Posted on 11/10/2004 2:09:47 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
You know, I've been trying to understand the bizarre ideological inconsistencies of the past week as our blue state liberals advocate Voltaire out of one side of their mouths and Russell Means out of the other. This spectacle of us "rednecks" being pummeled by a "tag team" of Charles Darwin and Sitting Bull has been bothering me for a very long time (for years, even). It's just that the whole issue has been omnipresent over the past seven days as the coasts fume at us for both rejecting Darwin and unforgivably altering the beliefs of "indigenous" religions (all that is lacking is a pulpit in some backwater rural Black Pentecostal Church being used to attack chr*stianity). So pardon me as I continue to ruminate on the keyboard so that my frustrations may be shared with others.
It is indeed puzzling to the point of maddening to be called "neanderthals" (as an insult yet!) by evolutionists, animal-worshippers, and fans of "indigenousness." Were not the "neanderthals" closer to Our Forebears The Beasts than modern man, with his genocidal destruction of Eskimo mythology? The whole "cave man"/"neanderthal" insult is simply loaded with irony (considering that no Australian aborigine or native of New Guinea will ever be so designated). Yet liberals are ultimately Hegelian idealists, whether they ascribe historical evolution to a "world soul" or the class struggle, and Hegelianism teaches that human history is teleological, flowing in one direction from the alpha point of the past to the omega point at "the end of history," and the term "neanderthal" suggests that one is violating this flow by refusing to "keep up with the times." Do these people not realize they are contradicting themselves when they insist that "indigenous pipples" must never be defiled with Western rationalism or forced to "keep up with the times?" Evidently they do not. Unfortunately, many conservatives simply accept the double standard and wear the liberal invective as a badge of honor. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person to see the incongruities in the alliance between Voltaire and the "noble savage." But that alliance seems to be at the very heart of the "rednecks should be vegetarian rocket scientists while 'natives' should be shamanistic hunter-gatherers" theme.
I have found what I believe to be a pop culture analogy to the liberal schizophrenia that declares one person's "low intelligence" to be another person's "legitimate cultural expression." And I have found it in, of all places, Gene Roddenberry's definitive secular humanist vision of the galactic future, "Star Trek." Allow me to explain:
As you will recall, Star Fleet's prime directive was never to interfere in the internal development of other planets. This was of course routinely ignored in any episode whose plot would have been stymied by it, but I think the general idea of a "prime directive" directed toward "others" is operating in the liberal mind. The Federation was made up of many races and cultures, and I doubt very seriously that they showed this extreme latitude toward each other, as it would have made "federation" impossible. They could quite legitimately conduct coups or discipline unruly planets or cultures of their own. But when it came to "the other," they were determined not to judge. So the "prime directive" translated as "we hold our own to a standard; we refuse to judge 'the other.'"
By now the reader can easily see where I'm going with this. The liberal elites seem to regard whites (or perhaps more correctly, Anglo-Saxons) as visitors from another world come to study this one and its quaint peoples. Therefore, we require the strictest standards of our own (we cannot afford to subscribe to "fantasies"), but we do not wish to leave so much as a cultural "fingerprint" on anyone else. Liberals become furious when "rednecks" forego this "obvious" mission and insist on the perks of "indigenousness" for themselves (eg, their own "motherlands" and supernatural beliefs). Poor rural Anglos who continue to subscribe to their ancestral "mythologies" and taboos are savages--but woe betide anyone who applies this term to "the other!"
This theory explains the double standard with regard to South African apartheid. Cultural relativism had no bearing here. South Africa was not "the other" but "us," and "we" were interfering with and depriving the "natives" of freedom. At the time of the anti-apartheid crusade it was Communism that was being given a free pass, but I think the example becomes even more stark if we choose to compare liberal anti-apartheidism to a contemporary and decidedly non-Communist exampe, ie, the enslavement of Blacks by Arabs in the Sudan. Unlike South Africa, "we" are not doing anything. Because "we" have not interfered, Sudan becomes the beneficiary of the "prime directive" ("this is their culture") in a way the rulers of old South Africa did not.
Let's summarize my theory so far: "we" are here to study "them." "We" must confront and acknowledge reality and rationality in order to perform our studies successfully. However, "they" cannot be polluted by our rationalism. "We" may exact any number of approprite punishments of those members of "us" who want to participate in the life of this planet, but "we" do not make any value judgements whatsoever about "the other."
This actually goes beyond mere politics. Has anyone else ever noticed that vegetarians and anti-hunters do not object to hunting, trapping, skinning, or meat-eating by "indigenous pipples?" In fact, they are assumed to have the same right to hunt and kill animals for food that wolves and other predators are (perhaps liberals believe deep down inside that "indigenous pipples" are still "animals?"). Not only must the "invader" not kill the animals of this planet for food, but he must not interfere in predation by the native species (spiders, wolves, South American Indians, Southern Blacks). It is truly astounding that this condescension (camouflaged as it is by inward-directed ridicule and outward-directed solidarity) is not noticed by more people. At any rate, I would gladly bear that condescension rather than the compulsory "observer" status that has been assigned me by my "betters."
Anybody know what planet we "observers" are from? I'd like to return there now, please!
I would like to point out another dichotomy caused by the "prime directive" mentality. All our liberal dissidents are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Considering the celebration of the heritage of "la raza" by the Left, why do none of them plan on going to Mexico instead? My theory is that the "us/the other" worldview splits Leftism into two varieties, what we may perhaps call "First World Leftism" (the kind we are supposed to suffer under) and "Third World Leftism" (which is going to "liberate" everyone else). American Leftists can go to Canada because its "indigenous" population has already been decimated (too bad, but oh well, there's nothing we can do about it now) whereas Mexico is still the Sacred Mother Soil of La Raza Unida, its "autochthonous" children who emerged from her bosom and alone have the right to live there. While Canada will become a secular yet somehow multicultural paradise, Mexico will be restored to its former and rightful greatness under the Aztec Emperors, before the Foreign Devil violated its virgin soil and imposed his vile religion on the rightful occupants, effacing the unparalleled wisdom with which their "gxds" had graced them. Canadian Leftism will be that of Voltaire; Mexico's will be that of his "ally," the "noble savage."
This example illustrates the vast differences between the "first world" and "third world" Leftism. First World Leftism is rational, secular, and scientific (though refusing to judge the "cultures" of "the others" in its midst). It is pacifist and anti-nuclear, guilt riddled over its past "crimes," perhaps vegetarian, and ultimately committed to blend into an abstract "family of man."
Third World Leftism (though considered the "fraternal comrade" of First World Leftism), is quite a different matter. It is devoid of any sense of guilt but rather furiously, mystically nationalistic. It has no intention of ever ceding its national sovereignty to foreign devils or international bodies. While the First World Leftists (FWLs) are destroying their military establishments the TWLs are engaged in a military buildup of monumental proportions. While FWLs are dismantling their nuclear reactors and erecting solar panels the TWLs are exercising their Right As A Sovereign Nation by building nuclear reactors. FWL nations contract into themselves, TWL ones engage in blatant military adventurism. FWLs critique their religious heritage in the light of "reason; TWLs celebrate their "glorious heritage" and how the "foreign devil" was unable to quench The Ageless Wisdom Of Our Forefathers with his vulgar, upstart religion. The FWLs instill disdain for their national heritage even while teaching docile submission to a totalitarian government, while TWLs are ready to pour out every drop of blood for the Sacred Socialist Motherland Which Has Been Our Home For Untold Thousands of Years.
Perhaps the easiest way to concretize these differences between First and Third World Leftisms is to imagine a May Day celebration under each one. In the First World Socialist State there would be long-haired, drug-addled, guilt-soaked hippies flashing the "peace" sign or throwing rocks. But under the Third World Leftist regime May Day is quite a spectacle. Millions upon millions of short haired, clean shaven, well-armed young men and women in military uniform (from ages five to fifty) march in lockstep across the Plaza Of The Revolution to the sound of martial music, carrying the National and Party Flags and, above all, pictures of the Great Leader, the Personification Of The National Essence, The Husband Of Every Wife And Father Of Every Child; and the whole gigantic party ends with a rousing, fist-shaking, arm-waving speech by the Leader as he assures his people that they have never ever done anything wrong in their history ever. Then he invites his First World Leftist hippie guest to join him in condemning the evils of fascism.
Anyway, this represents some of my thinking in trying to come to terms with liberal/leftist hypocrisy in regard to these matters. I wish that my fellow conservatives would stop gladly accepting the "ignorant neanderthal" label and actually force liberals to confront their hateful hypocrisy. This is not likely to happen, but it would be interesting to learn how liberals justify their inconsistencies in their own minds (assuming they've even thought that far).
Enough of the "I'm an ignorant redneck and I'm proud" reactions. Let us write liberal publications and ask liberals with whom we come in contact if they have indeed adopted a "prime directive" that justifies their corrosive scientism toward our beliefs and their awed respect of everyone else's.
Comments, anyone?
ping...
I too have understood leftism in terms of their subscribing to a sort of "Prime Directive" for a while now. My reasoning and basis for coming to this conclusion ran along different lines than yours (I actually like yours better).
To recapitulate my thinking in this area a bit: I think any analysis of lefty thought has to take into account their millenial utopianism. The future will be utopia; the utopian monoculture will cover the world; this is a given. The only question is, what will be that monoculture be like? Or rather, what current culture will form the seed or root of, and evolve into, that monoculture? Clearly this question must plague most leftists, because they look around, and what is there to root for - especially with USSR gone?
Here's where I believe that the "paradox" you've discovered can be resolved and understood. Basically, the Prime Directive needs to be obeyed because lefties don't like our culture enough to be willing to see it become the future utopia. Other "indigenous" cultures therefore need to be coddled and firewalled because if they are not, lefties know we will swallow them up. This is intolerable not because our swallowing up other cultures will harm those cultures (in most cases they'd benefit) but because then there would be no alternatives.
And the main thing the lefty wants to preserve is alternatives to our society. Why? Again: because he does not like our society.
So, a lefty has a lot of trouble advocating the use of force against even the most vicious of "indigenous" killers. Yes, sure (says the lefty subconscious), we could save a lot of indigenous lives doing it, but look at the down-side: (1) we increase our power and prestige, (2) we reinforce our precedent for "interfering", and (3) we will inevitably influence that culture in our direction.
It's "better" to let other cultures, even vicious/murderous ones, to stay out there, protected from us. Think of it as a sort of extension of lefty thinking on the benefits of "diversity". If each Culture is a member of the Culture-Gene-Pool, then (since diversity is good) it's better to keep them around than to risk them being swallowed up by larger, more dominant (even if better and kinder) cultures!
Hence: the Prime Directive.
Within the context of the Star Trek show, my understanding of why lefties like the Prime Directive fulfills a metaphorical function. The effect of the PD on Star Trek is to ensure that the "Federation culture" is never going to be the only one in the universe. There are always going to be "strange new worlds" to explore, "new life forms" - if a Star Trek viewer had ever been concerned about this, the PD ensures it. This is obviously necessary on a TV show whose main appeal is often the alien encounters. In fact, the humans of Star Trek are often rather boring, so of course a rule to ensure others survive, is a priori a good thing.
Well, lefties, perhaps by definition, think that "our" culture is rather boring (=should NOT be the sole root of future utopian monoculture) thus find it necessary to "protect" others with a PD. Even if this leads to apparent betrayal of their principles.
The betrayal is only apparent because the truth is their principles have less to do with their oft-professed devotion to "human rights" etc., and more than anything else to do with fundamentally disliking their own culture.
IMHO.
Very well thought out. This goes far to explain why liberals can
rail against bigotry/racism while being bigots and racist
LOL.
My first paper as a freshman in philosophy 101 (it was ultimately my major), I got a C on which the prof wrote, "I wouldn't be surprised if you thought you worked hard on this, students tend not to know what real work is."
I was seriously offended for 10 minutes, until I thought about how right he was. My 25th reunion is next year. Some things stick with you.
That prof turned out to be my advisor when I went for the honors degree, (I passed), but I did get to spike his a$$ during a student / faculty volleyball game.
My first blush reaction is: thought provoking. I think it is a natural human response to engage in contrary behavior: we hold "us" to both higher standards and lower ones, depending on the context. No prophet is with honor in his own town, no great person is great in his valet's eyes. But we also tend to give "our folks" the benefit of the doubt and assume that, when they conflict with "them", they are in the right. I like the way you've mapped this split onto leftism, but I wonder if it doesn't apply more broadly. We hold our children to higher standards than their guests in our homes, yet defend them against criticism by outsiders.
If you could go back to the planet that you came from and not have to be a dispassionate observer any more, what would you do? Be native (as opposed to going native)? Just live an unreflective life immersed unquestioningly in your folkways?
bump for bookmark
ping
Sounds very pleasant. Sure beats having to eternally fight liberals in defense of everything good.
Then of course there are the "palestinians" who are "piss loving pipples."
As originally formulated, it only applied to cultures that had not achieved spaceflight.
Essentially, once they'd gotten off-planet, other cultures could be told to play nice with others--and it could be made to stick.
To further expand and clarify your analogy the prime directive does not allow The Federation to interfere in pre warp drive cultures.Once a planet advances enough to achieve warp drive then first contact can be made.Once said planet achieves a global peace and one government then they can apply for membership in the Federation.
I think Japan has been accepted in the "Federation" and is effectively considered and treated as "White/European." Eskimos can hunt whales,that is perfectly acceptable but the Japanese can not.They must now live by "Federation Rules."
Thank you for commenting on and expanding upon my analogy (I've watched "Star Trek" but I'm not a fanatic or anything).
Japan is an intersting case. They have been absolved of guilt for their World War II era atrocities ("it was their culture"), but Pat Buchanan regards them as "white" (as did the apartheid regime of South Africa).
Why do the Ainu never get any press? Is it because they're indigenous "caucasians" in a country ruled by "people of color?"
Good thing I currently have no beverage anywhere near me.
I like it. It has a certain internal consistent and some broad insights into the demented mind of the left.
The Ainu. Aboriginal caucasions. Almost sounds like an oxymoron. A native any redneck could love.....
Ping for later. Great read. The dicotomy of diversity. Gotta be a haiku in there somewhere.
Bump for bookmark & later read
While your figuring out third world leftists, can you tell me why socialist/collectivist (thinking about what that means) revolutions in these geographic latrines turn immediatly to the task of tribal warfare and genocide?
But why are Fundamentalist Protestant Blacks, whose religion is at least theoretically the same as that of the "knuckle-dragging neanderthals," treated as something strange and exotic and "other?" Granted, we conservatives often forget that before they were discovered by the radical left they were often mercilessly and cruely persecuted by their "anti-evolutionist co-religionists," but why do today's liberals see something so different from Rev. Jimmy Swaggart's religion? Perhaps it is merely a passing fancy, just as the Left once celebrated (and then discarded) the white Okies of the Dust Bowl days?
Re the idea of a plurality of cultures vs. the monoculture, it is interesting that the European-style "right" identifies the Left with a rootless universal monoculture and call for "multiculturalism" among cultures just as leftists call for it within (Western) cultures. This gives them a certain amount of common ground with the advocates of mystical indigenous nationalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.