Glad to say, I'm not a highly-paid court intellectual, or don't have three words in my name, or a Ph.D from some effete eastern university. So, I am reduced to using what creakingly passes for my common sense. Compared to the aforementioned groups, though, I'm a genius.
My common sense notes with great dismay that there is only one way an army can defeat guerillas: kill everyone. I don't mean an amateurish one million or two million or three million people, the way the US did in Vietnam . I mean go all Genghis Khan on them--waste everyone.
It's impossible for an army to tell who is a guerilla and who isn't. They're always befuddled, no matter what glowing reports they feed to the masses back home. Stripping people naked and stacking them into pyramids might help a tiny little bit, but it's not going to put an end to the guerilla problem. Moving up to pliers and fingernails would be much more effective. Cigarette lighters, too. They won't put an end to the guerilla problem, either, but they sure are an awful lot of fun if you're a sadist.
A guerilla might be a cab driver by day, and at night shoot an occupying soldier, even if he's a lousy shot and only gets one a month. That makes him a guerilla, right? Or is it a terrorist? Or is it a dead-ender? I wish the propagandists would make up their minds.
Since armies cannot tell who is and who isn't, the only way to put a permanent stop to guerilla warfare is to rub everyone out--men, women, children, babies. We don't need to go so far as they did in the old days and bump off the goats and sheep. They can't use mortars.
Ancient amoral pagans--which is what they were--rubbing everyone out put a permanent end to attacks. Remember what Rome did to Carthage ? No one can fight if everyone is dead.
So, I think we should use the Romans’ lesson plan! No more pussyfooting around with those Iraqis and Aghans! Forget imposing the wacked-out leftist dream of democracy on them, or dragging them into the 20th Century. It won't work, and besides, it's for wusses. We need some more blood and iron, or, in the case of FreeRepublic, making water and weak knees.
We should do like National Review's nancy-boy Rich Lowry suggested--nuke Mecca and Medina ! Admittedly, nuclear weapons can be pretty dirty. Those two cities might be uninhabitable for a while, but you know the old saying, can't fuse the desert sand without vaporating a lot of people.
Besides, those two cities are surrounded by a couple of zillion square miles of sand. Who wants to live there, anyway? Just be precise with those nukes and make sure the oil wells remain untouched. All the soccer mommies with the SUVs and cellphones glued to their ears will be elated.
Maybe instead we should just set up death camps. Those Nazi blueprints must be lying around somewhere. I'm sure William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Max Boot, Douglas Feith and similar traitorous vermin would happily be the kommandants of such places. Kristol looks like Simon Bar Sinister, anyway.
Round up all those ragheads and march them right in! What was that Stalin said? "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million men is a statistic"? Let's make all of them statistics.
And you know what? The guerilla problem will be ended permanently.
Okay, maybe not. My common sense tells me croaking everyone is a short-term solution, indeed a Pyrrhic victory. A people, a culture and a country that would off everyone would have to be so degraded and immoral they would collapse. Maybe that's why all those empires in the past that engaged in such activities are no longer around. The communists, the Nazis, the fascists--hey, where are those guys, anyway? I don't think we want to follow in their footsteps.
As Ernest Hemingway wrote, "You can wipe out your opponents. But if you do it unjustly, you become eligible for being wiped out yourself."
Ah, shoot--we are following in their footsteps, albeit not perfectly. Instead of setting up death camps, the US blockades countries for 10 years, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. We get rid of our nuclear waste by making it into depleted uranium rounds and polluting other countries. The bloodthirsty sheeple cheer from the sidelines. We all know they have no intention of making their way to the front lines.
Maybe we should turn around and go the other way. And fast, too. Now that's a common-sense idea! Close down our over 700 military bases in three-quarters of the countries in the world, and bring all our soldiers home. Maybe the US shouldn't overthrow the governments of other countries and install tyrants who are our puppets. Like the late Shah of Iran. Or Saddam Hussein, for that matter. And quit siccing our military on other countries for the flimsiest of reasons.
Heck, at the end of World War I, after the Ottoman Empire imploded, the people in the Middle East asked America to administer the area. Surely they didn't think the US believed in Truth, Justice and the American Way ?
Maybe in those days we did. Now, we believe in empire. Instead of having colonies, we have military bases. That still makes us an empire, and empires always collapse, no matter what the soccer mommies and the chickenhawk sheeple think.
The State never has any common sense. I'll bet that saying was on the first tablets Moses broke.
If the State did have any common sense, we'd never have the problems we have now.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Perfectly Wrong Enemy
C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, made the interesting comment that "Satan, the leader or dictator of devils, is the opposite not of God, but of Michael."
He has a point, although I'm not sure it's the one he meant. But he continues: "Now if by 'the Devil' you mean a power opposite to God, and like God, self-existent from all eternity, the answer is certainly No. There is no uncreated being except God. God has no opposite [my italics]. No being could attain a 'perfect badness' opposite to the perfect goodness of God, for when you have taken away every kind of good thing (intelligence, will, memory, energy and existence itself) there would be none of him left."
Those are some interesting comments by Lewis. It almost sounds as if he doesn't really believe in evil. I don't. I think what people call 'evil' is what the Greeks called "hubris," and the Bible calls "pride": believing one is god-like. That, of course, is the sin of Satan.
There are some very unfortunate things associated with Satan being the opposite of God. Probably the worst is that most people seem to think God and Satan are of almost equal power. They may say they don't believe it, but they generally act as if they do.
Believing God and Satan are of equal power is an old heresy known as Manichaeism. It's the belief that there are two gods of equal power, one absolutely good, the other absolutely evil.
Manichaeism is alive and well, even today. If it wasn't, people wouldn't think Satan is the opposite of God. Even people who have no religious beliefs still often believe in absolute good and absolute evil, even if they claim they don't. Even if they insist they don't, they still often define their opponents as evil and imbue them with great, almost magical powers that they will use to "conquer the world."
Manichaeism, whether ancient or modern, is based on the belief in absolute good and absolute evil. When people believe in such concepts, this is what happens: they think they are good, and those who disagree with them are evil. Being evil, they must be destroyed. Generally, they scapegoat those they define as evil: since we are (absolutely) good, we must project our imperfections onto others, who then are considered (absolutely) evil, then annihilated.
The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." And he's right on the money. Scapegoating always comes from the belief in an absolute good and absolute evil.
"Evil," in and of itself, would have no meaning unless it had some kind of power. Without power, it would be harmless, just a mere attitude. In my view, we not only create "evil" by projecting it onto other people, we then give it power, which really means power over us. We create Satan and give him power over our lives. "Power is the horse that evil rides," as the old saying goes.
For some literary examples, there is Gollum in The Lord of the Rings who became degraded (what Lewis called "bent") because of the combination of evil and power--in his case, the Ring of Power. Then, of course, we have Sauron. Gollum is a retelling of the story of Lucifer, who "fell" from goodness into degradation. The opposite of goodness is not evil, but hubris.
Now just how asinine is it to create a horrendously destructive concept and give it power over our lives? How many fundamentalists run around in hysteria thinking the Devil is after them? Or don't they really believe they are completely safe, courtesy of the God they profess to believe in so fervently?
During the 20th century, the Nazis and Communists, who were modern-day Manichees, slaughtered up to 200 million people. Both groups saw everything in either black or white: we're the good ones, the chosen of God. Our opponents must necessarily be evil, of the Devil. Each group immensely exaggerated the power of its opponents. Each group created a Satan and gave him power. The end result: horrendous slaughter.
Some people are literally being run in circles by nothing more than ghosts in their heads. It's happening even today, with the wars the US is involved in. Each side thinks it is good, chosen by God. Each side sees the other as absolutely evil. Each sees the conflict as between God and Satan, between absolute good and absolute evil. The end result will be a long war.
It is an understatement to say that it is unfortunate that the monotheistic religions have chosen to see the opposite of God being Satan. I don't see such an opposition in Buddhism and Taoism. Nor do I see such warfare as we are engaged in, in those religions.
The cure, of course, as it always is, is to eradicate those ghosts in people's heads, to give up the belief in absolute good and absolute evil, and the scapegoating that inherently is a part of that splitting. They must, as the old saying goes, "change their hearts and minds."
I don't see any of this happening anytime soon, unfortunately. Satan is alive and well, if only in our heads. Sadly, there's no slave like a willing slave. Or someone who doesn't even know he's a slave.
If Satan did exist, I bet he'd be chuckling at the way so many people have conned themselves into believing he's nearly the equal of God. I bet it would be exactly what he wants.
He has a point, although I'm not sure it's the one he meant. But he continues: "Now if by 'the Devil' you mean a power opposite to God, and like God, self-existent from all eternity, the answer is certainly No. There is no uncreated being except God. God has no opposite [my italics]. No being could attain a 'perfect badness' opposite to the perfect goodness of God, for when you have taken away every kind of good thing (intelligence, will, memory, energy and existence itself) there would be none of him left."
Those are some interesting comments by Lewis. It almost sounds as if he doesn't really believe in evil. I don't. I think what people call 'evil' is what the Greeks called "hubris," and the Bible calls "pride": believing one is god-like. That, of course, is the sin of Satan.
There are some very unfortunate things associated with Satan being the opposite of God. Probably the worst is that most people seem to think God and Satan are of almost equal power. They may say they don't believe it, but they generally act as if they do.
Believing God and Satan are of equal power is an old heresy known as Manichaeism. It's the belief that there are two gods of equal power, one absolutely good, the other absolutely evil.
Manichaeism is alive and well, even today. If it wasn't, people wouldn't think Satan is the opposite of God. Even people who have no religious beliefs still often believe in absolute good and absolute evil, even if they claim they don't. Even if they insist they don't, they still often define their opponents as evil and imbue them with great, almost magical powers that they will use to "conquer the world."
Manichaeism, whether ancient or modern, is based on the belief in absolute good and absolute evil. When people believe in such concepts, this is what happens: they think they are good, and those who disagree with them are evil. Being evil, they must be destroyed. Generally, they scapegoat those they define as evil: since we are (absolutely) good, we must project our imperfections onto others, who then are considered (absolutely) evil, then annihilated.
The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck called scapegoating "the genesis of human evil." And he's right on the money. Scapegoating always comes from the belief in an absolute good and absolute evil.
"Evil," in and of itself, would have no meaning unless it had some kind of power. Without power, it would be harmless, just a mere attitude. In my view, we not only create "evil" by projecting it onto other people, we then give it power, which really means power over us. We create Satan and give him power over our lives. "Power is the horse that evil rides," as the old saying goes.
For some literary examples, there is Gollum in The Lord of the Rings who became degraded (what Lewis called "bent") because of the combination of evil and power--in his case, the Ring of Power. Then, of course, we have Sauron. Gollum is a retelling of the story of Lucifer, who "fell" from goodness into degradation. The opposite of goodness is not evil, but hubris.
Now just how asinine is it to create a horrendously destructive concept and give it power over our lives? How many fundamentalists run around in hysteria thinking the Devil is after them? Or don't they really believe they are completely safe, courtesy of the God they profess to believe in so fervently?
During the 20th century, the Nazis and Communists, who were modern-day Manichees, slaughtered up to 200 million people. Both groups saw everything in either black or white: we're the good ones, the chosen of God. Our opponents must necessarily be evil, of the Devil. Each group immensely exaggerated the power of its opponents. Each group created a Satan and gave him power. The end result: horrendous slaughter.
Some people are literally being run in circles by nothing more than ghosts in their heads. It's happening even today, with the wars the US is involved in. Each side thinks it is good, chosen by God. Each side sees the other as absolutely evil. Each sees the conflict as between God and Satan, between absolute good and absolute evil. The end result will be a long war.
It is an understatement to say that it is unfortunate that the monotheistic religions have chosen to see the opposite of God being Satan. I don't see such an opposition in Buddhism and Taoism. Nor do I see such warfare as we are engaged in, in those religions.
The cure, of course, as it always is, is to eradicate those ghosts in people's heads, to give up the belief in absolute good and absolute evil, and the scapegoating that inherently is a part of that splitting. They must, as the old saying goes, "change their hearts and minds."
I don't see any of this happening anytime soon, unfortunately. Satan is alive and well, if only in our heads. Sadly, there's no slave like a willing slave. Or someone who doesn't even know he's a slave.
If Satan did exist, I bet he'd be chuckling at the way so many people have conned themselves into believing he's nearly the equal of God. I bet it would be exactly what he wants.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The Worst Dream I've Ever Had
I knew I wasn't the only one to have to this nightmare. Steve Sailer's had it, too. He writes:
"If my dreams are representative, then the real American Dream is that you're in the classroom for your final exam but you haven't attended a class or opened the book all semester, and for some reason you're wearing your pajamas, and you really have to go to the bathroom."
In my dream it's the last day of high school, and I realize I'm not going to graduate because of a class I have not attended. I'm desperately trying to find the room and I'm consumed with tenseness and anxiety. When I do find the room everyone is speaking some unknown language. The teacher sounds like the one in "Charlie Brown": "Wah wah wah!" The test makes no sense. With a horrible sinking feeling I realize I have to attend high school for another year.
Obviously, there is a Hell, and it's right here. And there's a Nightmare Factory in it churning out variations of the same dream. My, those demons must be chuckling.
I have this dream about once a year. One time it was such a nightmare I woke up disoriented and ran to the front door and stuck my head outside, trying to get some air.
What causes dreams like these?
The answer: public schools. There was something toxic about the public schools when I attended - and oh was I relieved to graduate--and they are still toxic today.
I sometimes wonder if I have brain damage. Something's wrong in there, the way I still dread public schools. Or may it's just some Pavlovian thing, like that drooling dog.
There are only two other institutions in American society that you are cannot leave: prisons and the military. And then there are the public schools. You have to go, and you cannot get out...just like prisons. Ergo, public schools are prisons!
Sit, march, sit, for eight hours a day. No wonder we have such a high drop-out rate.
I was nearly bored to tears being forced to sit like that. So, I retreated into my imagination, which was a lot bigger than my school.
The teachers didn't like my attitude. I still have my reports cards claiming I wasn't doing my homework and not paying attention in class. And how I was "capable of doing such good work."
Sorry to disappoint you, ladies and an occasional man, but I was too busy dreaming I was Tan Hadron of Hastor, rescuing damsels in distress and killing four-armed apes. At least the teacher never found my copy of Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Fighting Man of Mars. The one I still have.
I also had a note sent home to my parents because I went all gnarly and was chewing on my report cards in class. The note politely suggested there was something wrong with me, and how something - never specified - should be done to me. Maybe either a doctor or else else a good beating over the head with a shoe.
I guess my chewing on the report card was the only way I could strike back, except for wishing horrible agonizing deaths on Dick and Jane and Spot and Pony, all of whom put me off of reading for many years.
These days I'd be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder without Hyperactivity and forced to take Ritalin. As bad as it was back then, at least we didn't have any of that.
Of course, some public school are better than others. Still, some are downright horrors, and for some students, no matter how good they are, they're still horrors. And none of them are geared for the most intelligent, sensitive and imaginative students - the ones you can recognize because of the glazed, dreaming look in their eyes.
When I look back on my career in the public schools, I don't think I learned a thing past the fourth grade. In middle school I wondered why I was in classes with Neanderthals, and in high school I partied all the time.
I graduated with a D+++ average. I was supposed to not be allowed to graduate, but I had already been accepted to college, and it was obvious the high school administration was glad to get rid of me.
The only people I've ever met who enjoyed high school were some cheerleaders and some athletes. In fact, it was the high point of their lives, like Al Bundy in 'Married with Children", and for most of them it's been downhill ever since.
I occasionally have this fantasy of burning all the public schools down and salting the ground. And peppering the teachers, too.
Well, not really, but you know what I mean. And don't tell me you haven't had the same fantasies, because you have.
"If my dreams are representative, then the real American Dream is that you're in the classroom for your final exam but you haven't attended a class or opened the book all semester, and for some reason you're wearing your pajamas, and you really have to go to the bathroom."
In my dream it's the last day of high school, and I realize I'm not going to graduate because of a class I have not attended. I'm desperately trying to find the room and I'm consumed with tenseness and anxiety. When I do find the room everyone is speaking some unknown language. The teacher sounds like the one in "Charlie Brown": "Wah wah wah!" The test makes no sense. With a horrible sinking feeling I realize I have to attend high school for another year.
Obviously, there is a Hell, and it's right here. And there's a Nightmare Factory in it churning out variations of the same dream. My, those demons must be chuckling.
I have this dream about once a year. One time it was such a nightmare I woke up disoriented and ran to the front door and stuck my head outside, trying to get some air.
What causes dreams like these?
The answer: public schools. There was something toxic about the public schools when I attended - and oh was I relieved to graduate--and they are still toxic today.
I sometimes wonder if I have brain damage. Something's wrong in there, the way I still dread public schools. Or may it's just some Pavlovian thing, like that drooling dog.
There are only two other institutions in American society that you are cannot leave: prisons and the military. And then there are the public schools. You have to go, and you cannot get out...just like prisons. Ergo, public schools are prisons!
Sit, march, sit, for eight hours a day. No wonder we have such a high drop-out rate.
I was nearly bored to tears being forced to sit like that. So, I retreated into my imagination, which was a lot bigger than my school.
The teachers didn't like my attitude. I still have my reports cards claiming I wasn't doing my homework and not paying attention in class. And how I was "capable of doing such good work."
Sorry to disappoint you, ladies and an occasional man, but I was too busy dreaming I was Tan Hadron of Hastor, rescuing damsels in distress and killing four-armed apes. At least the teacher never found my copy of Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Fighting Man of Mars. The one I still have.
I also had a note sent home to my parents because I went all gnarly and was chewing on my report cards in class. The note politely suggested there was something wrong with me, and how something - never specified - should be done to me. Maybe either a doctor or else else a good beating over the head with a shoe.
I guess my chewing on the report card was the only way I could strike back, except for wishing horrible agonizing deaths on Dick and Jane and Spot and Pony, all of whom put me off of reading for many years.
These days I'd be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder without Hyperactivity and forced to take Ritalin. As bad as it was back then, at least we didn't have any of that.
Of course, some public school are better than others. Still, some are downright horrors, and for some students, no matter how good they are, they're still horrors. And none of them are geared for the most intelligent, sensitive and imaginative students - the ones you can recognize because of the glazed, dreaming look in their eyes.
When I look back on my career in the public schools, I don't think I learned a thing past the fourth grade. In middle school I wondered why I was in classes with Neanderthals, and in high school I partied all the time.
I graduated with a D+++ average. I was supposed to not be allowed to graduate, but I had already been accepted to college, and it was obvious the high school administration was glad to get rid of me.
The only people I've ever met who enjoyed high school were some cheerleaders and some athletes. In fact, it was the high point of their lives, like Al Bundy in 'Married with Children", and for most of them it's been downhill ever since.
I occasionally have this fantasy of burning all the public schools down and salting the ground. And peppering the teachers, too.
Well, not really, but you know what I mean. And don't tell me you haven't had the same fantasies, because you have.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Myth of Redemptive Violence
The theologian Walter Wink (author of The Powers That Be) writes of what he calls the Myth of Redemptive Violence. This myth, he writes, is the belief that violence, especially administered by the State, is necessary and restorative to make people whole. Violence equals health, you might say, or in Orwellian terms, War is Peace.
He believes this myth is one of the oldest known, and runs back to the Babylonian creation story, (the Enuma Elish) from around 1250 B.C.E. This story, he tells us, keeps reappearing, even today, even in something as innocuous as children's cartoons.
According to the myth, in the beginning Apsu, the father-god, and Tiamat, the mother-god, give birth to all the other gods. But the younger gods are so rowdy in their partying their parents decide to murder them so they can sleep. Their children uncover the plot and kill Apsu. Tiamat, also known as the Dragon of Chaos, swears vengeance.
Terrified, the rebellious gods turn for help to their youngest, Marduk. His price is dear: he wants to be undisputed ruler. Having gained this promise, he catches Tiamat in a net, drives an evil wind down her throat, pierces her belly and heart with an arrow. He then smashes her skull with a club and scatters her blood. From her corpse he creates the universe.
In this myth, creation is an act of extreme violence. Life comes from death. As the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur has pointed out, order is established by means of disorder. Tiamat (the Dragon of Chaos) is prior to the "order" imposed by Marduk by violence. The gods themselves are astonishingly violent. Evil precedes Good; in such a case only great violence by the latter can control the former.
Now contrast this Babylonian myth with the one in Genesis: Good precedes Evil. Creation is essentially good, but has been corrupted by Man, overwhelmingly through a combination of his awakening to self-consciousness and narcissism that leads to the scapegoating based on envy. The result was the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
What we have are two diametrically opposed stories: Evil precedes Good, necessitating violence to impose "order," or Good precedes Evil, meaning violence, however well-intended, will never return us to the Garden. In the first instance existence is inherently corrupt; in the second it isn't, but has been corrupted by us. In the first, Good grows out of Evil; in the second, Evil is twisted (or as C.S. Lewis called it, "bent") Good.
The first story is not only un-Christian, but anti-Christian. It is the most pagan of pagan horrors. In the first, existence is inherently a horror, in the second the horror is secondary, caused by the corruption of an inherently good cosmos. In the first the preferred response is revenge.
In the first story people are by nature incapable of peacefully co-existing and must have order imposed from above by strong rulers who, according to the myth, are motivated by little more than a lust for power and violence. In the second the need for a powerful authority, and the lust, are themselves the corruption. The first is an excuse for slavery and fascism; the second, an argument for freedom.
It can be argued (and I would agree with it) that a conservative is one who believes human nature is corrupt and that society represses or transforms the imperfections in it. In the latter case it would, for an example, attempt to turn envy into admiration.
But notice that it is a voluntary society that does these things, not the coercive (and inherently pagan) State. I'd argue that a true conservative believes there is much good in human nature, but it has been corrupted. To believe this is to believe people can redeem themselves, can change for the better. Unless there is some goodness in us – and because of that we instinctively know what it is – we cannot "return" to it. And that return, that true change of heart and mind, can only come about voluntarily, through persuasion. That, to me, is the Christian view.
The pagan view, on the other hand, believes might makes right, the violence is necessary and redeeming, that the Good (and order) imposed on Evil (and chaos) is usually motivated by vengeance and the lust for power. Whatever philosophy it hides behind, whatever ideology is used to justify it, underneath all of them it is the belief that the gods smile upon conquerors, that peace can only come about through war, that security not liberty is the highest good.
That ancient myth does not exist in its pure form today in the Western world. It was ameliorated by the influence of Christianity, although Christianity today has been influenced and therefore perverted by it. But in whatever form it exists, that Babylonian myth is far from finished, even today.
He believes this myth is one of the oldest known, and runs back to the Babylonian creation story, (the Enuma Elish) from around 1250 B.C.E. This story, he tells us, keeps reappearing, even today, even in something as innocuous as children's cartoons.
According to the myth, in the beginning Apsu, the father-god, and Tiamat, the mother-god, give birth to all the other gods. But the younger gods are so rowdy in their partying their parents decide to murder them so they can sleep. Their children uncover the plot and kill Apsu. Tiamat, also known as the Dragon of Chaos, swears vengeance.
Terrified, the rebellious gods turn for help to their youngest, Marduk. His price is dear: he wants to be undisputed ruler. Having gained this promise, he catches Tiamat in a net, drives an evil wind down her throat, pierces her belly and heart with an arrow. He then smashes her skull with a club and scatters her blood. From her corpse he creates the universe.
In this myth, creation is an act of extreme violence. Life comes from death. As the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur has pointed out, order is established by means of disorder. Tiamat (the Dragon of Chaos) is prior to the "order" imposed by Marduk by violence. The gods themselves are astonishingly violent. Evil precedes Good; in such a case only great violence by the latter can control the former.
Now contrast this Babylonian myth with the one in Genesis: Good precedes Evil. Creation is essentially good, but has been corrupted by Man, overwhelmingly through a combination of his awakening to self-consciousness and narcissism that leads to the scapegoating based on envy. The result was the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
What we have are two diametrically opposed stories: Evil precedes Good, necessitating violence to impose "order," or Good precedes Evil, meaning violence, however well-intended, will never return us to the Garden. In the first instance existence is inherently corrupt; in the second it isn't, but has been corrupted by us. In the first, Good grows out of Evil; in the second, Evil is twisted (or as C.S. Lewis called it, "bent") Good.
The first story is not only un-Christian, but anti-Christian. It is the most pagan of pagan horrors. In the first, existence is inherently a horror, in the second the horror is secondary, caused by the corruption of an inherently good cosmos. In the first the preferred response is revenge.
In the first story people are by nature incapable of peacefully co-existing and must have order imposed from above by strong rulers who, according to the myth, are motivated by little more than a lust for power and violence. In the second the need for a powerful authority, and the lust, are themselves the corruption. The first is an excuse for slavery and fascism; the second, an argument for freedom.
It can be argued (and I would agree with it) that a conservative is one who believes human nature is corrupt and that society represses or transforms the imperfections in it. In the latter case it would, for an example, attempt to turn envy into admiration.
But notice that it is a voluntary society that does these things, not the coercive (and inherently pagan) State. I'd argue that a true conservative believes there is much good in human nature, but it has been corrupted. To believe this is to believe people can redeem themselves, can change for the better. Unless there is some goodness in us – and because of that we instinctively know what it is – we cannot "return" to it. And that return, that true change of heart and mind, can only come about voluntarily, through persuasion. That, to me, is the Christian view.
The pagan view, on the other hand, believes might makes right, the violence is necessary and redeeming, that the Good (and order) imposed on Evil (and chaos) is usually motivated by vengeance and the lust for power. Whatever philosophy it hides behind, whatever ideology is used to justify it, underneath all of them it is the belief that the gods smile upon conquerors, that peace can only come about through war, that security not liberty is the highest good.
That ancient myth does not exist in its pure form today in the Western world. It was ameliorated by the influence of Christianity, although Christianity today has been influenced and therefore perverted by it. But in whatever form it exists, that Babylonian myth is far from finished, even today.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Ever-Present Warrior
Some people are born to be certain things. I've known singers who knew they were going to be singers at the age of five. I'm a natural-born comedian, much like a Pug dog, and even though I don't remember it, have been told by my relatives I used to crack them up at the age of five or six. I certainly remember being 13, by which time I was a class clown.
Some men are even born to be natural warriors, no matter how many deluded leftists think that banning squirt-guns will change human nature and make these guys grow up to be Hugh Grant-watching girlie-boys. Unfortunately, libertarians have pretty much ignored the natural-born warrior, and since they don't know about the problem, haven't thought about it and therefore don't have a clue what to do with these guys.
Mythology gives us a hint as to how to deal with them.
I pay quite a lot of attention to myths. If they weren't true, and didn't have universal wisdom in them, they wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years.
Let's take a look at the myth of Hercules. He certainly is a natural-born warrior--he strangled two snakes which attacked him while he was in his crib. Significantly, he's not only a protégé of Athena, the goddess of wisdom and civilization, he's her half-brother. The point? Natural-born warriors are part of society, and we can't get rid of them, no more than we can get rid of singers or comedians.
Hercules was also tipped over a bit toward the insane side, since in a fit of rage he murdered his entire family. He then had to atone for his crimes with his Twelve Labors, feats which took many years. What does this mean? That natural-born warriors may not be the most stable people in the world? Or that when they murder the innocent in war, they must repent and atone for it? Or both?
Things get even more interesting when we find the Greek god of war, Ares, is the half-brother of Athena, meaning that war is part of society, and we can't get rid of it, either. We never have in the past. We can only reduce it as much as possible, which is certainly a reasonable goal.
Ares, who was a coward who delighted in murder and destruction, was hated by all the other gods (including his parents), but he was especially despised by Athena. Since she was the goddess of civilization, and he was the god of war, it is no wonder she hated him, since war and civilization are eternally at odds with each other.
Now here's an important question: Why was the warrior Hercules a follower of Athena and not Ares? Shouldn't it be the other way around? In the stories, Hercules often fought Ares, always beating him (but never killing him), just the way in the long run Society will always beat the State. Societies may survive; States never do. Hercules also rubbed out probably half of Ares' murderous offspring.
The myth is telling us these natural-born warriors must be accepted by society and used in some way against the State. These days, mythologically, Ares is the god of the State, and Athena should be the goddess of society.
Since the State tries to trick the masses into thinking it is not only the protector of Society, but indeed is Society, it is no wonder these Oliver North-types goes into State militaries, since they, like most people, can no longer tell the difference between the State and Society.
We'd be better off if in some ways we lived as we did in the past, when the King would take his Hercules warrior-types and go to war with another kingdom while leaving all the citizens alone. Personally, I'd like to see all the politicians fight each other with swords in an arena. I'd not only pay to watch it, I'd bring a couple of camcorders. I suspect most of the world would, too.
Instead, today we have standing militaries. The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of these standing armies. They wanted nothing to do with them, since all States are followers of Ares, no matter what they say. They then use the militaries, with its natural-born warriors, to advance its interests. Which are rarely--possibly never--the same as Societies'.
Stories about Hercules show up, however unwittingly, even today. I don't mean silly cartoons or silly movies. I mean excellent movies like 1986's “The Mission.” In it, Rodrigo Mendoza (played by Robert De Niro) is a slaver and murderer with an unstable, violent temper. Then, in a fit of rage, he murders his brother. To atone for his crime he drags his armor up a mountain. After that, he protects the people he had formerly murdered and enslaved. In the end, it costs him his life. Under the circumstances, he had no choice.
Mendoza was a natural-born warrior. At first he had been a follower of Ares and the State (the State which gave him license to be a murderer and slaver.) Then he repented and atoned for his crimes, became a Jesuit, and began to defend the Society he had once exploited and tried to destroy. He was a Hercules who, in the end, became a follower of Athena, not Ares.
We can see this Hercules myth (in part) in lesser movies like “Rambo.” In it, Rambo engaged not only in State-sponsored military killing, but murder. He never atoned for it; as a result, he came back to Society unable to cope. (The book, First Blood, by David Morrell, is a serious novel far superior to the movie and is in no way pulp-adventure. In it, Rambo--who had no first name--was far, far more disturbed that Stallone's portrayal.)
When I was in college, we were shown movies in class about "primitive" cultures in which two rival tribes would gather in opposing lines and throw spears and shoot arrows at each other. They were so far away there were very few injuries and rarely any deaths.
At the time, I thought the tribes were amusing. Yet, they never had real wars. Throwing spears from 100 feet way was their idea of war. When they were done, everyone went home and bound up their minor wounds.
Right now our Politically Correct Society is in a bind. On one hand, the liberals are trying to get rid of these warriors by frothing at the mouth about little boys playing with G.I. Joe. On the other hand, we cheer these men for joining State militaries and engaging in fantasies about "defending their country" and, worse, making "the ultimate sacrifice."
Both views are wrong. Leftists are not only wrong about human nature, they don't understand it at all. They're literally blind. And those who support the State and State militaries under the guise of "patriotism" are nearly as deluded, if not just outright scoundrels wrapping themselves in the flag while insisting others fight and die.
Society has to evolve methods to deal with these men; they can't be imposed from the top down. I am reminded of Thomas Berger's wonderful novel, Little Big Man, about the Cheyenne . They had two chiefs: a War Chief for battle and a Peace Chief otherwise. None of the people had to listen to them unless they wanted.
For them, the greatest, bravest feat in battle lay not in killing the enemy but taking coup, i.e., whacking him on the head with a small stick as they rode by. Perhaps we, too need mock battles, as did the tribes I watched. We seem to be evolving them, with something like paintball fights.
These natural-born warriors are an extremely small minority, just like great singers or comedians. When they become enamored of the State, and join its militaries, horrendous problems can result. Therefore, they must be kept away from the State. These men must defend Society against the State, not the State against Society.
The libertarian view is that there should be no State, only Society. Since these men exist, and always will, Society has to learn how to deal with them and give them a place in it.
Some men are even born to be natural warriors, no matter how many deluded leftists think that banning squirt-guns will change human nature and make these guys grow up to be Hugh Grant-watching girlie-boys. Unfortunately, libertarians have pretty much ignored the natural-born warrior, and since they don't know about the problem, haven't thought about it and therefore don't have a clue what to do with these guys.
Mythology gives us a hint as to how to deal with them.
I pay quite a lot of attention to myths. If they weren't true, and didn't have universal wisdom in them, they wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years.
Let's take a look at the myth of Hercules. He certainly is a natural-born warrior--he strangled two snakes which attacked him while he was in his crib. Significantly, he's not only a protégé of Athena, the goddess of wisdom and civilization, he's her half-brother. The point? Natural-born warriors are part of society, and we can't get rid of them, no more than we can get rid of singers or comedians.
Hercules was also tipped over a bit toward the insane side, since in a fit of rage he murdered his entire family. He then had to atone for his crimes with his Twelve Labors, feats which took many years. What does this mean? That natural-born warriors may not be the most stable people in the world? Or that when they murder the innocent in war, they must repent and atone for it? Or both?
Things get even more interesting when we find the Greek god of war, Ares, is the half-brother of Athena, meaning that war is part of society, and we can't get rid of it, either. We never have in the past. We can only reduce it as much as possible, which is certainly a reasonable goal.
Ares, who was a coward who delighted in murder and destruction, was hated by all the other gods (including his parents), but he was especially despised by Athena. Since she was the goddess of civilization, and he was the god of war, it is no wonder she hated him, since war and civilization are eternally at odds with each other.
Now here's an important question: Why was the warrior Hercules a follower of Athena and not Ares? Shouldn't it be the other way around? In the stories, Hercules often fought Ares, always beating him (but never killing him), just the way in the long run Society will always beat the State. Societies may survive; States never do. Hercules also rubbed out probably half of Ares' murderous offspring.
The myth is telling us these natural-born warriors must be accepted by society and used in some way against the State. These days, mythologically, Ares is the god of the State, and Athena should be the goddess of society.
Since the State tries to trick the masses into thinking it is not only the protector of Society, but indeed is Society, it is no wonder these Oliver North-types goes into State militaries, since they, like most people, can no longer tell the difference between the State and Society.
We'd be better off if in some ways we lived as we did in the past, when the King would take his Hercules warrior-types and go to war with another kingdom while leaving all the citizens alone. Personally, I'd like to see all the politicians fight each other with swords in an arena. I'd not only pay to watch it, I'd bring a couple of camcorders. I suspect most of the world would, too.
Instead, today we have standing militaries. The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of these standing armies. They wanted nothing to do with them, since all States are followers of Ares, no matter what they say. They then use the militaries, with its natural-born warriors, to advance its interests. Which are rarely--possibly never--the same as Societies'.
Stories about Hercules show up, however unwittingly, even today. I don't mean silly cartoons or silly movies. I mean excellent movies like 1986's “The Mission.” In it, Rodrigo Mendoza (played by Robert De Niro) is a slaver and murderer with an unstable, violent temper. Then, in a fit of rage, he murders his brother. To atone for his crime he drags his armor up a mountain. After that, he protects the people he had formerly murdered and enslaved. In the end, it costs him his life. Under the circumstances, he had no choice.
Mendoza was a natural-born warrior. At first he had been a follower of Ares and the State (the State which gave him license to be a murderer and slaver.) Then he repented and atoned for his crimes, became a Jesuit, and began to defend the Society he had once exploited and tried to destroy. He was a Hercules who, in the end, became a follower of Athena, not Ares.
We can see this Hercules myth (in part) in lesser movies like “Rambo.” In it, Rambo engaged not only in State-sponsored military killing, but murder. He never atoned for it; as a result, he came back to Society unable to cope. (The book, First Blood, by David Morrell, is a serious novel far superior to the movie and is in no way pulp-adventure. In it, Rambo--who had no first name--was far, far more disturbed that Stallone's portrayal.)
When I was in college, we were shown movies in class about "primitive" cultures in which two rival tribes would gather in opposing lines and throw spears and shoot arrows at each other. They were so far away there were very few injuries and rarely any deaths.
At the time, I thought the tribes were amusing. Yet, they never had real wars. Throwing spears from 100 feet way was their idea of war. When they were done, everyone went home and bound up their minor wounds.
Right now our Politically Correct Society is in a bind. On one hand, the liberals are trying to get rid of these warriors by frothing at the mouth about little boys playing with G.I. Joe. On the other hand, we cheer these men for joining State militaries and engaging in fantasies about "defending their country" and, worse, making "the ultimate sacrifice."
Both views are wrong. Leftists are not only wrong about human nature, they don't understand it at all. They're literally blind. And those who support the State and State militaries under the guise of "patriotism" are nearly as deluded, if not just outright scoundrels wrapping themselves in the flag while insisting others fight and die.
Society has to evolve methods to deal with these men; they can't be imposed from the top down. I am reminded of Thomas Berger's wonderful novel, Little Big Man, about the Cheyenne . They had two chiefs: a War Chief for battle and a Peace Chief otherwise. None of the people had to listen to them unless they wanted.
For them, the greatest, bravest feat in battle lay not in killing the enemy but taking coup, i.e., whacking him on the head with a small stick as they rode by. Perhaps we, too need mock battles, as did the tribes I watched. We seem to be evolving them, with something like paintball fights.
These natural-born warriors are an extremely small minority, just like great singers or comedians. When they become enamored of the State, and join its militaries, horrendous problems can result. Therefore, they must be kept away from the State. These men must defend Society against the State, not the State against Society.
The libertarian view is that there should be no State, only Society. Since these men exist, and always will, Society has to learn how to deal with them and give them a place in it.
Ares the Klutz
Since I don't have one of those Outer Limits/David McCallum/"Sixth Finger" episode gigantic light-bulb-shaped heads full of AD 1,000,000 brains, I don't trust my opinion all that much. So, I look to traditional wisdom.
Much >of that wisdom is contained in mythology, which are universally true stories>of human nature, with the dross burned away by hundred or thousands of years of refinement.
Let's take Ares, the Greek god of war. He's not some real god out there somewhere; he's a story about human nature, and like all stories about human >nature embodied in myth, it's meant to educate by entertaining.
Ares was the son of Zeus and Hera, who didn't much like him. Small wonder, since he was a bully and a coward. Ares didn't hang out with any reputable people, either. His sister and constant companion was Eris, the goddess of strife. Also always tagging along with him were his sons Deimos ("fear") and Phobos ("terror"), and Enyo ("horror"), an old war-goddess.
All kinds of other unpleasant people followed Ares around – Pain, Panic, Famine, Oblivion. The only two animals associated with him are the vulture and dog – both scavengers.
The Greeks in general didn't think much of Ares. He was only worshiped in Thracia, a region at that time known for its fierce people.
Not only was Ares a bully and a coward who delighted in war and slaughter, he was also a klutz. He kept getting wounded, after which he would run back to his father Zeus to get healed. He also lost all his battles; he never won.
He was such a klutz he was utterly incompetent. Heracles wounds Ares on two occasions, and once even stripped him of his weapons. On another occasion two giants chain him up and imprison him in a bronze vessel for 13 months.
In the Iliad one of Odysseus's pals wounds him. The goddess Athena, which whom he was always at odds, whacks him in the head with a rock and knocks him cold.
What we have in this myth is some truly profound wisdom about wars. One thing it points out is that wars, contrary to the propaganda, are never truly won. If we look at just the 20th century, all the wars in it are not separate wars; they are chapters in the same war, with intermissions.
The US's unnecessary entrance into World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War. The Cold War led to Korea and Vietnam. World War II led to constant war in the Middle East. And the US's interference in the Middle East led to the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Now the US has "conquered" Afghanistan and Iraq and is involved in World War III.
But...Ares loses all his battles; he never wins.
Ares' complete and utter incompetence is something which is not paid the attention it deserves. A friend once told me that wars are won by those who screw up the least. Those who are the least incompetent. All militaries are incompetent; some are just less incompetent than others.
We may cheer the way the US rolled over Iraq, but that's like me kicking a puppy. Now we're involved in a guerrilla war, which was predicted by everyone with half a brain. The US doesn't have a clue how to handle the problem over there.
Then, of course, we have the propaganda about Saddam flying drones across the Atlantic, and the administration falling for forged documents about smuggled uranium, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (boy, am I tired of that phrase) that never existed in the first place.
What we have here is incompetence piled upon incompetence. This, unfortunately, is the nature of the State, militaries and war.
What else does this myth tell us? Ares is a bully and a coward. Now who today fits these characteristics?
Well, for one, the neocons. Here we have people who are intellectual bullies >and physical cowards. They are great at running their mouths, but every one of them avoided military service. David Frum, for a good example, is great at abusing Taki in print, but I'd bet a lot of money that Frum would never say anything to him in person – especially if there were no witnesses.
It turns out the neocons' carefully crafted plans for US domination of the world are already falling apart. We're losing about one soldier every two days in Iraq. Oh, yeah, those are some incompetent plans by a gaggle of cowardly, incompetent pseudo-intellectuals.
Then we have Dubya, who has engaged in one of the most bizarre transformations I've seen in my life. When he was asked what he thought if he lost the election, he said, "Life goes on." Now he's turned into a megalomaniac with a messiah complex, one who thinks God talks to him. He deserted the military for over a year, and now he's strutting around in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier, telling guerillas in Iraq to "bring it on," which is a contemptible comment from a man who tried his darndest to get out of his National Guard service.
The Thracians were the only Greeks who truly worshipped Ares. They're not around anymore. What happens when a country worships Ares? The Nazis (National Socialists) worshipped him, as did their blood brothers the Russian Communists (International Socialists). What came out of their clash was their extinction, and a gruesome battle at Stalingrad, in which more soldiers were killed than the US has lost in all of its wars combined.
Obviously, Hitler and Stalin, both Ares worshippers, were military incompetents.
Saddam Hussein was an Ares worshipper, and like all of them, was an incompetent military leader. That's why I never believed a thing said about him being a threat to the US. I also smile when I think of the gigantic US stripping him of his weapons and chaining him up, not for 13 months, but 11 years.
What is going on currently is that the US administration, which has always been somewhat of an Ares-worshipper, is now trying to turn itself into a full-fledged empire. This would turn it into a complete Ares-worshipper, because only an Ares-worshipper can run an empire.
This is another figure that reminds me of Ares. In the Christian tradition it's Satan, another incompetent empire-builder. The question is raised (and looked at in a certain way, it's a little bit amusing): Bush claims he is a born-again Christian. However, since he's starting World War III, he's actually worshipping Ares. Or, maybe, someone else, whose greatest sin was Hubris, which invariably is followed by Nemesis.
Much >of that wisdom is contained in mythology, which are universally true stories>of human nature, with the dross burned away by hundred or thousands of years of refinement.
Let's take Ares, the Greek god of war. He's not some real god out there somewhere; he's a story about human nature, and like all stories about human >nature embodied in myth, it's meant to educate by entertaining.
Ares was the son of Zeus and Hera, who didn't much like him. Small wonder, since he was a bully and a coward. Ares didn't hang out with any reputable people, either. His sister and constant companion was Eris, the goddess of strife. Also always tagging along with him were his sons Deimos ("fear") and Phobos ("terror"), and Enyo ("horror"), an old war-goddess.
All kinds of other unpleasant people followed Ares around – Pain, Panic, Famine, Oblivion. The only two animals associated with him are the vulture and dog – both scavengers.
The Greeks in general didn't think much of Ares. He was only worshiped in Thracia, a region at that time known for its fierce people.
Not only was Ares a bully and a coward who delighted in war and slaughter, he was also a klutz. He kept getting wounded, after which he would run back to his father Zeus to get healed. He also lost all his battles; he never won.
He was such a klutz he was utterly incompetent. Heracles wounds Ares on two occasions, and once even stripped him of his weapons. On another occasion two giants chain him up and imprison him in a bronze vessel for 13 months.
In the Iliad one of Odysseus's pals wounds him. The goddess Athena, which whom he was always at odds, whacks him in the head with a rock and knocks him cold.
What we have in this myth is some truly profound wisdom about wars. One thing it points out is that wars, contrary to the propaganda, are never truly won. If we look at just the 20th century, all the wars in it are not separate wars; they are chapters in the same war, with intermissions.
The US's unnecessary entrance into World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War. The Cold War led to Korea and Vietnam. World War II led to constant war in the Middle East. And the US's interference in the Middle East led to the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Now the US has "conquered" Afghanistan and Iraq and is involved in World War III.
But...Ares loses all his battles; he never wins.
Ares' complete and utter incompetence is something which is not paid the attention it deserves. A friend once told me that wars are won by those who screw up the least. Those who are the least incompetent. All militaries are incompetent; some are just less incompetent than others.
We may cheer the way the US rolled over Iraq, but that's like me kicking a puppy. Now we're involved in a guerrilla war, which was predicted by everyone with half a brain. The US doesn't have a clue how to handle the problem over there.
Then, of course, we have the propaganda about Saddam flying drones across the Atlantic, and the administration falling for forged documents about smuggled uranium, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (boy, am I tired of that phrase) that never existed in the first place.
What we have here is incompetence piled upon incompetence. This, unfortunately, is the nature of the State, militaries and war.
What else does this myth tell us? Ares is a bully and a coward. Now who today fits these characteristics?
Well, for one, the neocons. Here we have people who are intellectual bullies >and physical cowards. They are great at running their mouths, but every one of them avoided military service. David Frum, for a good example, is great at abusing Taki in print, but I'd bet a lot of money that Frum would never say anything to him in person – especially if there were no witnesses.
It turns out the neocons' carefully crafted plans for US domination of the world are already falling apart. We're losing about one soldier every two days in Iraq. Oh, yeah, those are some incompetent plans by a gaggle of cowardly, incompetent pseudo-intellectuals.
Then we have Dubya, who has engaged in one of the most bizarre transformations I've seen in my life. When he was asked what he thought if he lost the election, he said, "Life goes on." Now he's turned into a megalomaniac with a messiah complex, one who thinks God talks to him. He deserted the military for over a year, and now he's strutting around in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier, telling guerillas in Iraq to "bring it on," which is a contemptible comment from a man who tried his darndest to get out of his National Guard service.
The Thracians were the only Greeks who truly worshipped Ares. They're not around anymore. What happens when a country worships Ares? The Nazis (National Socialists) worshipped him, as did their blood brothers the Russian Communists (International Socialists). What came out of their clash was their extinction, and a gruesome battle at Stalingrad, in which more soldiers were killed than the US has lost in all of its wars combined.
Obviously, Hitler and Stalin, both Ares worshippers, were military incompetents.
Saddam Hussein was an Ares worshipper, and like all of them, was an incompetent military leader. That's why I never believed a thing said about him being a threat to the US. I also smile when I think of the gigantic US stripping him of his weapons and chaining him up, not for 13 months, but 11 years.
What is going on currently is that the US administration, which has always been somewhat of an Ares-worshipper, is now trying to turn itself into a full-fledged empire. This would turn it into a complete Ares-worshipper, because only an Ares-worshipper can run an empire.
This is another figure that reminds me of Ares. In the Christian tradition it's Satan, another incompetent empire-builder. The question is raised (and looked at in a certain way, it's a little bit amusing): Bush claims he is a born-again Christian. However, since he's starting World War III, he's actually worshipping Ares. Or, maybe, someone else, whose greatest sin was Hubris, which invariably is followed by Nemesis.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)