religion … not Zoroastrianism not Judaism not Christianism not Hinduism not Buddhism ... no preconceived notions, no creation myths, no paranormal nonsense.
He examines all life forms there, including some primitive hunter-gathering humans in their huts.
This scientist observes, experiments, thinks and eventually, using reason, draws conclusions.
He would notice that the essential biological differences are not between humans on the one hand and all other animals on the other … but rather ... between some animal groups and some other animal groups of this planet. There are differences between reptiles and mammals, between plants and animals or between sexually reproducing vs asexually reproducing life forms.
In terms of similarities within lifeform-types like "the great apes," there is practically no essential physiological difference but for hair, stance and of course the fact that humans are much smarter than any other ape. There is of course this difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees ... BUT humans are not so much smarter compared to chimps than chimps are compared to, let’s say, worms.
As it is, on what rational basis would our biologist come up with a scientific theory according to which humans are a biological entity entirely alien to all other life forms? To claim that humans are the result of a separate act of creation is simply not supported by observation. Coming up with the theory that … the human (male) was created apart by some paranormal entity, that the human female was made from his rib … supernaturally … and that none of this had anything to do with any of the other similarly (sexually) reproducing life forms ... can only be a fairytale ... not science.
Humans are born just like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins are and then they eat, piss, shit, play, fuck, sleep, die and do basically what all other mammals do.Again, the big biological differences are between some animal groups and some other animal groups. Humans simply belong to one of these groups. The structural physiological differences between a dolphin and a shark, for example, are much more essential, than those between a human and another ape. Humans are brilliant but biologically they function exactly like the other animals.
If unlike other mammals each human, was born by appearing from nowhere with the sounds of trumpets as a result of a prayer ... well ... then ... I guess that the religious myths would make more sense.
PS)
We humans are our own and our ecosystem's greatest threat ... but ... if the goal is for our type of intelligent life to make well into the future ... as in millions of years into it ... then ... in the very long run, we are also it's only hope.
But right now, we are still stuck in primitive superstition! It may be time to start getting serious again about reason. It is not a trivial concern. If we do not start thinking about some real basic steps to improve our species' chances for the next millennia ... but instead spend our time, energy and intelligence arguing over fairy tales, magical beings and such similar nonsense ... we might one day find ourselves in a situation of too little, too late.
If this does happen, the loss of our happiness, the unnecessary suffering and even possibly our extinction could have been caused by those of us too stupid, weak and disingenuous to face the still manageable realities of our one and only planet as it hurls through space.
Let us imagine an ideal rational thinker in a jungle studying earth biology. He is not influenced by any religion … not Zoroastrianism not Judaism not Christianism not Hinduism not Buddhism ... no preconceived notions, no creation myths, no paranormal nonsense.
He examines all life forms there, including some primitive hunter-gathering humans in their huts.
This scientist observes, experiments, thinks and eventually, using reason, draws conclusions.
He would notice that the essential biological differences are not between humans on the one hand and all other animals on the other … but rather ... between some animal groups and some other animal groups of this planet. There are differences between reptiles and mammals, between plants and animals or between sexually reproducing vs asexually reproducing life forms.
In terms of similarities within lifeform-types like "the great apes," there is practically no essential physiological difference but for hair, stance and of course the fact that humans are much smarter than any other ape. There is of course this difference in intelligence between humans and chimpanzees ... BUT humans are not so much smarter compared to chimps than chimps are compared to, let’s say, worms.
As it is, on what rational basis would our biologist come up with a scientific theory according to which humans are a biological entity entirely alien to all other life forms? To claim that humans are the result of a separate act of creation is simply not supported by observation. Coming up with the theory that … the human (male) was created apart by some paranormal entity, that the human female was made from his rib … supernaturally … and that none of this had anything to do with any of the other similarly (sexually) reproducing life forms ... can only be a fairytale ... not science.
Humans are born just like dogs, cats, horses and dolphins are and then they eat, piss, shit, play, fuck, sleep, die and do basically what all other mammals do.Again, the big biological differences are between some animal groups and some other animal groups. Humans simply belong to one of these groups. The structural physiological differences between a dolphin and a shark, for example, are much more essential, than those between a human and another ape. Humans are brilliant but biologically they function exactly like the other animals.
If unlike other mammals each human, was born by appearing from nowhere with the sounds of trumpets as a result of a prayer ... well ... then ... I guess that the religious myths would make more sense.
PS)
We humans are our own and our ecosystem's greatest threat ... but ... if the goal is for our type of intelligent life to make well into the future ... as in millions of years into it ... then ... in the very long run, we are also it's only hope.
But right now, we are still stuck in primitive superstition! It may be time to start getting serious again about reason. It is not a trivial concern. If we do not start thinking about some real basic steps to improve our species' chances for the next millennia ... but instead spend our time, energy and intelligence arguing over fairy tales, magical beings and such similar nonsense ... we might one day find ourselves in a situation of too little, too late.
If this does happen, the loss of our happiness, the unnecessary suffering and even possibly our extinction could have been caused by those of us too stupid, weak and disingenuous to face the still manageable realities of our one and only planet as it hurls through space.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!
"Kill 'em all and let God sort them out!"
This expression, that marines from protestant countries' seem to be quite fond of, is rarely understood within the context of its actual origin. Often attributed, especially on the internet, to some non-existent “Amal Ulric” whose name appears to be a distorted reference to the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric, the expression was inspired by the Bible's "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. ii. 19). It was uttered during the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, a crusade led by the French Knight Simon de Montfort and recorded in Latin by a German observer, Caesarius Von Heisterbach:
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius".
About Von Heisterbach's original quote
About De Monfort
About the Albigensian Crusade
The Albigensian crusade, called by Pope Innocent III, was akin to the ones that had been going on against the Muslims. This time however, it was not meant to “liberate” towns and cities from Islam, but from a Christian heresy: That of the Cathari, a dualist Christian group who derived their name from the Greek 'Katharos', meaning 'pure'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
In 1207 the pope asked Philippe II Auguste, the King of France, to go to war against any nobles who permitted the Cathari to openly practice their faith. The French King did not comply however, as he had to first deal with an alliance of the English, the Flemish and the Germans … who had all joined in an attack against him. It is only after 1214, after he defeated them that he turned his attention to the unfortunate Cathari.
In the meantime, Simon de Montfort with pious liberation in mind ... and thirty thousand French knights and soldiers ... went to Gothia at the foothills of the Pyrenees to “save souls". Tough he had previously distinguished himself by refusing to attack fellow Christians in Constantinople, here ... well ... the extermination that he engendered was apparently so terrible that it is sometimes referred to as the first case of "genocide":
On July 22, 1209, as they broke through to Beziers (where between 10 000 and 20 000 Catholics had all courageously refused to surrender the about 200 to 500 Catharis in their midsts), the Crusaders asked Arnaud Amalric how to differentiate between the heretics and the good Catholics located in the city. He is said to have replied:"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaîtra les siens!"
“Kill them all. God will know his own!”
Such an act may have been somewhat natural in the Middle Ages, when Christians felt that life on earth was simply a preparation for the hereafter. If all were killed, the Catholics would ascend to Heaven and the heretics would go to Hell. In their minds, these knights were doing God's work.
But today? This could make sense ... but only if we were to fall back into medieval mentalities ... distinguished by the superstition, ignorance and violence that were characteristic during the dark ages. And sometimes it seems that religious fundamentalists in Muslim countries, in Israel and in the usA are doing a pretty good job doing just that. Way to go!
Anyway, the Cathari were the initial targets, but eventually the Waldensians, Fraticelli, Knights Templar, and (much later) Protestants all perished by this medieval mentality
And many of those who like to think that they are emulating the "Kill them all and let God sort it out!" ... might be surprised to know that, unless they are Catholic, they themselves would have promptly been put to the sword as despicable heretics by the French Crusader knights who originated the expression.
PS) In France the royal guard was instructed one day in 1572 to kill every group of Protestants that they found. The King, justifying it on reasons of national security, had 10 000 Protestants slaughtered in Paris alone. Many Catholics were only too happy to do away with them.
When news of this holocaust reached Pope Gregory XIII, his joy was so great that he had Giorgio Vasari paint pictures in the Vatican of "the glorious triumph over a perfidious race."
The anniversary of the event was celebrated in France as a great Christian victory against heresy for centuries thereafter.
On the Massacre
These celebrations would so disgust Voltaire that he would become physically ill.
This expression, that marines from protestant countries' seem to be quite fond of, is rarely understood within the context of its actual origin. Often attributed, especially on the internet, to some non-existent “Amal Ulric” whose name appears to be a distorted reference to the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric, the expression was inspired by the Bible's "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. ii. 19). It was uttered during the Albigensian Crusade of 1209, a crusade led by the French Knight Simon de Montfort and recorded in Latin by a German observer, Caesarius Von Heisterbach:
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius".
About Von Heisterbach's original quote
About De Monfort
About the Albigensian Crusade
The Albigensian crusade, called by Pope Innocent III, was akin to the ones that had been going on against the Muslims. This time however, it was not meant to “liberate” towns and cities from Islam, but from a Christian heresy: That of the Cathari, a dualist Christian group who derived their name from the Greek 'Katharos', meaning 'pure'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
In 1207 the pope asked Philippe II Auguste, the King of France, to go to war against any nobles who permitted the Cathari to openly practice their faith. The French King did not comply however, as he had to first deal with an alliance of the English, the Flemish and the Germans … who had all joined in an attack against him. It is only after 1214, after he defeated them that he turned his attention to the unfortunate Cathari.
In the meantime, Simon de Montfort with pious liberation in mind ... and thirty thousand French knights and soldiers ... went to Gothia at the foothills of the Pyrenees to “save souls". Tough he had previously distinguished himself by refusing to attack fellow Christians in Constantinople, here ... well ... the extermination that he engendered was apparently so terrible that it is sometimes referred to as the first case of "genocide":
On July 22, 1209, as they broke through to Beziers (where between 10 000 and 20 000 Catholics had all courageously refused to surrender the about 200 to 500 Catharis in their midsts), the Crusaders asked Arnaud Amalric how to differentiate between the heretics and the good Catholics located in the city. He is said to have replied:"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaîtra les siens!"
“Kill them all. God will know his own!”
"Cognoscentes ex confessionibus illorum catholicos cum haereticis esse permixtos, dixerunt Abbati: Quid faciemus, domine? Non possumus discernere inter bonos et malos. Timens tam Abbas quam reliqui, ne tantum timore mortis se catholicos simularent, et post ipsorum abcessum iterum ad perfidiam redirent, fertur dixisse: Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." "When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" |
Such an act may have been somewhat natural in the Middle Ages, when Christians felt that life on earth was simply a preparation for the hereafter. If all were killed, the Catholics would ascend to Heaven and the heretics would go to Hell. In their minds, these knights were doing God's work.
But today? This could make sense ... but only if we were to fall back into medieval mentalities ... distinguished by the superstition, ignorance and violence that were characteristic during the dark ages. And sometimes it seems that religious fundamentalists in Muslim countries, in Israel and in the usA are doing a pretty good job doing just that. Way to go!
Anyway, the Cathari were the initial targets, but eventually the Waldensians, Fraticelli, Knights Templar, and (much later) Protestants all perished by this medieval mentality
And many of those who like to think that they are emulating the "Kill them all and let God sort it out!" ... might be surprised to know that, unless they are Catholic, they themselves would have promptly been put to the sword as despicable heretics by the French Crusader knights who originated the expression.
PS) In France the royal guard was instructed one day in 1572 to kill every group of Protestants that they found. The King, justifying it on reasons of national security, had 10 000 Protestants slaughtered in Paris alone. Many Catholics were only too happy to do away with them.
When news of this holocaust reached Pope Gregory XIII, his joy was so great that he had Giorgio Vasari paint pictures in the Vatican of "the glorious triumph over a perfidious race."
The anniversary of the event was celebrated in France as a great Christian victory against heresy for centuries thereafter.
On the Massacre
These celebrations would so disgust Voltaire that he would become physically ill.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Civilisation vs Barbarism (Huntington and Fukuyama)
In my view, both Huntington (and Fukuyama to whom he is often contrasted) use conceptual categories that will soon show to be of limited relevance in terms of this century’s central ideological conflicts.
Basically, what Huntington has done is to try and comprehend what consequences the reduction of meaningful diversity between nation-states (the political entities we are used to thinking about) will have. He proposes that since nation-states are becoming less conceptually important, future historical developments will occur along the lines of … “civilisations” … and more specifically a kind of tribal/cultural clash between what is often (erroneously) called “Western Civilisation” and … “the rest”.
He tells us:
“It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
He also tells us:
“The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani's phrase, the conflict between "the West and the Rest" and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. Those responses generally take one or a combination of three forms. At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or "corruption" by the West, and, in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community. The costs of this course, however, are high, and few states have pursued it exclusively. A second alternative, the equivalent of "band- wagoning" in international relations theory, is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions. The third alternative is to attempt to "balance" the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize.”
And he concludes:
“Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.”
And that’s about it. That is the gist of his contribution. I find it obvious, simplistic and irrelevant to what is already starting to take place. Of course the nation state is conceptually less crucial today than in the early part of this century. And of course the concept of a civilisation has meaning. And of course various civilisations will “clash” to some degree. It’s all true … but it’s also trivially so because civilisations clash in a way that is only marginally different from clashing nation-states.
What Huntington is basically saying is this: It’s not about nations states … it’s about …”civilisations”! Did he come up with that all by himself? :) He simply uses larger groupings of people to grandiosely exclaim: “Clash of Civilisations”! And of course some people in the USA think that something interesting was said.
This would be fine I guess if there was something to it … but there isn’t. This is NOT what the conflict is about. Something much more interesting is going on. There is a clash of civilisation going on but it is the conflict between civilisation with a capital C and … what used to be called barbarism.
Let me explain: What Huntington means by “Western Civilisation” is more accurately described by the terms “European Civilisation”. And it travelled to America, Australia and many other places with European settlers. None of this matters of course and this civilisation was not much better than any other … BUT for just one little thing:
European civilisation at some point in history placed an unusual emphasis on … “reason”. Now, today this doesn’t seem like much but keep in mind that at the time everyone was up to their neck in magical explanations of the world. People everywhere were not as concerned about solving problems through observation and logic but about fixing their relationships with this or that deity … praying begging and all the rest … calling for supernatural interventions.
Contrasted to the authoritarian/tribal/superstitious/magical/religious perspectives that characterised the other civilisations … a consensus/scientific/rational perspective emerged in Europe. And THIS is what made the difference … a difference that led to conceptual, scientific and technological advances, to both the American and French revolutions and to the rest of the ideals that characterise us.
And this is where the clash occurs ... yet again. And this time, the USA chose the wrong path. It has been tempted and succumbed … abandoning its original enlightenment ideals. It manages to both go fundamentalist and to represent everything that is unholy in humans: Though they pay lip service to the original European ideals, one knows today that if something is good … the USA is actually against it … from the International Criminal Court, to the peaceful union of Europe, to International Law, to the environment, to Human Rights and even to arms control. Though they support a bizarre kind of “targeted arms control” (to soften up countries that they might want to invade) ... general arms control they actually hate … and they typically spend more on weaponry than anyone else … by very very far ... to inforce "disarmament" no doubt!
Invading disarmed countries, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians … “for their own good” … kidnapping people, incarcerating them without due process or any judicial protection and even torturing them seems to become more their kind of thing. They thus have become just another barbarian people. They are trying to establish a protection racket.
Not too long ago, the enlightened ideas that characterised Europe seemed to have spread planet-wise … with the USA as its most proud proponent … and now Europe has lost one of its few standard-bearers of civilisation.
And THIS is what it’s all about: The real coming conflict is between reason and all kinds of racist/religious/nationalist zealots. There is no “fundamental” (pardon the expression) difference between Islamic-fundamentalists, Judaic-Zionist-fundamentalists or Christian-fundamentalists.
And it’s absurd for anyone to claim that their own specific dogma is IT… that they know how God thinks ... and that he is “a jealous God” who is into punishing humans over which faith they were born into. But all of the fanatics will claim exactly that. THEY, and only they, are the way to salvation you see. And the creepiest part of it all is that we know, from historical experience, that if we actually give these kind of people any real power, they will do horrible things … dark-ages style!
Basically Huntington models his thinking (without crediting it) on that of the ancient Greeks. They recognised a long time ago the obvious differentiation of the conflicts between the Greek City-States and those between the whole Greek civilisation and the barbarians (non Greeks). And by simply reapplying these ancient conceptual categories to current events, this guy pretends he has done his job of thinking about what is occuring today.
Problem is … this is the wrong situation. What the current situation is like is rather that of the renaissance … in reverse. And the upcoming conflict will be between those who want to establish some computerised-neo-dark-ages and those who will work for an enlightened computerised-neo-renaissance. It’s ... again ... between reason and ... hum ... un-reason.
And if the divine exists, reason is the path to it … and it can be argued that that’s why the ability to reason exists. We can, other words, reason ... for a reason (so to speak). It’s about understanding why … “thou shall not kill” for example … without being threatened by the supernatural punishments of some deity.
Of course, reason means responsibility … and the fact that the organised decisions we make today absolutely determine ... FOR REAL … our future, the human race’s future, life’s future … THAT ... is too much to bear. The safety of dogma with a foretold and inevitable armagedon dispensing us of any responsibility about the next generations … well it seems so soothing. It's just like a drug.
And by the way, by “reason” I don’t just mean science/engineering (knowing how to do) but also and most importantly … ethics (choosing what to do). If, for example, some sick or ruthless or stupid scientist shows no better sense than to engage in altering animals into genetic freaks ... in order to increase stock prices for some corporation ...
...well …
... that is not “reasonable” … that is stupid and evil and bad and everything else you can throw at it.
But anyway … enough for now.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)