History and Conversion

I am a convert.

No, I did not change religions. My faith is the one thing I will never change. But I did change elsewhere, and this change was brought about by my more-than-passing interest in history.

The change has come in my politics. History has changed my politics.

No, I am not, nor do I foresee I will ever be, a liberal. But as a political conservative, I did come of age believing that representative democracy, the form of government I was born and flourished under, was the most efficient and righteous form of government ever devised by the mind of man. I was a politically socially conservative (small d) democrat, the kind of which you might have found in Ronald Reagan's Republican Party of the 1980's. Plus, I was taking up Political Economy for my university studies and had filled a niche as the Institute's resident straw man right-wing "fascist" (with my then-close friend as the polar opposite straw man pinko commie, he he). I sincerely believed that oft-repeated adage that democracy is a flawed government whose only virtue was that it was better than anything else man has come up with.

Only now, I've grown out of that. I believe democracy, with all its flaws, is no better than the myriad attempts at government our ancestors have mustered. Gone is my ardor for democracy, and now I am merely a political social conservative.

How did I get here?

An interest in history has seen me through some interesting intellectual adventures. The first blow against my political orthodoxy came in the study of both classical and medieval Europe. The most ardent democrats often put these ages down (especially the Middle Ages) as both parts absolutist and backward. Totalitarian kings snuffed out freedom and demanded conformity in the name of their own personal glory, while poor simpleton peasants uttered prayers they barely understood. Little did I know that I would soon discover these ages as both intellectually and spiritually vibrant, as well as the progenitor of the very ideas that democracy has appropriated in order to justify the legitimacy of its supremacy. (The concept of human rights, for example, which I believed to be the product of democratic thinking, was actually conceived by men working under these supposed totalitarian monarchs who *gasp* actually paid them to think of these things. If you think Lincoln vs. Douglas was a stirring contest of orations over the dignity of man, wait til you read Bishop de las Casas!)   

The second blow was going through the histories of recent (as opposed to classical / Athenian) democratic governments. One favored tactic by those arguing for democracy over anything else is the citing of atrocities committed by pre-democratic regimes. In fact, prehistorical civilizations were at war most of the time, and indeed, we have seen long stretches of peace unprecedented in human history in this age of democratic regimes. However, it does not take war to commit atrocities. The way I see it, the long peace only meant that the darker side of human nature had to get more creative. The result of the long peace has not been a general uplifting of the human common good. It only meant that there would be a rapid increase in non-military barbarism perpetuated under various stretches of ideological engineering. One need only tick off a few numbers; 40 million lost to abortion over the last 40 years (that's the Holocaust more than six times over), millions dead of AIDS in Africa, not to mention the shrinking of the populations of affluent First World nations. All these, under the watchful eye of democratic regimes. If there is one profound thing our age will be remembered by, it will probably be the paradoxical destruction of a civilization in the middle of so much peace and prosperity.

And then, there were the wars. The democratic century is also history's bloodiest. We may have gone to war less, but when we did, we put to shame all those petty wars our ancestors fought amongst themselves. Democratic efficiency (for me the greatest single virtue of democracy) meant that we could kill and destroy far more in a shorter period of time than any khan or king could dream of in the deepest reaches of his bloodlust. Some say that if you gave the Holy Roman Emperor the Bomb, he would have destroyed just as many. I counter that the Holy Roman Emperor wouldn't even know what to make of such a bomb. The last time the Holy Roman Emperor found the world laid at his feet, he put a stop to all his conquests and called a conference that would produce that remarkable set of laws known as the Laws of the Indies. The first time democratic Bolsheviks found the world laid at their feet, they proceeded to mutilate it.

Finally, there was beauty. A progressive may remember medieval Europe as a place of mud hovels and mounds of filth. (Ah, bless you, Monty Python!) But it was also an age of Cathedral and Castle builders. Chartres and Notre Dame both attest to the spiritual and aesthetic grandeur of the age. Who says that nothing beautiful was produced under kings? I am hard-pressed to find beautiful art in the democratic age. What will be our monument? The McMansion? Ugly auditoriums for our places of worship and utilitarian boxes for our places of livelihood? The irony of so many people with so much prosperity failing to produce any lasting monument to this achievement is a sad commentary on our state of affairs. It is a symptom of a far deeper malaise. Democracy may have meant a higher standard of living (or is that because of capitalism?), but the spiritual barrenness that came in its wake has produced a new set of problems. De Tocqueville was only half right; it seems to me that democracies can atrophy into laxity and self-contentment as well as any aristocracy. 

I will admit to an element of unwarranted nostalgia. It seems that one is not granted the right to wistfully look back to ages one was not born in. However, I will often read things like this moving tribute to the Habsburgs, and this article on the tragedy of the fall of empires before the First World War, and be moved at what beautiful and noble things these empires and kingdoms must have been in their time, with their shortcomings no longer the inherent malignant blights progressives paint them to be, but rather tragic flaws of the likes that have always hounded even the greatest of human heroes. Romanticized? To some extent, you bet. But I have read the romances of democracy as well, and find very little to commend the human spirit beyond the self-congratulatory back-slapping. (Thomas Paine...good Lord, what a stultified, myopic little hack he was...) The ages of kings and emperors, at least, produce better romances. It's like comparing the Iliad, the Odyssey and the Children of Hurin with Atlas Shrugged. There is no contest. And in an age characterized by a barrenness of spirit, do not underestimate the power of romance.

All this is to say that, while I do not and never will find democracy to be inherently evil, I do not find democracy to be anything special anymore. My exceptionalist love for democracy was predicated on the infantile assumption that democracy holds back more of the darker side of human nature than any other form of government; I have discovered that demoracy, at best, holds back the darkness no better than any other regime. This observation has nothing to do with the Philippines and the process of "state-in-becoming" (to avoid another Clem Camposano lecture on the matter), for I base my observations on what I see coming from the so-called "mature" democracies of the First World. For me, the foremost goal of the state is, as the City of Man, to safeguard the rights and dignity of the human person. It is this end and the means by which it is achieved that would determine what a good government is, and not the form that such a government takes. Whether by king or by parliament, for as long as the dignity and rights of man under God are held sacred, there shall a good regime be. And if any regime, be it democratic, monarchical, anarchic or whatnot fails in this regard, then it deserves to fall. (One more reason to love the American Revolution over the French...) I find this view to be very Thomistic, and quite suitable. When it comes to a regime, it is the substance, and not the accident, that matters.

I do not come by these views overnight. This has been the product of several years worth of musing, pondering and contemplating. Maybe it will change again, though I find it unlikely. The human mind is not without its eccentricities.

I guess I fell out of Political Economy just in time. :)

YouTube - Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal Video Version

The sheer illogic of your average 80's music video.

More Proof Marriage is a Privilege, Not a Right

One cannot abuse an inherent right, like life, or liberty. But one sure can abuse a privilege over and over.

Take this woman, for example, who divorces her husband for no other reason than she's fucking bored.

If I were a judge, I'd certainly deny this douchebag the privilege of a marriage license.

Update: Here's a sort-of takedown of this noxious woman's views, courtesy of a family researcher.

Money grafs are in item 4.

Every couple of years, some journalist seeks to revive the myth of the good divorce -- often to excuse his or her own bad behavior. Sandra Tsing Loh is Exhibit A this week. In the most recent issue of The Atlantic, she spends several thousand words trying to justify her divorce from her husband of 20 years -- a man she admits is a "good man" and "loving father" -- under the cover of a sprawling, incoherent, and frankly disturbing review of five books on marriage and family life. (Among other things, the reader is regaled with all too much information about Loh's private life; we learn, for instance, that one reason she ended up divorced is that she could not replace the "romantic memory of my fellow [adulterous] transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband.")

Loh claims that her children appear to be doing just fine. Her two school-age girls -- aged 7 and 9 -- appear to be "unfazed" and "relatively content" in the midst of their parents' divorce. Who knew divorce could be so easy on the kids?

In reality, Loh is probably deluding herself. The best social science presents a rather different picture than the rosy one Loh is trying to paint. According to research by Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Paul Amato of Penn State, girls whose parents divorce are about twice as likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer from psychological problems such as depression and thoughts of suicide. Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life.

Michael Jackson is Dead

So, wacko Jacko moonwalks his way out of the mortal coil, and suddenly its like Mother Teresa died.

Stupid fucking American media. World-changing events are happening, and we have to avert our eyes to mourn this dilapidated icon?

His life was the tragedy. Where the hell were you then?

Of all the bigger tragedies occurring around the world today, this is what we waste brain cells on?

Our descendants will look back at our age and declare us crazy. 

Thoughts on Iran

So, unless you've been living in suspended animation these last few months, you've probably heard of this "Green Revolution" (what's with the color coding?) coming out of Iran. The basic story outline reads like something out of a Philippine politician's playbook: claims of electoral fraud have propelled an angered middle class onto the streets of the capital, met by forces loyal to a running establishment that is becoming unpopular with the urban set. However, there are, of course, major differences. In the Philippines, you'd never be able to shut out foreign journalists, hunt for bloggers, or blatantly shoot protesters in the streets. But, these things are apparently easy to do in the weird world of Islamic "democracy".

It is easy to buy the underdog line. After all, due to the poverty of means available to them thanks to the wisdom of their overlords, these protesters have resorted to using such loathsome forums as Twitter just to get any sort of message to the world beyond the Iranian firewall.

However, things are much more complicated than that. I find the sober analysis of either David P. Goldman or Stratfor's George Friedman to be the most succinct and reliable. 

To sum them up:

First, the Iranian uprising is confined only to the middle class. Western media has made the mistake of relying on Twitter, which can only be accessed by the well-heeled, English-speaking segment of Iran. Needless to say, this segment is very small. As Friedman noted, a revolution will only succeed if the unrest spreads from the agitating group to other segments that would have been loyal to the regime. So far, the protests are severely localized. There are no fires in Isfahan or Qom. Besides, Ahmadinejad's constant threats against the corrupt rich make him far more popular amongst the toughest barriers to any revolution; the rural and impoverished classes.

Second, the whether or not the election was fixed will matter little. What we are seeing through the awful lens that is Twitter is a tipping point moment where the sons and (especially) daughters* of societal liberalization square off against the old guard of clerics and hardened fanatics. The truth is that this is a war between two old guard factions: the rich mullah Hashemi Rafsanjani and his ally Mir Hossein Moussavi on one side and Ayatollah Khomeini and the populist Ahmadinejad on the other. Fraud or no fraud, the Ayatollah holds the power to tip the point, and as an astute politician, his analysis of the field led him to pick Ahmadinejad. The reality is that those students risking their lives are but pawns in a larger game between clerics.

(* As an aside, from what I've noticed, ever since it happened in Lebanon, showing pretty "revolutionaries" has been considered an essential part of the process.)

Third, Moussavi and Rafsanjani would be no different from Ahmadinejad when it comes to the West. It was Rafsanjani, after all, who paid to bring those centerfuges to Iran in the first place. (I personally doubt, however, the Ahmadinejad and Moussavi are interchangeable in this regard. I suspect Moussavi will be easier to talk to, if only because he will be easily trapped by promises made.)

Fourth, the Iranian establishment's interests go beyond facing down the United States. With the Taliban in Pakistan agitating for more persecution of the Shiite minority, and Iran rapidly losing it's place in the regional power structure due to a rapidly failing demography and economy, the Ayatollah's main concern is showing off Iranian militancy, which the nutjob Ahmadinejad is far more suited to do than the urbane Moussavi.

Fifth, as the students themselves acknowledge, their cause stands or falls on support from the West. With Obama confined to making general statements against some vague injustice while always indicating that he will "negotiate" with any stooge the regime puts in front of him, these students are doomed. The only US President they could have counted on stepped down twenty years ago after serving two terms, and has since passed away. (Although, they stood a much better chance with the previous president than with this lame duck.)

I defer to the analysis of greater men since, in my mind, I mostly concur.

The heart is a different matter however.

Let me state in no uncertain terms that I absolutely loathe the Islamic Republic. Not Iran (or Persia, if you'd like) and its fine people, but that half-assed attempt at government and statehood they have in those parts. For me, the Islamic "Republic" is what happens when Greco-Christian ideas such as representative democracy and respect for innate human rights are corrupted when mixed with Islamic ideas of governance and justice. Not that I think that it is impossible for Muslims to have democracy. I just think its impossible for Shariah and democracy to co-exist, at least in their full forms.

So, my sympathy lies with those brave souls fighting in the streets for the recognition of some poignantly Western (and I dare say, universal) ideas, such as human right and human dignity. They may be a small, manipulated class, but they poured as much heart into their fight as the peasants of the Vendee did when the masters of  the French Revolution (another thing I absolutely loathe, along with that piggish era Europeans have the temerity to call "the Enlightenment".) decided that some people are more equal than others. I know the images are disturbing, but free men can ill afford to simply look away.



And then, there are the martyrs.

Neda, the face of a fallen revolt

Her name meant "voice" in Farsi. She had a full life ahead of her. However, instead of bowing and accepting the game being played above her, she stuck her neck out and was promptly gunned down by Revolutionary Guards in motorcycles. There is a reason I never supported the notion of women in the military, and that reason is that I believe no woman should ever be shot. (Dying in battle for the greater good is, or ought to be, one of the male gender's specific burdens...compensation for not bearing children...more on this some other time...) Any regime that could callously treat its women like target practice, for no other reason than they were there when the regime was out for blood, deserves the dustbin of history.

In the war between the heart and the head, I always go with the head. Its a brute who is ruled by his passions.

However, hope still remains. Maybe I will see people topple the statue of the Ayatollah within my lifetime. I've seen Lenin fall.  Why not Khomeini?  

Update: To whomever is responsible for that "convert to islam" ad on my Google sidebar, fuck you!

Yesterday was the Feast Day of St. Thomas More

In honor of it, I present this clip from the show "Tudors". (Not "Man for All Seasons" by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, what is?)

YouTube - Legalize Shrooms

Why shrooms will not be legalized any time soon...most of their spokespeople are like these. :D

Video Games and Religion

Australian video game web magazine "The Escapist" does religion and video games here. (Note: look for issue 205)

While the articles are not particularly insightful, I am quite impressed that the topic was broached at all. And some of the stuff (particularly, the one about digital missionaries) are noteworthy. But what I liked about it the most was this awesome image:

Marcus Fenix: Inquisitor 2026

Some Things Get Worse With Progress

AKA "British Ruled by the Stupids" file no. 40596059

These are knights, circa 1350.


These are knights, circa 2009:

"Sir" Elton John

"Sir" Alan Cumming

You decide which embodies a title meaning "gentleman soldier" more.

Personally, I'll go with the guys who look like they can lift a sword without breaking their wrists.

Social Media: Enhancing the Human Experience

June 6 was D-day

In the haze of a beach vacation, I totally forgot! Bad history junkie! Bad!

As a matter of late commemoration, here is Gen. Eisenhower's letter to his men on the day of the landings.

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The 
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. 
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory! 

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.


                                            SIGNED: Dwight D. Eisenhower

I, for one, appreciate the fact that what happened on that day was something remarkable.

Mainly, because I do not think anybody can achieve what had been done on that day today.

Here's an idea of what a modern-day Eisenhower would have to go through:

The Western Media's Messiah

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."    - Evan Thomas, Newsweek editor

You know, the "media worships Obama" thing was all merely an effective metaphor and source of parody for me before. But now, these media morons have moved beyond parody.

Have fun with Chocolate Jesus, you idiots. Just take care that he doesn't melt under the wilting gaze of reality. 

The Problem with Material Reductionist Jargon

The problem with material reductionist jargon, a problem rooted within the principles of the philosophy itself, is that it comes across as extremely tone deaf.

Here is a transhumanist, Singularity-worshiping, self-described materialist rationalist trying to make a case for a reductionist story of how human love and friendship came about. Mind you, this guy is supposed to be one of the less mindless ones, and not the fools you'll see boasting of their cool atheism in usenet groups.

Now, try to read what he wrote and tell me if anything he says about the nature of love and friendship strike you as human in any way.

Reducing human friendships to "iterated prisoner's dilemmas" and love to "adaptation-reflex" is a sure way to convince the world that you're a robot talking about human beings you've never even encountered.

The problem is surely at the heart of the materialist project. But at least, you'd think they'd come up with better jargon.

A Curious Argument

I was sifting through a post on the metaphysics of a "multiverse" by sci-fi writer John C. Wright when I came across a curious argument I have never heard before:

On the other hand, the supernatural is not and cannot be another physical place with other laws of nature.

This distinction avoids much confusion in these arguments. I have heard, for example, theists argue that, given any number of possible worlds, there must therefore be one world occupied by a being of such immense power that he could create universes at his command. This argument is merely a confusion of words. You can call world-making creatures gods if you like, but they would be natural creatures bound by the laws of nature.

It tickled my funny bone to think that, somewhere out there, there are some Christians trying to "Christianize" string theory. I have never heard this "god of the multiverse" argument before, and it looks to be extremely half-baked (a world-making creature subject to the laws of string theory cannot be a god...it probably won't even be a scientist...), but I do applaud them for trying.

But then again, Christianizing string theory is like Christianizing rap. Ugh and why bother?