In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the second essay amongst the three finalists:
Do you believe in a higher power?
Why?
If you believe in a higher power and were never asked why, then you may consider asking yourself this, ostensibly, simple question. That is, of course, if you accept the premise that one can sustain ones beliefs only if one strives to understand ones beliefs. That said, I recently asked myself why do I believe in a higher power?
After much thought I respond to the question of why, with the Marxian conception of religion as a crutch ("Die Religion…ist das Opium des Volkes" ). However, the term “crutch” is value neutral and need not have negative connotations. Instead it could invoke the same positive regard that “leaning on family” carries. Framed as such, belief in a higher power can play an important role in an individual’s emotional and physiological equilibrium.
Yet the analogy between one purpose of family (to lean on) and belief in a higher power (a crutch) goes far beyond reconfiguring common held interpretations. Indeed, the degree of one’s relationship with one’s family in times of calm can determine the extent that one can lean on family in time of need. So to the degree that belief in a higher power can serve as a crutch is correlated with ones connection with that higher power in times of stability. In other words, for belief in a higher power to serve as a reliable crutch, one may need to invest, develop, and maintain a relationship before the crutch is needed.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
An Evolutionary Perspective on Israel Bias in the UN and Endemic Anti-Semitism
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the last day of its annual general conference, voted against a non-binding resolution urging Israel to accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The paper -- which Washington had asked Arab countries not to table at all for fear it could jeopardize a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to be held in 2012 -- was rejected by the 151-member general assembly with 51 votes against it, 46 votes in favor and 23 abstentions. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100924/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanuclearpoliticsisrael).
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Ground Zero Imam is Suffering from CGS
Many outside the Liberal American Jewish community have labeled Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous UN/Muslim/leftist sponsored Goldstone report, a self hating Jew. However Goldstone, and a cadre of staunchly pro-Palestinian Jews, adamantly deny the claim. Usually Goldstone and co. defend the report by asserting, “biased results be damned” we had the best of intentions and besides “honest” criticism is necessary for Israel’s good”.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Riiight...
Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.
How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.
How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?
Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).
So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?
It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.
The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge
ONE, The Sad Reality:
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.
When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.
Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?
20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!
Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.
Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.
For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...
TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:
Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?
Another Question:
Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.
But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.
Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.
When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?
Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.
It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.
So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...
THREE, The Frightening Future:
Will Pakistan become the next Iran?
After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.
Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Clinton/Mesvinsky Wedding, The Reform Movement, and it's Open Season on Eligible Jews
This month’s marriage between Chelsea Clinton, heir to the moderate-Democrat Clinton dynasty, and investor tycoon (and son of a disgraced congressman) Marc Mesvinsky has a variety of implications. One observer lamented, what he termed, the “spiritual holocaust” that wide spread American intermarriage is causing and that this marriage represents. Indeed, for most of the 20th century intermarriage in the Jewish community was taboo, in the 21st century this is no longer the case. This marriage signals that the taboo of intermarriage has been “overcome” by the liberal Jewish community. How the Liberal-Jewish community overcame this taboo, can be viewed as a case study in social-psychology: how taboos are challenged and refuted. Or it can shed light on a major flaw in liberal-Jewish thinking.
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Either way my observations.
In the 1960’s the Reform movement was beginning to experience a drop in membership. They responded by amplifying their belief in accepting and being open to all and actively sought and welcomed intermarried couples, who until then had, because of the aforementioned taboo experienced a sort of alienation, into their temples. Still while the reform movement accepted intermarried couples they also encouraged conversion, and drew the line by asking its member clergy to “avoid” presiding over interfaith marriages (though true to form many reform clergy disregarded this suggestion and routinely conducted interfaith weddings). The Reform movements primary objective was to foster a welcoming experience for any individual who wanted to convert and observe a selective Judaism, (something traditional Judaism objects to). But by simplifying the transition to Judaism for the non-Jewish spouse their policies had an unintended(?)effect it eroded the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships in the first place -after all conversion to Judaism was so “easy”.
Because of the outreach of the Reform the taboo against entering into interfaith relationships was eroded and many spouses didn’t feel the social pressure to convert. The ever liberal Reform movement not wanting to lose their new stream of paying members, began to encourage interfaith couples to raise their children in the Jewish faith. Why? Because the whole premise of accepting interfaith relationships was so that spouses would convert and halt assimilation, but now that spouses felt little taboo-pressure to convert, the movement had to still support their claim of halting intermarriage- the children should be raised Jewish. Never mind the confusion a child of two religions experiences, non-the-less it was at this stage that the Menorah, next to the Christmas tree emerged.
So the taboo against intermarriage devolved from only marrying a Jew, to only marrying a convert, to we will not conduct interfaith weddings, but you are keeping to the faith so long as you raise your children Jewish.
But there was still a remnant of the taboo: condoning interfaith marriage.
This particular marriage represents the predictable culmination of a 60 year Reform/liberal Judaism’s investment in expanding Jewish identity. While the Reform movement simplified conversion in expectation that many would convert, and in the long run halt assimilation.
The taboo of intermarriage was so undermined by a convenient-focused conversion process that now intermarriage itself is not only widespread (hovering around 50 percent) and accepted as normal, but also encouraged. As exemplified by Clinton/Mesvinsky marriage.
How did the Reform movement jump from easy conversion to outright intermarriage ? The answer is imbedded in the philosophy that underpins liberal Judaism. First the Reform espoused a cultural definition of Judaism, namely that Jewish is not a inherent designation, but a choice. Why? Because Judaism is first and foremost a religion of morality and not having a choice is immoral. This choice means that a person is not Jewish because of a soul (assuming a soul exists) but because they choose to be Jewish. So if we are to premise Judaism on choice, because choice is inherently moral, then it is immoral to advocate against the choice of intermarriage. This, by the way, explains why many Reform clergy never had a problem officiating at interfaith marriages as to not officiate is tantamount to inhibiting choice…
In other words the reform movement was eventually going to enable interfaith marriage, if they were to be consistent in their philosophy. It was only a matter of time before liberal/reform Judaism, transitioned from challenging the taboo of interfaith relationships, as long as there was conversion, to challenging the taboo of interfaith marriage without. Don’t be surprised if the Reform movement continues its slide from majority humanism mixed with a little cultural spirituality, to being indistinguishable from humanistic Judaism devoid of any conventional spiritual attachment.
The crumbling of a taboo and encouraged interfaith weddings culminated in a Jewish male with a kippa and tallit marrying the most eligible bachelorette in the nation: which probably means it’s open season on eligible Jews!
Monday, August 2, 2010
Is “Human Surfing” Another Effect of the Internet Age?
A friend and I were discussing the relationship between social-milieu and dating. He mentioned that his friend had been in the singles capital of NYC Friday evening. As is “customary” there, following the evening service everyone exits the ordered chapel into a mass of mingling singles. My friends friend wished a women good evening and as she shook his hand her eyes instinctively shifted to another man. This man in turn was shaking another’s hand and staring at a third person.
My psychology inclined friend explained that these individuals had taken their individuality so far that now they resemble a collective of the highly superficial and selfish. Which explains the tremendous success they have at the office were individualism is prized, and the dearth of more than one-night-stand-couples.
I agree that the pervasive state of singleness that exists there is underpinned by an extreme of individualism –selfishness. Yet this does not explain their inability to focus on one person for any appreciable amount of time. Thus beyond the uniformly negative opinion outsiders have of this little island of loneliness, and the close minded bubble that many of the insiders live in, the whole episode rings a familiar tune.
It seems that the above vignette, reflects an unexplored tributary of a much discussed phenomena. Surly we have all heard the doomsayers and observers postulating the ramifications of the age of internet surfing: short attention spans the rewiring of individuals and societies brain paths etc. Is it possible that my friends friend encountered the first waves of “human surfing”? People who exist in an individual bubble may see the other as just another page to be surfed and then forgotten, if the platform is bursting with pages – as the singles capital bursts with singles –then there is so much to be surfed and so little time…
Of course very few people living in this “area” would assert that a person should be treated like an interesting-but-common internet page. Except, if their individualism doesn’t allow them to recognize their actions. If everyone is selfish then selfish becomes the norm, just as if everyone is single then single becomes the norm. Like the internet surfing era, if everyone is rewired to think in a certain way then there is no one to ask “why are you surfing for relationships, (jdate/e-harmony is one thing), but in person?”
So I ask, is “human surfing” another effect of the internet age?
My psychology inclined friend explained that these individuals had taken their individuality so far that now they resemble a collective of the highly superficial and selfish. Which explains the tremendous success they have at the office were individualism is prized, and the dearth of more than one-night-stand-couples.
I agree that the pervasive state of singleness that exists there is underpinned by an extreme of individualism –selfishness. Yet this does not explain their inability to focus on one person for any appreciable amount of time. Thus beyond the uniformly negative opinion outsiders have of this little island of loneliness, and the close minded bubble that many of the insiders live in, the whole episode rings a familiar tune.
It seems that the above vignette, reflects an unexplored tributary of a much discussed phenomena. Surly we have all heard the doomsayers and observers postulating the ramifications of the age of internet surfing: short attention spans the rewiring of individuals and societies brain paths etc. Is it possible that my friends friend encountered the first waves of “human surfing”? People who exist in an individual bubble may see the other as just another page to be surfed and then forgotten, if the platform is bursting with pages – as the singles capital bursts with singles –then there is so much to be surfed and so little time…
Of course very few people living in this “area” would assert that a person should be treated like an interesting-but-common internet page. Except, if their individualism doesn’t allow them to recognize their actions. If everyone is selfish then selfish becomes the norm, just as if everyone is single then single becomes the norm. Like the internet surfing era, if everyone is rewired to think in a certain way then there is no one to ask “why are you surfing for relationships, (jdate/e-harmony is one thing), but in person?”
So I ask, is “human surfing” another effect of the internet age?
Monday, June 14, 2010
THE COLDEST COLD WAR (2) A New World Order?
In part one of this series we looked at an example of the coldest cold war between America and China, as well as the economic reasons why this war is so much "colder" then the last cold war.
In part two I would like explore the question of why our society is hell bent on ignoring the realities of our relationship with China. As well as the question of which is the greater force in the China-West coldest cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in the world order.
Our close economic ties prevent out government from calling, for example, the North Korean provocation what it is –a proxy event. But the question still remains, why has our diverse, vaunted, and conspiracy-prone media ignored the realties?
One potential answer is that our media and even the public, have justifiably reconciled with the fact that China is now our partner in power. Thus China’s covert actions around the world are part of Chinas right as a super-power. Indeed, this theme is given sufficient if not obsessive coverage.
My question is not why hasn’t the media and larger society at acknowledged the ramifications of China as an emerging super-power. Rather why is there no discussion about the manner of how China is going about their war? Chinas anti-Democratic belief system, allows it to easily support North Korea, a county that literally starves and kills its own people by the 1000’s, and that habitually commits acts of war, but China supports is so long as it weakens American influence.
While we do not even acknowledge the link, China is challenging us in ways that we last saw during our cold war with Russia. We should be aware of the parallel, if only to apply the lessons of the past to the present, but we ignore them, why?
This may all boil to social-psychology; society is experiencing a form of collective Freudian defense mechanism -repression.
Just as the child who has a negative experience in the bathtub may have an aversion to all water as they mature so too the trauma of the last cold war has affected our collective psyche to the extent that we refuse to acknowledge the realities we face. This despite the fact that we "won" the last cold war -akin to the mature individual who "survived/won" their child-hood trauma, but still manifests, perhaps unknowingly, symptoms of that trauma.
Our analogy, like all analogies is imprecise. In this case, the ramifications of our self imposed ignorance are unlike the implications of the individual with an aversion to water. While the person who dislikes water, can choose to avoid his phobia, and if he/she were to encounter the water they could choose to disengage from it, we, America and the west, can ot simply disengage. This lack of choice may be at the heart of why we refuse to acknowledge and confront the issue in the first place.
Now on to the second question.
Will this remain a coldest cold war? Put otherwise will our economic marriage with China -and the ensuing superficial stability it produces- trump the struggle for global supremacy and the forces that seek a new world order.
But before we can answer this larger question let us establish that the nature of the coldest cold war centers on the establishment of a new world order. Currently this is less obvious because the the current benefits, to all sides, of our economic ties relegate the proxy aggressiveness e.g. North Korean actions to the back burner, i.e. The current economic benefits outweigh the push for a new world order. (You could even say that China sees the economic ties and the corollary buildup of its economic might as a necessary step in the push for its new world order).
Either way as the benefits diminish and/or the "new world order" gathers strength and coalesces the symptoms of the coldest cold war will become more pronounced and more cold war-like. In other words, the fact that the coldest cold war is so cold is because there are powerful mitigating factors. As those factors become weaker say as Americas economic might becomes mired in crushing debt, or becomes, relatively, less significant, say as Iran, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and China coalesce into a potent economic/military force, then we can expect that the push to realign the world order to be more urgent and overt.
To the extent of direct war? Probably not. It is more likely that the degree that a cold war is evident would match the potential benefit of that change to those seeking the change.
From this perspective, the North Korean provocation, Iranian president Ahamdinejad call for a new world order before embarking to Turkey to meet with Erdogan of Turkey and Putin Of Russia (http://www.infowars.com/ahmadinejad-stresses-need-for-new-world-order/) , and Brazil and Turkeys failed attempt to broker a nuclear swap deal -to head off sanctions on Iran- are part of a larger and accelerating trend.
It is no coincidence, then, that this trend is becoming increasingly evident as the America and the West flounder economically, and militarily.
At the same time the fact that Brazil and Turkey failed, and that sanctions, however inane (and even insidious, please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html) passed against Iran are both indicators of a emerging and definable coalition opposing the old American dominated word, and that America is still the leader and a potent force. Which in turn explains why we are still involved in the coldest cold war, with China.
Taken as a whole it seems that we are in the midst of a calculated and predictable progression from coldest cold war to cold war; from covert war to thinly veiled overt war. This reflects an underlying consensus in both China and America, acknowledged or otherwise that should there be a shift in the world order it should unfold in a stable and progressive manner. Let us hope that it is China and not its less pragmatic partners that continues to guide and lead the coalition for a new world order.
For our part, we in America need to recognize the signs. We are in the midst of deeply veiled war, in the past we were victorious, we can be so again. For those that look forward to Americas down fall, remember that the now powerful nations of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were once Americas defeated enemies. America is pragmatic not vengeful -it elevates those it defeats- can we be certain that China and its minority partners will do the same?
In part two I would like explore the question of why our society is hell bent on ignoring the realities of our relationship with China. As well as the question of which is the greater force in the China-West coldest cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in the world order.
Our close economic ties prevent out government from calling, for example, the North Korean provocation what it is –a proxy event. But the question still remains, why has our diverse, vaunted, and conspiracy-prone media ignored the realties?
One potential answer is that our media and even the public, have justifiably reconciled with the fact that China is now our partner in power. Thus China’s covert actions around the world are part of Chinas right as a super-power. Indeed, this theme is given sufficient if not obsessive coverage.
My question is not why hasn’t the media and larger society at acknowledged the ramifications of China as an emerging super-power. Rather why is there no discussion about the manner of how China is going about their war? Chinas anti-Democratic belief system, allows it to easily support North Korea, a county that literally starves and kills its own people by the 1000’s, and that habitually commits acts of war, but China supports is so long as it weakens American influence.
While we do not even acknowledge the link, China is challenging us in ways that we last saw during our cold war with Russia. We should be aware of the parallel, if only to apply the lessons of the past to the present, but we ignore them, why?
This may all boil to social-psychology; society is experiencing a form of collective Freudian defense mechanism -repression.
Just as the child who has a negative experience in the bathtub may have an aversion to all water as they mature so too the trauma of the last cold war has affected our collective psyche to the extent that we refuse to acknowledge the realities we face. This despite the fact that we "won" the last cold war -akin to the mature individual who "survived/won" their child-hood trauma, but still manifests, perhaps unknowingly, symptoms of that trauma.
Our analogy, like all analogies is imprecise. In this case, the ramifications of our self imposed ignorance are unlike the implications of the individual with an aversion to water. While the person who dislikes water, can choose to avoid his phobia, and if he/she were to encounter the water they could choose to disengage from it, we, America and the west, can ot simply disengage. This lack of choice may be at the heart of why we refuse to acknowledge and confront the issue in the first place.
Now on to the second question.
Will this remain a coldest cold war? Put otherwise will our economic marriage with China -and the ensuing superficial stability it produces- trump the struggle for global supremacy and the forces that seek a new world order.
But before we can answer this larger question let us establish that the nature of the coldest cold war centers on the establishment of a new world order. Currently this is less obvious because the the current benefits, to all sides, of our economic ties relegate the proxy aggressiveness e.g. North Korean actions to the back burner, i.e. The current economic benefits outweigh the push for a new world order. (You could even say that China sees the economic ties and the corollary buildup of its economic might as a necessary step in the push for its new world order).
Either way as the benefits diminish and/or the "new world order" gathers strength and coalesces the symptoms of the coldest cold war will become more pronounced and more cold war-like. In other words, the fact that the coldest cold war is so cold is because there are powerful mitigating factors. As those factors become weaker say as Americas economic might becomes mired in crushing debt, or becomes, relatively, less significant, say as Iran, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and China coalesce into a potent economic/military force, then we can expect that the push to realign the world order to be more urgent and overt.
To the extent of direct war? Probably not. It is more likely that the degree that a cold war is evident would match the potential benefit of that change to those seeking the change.
From this perspective, the North Korean provocation, Iranian president Ahamdinejad call for a new world order before embarking to Turkey to meet with Erdogan of Turkey and Putin Of Russia (http://www.infowars.com/ahmadinejad-stresses-need-for-new-world-order/) , and Brazil and Turkeys failed attempt to broker a nuclear swap deal -to head off sanctions on Iran- are part of a larger and accelerating trend.
It is no coincidence, then, that this trend is becoming increasingly evident as the America and the West flounder economically, and militarily.
At the same time the fact that Brazil and Turkey failed, and that sanctions, however inane (and even insidious, please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html) passed against Iran are both indicators of a emerging and definable coalition opposing the old American dominated word, and that America is still the leader and a potent force. Which in turn explains why we are still involved in the coldest cold war, with China.
Taken as a whole it seems that we are in the midst of a calculated and predictable progression from coldest cold war to cold war; from covert war to thinly veiled overt war. This reflects an underlying consensus in both China and America, acknowledged or otherwise that should there be a shift in the world order it should unfold in a stable and progressive manner. Let us hope that it is China and not its less pragmatic partners that continues to guide and lead the coalition for a new world order.
For our part, we in America need to recognize the signs. We are in the midst of deeply veiled war, in the past we were victorious, we can be so again. For those that look forward to Americas down fall, remember that the now powerful nations of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were once Americas defeated enemies. America is pragmatic not vengeful -it elevates those it defeats- can we be certain that China and its minority partners will do the same?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Poetry with an Explanation: "The Introvert in an Extrovert's World"
The Beer is cold and my mind is clear.
There he sits in his chair.
Facing the brick wall, reading a book, or
listening to the extrovert's converse?
To be recognized as a thinker, or
to be seen -to be around others.
Otherwise why read, sit at home?
Dear sir, are you indulging in who you are, or
are you wishing to be otherwise?
Are you independent or dependent?
Do you face the wall because you thrive in singularity
or do you face the wall to attract -
desperate loneliness?
In our culture the introvert, the thinker, the reader is so misunderstood,and the observer is confounded. Here we worship independence, leadership, and exceptionalism. All terms that imply separation, singularity, introversion. If an American sees one fish swimming separate from a school of fish, they see a leader leading. The Easterner, sees a fish lost -separated from the consensus.
Yet we love to socialize to be connected, face-book, twitter, and sex. For the introvert there is confusion and doubt. I was brought-up to prize independence, but when I spend most of my free time alone I am different, strange, even anti-social!
Do you face the wall in a crowded bar
because you are in a state of flux -
contradiction, paradox, enigma?
What am I, what are you?
A thinker, a reader, independent,
face the wall.
Friendly, passionate, social,
In a crowded bar.
An introvert in an extrovert's world.
There he sits in his chair.
Facing the brick wall, reading a book, or
listening to the extrovert's converse?
To be recognized as a thinker, or
to be seen -to be around others.
Otherwise why read, sit at home?
Dear sir, are you indulging in who you are, or
are you wishing to be otherwise?
Are you independent or dependent?
Do you face the wall because you thrive in singularity
or do you face the wall to attract -
desperate loneliness?
In our culture the introvert, the thinker, the reader is so misunderstood,and the observer is confounded. Here we worship independence, leadership, and exceptionalism. All terms that imply separation, singularity, introversion. If an American sees one fish swimming separate from a school of fish, they see a leader leading. The Easterner, sees a fish lost -separated from the consensus.
Yet we love to socialize to be connected, face-book, twitter, and sex. For the introvert there is confusion and doubt. I was brought-up to prize independence, but when I spend most of my free time alone I am different, strange, even anti-social!
Do you face the wall in a crowded bar
because you are in a state of flux -
contradiction, paradox, enigma?
What am I, what are you?
A thinker, a reader, independent,
face the wall.
Friendly, passionate, social,
In a crowded bar.
An introvert in an extrovert's world.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Curse of Unfulfilled Potential: (1) "The will to will"
The CHABAD masters discuss the relationship between will/want (ratzun) and enjoyment/pleasure (tanug). One way to frame the following conversation is to ask “which one plays the role of cause in the relationship?” Do I will because I enjoy or do I enjoy because I want? The masters respond that will precedes enjoyment, to the extent that it can dictate that one enjoy what they previously despised. For example, I will to be healthy so I begin to do that which I despise, exercise. Eventually I begin to enjoy exercise.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
The role of will in the individuals life is not confined to its relationship to enjoyment. On the contrary, the great teachers of old state emphatically “nothing stands before will” (ain dovar omed lifnai razton). Thus the above CHABAD dialectic comes as no surprise -not only does ones specific desires reflect will so does every other potential human experience.
Two Questions
The first question:
How/can one develop the will for something, “the will to will”?
This question assumes that there is a force that precedes will. To better understand exactly what we are talking about here let me begin with what we are not talking about.
EXAMPLE. Freud argued that all our actions are dictated by the pleasure drive. Thus the reason why we will/want sex is because it is in our nature, it is who we are (for those chassidus mavins this is akin to etzem ha’nefesh). Even though this drive does proceed will, it is not what we are looking for because it is a natural tendency. Our question is how/if the individual can will to will –by choice not by human nature.
The next potential response to our question is potential.
Potential as means to creating the will, it is like the hyperactive child who is constantly criticized, internalizes the criticism, and becomes that bad person everyone has declared them to be.
But let us apply it more concretely to our search for a will to will.
Imagine or remember.
You are born to a family rife with intellectuals, writers, and orators. From the day you are born there is talk of your extraordinary potential. You are subjected to these types of expectations, in school and out. Every element in your life dictates to you your great potential; every “glimpse” of greatness is highlighted and embraced while every slipup and weakness is covered-up or even “extracted” from you.
You may very well grow up and completely internalize the externally attributed beliefs. To the extent that you become the biggest advocate of the said delusion. Ignoring or externalizing ever sign to the contrary and magnifying and internalizing every triumph ( for psychology buffs self-serving bias).
If you internalize the attributed potential you then have the will to will. The internalized potential preceeds and creates the will.
Here is an illustration.
Let us say that your mother is a famous writer and your father an extraordinary journalist. As you grow older and begin to understand the comments that have most probably been directed towards your family you begin to delve into writing and “discover” that you are good at it. Never mind your terrible grammar and nonsensical thesis. As you are constantly surrounded by affirming voices declaring your great potential, and you conclude that all you need is a little more practice. Your will to become a great writer, is great, after all you have the potential. You tirelessly pursue your work, and confirm others beliefs that you will in fact be a great writer. Your potential focuses your will to the extent that now you have completely internalized the external beliefs of others, and by virtue of your actions become the greatest advocate of your will to become a great writer.
Question number two:
Yet how far can will take the individual especially if it is inspired by a narcissist fantasy, sans potential ,imposed by an over bearing parent who ?
In the next post I will the address this (corollary) question.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Republicans and Democrates: herd psychology behind success, and failure
I have noticed a trend in democratically oriented political systems.
It would seem that each side can only achieve what the other wants. For example NATO in Afghanistan, which is a pseudonym for America in Afghanistan, has increasingly been responsible for civilian deaths. Yet there has been no outcry and little media coverage of civilian carnage. For those following Afghanistan during the Bush years...well lets just say there was "robust criticism". Is this predictable hypocrisy on the part of the media and Democratic politicians OR is it that because the Democrats are perceived as inherently pacifist their war-making is seen as truly necessary -politics aside.
In other words what ever side of the aisle is perceived as naturally opposed to a given course of action is perceived as sincere when pursuing that same action.
Thus the fact that Bush expanded (both of them) government spending is overlooked but when the Democrats followed suit it becomes a major talking point of criticism, as if the national debt was an Obama creation.
There are myriad of other examples...my point is that instead of predicting hypocrisy we can start to understand the herd psychology behind success, and failure.
It would seem that each side can only achieve what the other wants. For example NATO in Afghanistan, which is a pseudonym for America in Afghanistan, has increasingly been responsible for civilian deaths. Yet there has been no outcry and little media coverage of civilian carnage. For those following Afghanistan during the Bush years...well lets just say there was "robust criticism". Is this predictable hypocrisy on the part of the media and Democratic politicians OR is it that because the Democrats are perceived as inherently pacifist their war-making is seen as truly necessary -politics aside.
In other words what ever side of the aisle is perceived as naturally opposed to a given course of action is perceived as sincere when pursuing that same action.
Thus the fact that Bush expanded (both of them) government spending is overlooked but when the Democrats followed suit it becomes a major talking point of criticism, as if the national debt was an Obama creation.
There are myriad of other examples...my point is that instead of predicting hypocrisy we can start to understand the herd psychology behind success, and failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
