Paradoxically Politics of Cannibals:Freedom is Slavery

sheep do not have the concept of rebelling. their only thought is to follow the leader and to eat. they do not have a tipping point as long as they are fed and entertained(bread and circuses).

people have different ideas of what a revolution is for. superficially everyone thinks it is for freedom but for some freedom means slavery.

paradoxically some of the people here (conservatives,republicans,libertarians) think it is to give more power and wealth to the elite which they worship.

they want to eliminate all social programs and social rights,and then eliminate taxation on the wealthy, thus they would create a slave/master feudal society. they are driven by an inner force to predate that is like the feeding frenzy of sharks.

this social darwinsism is their religion as cannibalism is their food.

of course they do not admit such. they have endless lies of doublespeak perfected over eons of time to convince the rest that they are interested in their welfare.

free health care is bad for people
public education is a failure so lets eliminate it
lower taxes on the rich will make the poor richer
invading iraq will protect us
invading vietnam is necessary
we need more WMDs for safety






---------------------------------
Why dont the arabs rebel?

Returning to the original article we are commenting upon, I think the islamic concept of fitna has much to do with the horrendous plight of Arabs and their oppressed colonials. Fitna is 'conflict', it is sedition within the cult, fragmentation, undermining of the hold of the status quo (the sunna and more extremely, salafi). This is again a nomadic concept: the unity of the tribe must be preserved and enforced for reasons of survival in a desert. The legal or clerical leaders of the cult, the ulema, fear fitna more than anything else. Listen again to the Friday Sermon of Khamei... it is spewing full of warnings against fitna.


Essentially the core documents of islam negate and disparage the past, the present and earthly future. Everything is geared to the attainment of a heavenly paradisos, a Persian garden replete with flowing waters, comfortable couches, virginal maidens, pretty boys of 'perpetual freshness handsome as pearls' (Coran 52,24; 56,17; 76,19) and wine (76,22)!

Alluring...


Hence all is geared to a vertical axis, to an absolute and unchanging Tawh'id (Oneness of the divinity). The lack of horizontality in society which results from this creates a passivity, a conformity, an acceptance of the leadership, which enforces its power in the name of a deity by acts of strength (be they legislation and enforcement of custom, the perpetuation of ignorance by a prohibition of innovation (bid'a), or by means of apartheid (dhimmitude)-- and internally by the subjugation of women, and taxation (jizya). This lack of horizontality created a society of discontent passives, who project the ills of their own communality on to a scapegoat, be it 'The West', 'The Crusaders', or 'Western society', or even more absurdly "The Jews". What is not thought of by these passive-aggressives is intro-spection, that the 'fault' may be in themselves. Critical self-examination is not one of the five fundamentals of islam, acceptance and surrender to the will of allat is: Not a great advance in human civilization. Root ideas do matter.


I look at history much as a geologist or evolutionary biologist--there is a long track of development, ideas do not 'just appear' they are not faxed down from heaven to illiterates, written down on camel and goat bones and palm leaves. They develop in specific historical and cultural contexts, everywhere and always: no exceptions. I attempt to get to the roots of things, metaphor: as a good gardener pulls weeds by their roots, not by the top frills.


I am a scholar trained in Classical philology, Akkadian, Syrian, Hebrew, Ugartic and textual criticism, manuscript transmission, orthography and construction of ideas. I am also an historian and have read deeply in Late Antique and Islamic history and theology, as well as European history.


Elnaz, you forget one thing, perhaps it is a result of a certain disparagement of pre-Islamic civilizations, that the East Roman Empire was a very highly cultured and advanced society, at a level not to be reached anywhere in the world until Europe in the 18th century, what was destroyed by the Arabs was more than what they subsequently built upon, copied and took over from that apogee of Civilization. The Arab conquests set human progress back, without them the unity of the Roman world would have gone on and developed. They destroyed that development, and then were left behind in the dust. (Now there's a nutshell description!!) Coda: this sowing of disunity by Mohammad was the reason Dante placed the man he considered a Christian heretic in the lowest circle of Hell, split from mouth to anus, in the jaws of Satan.


Ad rem:

Democracy is an idea. It is a Greek idea. It is an English and American idea. It has developed. Democracy for an Athenian in 500 B.C. is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Ideas are not universally available from a mail-order catalogue. To move towards democracy the nations of Europe and America had to cordon off a traditional cultural idea--religion: the separation of Church and State. It was a struggle which engaged Europe since 1100 (the conflict with Frederick Barbarossa), but more bloodily since the 1560's, culminating in the Enlightenment (c. 1700), the American and French revolutions--and beyond.


I see the politico-cultic imposition of 'surrender' upon the peoples of the East Mediterranean by the Arab conquistadors, along with their nomadic ethos, nomadic language, as the root cause of the debility of those peoples today. Conversely, their liberation will only come from two sources: Western technology and Western civil values. Technology will give them telephones (forbidden by the Wahhibiya imams in service to the dictator ibn Saud in Arabia until 1936), internet, twitter, blogs, DVD's, advertisements and p 0 r n (with popcorn and Coca Cola). Western values will come through the spread of Western languages, education (real critical education, not memorizing an 8th century plagiarism), and total separation of Church and State. Religion will have to become, as it is in the civilized, civic, world a matter of purely personal choice, taste and feeling, totally separate and excluded from the political sphere. This will be a great paradigm change for followers of Mohammadeanism, as the cult was political from its origins. The Chinese have effected this change by giving up on Marxism (their form of religion), but they still have a way to go. I look at my four year-old and hope that someday perhaps he will look at his grandchildren while a Lesbian is Pope of Rome and likewise the imam of Mekka is a Lesbian. Now that would be just so divine! ?


Elnaz, YES!! I AM saying that Arabian nomads conquered the Egyptians, Iranians, Mesopotamians, Syrians--Sassanians and East Romans. Read what I wrote carefully--the imposition of Arabian language (something carried out by the 'Abbasids mostly), and tribal customs through "surrender" (in Arabic this is "islam"). The modern notion of pan-Arabism has proved to be a miserable failure and illusion. The notion of pan-islamism is also a delusion. The notion of the dar-al-islam is merely a tool of tyranny, which is the political sine-qua-non of Mohammadeanism.


Also, the Umayyads and 'Abbasids are both Arabs, from the Arabian tribes. I seem to know a small amount of history. The caliphate was effectively a broken toy by 900, with Fatmids in Lybia, Umayyads in Spain, 'Abbasids in Irak all claiming the title. Later even a Turk would claim it. Look at the end of the Umayyads - a whole tribe wiped out by as-Saffah, not the merciful, but the bloodthirsty. This is the islamic polity in action!


So what will be the future of peoples under the Mohammadean yoke? Will they become sufficiently 'Westernized" or 'globalized', as have the Chinese, the Japanese, most of Latin America and Russia to have a significant place in the future, or will they sink into the glory of the past, dreaming of something that never was, that never will be and is destined to the trash-heap of history? It is their choice, but we won't tolerate a nuclear mistake.
Roman / July 3, 2009 3:13 AM

What an honest presentation of fact. It coincides well with the Muslims whining about 200 years of Western European crusades(1095 to 1261AD) when Islamic armies invaded Western Europe regularly from 701 to 1683AD a period of 1000 years or six times longer than the period the crusades spanned
Richard Kadas / July 3, 2009 10:31 AM

why does anyone revolt?


instead of binding the question to history and culture, i would recommend to bring it into conection with the contempory situation in a country. people revolt when they see an alternative and have a good guess of the reasons for their problems.


First: arabs do revolt. all the time they do. it just does not seem to get anywhere - but maybe they do not know their true enemy. can you believe it: its not realy israel. its not western culture either. Its on the socond thought western oeconomics input on the arab world. But first: the enemy of the arabs is their own arab authorities. wallertein has pointed out that we all (also) live in a world system: arab dynasties are living (draw their power) from the basic goods (yes it's also oil)they deliver to the west in exchange for industrial und postindustrial products of capitalistic countries. this trade system tends to arrest technological development in the arab world, is keeping the arab masses poor and uneducated and ensures magnificent profits for a very small elite, that at the same time gains the power to keep the masses down (armed forces, police, secret police...). antisemitism and unreflected hate towards the west are the additional tools to distract people from theirs true enemies: the semifeudalistic regimes that rule large parts of the arab world.


I believe arabs will revolt. But first they need to know against who and for what reason. It might take a process. but I'm convinced arabs are functioning just the same way like all other human beeings on this blue dot. they will not let themselves be fooled forever.


why do people iran revolt? Because they - other then the arab world - live in a rather high developed industrial society. Their materialistic enviroment is simply different from the one of the arab world. Therefore their minds work different as well: They are educatetd to a far greater extend. They are on a high intellectual level. They are - other then many arabs - equipped with a clear picture of their true enemy and they discussing useful alternatices to to the system of goverment they have at the time. Last but not least: The women in the country - in all of the benefits stated above - make no exeption from the male part of society. Every Revolution that had an equal support af women got better chances to turn out to be succesful. (a longer subject, but I mean it absolutly serious.)


But I would not be so sure, that the reasons for the situation in Iran have too much do with culture. I am a German. We are respected for our technology all over this globe (disagreement taken). When Darius ruled the Persian Empire - we were running nacked trough the woods. How does that fit into a general idea of a helpful cultural herritage? I don't think it matters all too much who build exactly which garden some centuries ago (maybe it matters to cheer people up) - what realy matters is only what you know about - and what you do: with your today...


Mark

(Berlin)
Mark / July 3, 2009 11:12 AM

@roman (wrote:):


"Democracy is an idea. It is a Greek idea. It is an English and American idea. It has developed. Democracy for an Athenian in 500 B.C. is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Ideas are not universally available from a mail-order catalogue. To move towards democracy the nations of Europe and America had to cordon off a traditional cultural idea--religion: the separation of Church and State. It was a struggle which engaged Europe since 1100 (the conflict with Frederick Barbarossa), but more bloodily since the 1560's, culminating in the Enlightenment (c. 1700), the American and French revolutions--and beyond."


Point taken. But I like to add: Democray is not just an idea - that develops by pure will and struggle out of the will. It is also a form of goverment that fits to a certain phase of technological development. That is why democracy itself has constantly changed - as a picture, but also in reality. Ideas make sense one time and less or no sense the next time. The greek democracy was the ruling of the few over the many (slaves). The "return" of democracy in the city-states of the late middle ages was an outlook on the capatalistic age. The english/ american / french democray was the slow breaktrough for the kapitalistic age. The reason lies not only in the courage of the people that gave their blood for this idea - it also lies in the simple fact, that you can not rule an industrial society with a feudalistic power. It is the million opinions, the "diskurs" (Habermas) between them that makes a modern society function. Last but not least: I guess there will be a point in the future, when also the representive system of democracy has had its time and only a more direct democray can go on to handle the complexity of our future lives. Tweet