Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts

Sunday, January 13, 2013

On Liberty: More Relevant Than Ever

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

John Stuart Mill's classic essay "On Liberty" deals with the issue of "civil liberties" not the metaphysical issue of "free will". In context, it would appear that most attacks on civil liberties originate from within the right wing and, more specifically, tyrannical police states and/or aristocratic rule. Mill addresses threats against liberty from within the institutions of democracy. The issue is especially relevant when widespread domestic wiretapping and Government ordered surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Early 'libertarians' sought to limit the power 'rulers' over those governed. While many believed that rule by a popularly elected government addressed the issue, Mill, however, identified a need to limit the power of elected governments and officials as well. In 'On Liberty', Mill raises basic issues: "who should rule?" What are the limits of government power"? How may the people establish limits on the power that government may exercise over minorities and individuals? His work is more relevant now than ever.

Mill argues that, as an ideal, "government of the people" is often not the case in fact. Those asserting the power of the government -elected officials, bureaucrats, the judiciary -often develop their own interests, influenced as they often are by 'constituencies' at odds with the general interests of 'the people' and, in particular, the legitimate interests of individuals.

Mill makes no distinction between a tyranny of one and a tyranny of many. A tyrannical majority running roughshod over the rights of individuals and minorities is no less a tyrant simply because it is a majority or because it is elected, or because it is elected by a majority.

Mill believed that while society may not tolerate criminal behavior, for example, society may not legitimately interfere with or suppress non-conforming behaviors indiscriminately or simply because a majority may not approve. What then are the powers that society may legitimately exercise over the individual? Mill answers:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

-J.S. Mill, On Liberty
James Madison -called the "Father of the Constitution" -may have anticipated Mill's ideas in his draft of the Bill of Rights --the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Implicit in the Bill of Rights is the recognition that the power of the state must be limited! A majority --unchecked --is frequently a blunt instrument capable of oppressing and repressing the rights of individuals and minority groups alike. The Bill of Rights addresses this issue by guaranteeing "due process of law", limiting state power over individuals and groups, guaranteeing that groups and individuals may speak freely, worship freely.

The Fourth Amendment specifically is a promise that our government made to us in its very founding:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

---Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
Let's make something abundantly clear: there are no "inherent powers", "implicit authorizations" that would, in any way, overturn, limit, or repeal the Fourth Amendment. Some politicians, perhaps many, are wrong about that; some may have deliberately lied. Moreover, Congress may not overrule the Fourth Amendment with statutory law. Constitutional Law is supreme and provisions in the Bill of Right are valid until amended as stated in the Constitution itself. Widespread domestic surveillance is illegal whatever may be done by Congress ex post facto. Until the Constitution is amended, such warrantless surveillance will remain illegal. At last, ex post facto laws, themselves, are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Mill is all the more remarkable for his insight into issues that remain contemporary. In every literate criticism of "special interest groups", PAC's, the gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the Military/Industrial Complex, one sees the lasting influence of John Mill.

On Liberty is essential reading for anyone interested in law, the principles of government, political science, political philosophy, indeed, freedom itself. It is also essential reading for anyone interested in learning about the intellectual underpinnings of Anglo-American civil liberties.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Why We Are Not Free

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

While it may be true that all societies indulge a process called 'criminalization', it seems that in the U.S. the process has been to an even greater extent institutionalized. Both crime rates and the profits of the so-called "Prison Industrial Complex" (P.I.C.) depend upon the criminalization of various behaviors, most notably, the cultivation and/or use of marijuana, a so-called 'drug' which many believe and support is not only hamless and non-addictive, its many uses could be of tremendous benefit to society.

'Criminalization' is often 'race-based', perhaps intended to justify endemic prejudice or bigotry. There is no reasonable doubt that persons of color are more often targeted by law enforcement. A study conducted in 1996 focused on Interstate 95 in Maryland; it found that almost 75 percent of motorists stopped for alleged traffic violations were 'black' though 'black' motorists constituted less than 18 percent of all motorists on Interstate 95.

Minorities are, likewise, more often to be surveilled! Such surveillance includes 'electronic monitoring' --video, audio, mail, etc. These tactics are often employed as devices of intimidation. That is most often the case with 'political dissidents'.

The answer to the question --'who gets watched' --defines the sweep and depth of surveillance as a means by which the 'state' may monitor and restrain citizens of any color or political persuasion. As a result, the mere present of police becomes an omnipresent means by which 'social control' is maintained. The presence of 'police' is a constant reminder that 'big brother' is watching. The message is clear: the police may routinely resort to violence to maintain a status quo beneficial to but a mere segment of the total population.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

On Liberty: More Relevant Than Ever

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

In his classic essay "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill deals with the issue of "civil liberties" --not the metaphysical issue of "free will". While most attacks on civil liberties have historically occurred from the right within the context of a tyrannical or an aristocratic rule, Mill deals with threats against liberty from within the institutions of democracy itself. The issue is especially relevant at a time when widespread domestic wiretapping and surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The aim of early libertarians was to limit the power of the ruler over those governed; Mill, however, identifies a need to limit the power of elected governments and officials as well. Mill is not merely addressing the issue of "who should rule?", he seeks to establish limits on the power that government may exercise over minorities and individuals. His work is more relevant now than ever.

While "government of the people" is an ideal to be sought, Mill argues that such an ideal is often not the case in fact. He argues that those exerting the power of the government --elected officials, bureaucrats, the judiciary --often develop their own interests. They may be influenced by those constituencies in ways that are at odds with the interests and liberties of individuals or other groups.

Mill makes no distinction between a tyranny of one and a tyranny of many. A tyrannical majority running roughshod over the rights of individuals and minorities is no less a tyrant because it is a majority, because it is elected, or because it is elected by a majority.

While society may not tolerate criminal behavior, for example, society may not legitimately interfere with or suppress all non-conforming behaviors indiscriminately or because a majority may not approve. What then are the powers that society may legitimately exercise over the individual? Mill answers:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

-J.S. Mill, On Liberty
James Madison --called the "Father of the Constitution" --may have anticipated Mill's ideas in his draft of the Bill of Rights --the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Implicit in the Bill of Rights is the recognition that the power of the state is a blunt instrument. Abused, it can oppress and repress individuals and minority groups alike. The Bill of Rights addresses this issue by guaranteeing "due process of law", limiting state power over individuals and groups, guaranteeing that groups and individuals may speak freely, worship freely.

The Fourth Amendment specifically is a promise that our government made to us in its very founding:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

-Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution
Let's make something abundantly clear: there are no "inherent powers", "implicit" authorizations" that would, in any way, overturn, limit, or repeal the Fourth Amendment. Many politicians are not only wrong about that, they may have deliberately lied about it. Moreover, Congress may not overrule the Fourth Amendment with statutory law. Constitutional Law is supreme and provisions in the Bill of Right are valid until amended as set out in the Constitution itself. Widespread domestic surveillance is illegal whatever is done by Congress ex post facto --and until the Constitution is amended, it will remain illegal. At last, ex post facto laws, themselves, are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Mill is all the more remarkable for his insight into issues that remain contemporary. In every literate criticism of "special interest groups", PAC's, the gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the Military/Industrial Complex, one sees the lasting influence of John Mill.

On Liberty is essential reading for anyone interested in law, the principles of government, political science, political philosophy, indeed, freedom itself. It is also essential reading for anyone interested in learning about the intellectual underpinnings of Anglo-American civil liberties.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

How the Government Created a U.S. Police State

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It was in January, 2002 that the UN Committee Against Torture condemned the treatment of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib by noting that 'indefinite detention' was a violation of the UN Convention against torture! Even worse for the U.S. is the threat that is likewise posed against citizens.  In short, if the government or the President should merely 'deem' you to be a terrorist, you can be dropped into a hole and never seen or heard from again! This continues to be a threat to all Americans of every stripe and income bracket, of every political persuasion left or right should it run afoul of 'powers that be'! The word for this is: tyranny!

The detention sections of the NDAA affirm "...the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain any person "...who was part of or [who] substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners". Anyone so targeted may be held indefinitely "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". Of course, there is no 'end of hostilities' in an Orwellian perpetual war.

The Sixth Amendment is violated when U.S. Citizens are alllowed to be detained (locked up) indefinitely at any place in the U.S. or abroad if you are merely 'deemed' to be a terrorist! 'Probable cause' is no longer required; you may be locked up if you look funny or Arab! You may be locked up if you are merely 'deemed' to be a terrorist! There is no 'burden of proof' nor is there any requirement that the government produce 'probable cause' that you have committed a crime of any sort! American citizens may be stripped of all rights if he/she is but 'declared' or 'deemed' to be a 'terrorist', however baseless that declaration may be! Those unfortunate targets of this dictatorial, draconian, tyrannical, anti-democratic measure are subject to being snatched, dropped into an Abu Ghraib type hell-hole or --worse --a Texas gulag and never seen or heard from again!

This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
These measures are all gross and egregious violations of the 14th amendment prohibiting the federal government, the various states and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property in violation of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, established previously in the 4th Amendment!

This clause makes 'protections' stated clearly and unambiguously in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. In other words, even states are subject to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND --the Constitution! These draconian measures are not merely illegal but treasonous and those supporting them are traitors to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to the people of these United States which are 'sovereign' whether the polticians and lobbyists in Washington recognize that fact or not!

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Jean-Paul Sartre vs the Pod People

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

'Mormanism' is a cult which believes Joseph Smith is a prophet! But believing Joseph Smith a prohet is no 'kookier' than any number of unquestioned shibbboleths and ideology that define the GOP just as many articles of 'faith' and/or superstitions define most if not all the world's religions. And the world's kooky cults!

By any definition, Christianity is, likewise, a cult just as it was considered to be by 'free Romans' during the long Roman Empire. Rome, especially during the post-Republican period was full of cults to include, prominently, various flavors of Mithraism. The Christians were just one of possibly hundreds of kooky cults of various persuasions, convictions and delusions.

Today it is not only Mitt Romney who is a cultist!

The GOP has seemingly deified Ronald Reagan! The GOP rank and file still worship Reagan's economic legacy, though it is, in fact, a sorry tail of inequities, slow growth, the 'export' of American industries, and recession/depression. In practice, the GOP clearly loathes any education which insists upon rigorous, skeptical science, objective inquiry, logic and/or empirical observation. All of those things threaten both cults --Christianity as well as the cult of Republicans.

Not all groups that could in one way or another be defined sociologically as cults are necessarily destructive. For instance, not every group requires its members to cut off normal contact with friends and family.

To be fair, cults are not always evil, kooky or destructive! But I am hard-pressed to name an entirely benevolent 'cult' offhand. In fact, I defend a persons right to be a 'cult-member' for so long as he/she does not harm others, commit or try to justify crimes in the name of the name of the cult, or, in any other way, deny the right of others to believe as they choose. I am tempted to write that most cults, however, are intolerant of dissent and, if not intolerant, may 'persuade' but in ugly, overly aggressive manners.

That said, I am of the opinion that cultism of any sort is 'anti-freedom'. A cult seems to me to be the ulitmate Faustian bargain in which an individual surrenders or concedes his/her individualty (soul?) to the larger social group. Just as a member of any 'armed force' or military surrenders his/her autonomy, a cult-member may no longer act autonomously.

“Existence Precedes Essence”: How May One be Free Today?

It was Jean-Paul Sartre's slogan—“existence precedes essence”—which defined 'existentialism'. With this phrase, Sartre made the point that it may be impossible to define or describe precisely what it means to be 'human'. It was, rather, a matter that is defined in the act of living itself. The human being may be alone in this respect, the inanimate world being the result of universal 'laws of physics' or 'evolution' in which 'essential properties' seem to be fixed from without, by forces exterior to the individual. Hence, Satre's famous declaration: "A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself".


Monday, August 29, 2011

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Whenever any court of any type restricts, bans or opposes religious intrusions into governmental affairs, an army of fundies --like cockroaches -- are sure to crawl out of the woodwork. Just as predictably, an army of politcians will ooze out --like sweet stuff --upon a public stage to court them.

Predictably, this circle of jerks --consisting as it does of the deluded on the one hand and the gaggle of oportunists/politcians on the other hand --will denounce the decision(s) and declare that it is against the 'wishes and intents' of the nation's "founding fathers".

The most obvious examples have to do with separation of church and state which should be a settled issue on the side of 'separation'. Propagandists throughout the right wing would have it otherwise. They try to re-write history everyday. If we are not vigilant, one day, they will succeed in creating and imposing upon us a theocracy when, in fact, the founders had decried 'theocracy' and deliberately created a secular state.

An alarming, perhaps a growing, number throughout the right wing will tell you with a straight face that the United States was founded upon the 'Christian' religion and that the founders were themselves 'Christians'. Neither statement is true. The U.S. is not a Christian nation nor was it intended to be. The founders themselves were not Christian, some where 'deists', others espoused no religion whatsoever. To sum up: our founders were not Christians and certainly did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free execise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment, U.S. Constitution [emphasis above is mine, EC]
One wonders what it is about 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' that is not understood by the American 'right wing'.
Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.
--John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli
The organized, concerted right wing effort to tear down the 'wall of separation' between church and state is a repugnant revision of our history that must not be tolerated.

Thomas Jefferson is not, by definition, a 'founder'; nevertheless, he drafted the Declaration of Independence and shared with those who later made up the Constitutional Convention, the view that the United States was --in no way --'founded upon the Christian religion'.

The United States is NOT a 'Christian' nation.
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

--Thomas Jefferson, Danbury Letter
We will never be free to relax with respect to this issue. The American right wing, extremists and religious fanatics have a subversive agenda. Unless they are constantly opposed or stopped, they will stop at nothing to effect their agenda. They have already proven that they are willing to change the meaning and legal significance of 'precedent' upon which is based the legal and philsophical underpinnings of Western Civilization.
Clarence Thomas is articulating the view that precedent doesn't count... I think that if Bush were to appoint people who believe that precedent doesn't count, you would really see a carnage of the laws passed by the New Deal courts.... I think that this...new Court is perfectly capable of reaching back and substantially reversing and eroding the decisions of the Supreme Court in the late 1930s. And that, to me, is a great danger.

--Martin Garbus
It is not claimed in the preamble to the Constitution that God ordained our Constitution! No external lawgiver is cited! Nor is the Constitution based --as Gary Bauer had said --on the Ten Commandments. The Constitution never mentions the Ten Commandments. The Constitution is not based on the Talmud, nor the Upanishads, nor the Bhagavad-Gita, nor the Koran!

Fundamentalists of any religious persuasion should read the Constitution from the first letter to the last period. They should be required to count the number of times the word "God" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times the word "Christian" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times that the name of any religion is named or even referenced!

NOT ONCE!

That is the case because the Constitution is a secular document creating a secular, humanist nation --A FREE REPUBLIC --and until it is overthrown by GOP/wing nuts/Religious fanatics in a coup d'etat, it will remain so!

Five ideologues have proven themselves contemptuous of both the rule of law and a basic principle underlying our founding: the separation of church and state! The constitutional subversives are Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O'Connor. None of them can be trusted to be faithful stewards of our heritage, our Constitution, indeed, our very freedoms as they are guaranteed to us in that document. Some examples:
In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.

--Ian Millhiser, Think Progress, In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man
Yet another example among scores:
Today, a Supreme Court majority ruled against women by siding with the country's largest employment discriminator, saying Wal-Mart, essentially, is too big to sue. The brave women, led by Betty Dukes, who stood up to Wal-Mart at great personal sacrifice, are told simply they're on their own.

"With this decision, the Supreme Court has assisted Wal-Mart in its efforts to systematically dole out promotions and pay raises on the basis of sex. The law calls that illegal discrimination, but this Court has turned its back on the more than million women who only sought simple justice," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "The women of Wal-Mart deserve respect and fair treatment, and we will continue to stand up for their rights."

In 2002, NOW declared Wal-Mart a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters have led countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of its women employees.

Today, NOW demands an immediate legislative response to help the women of Wal-Mart. We call on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination. This bill passed in the House in January 2009, but ultimately was defeated in the Senate.

"The gap between women's and men's pay is still sizeable, which is why it's so important to get this legislation passed," stated O'Neill. "We will continue supporting the efforts of Senators Mikulski, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Stabenow and others to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and hold accountable those who stand in the way of this sensible remedial bill."

A legislative remedy is only part of the solution, however. NOW also calls on Wal-Mart to end its unconscionable resistance to employees' efforts to form unions and bargain collectively over pay, benefits and other conditions of employment. Research demonstrates that unionized women workers earn better wages and have better benefits than their non-union counterparts. In fact, women in unions earn 11.2 percent more or $2.00 more per hour than non-union women workers. And the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.

--Political Affairs, In 5-4 decision, conservative Supreme Court justices dismiss Wal-Mart lawsuit
These 'justices' and the American right wing which supports them wish to undo the work of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and every founder whose signature is to be found at the bottom of what has been called the most magnificant document to have issued from the mind of humankind: the U.S. Constitution.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Historical Significance and the Failure of George W. Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Lincoln summed up what it was that made the United States not an alliance of separate states but a single nation of "United" states. Our nation was, he said at Gettysburg, 'conceived in liberty', an abstract, philosophical idea that had been given practical meaning in the US Constitution. We were, Lincoln said, 'dedicated' to a 'proposition'. '

Proposition' is a precise term found in philosophy and logic. Meaningful propositions are provable. They are 'meaningful' to the extent they are provable. Bush has no patience with any of that. He does not 'do nuance'. Our founders did 'nuance' and within it is found the source of American liberty: the Constitution. "The Constitution," Bush said, "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Thus --Americans are united not by ethnicity or other characteristics of 'nationality' but by abstract, philosophical principles. The US is a product of deliberate and considered 'choices' of an existentialist nature. Bush's failed presidency is already measured by the degree to which his administration exploited our patriotism while subverting the very source of it --those abstract ideas referred to by Lincoln: our very conception in 'liberty', our 'dedication' to the principle that all men are created equal, the 'nuance' wherein is found our nationhood.

The United States, though it is still a young nation, is already brought to the brink of its dissolution because one man, though he has derived power from the apparatus of state and nation, has failed to grasp the source of it or its significance. The political philosopher David Miller defined a nation is a group of people sharing a sense of common membership, believing that others, likewise, share the sense of membership and belonging. A nation, he wrote, is capable of acting as a 'group' the members of which share a common history, a 'shared public culture'. It is absurd to consider a regime wherein the 'defense' of this 'shared public culture' is, in fact, the destroyer of it. But --this is what Bush has done.

It is the measure of Bush's failure that the destruction of that 'shared public culture' so succinctly summarized by Lincoln, articulated significantly by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and, later, by James Madison in the Constitution, have fallen victim --not to terrorists --but to Bush's presumed defense of it.

It was Bush --not terrorists --who dismantled our Constitution with the pronouncement that 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who declared an end of habeas corpus, due process of law, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizure, the rights of free speech, assembly and petition. It was Bush --not terrorists --who must surely 'just hate freedom'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who robbed us what it was that made us a nation!

David Miller stressed the importance of 'trust'. A history of the 20th Century is replete with stories of nations whose regimes were distrusted by citizens. The obvious examples are the communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China under Mao. But there are as many on the right wing --Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet! If my rights so ardently defended by Jefferson, so articulately described by Madison, are imperiously abrogated, what difference does it make to me whether the assault is from the left or from the right?

The US government while never perfect seemed secure in a system of checks of balances. It was Bush --not terrorists --who deliberately upset the balance. A purely partisan 5-4 Bush v Gore was the harbinger of things to come. Bush v Gore, it is said correctly, made no law. It's effect was to stop a recount that had it been completed would have elected another man to the Oval Office. The US government has been illegitimate since that date.

No one can tell if the US will ever find its way back. The Presidential primaries were uninspiring. The previews of the upcoming Obama v McCain race give me little hope. No one is talking about the only issue that without it nothing else matters: the nature and legitimacy of the government in Washington.

Published Articles



Monday, June 16, 2008

Jung: Resisting the 'New World Order '

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It is said of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung [1875 - 1961] that he was 'prophetic of today’s ongoing debate about religion and science' as well as a much older debate about the 'individual' and the 'state'. Today --the GOP has demagogued religion while Bush, the party's flag bearer, has thrown in with 'state absolutists' --Friedrich Hegel, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot.
The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.

--Carl Jung
Those words put Carl Jung in opposition to a cult of cruelty and torture that has apparently assumed political control in the United States. It is ironic that a nation said to have been founded upon the principles of the enlightenment should find itself, under Bush's rule, categorized with regimes historically associated with 'collectivism' and 'totalitarianism.

Growing up in West Texas, among both radical 'John Birchers' and fundamentalist Christians, it is less surprising to me that the GOP, a party that often says of itself that it opposes 'big government' should, during the regime of George W. Bush, align itself with the forces of state oppression and incipient totalitarianism and that it should do so while brandishing the flag.
In this broad belt of unconsciousness, which is immune to conscious criticism and control, we stand defenseless, open to all kinds of influences and psychic infections. As with all dangers, we can guard against the risk of psychic infection only when we know that is attacking, and how, where and when the attack will come.

Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual, facts and theories are of very little help in this respect. For the more a theory lays claims to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts.

Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality.

--Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self
In "The Undiscovered Self", Jung foresaw a great crisis arising from the forces of 'collectivism' on the one hand and those that celebrate the inherent value of the individual on the other. It is a dialectic that few could have imagined might reach a zenith in a Bush regime, from which nothing special was expected, a regime that held out only the promise of oppressive dullness --not oppresssion itself, a regime characterized by standard GOP conventionality and mediocrity.

Little was expected of Bush who delivered even less in every area but one. Bush marshaled the powerful forces of state propaganda, fear, and 'group think' to forge a totalitarian collective from among his aggressive, authoritarian, intolerant and elitist base! In the wake of 911, even strong 'individualists' found it easier to just go along with the 'mass think' that blamed Islam, Europe [France, in particular] for crimes that we now know were perpetrated by the Bush regime itself. Hitler had been similarly successful in the wake of the Reichstag Fire.

Jung argued the future of civilization was literally dependent upon the ability of the individual to resist the collective forces that are found in every society. Jung's prescription consisted of individuals 'gaining an awareness and understanding' of one's own sub-conscious, in other words, “the undiscovered self'.
Resistance to the organized mass can be affected only by the man who is well organized in his individuality as the mass itself.'

--Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self, [p. 60]
One should not be surprised that Bush benefited most from the 'collectivist instinct' found in the 'religious right', a movement which typifies 'group think' and the suppression of individual reason, creativity, originality, or non-conformity of any type.
He [Jung] distinguishes between religion which expresses a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical factors and a creed which merely gives expression to a collective belief. Religion is understood in the broad sense, including the relationship of the individual to the metaphysical and the world of dreams, feelings and intuitions.

Science, on the other hand, is the rationalistic, statistical and theoretical part of understanding. Self-knowledge, according to Jung, cannot be achieved by abandoning either of these facets.

--Review, Carl Jung's The Undiscovered Self
In America, the 'religious' instinct is that of the 'group'. It has very little in common with the individual's quest for enlightenment or spirituality. Thus, the process by which individuals acquire knowledge of Jung's 'undiscovered self' is antithetical to 'ideological fanaticism' observed to be rampant and intolerant throughout Bush's America.

Only when individuals embrace the dual nature of the human psyche --the existence of good as well as its capacity for evil --that individuals may cope with the dangers and threats posed by those in power or by what Jung has called 'the sum total of individuals' i.e, the modern 'mass society'. It is not only totalitarian regimes but society itself, by way of the 'science' of 'demographics' that reduces the individual to the individual only as he/she is a part of the 'mass'.
Modern propaganda reaches individuals enclosed in the mass, yet it also aims at a crowd, but only as a body composed of individuals. What does this mean? First of all, that the individual is never considered as an individual, but always in terms of what he has in common with others, such as his motivations, his feelings, or his myths. He is reduced to an average; and except for a small percentage, action based on averages will be effectual.'

...

'In this broad belt of unconsciousness, which is immune to conscious criticism and control, we stand defenseless, open to all kinds of influences and psychic infections. As with al dangers, we can guard against the risk of psychic infection only when we know that is attacking, and how, where and when the attack will come. Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to known the individual facts, theories help very little in this respect. For the more a theory lays claims to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts. Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality.

--Propaganda: On the Formation of Man’s Attitudes[p.6]
Jung defies summary. It is better that you read him for yourself. However, some general conclusions are possible. Jung writes that 'Separation from his instinctual nature' impels the 'conflict between conscious and unconscious', between 'knowledge and faith' [Jung, op cit., p. 81] It is easy enough to find this 'symptom' in Bush's America bombarded as it is by unprecedented 'mass media' and equally unprecedented pressures to conform.

These 'pressures' to conform have always been identifiable, opposed as they were by Henry David Thoreau who chose --at Walden pond --to "live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived." Others known for their creative resistances to 'mass think' include Mark Twain and later Lenny Bruce, the 'beatniks', hippies, and Viet Nam war resisters. 'Howl' by Allen Ginsberg is a latter day movement's very anthem of 'resistance' as was the earlier 'Song of Myself' by Walt Whitman in which it is written:
'I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

--Walt Whitman
“Here we must ask: Have I any religious experience and immediate relation to God, and hence that certainty which will keep me, as an individual, from dissolving in the crowd?'

--Jung, op cit, p.88
Given the oppressive nature of Bush's evil regime, the 'mass think' inherent in 'mass media', the mind-numbing sameness of American suburbs, it is difficult to find the paths sought so heroically by Whitman, Ginsberg, et al.
We can recognize our prejudices and illusions only when, from a broader psychological knowledge of ourselves and others, we are prepared to doubt the absolute rightness of our assumptions and compare them carefully and conscientiously with the objective facts.

--Jung, op cit,p. 102

The same thing was said much earlier by Oliver Cromwell to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650
I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
The GOP, tragically, will never admit of being wrong. Therefore, as long as the GOP is allowed power of any sort, the state is made dysfunctional and the 'debate' made meaningless.

The future of mankind is in doubt. As long as the state presumes to exercise 'absolute power', individuals are robbed of the freedom required to lead meaningful lives.

In this challenging and provocative work, Dr. Carl Jung—one of history’s greatest minds—argues that civilization’s future depends on our ability as individuals to resist the collective forces of society. Only by gaining an awareness and understanding of one’s unconscious mind and true, inner nature—“the undiscovered self”—can we as individuals acquire the self-knowledge that is antithetical to ideological fanaticism. But this requires that we face our fear of the duality of the human psyche—the existence of good and the capacity for evil in every individual. In this seminal book, Jung compellingly argues that only then can we begin to cope with the dangers posed by mass society—“the sum total of individuals”—and resist the potential threats posed by those in power.

--Penquin Review of Jung's 'The Undiscovered Self'

At last, in response to uninformed 'labelers', practitioners of stupid ad hominem fallacies: Jung was NOT a Nazi. Jung, in fact, wound up on the Nazi 'blacklist' probably because he denounced precisely whatever it is that defines a 'Nazi'.
As early as 1918, Jung knew something unfavorable was arising within Germany. His words of the "blond beast stirring in its subterranean prison...threatening us with an outbreak that will have devastating consequences" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947) serve as an early warning of what was to come. Just ten years later, he wrote on how each person is unconsciously worse when acting within a crowd rather than individually. Jung warned the world that the larger an organization becomes, the more the people are prone to immorality and blind ignorance (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947).

In 1933, in a lecture given in Cologne, Germany (at the same period in history when others accused him of Nazi-sympathy), Jung leveled a full blown warning about people as a collective suffocating the individual, leaving those in the crowd anonymous, irresponsible, and dangerous. Jung implied that Hitler (and Nazism) was the inevitable cause of such collectivenes. Four years later, in 1937, Jung spoke at Yale University in the United States, relaying his belief that the movement seen in Germany was explained by a fear of neighboring countries supposedly possessed by devilish leaders. In stating that no one can recognize their own unconscious underpinnings, the possibility that Germany was projecting their own condition upon their International neighbors was evident (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). This fear leads to the nationalistic duty to have the biggest guns and the strongest army.

In 1940, most of these words were published in German but were quickly suppressed. As a result of Jung's views about Germany and particularly Adolf Hitler, he ended up on the Nazi "blacklist" (Jung, 1947, as cited in Welsh, Hannah, & Briner, 1947). When France was later invaded, the Gestapo destroyed Jung's French translations as well. In no uncertain terms, Jung's writings and lectures served as a warning for the conflict to come. As well, Jung's own words opposed the accusations of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism. It would seem then, in light of the above, that the answer to the question of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism is fairly clear.

--Jung's Own Words
Additional resources

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Bumps Along the Road to Freedom

We may escape a close encounter with tyranny. As the GOP self-destructs, The Nation declares that Democrats are poised to roll back the excesses of George W. Bush. The battle is won when Democrats retake the government; the war is lost if Democrats fail to restore the republic and the Constitution. We have stared into Nietzche's abyss and saw ourselves! We remain our greatest threat since the 1930s.

Every heroic struggle deserves an equally heroic soundtrack. In 1830, Hector Berlioz orchestrated not a film score --but a life score: La Marseillaise.


Casablanca - Rick´s Bar

The year 1830 was recalled by Hector Berlioz in his memoirs. While he had been two weeks shut up in the Paris Conservatoire writing a cantata, a revolution had broken out.

I was finishing my cantata when the Revolution broke out," "I dashed off the final pages of my orchestral score to the sound of stray bullets coming over the roofs and pattering on the wall outside my window. On the 29th I had finished, and was free to go out and roam about Paris till morning, pistol in hand. A day or two later I was crossing the courtyard of the Palais Royal when I heard a tune I knew well - a dozen or so young men singing a battle hymn of my composition [one of the Neuf Mélodies on texts of Thomas Moore]. Unused as I was to this kind of popularity, the discovery delighted me and I pushed my way through to the circle of singers and requested permission to join them. The audience grew steadily and the space round the little patriotic band got smaller and smaller. We barely escaped, and fled with the crowd streaming behind us till we reached the Galérie Colbert. There a haberdasher asked us up to a second-floor balcony, where we could 'rain down our music on our admirers' without the risk of being suffocated.

We struck up the Marseillaise. Almost at once a holy stillness fell upon the seething mass at our feet. After each refrain there was a profound silence. This is not at all what I had expected. On beholding that vast concourse of people I recalled that I had just arranged Rouget de Lisle's song for double chorus and full orchestra, and that where one normally writes 'tenors and basses' I had written instead 'everyone with a voice, a soul and blood in his veins.' After the fourth verse I could contain myself no longer, and I yelled, 'Confound it all - sing!' The great crowd roared out its Aux armes citoyens! with the power and precision of a trained choir.

--Memoirs of Hector Berlioz on La Marseillaise

Berlioz dedicated his setting of the Marseillaise to the anthem's author, Rouget de Lisle, who, by 1830, was living in indigent retirement in Choisy, on the southern fringes of Paris. The rise in popular democratic zeal surrounding the 1830 Revolt caused a renewed interest in his patriotic hymn, and King Louis-Philippe granted the poet an annual pension of 1500 francs. De Lisle wrote Berlioz a letter of appreciation on December 30, 1830, inviting Berlioz to visit him in Choisy to discuss an unnamed proposal. "I heard later," Berlioz continued in his Memoirs, "that de Lisle - who incidentally wrote many fine songs besides the Marseillaise - had an unpublished libretto on Othello that he wished to offer me. Being obliged to leave Paris on the day after I received this letter [for Rome as prize winner], I sent my apologies and explained that my visit would have to wait until after my return from Italy. The poor man died in the interval. I never met him."

--La Marseillaise - Berlioz

And in historical New Orleans, a reminder that the city's current problems with the Federal Government in Washington are not new.
New Orleans, LA (AHN) - The City Council of New Orleans unanimously voted to demolish 4,500 government-subsidized homes destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, despite overwhelming criticism and riotous protests that included a brawl in the council chamber before the vote.

The 7-member council supported a redevelopment plan of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to replace the C.J. Peete, B.W. Cooper, Lafitte and St. Bernard public housing projects with a mixed-use development that has 744 public housing units. ...

--Update 2: New Orleans City Council Unanimously Votes To Demolish Public Housing, December 20, 2007 7:01 p.m. EST

History, it seems, does repeat itself. Certainly, the battle for "liberte" is not won. In 1917, the government of the United States --the War Department, I believe --imperiously decided that certain parts of New Orleans had no right to exist. Those areas were "shut down", residents forced to relocate. The War Department presided over the destruction of property. I call that tyranny!


Billie Holiday & Louis Armstrong - Farewell to Storyville

The area is known to us as "Storyville" for Alderman Sidney Story, who decreed in 1898 that prostitution should be legal in the area called by locals --"the District". The photographic images of photographer E J Bellocq, circa 1912, are among the few visual records of Storyville that survive. Bellocq, a commercial photographer for shipping companies, is remembered for the "studies" he made of working women in Storyville. His images, at once prurient and artistic, capture perfectly the ambiguity with which the rest of the US regarded New Orleans --a "French city" in America, a city in which the famous French Impressionist Edgar Degas lived for a while and produced important work. He found himself in the middle of post-Civil War politics. New Orleans itself was comfortable "in its own skin" if puritans elsewhere in the South were not.

I have yet to find the legal authority for the Federal Government's closure of Storyville during World War I. The New Orleans City Government protested vigorously to no avail. Nevertheless, with the Storyville's loss segregated "dens of prostitution" emerged around the city. By the 1930s very little remained of famous old mansions along Basin Street, some of the finest structures in the city. It seemed a deliberate effort to erase the very memory of Storyville. Efforts to rename Basin Street "North Saratoga" failed. Today, Basin Street is Basin Street and a classic blues tune bears its name. The video above is from a 1947 film featuring Billie Holiday and Louis Armstrong.









Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Sunday, November 04, 2007

How to be free when all about you are enslaved by an evil, GOP machine

Political "evil" allows people to assuage their consciences in numbers. A person who might never lynch a man himself, might do so in a mob. Lynchings and torchings of black people were most often done by groups -not by individuals. The Holocaust required a "Reich". The Reagan regime required only an increasingly bourgeois populace only too willing to believe the lies it told itself. No member of such a group is truly free. No "good Republican" is free! No member of a mob is free. No group is free!

While psychologists may diagnose individuals as "psychotic", the more harmful effects are sustained when a group exhibits symptoms and acts upon them. There are no un-motivated choices. Motivation follows from our very existence which precedes essence, in this case, the manifestation of character, the gestalt of our choices. I propose that we choose to be free. We become free when we accept responsibility for what we make of ourselves.

Hollywood script-writers say that motive precedes character. Many, perhaps most, will act upon what is believed, in good faith, to be true but others will act knowingly upon a lie. Bertolt Brecht addressed inauthentic" people when he said: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it ia lie is a crook!". To act knowingly upon a lie is to act upon bad motives. Jean-Paul Sartre would call it mauvaise fois.
For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse.

That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will never regard a grand passion as a destructive torrent upon which a man is swept into certain actions as by fate, and which, therefore, is an excuse for them. He thinks that man is responsible for his passion.

Neither will an existentialist think that a man can find help through some sign being vouchsafed upon earth for his orientation: for he thinks that the man himself interprets the sign as he chooses. He thinks that every man, without any support or help whatever, is condemned at every instant to invent man.

--Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism

In some cases, a lie may not be a true motivation, but only a "cover" for a truth that dare not be revealed. In such cases, there is the "truth" that is acted upon, and the lie that is publicly professed. The intention is to deceive. The GOP is, thus, enslaved by its own web of lies --the lies it tells the world, the lies it tells itself. Only those who can accept the truth of their own existence and take responsibility for it are truly free. The GOP is the party of blame, a party for whom everyone but itself is blamed for its failures at home, in Iraq, throughout the world.

In some cases, a lie is told oneself and the world. In other cases, the truth is known and ignored; a cover story is told the world. Trickle down theory is just such a lie --a falsehood of convenience told publicly to justify economic policies intended to enrich the very few while impoverishing the many.

It is often possible to convince oneself that a lie is true and, in those cases, truth is forever covered up. It is a rare culprit who accepts his own villainy. Most will excuse a crime with a lie, a rationalization. "I was only righting the wrong that had been done me". "I was mistreated as a child". "The money should have been mine".

"Republicanism" itself is a gestalt of lies of many sorts. Republicans embrace "trickle down theory" not because it is true but because it conveniently justifies piggish, often criminal behavior. There are perhaps two kinds of people in this corrupt White House -those who really believe the lies and those who know them to be lies but cite them, in bad faith, to promote the GOP agenda. Motives so assiduously disguised cannot be benign.

It is easy enough invoke a blanket "political motive" ie, if Bush had been honest and up front about the many ways in which his cronies would be enriched by war with Iraq, the nation would never have backed the war. But many would have backed the war and would have espoused the same specious arguments and for the same reasons. Bush lied about WMD because he dared not make public the other, hidden reasons to wage aggressive war.

Evil, and the hypocrisy it inspires, springs from a deep well. Hypocrisy and mass psychoses are only mechanisms by which evil objectives are achieved. Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the American psychologist charged with keeping the Nuremberg criminals alive until they could be duly hanged, identified evil with the primary symptom of "psychopathic personalities" ie, the "utter lack of empathy".


Human, All Too Human (BBC) - Jean Paul Sartre: Part 1


Human, All Too Human (BBC) - Jean Paul Sartre: Part 2


A Short Based upon my interview with a survivor of Auschwitz

An update from my friends at Bad Attitudes:

Even for Texas

Texas, a perennial frontrunner in the stupidity stakes, is about to auction off a state wildlife preserve bordering Big Bend National Park:

The property, which could be sold as soon as Tuesday, is the Christmas Mountains Ranch, a 9,270-acre tract abutting Big Bend National Park near the Rio Grande. It was given to the state in 1991 and leased to the nonprofit association of local residents to patrol

The dispute pits the donors of the land, the Conservation Fund and the Richard King Mellon Foundation, against a pistol-packing commissioner adamant about preserving hunting and firearms rights on the property, even at the cost of denying the land to the National Park Service, although Texas ranks 44th in park land.
Bigbend.jpg

Posted by Jerome Doolittle







WWII




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine