Anomie and Revolution

Sometimes in the heat of revolutionary change, unspeakable atrocities are committed. Individuals look back in horror at what was inflicted and are unable to comprehend how citizens could go into such a collective state of irrationality. This societal dilemma is called an issue of anomie, which is described as a state of normlessness; where there is a rejection of self-regulatory values and any distinction between right and wrong, for the moment, become obsolete. 

David Émile Durkheim, one of the fathers of modern sociology, coined the term 'anomie' in 1897 in his book 'Suicide' and describes it as a "a rule that is a lack of a rule." A society can become anomic for a variety of reasons, but it is always preceded by a dissatisfaction with the current set of affairs. In essence, the people's will to change the old order overcomes their rational instincts and makes them primitive peoples; regressing them from their modern consciousness. It is this phenomenon that is perhaps an obstacle to major revolutionary change, if done too hastily; since people loose their moral senses, their ability to recognize an emerging despotism all the more diminishes. This can have devastating consequences to the society after the initial short-lived euphoria of change.

One prevalent detailed precursor to 'collective anomie' is distorted idealism. The German Romantic author, Jean Paul, called this relationship of the mind and earth Weltschmerz - the grim understanding that the demands of the mind cannot be met in the physical world and that one's weaknesses are a direct result of his relationship with the cruelty of what he witnesses and experiences. There are seemingly two dark paths that can follow; either the individual enters a state of escapist mentality and seclusion or develops an anomic response that renders him incapable of self-regulating his values. The former is much less socially destructive, since it is individualistic, and is much more prevalent; it is known as Hikikimori in psychological studies and oftentimes is caused by post-industrialism and its implications. It is especially present in modern day Japan, given the origin of the word itself; affecting about 3.6 million.

The anomic response to Weltschmerz holds a much greater societal cost. Although individual anomie is dubbed "sociopathic," collective anomie is much more radical; it is the destruction of norms and values - and seemingly, for that time being, the destruction of morality. This deregulation of morals is often seen in war and violent struggles. It was present in the Yugoslav Wars, where Serbian soldiers in newly declared states of Croatia and the Bosnia would massacre citizens of non-Serbian ethnicity - for little reason other than ethic cleansing. 

A complex dilemma arises when you examine their actions; where did their moral consciousness go, and how could these seemingly 'civilized' peoples engage in such irrational violence? 

Oftentimes, when individuals are given authority they feel inclined to maximize their power; the Serbian military was in a position of dominance, and they felt they needed to fully exert their power, no matter the ethical implications, for their 'nationalistic common good." They had no limits; they were in a state of anomie. And moreover, war usually causes irrationality in the soldiers themselves, affecting their decision-making and their state of mind. It drives soldiers to do inexplicable acts - some so heinous they're difficult to comprehend. In Bosnia during the Yugoslav War, rape was used as 'an instrument of terror' by the Serbian-Bosnians. The victims were usually Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) of the region. It illustrated a total suspension of ethics and is difficult even to describe in words. Young Bosnian girls were sold and passed around in predominately Serbian infantry lines for rape, torture, and sometimes death - the majority of this happening the region of Foča in Bosnia & Herzegovina. There were specific camps designated for rape and torture, driven by religious and ethnic hatred. Young females were systematically brought to the camps, raped & tortured, and traded to other soldiers for money or just general 'enjoyment.' In the submitted 'Seventh Report on War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia: Part II" the atrocities are described in grim detail:

"Day and night, soldiers came to the house taking two to three women at a time. They were four to five guards at all times, all local Foča Serbs. The woman knew the rapes would begin when 'Mars na Drinu' was played over the loudspeaker of the main mosque.." 

"..While 'Mars na Drinu' was playing, the women were ordered to strip and soldiers entered the homes taking the ones they wanted. The age of women taken ranged from 12 to 60. Frequently the soldiers would seek out mother and daughter combinations. Many of the women were severely beaten during the rapes."

The song 'Mars na Drinu' was a Serbian-Chetnik patriot song that was banned under Tito in socialist Yugoslavia. To illustrate the ethnic dimension even further, the report goes in more personal detail of the rapes:

"While the witness was being raped, her rapist told her, 'You should have already left this town. We'll make you have Serbian babies who will be Christians.' Two soldiers raped her at that time; [And then] five soldiers raped the 18-year-old girl in full view of the witness."

You can read the this particular war crimes report in full here. Also, an interview of Seada Vranic, the author of 'Breaking the Wall of Silence,' can be found here. She is a renowned journalist who has covered the mass rape that occurred during the Bosnian War. 

Now, the frightening question still remains; what caused these individuals to lose their sense of humanity? What desensitized them to the point of violence and rape? The collapse of their moral environment, their racially-idealist attempt to realize their nationalist goals, and the elimination of social values all contributed to their irrationality. They became submissive to 'herd mentality' that was formed on 'rules that lack rules' - there was no moral direction. It is this, I fear, that any form of disorganized violence could bring. This form of irrational collectivism is dangerous, and if any revolutionary change is brought it must be properly handled to prevent such a tragedy, in the true Aristotelian sense of the word, from happening. 

Youthful Super-Patriotism

Today, while I was fidgeting around with the American flag, I kindly asked my youngest 6 year old brother to say the Pledge of Allegiance, not expecting much. He said it word for word and, despite irregular pauses between phrases, managed to recite it fully and was overly-content when he finished.

I then asked him what it meant, and I was sincerely surprised at his answer even though I should have known better; he didn't have the slightest idea. He was just telling it as he was taught in school, without any any comprehension of what he was proudly repeating every morning in school.

Quite frankly, this is seemingly a product of - to borrow a word from the lexicon of Michael Parenti - Superpatriotism. He describes it in these words;

Superpatriots are those people who place national pride and American supremacy above every other public consideration, those who follow leaders uncritically, especially in their war policies abroad.

Parenti goes on to describe it ideologically in more detail;

The superpatriot's America is a simplified ideological abstraction, an emotive symbol represented by other abstract symbols like the flag. It is the object of a faithlike devotion, unencumbered by honest history. For the superpatriot, those who do not share in this uncritical Americanism ought to go live in some other country.

Is the American school system raising a passive society of 'Superpatriots?' Although too young to understand ideological connotations and public policy or to form their own opinions, one of first lessons in elementary education is instilling vibrant nationalism, indulging them in 'American Exceptionalism,' and learning the Pledge of Allegiance. This, to me, is nationalistic madness because it is this type of ideology that drives self-destructive policies and cultivates, either intentionally or not, a breed of obedience that is dangerous to civic duties and functions.

This 'you are either with or against us' nationalist fervor is a true danger to a societal vigilance; if anything nationalism should be reasoned, discussed, and accepted voluntarily (if even that) at a certain coming of age, not imposed on the feeblest of minds.

Moreover, why are we replacing skepticism with blind love of the state? As Howard Zinn profoundly said; "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism!" and I am sure any real patriot that established the American Experiment that shook the world in the 18th century would wholeheartedly agree.

The 18th Century Radical

In the 18th century Europe underwent a cultural and intellectual; sometimes rather violent; revolution that took it to a new form of consciousness and populist fervor. The Enlightenment was a pivotal step in human development, which freed it from the shackles of superstitions and divine titles of power. In Immanuel Kant's essay "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment," he calls it;

Mankind's final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.

It is from this ideology, and its logical conclusions, the radical was born. Radicalism in the 18th century was much more than a realization that man's mind is his greatest tool; it involved being skeptical of the entire system and the very existence of entitlement, aristocracy, and power. And moreover, it was was the realization that liberty is seldom a vice.

Oftentimes, radicalism would violently clash with the forces they were working against; The French Revolution was a climactic bloodbath after centuries of feudal and royal rule - a rebellion against the divinely sanctioned institutions that was oppressing the commoner. It was the first truly violent overthrow of old order based on Enlightenment principles (the American Revolution was arguably not quite as great of an social upheaval), and ushered in the principles of inalienable natural rights, equality of peoples, and 'universal' citizenship. It was also perhaps the first time in Europe that the labouring class was successively mass-mobilized against aristocracy and oppression in regiments called the Sans-culottes; which favored revolutionary proto-Marxist ideas such as socio-economic equality, anti-free market ideologies, direct democracy, and availability of affordable necessities. Radical even by today's imagination.

Sadly many of these egalitarian Enlightenment attitudes evaporated in the aftermath of the Reign of Terror that ensued after the French Revolution, led by Maximilien "The Incorruptible" Robespierre, albeit some were kept alive in the United States in the years following the American Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man however, the most beautiful creation during the French Revolution, seemingly lived on; standing as the ultimate testament to Enlightenment idealism inspired by the works of Jean-Jacques Roussaeu, Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, and the American Revolution. It espoused in Article I, eloquently;

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

Although improperly put in practice, it served as an ideal and a reason for struggle for the French in years that followed, especially in the Revolution of 1848.

In the United States, many American radicals were in solidarity with the French struggle for equality, but were somewhat saddened by the widespread violence. Thomas Jefferson, a radical of the Enlightenment and father of the American republic, wrote very favorably of the French in principle, and was captivated by their vigor and passion, but could not ignore the bloodshed and killings of the 'counter-revolutionaries.' He writes in a private letter to American ambassador William Short;

The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen [1793].

Despite the violence, Jefferson remained optimistic of the ultimate end of despotism and tyranny. He writes in great hope and admiration commenting on the ongoing struggle in the French Republic and the Batavian Republic of Holland in a letter to Tench Coxe;

This ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light & liberty go together. It is our glory that we first put it into motion [1795].

This Jeffersonian idealism 'lives on', or rather should, in principle and in policy. The intellectual triumphs of the American and French Revolutions should not be forgotten nor ignored; and the principles written in John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government, on which Enlightenment social precepts were founded on and which Jefferson revered, will always stand true;

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

It is on this basis that a free democratic society is formed and it is likewise why natural rights should never be forgone - no matter how noble the end result.

General Strike on May Day!

You can find more posters here.

Colonialism in the 21st Century

In modern history courses, it is implied the age of colonialism ended after the decolonization of Africa in the years after WW2. After the mass exploitation of indigenous persons, the destruction of their cultures, and the genocide of their peoples - the Western powers are sorry for what they've done, and they've shown their gratitude by leaving them to their own. The "White Man's Burden" is over; we've changed.

But what do we make of the humanitarian wars and the imposed economic globalization through international institutions? Is this something to embrace, or is it rather neocolonialism "with a human face?" 

If there is one thing we can learn from the tragedy of 19th and 20th century colonialism is that the interests are seldom explicitly stated. It is illustrated as the noblest of causes; it was the duty of 'civilized' to help those less fortunate and rid them of their immoral cultures. It is this relationship between the colony and the colonizers that is seemingly most dangerous, and established cultural hegemony [a term borrowed from Anton Gramsci's writings] on those under occupation, making them disillusioned of what the future held. In of itself, this creates an atmosphere of implied prejudice and dependence that severely dismantles the cultural balance and solidarity among the peoples of that area. On a tangible level it strips them of their natural resources, impoverishing them, and leaving them to wallow in their suffering.

On the topic of the noble portrayal of colonialism - each Empire had their own distinct form of doublespeak used for garnering support. For the French and Portuguese it was the "civilizing mission," all in effort to tame the 'backward people' in order to forcibly assimilate them into the social mores of the respective empire. For the Americans, and the British also, it was predominately the "White Man's Burden" based on a poem by Rudyard Kipling which portrayed the imperialism as a noble enterprise and seemingly divinely sanctioned. For other empires, their reasons were almost explicitly nationalistic with little 'noble' justification. The German and Italian Empires both wanted their "place in the sun," especially Germany after Kaiser Wilhelm II's rise to power and his doctrine of Weltpolitk. The Japanese empire was the only non-western imperialistic power and they based their doctrine on anti-western ideals and nationalism; the foreign policy of the Shōwa period was dominated by the concept of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" which attempted to create a domineering Japanese presence in Eastern Asia. It's underlying motive was similar to that of the American ideology of "Manifest Destiny" and many Japanese felt it was self-evident they would expand after the many wars Japan engaged in, particularly with China and Russia. 

Not surprisingly so, much of the language used during the apex of what I call 'classical modern colonialism' is still prevalent today, albeit in a different more obscure context. The public reasons for militarization and dominance have changed and the functions of a physical empire have exhausted their use; however, the motivations for a commercial one are still very present in policy - and the reasoning may very well be very much the same; It is the public admission that we're "civilizing" them, but not with culture this time [as least not directly], but rather with "democracy" and "liberal capitalism." This was the justification for American-backed coups d'état of the 20th century, to eliminate any threat to American hegemony on the global stage, which was then communism. It was driven by fear and perhaps even more fundamentally 'American Exceptionalism' of which is staple of any imperialistic power. The reality of the Iraq War, the United States' current occupation of Afghanistan, and the drone strikes all over the Middle East only enforces that this concept is still very fresh in the minds of American policymakers. It seems Americans have already forgot the tragedy of Vietnam, which they swore they would never allow to happen again. Noam Chomsky described the danger of this anomaly as such:

"Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon, not only because it undermines moral & intellectual integrity, but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that lie ahead.."

And in this respect, I cannot agree more. Historical amnesia and an ignorant public is always benefit to the policymakers - it is institutionalized ignorance and a product of exactly how the system was created to function in an effort to engineer a passive social order, and the assumed 'benevolence' of today's major powers is only the tip of the iceberg sadly enough.

Aside from the United States, Western Europe is engaging in very similar neo-imperial activity to maintain at least some form of economic, political, or military control on the former colonies. France's policy of Françafrique, which was once hailed to be a mutually beneficial relationship, is inherently exploitative. France's supporting, and subtle funding, of resource-rich dictatorships such as that of the Democratic Republic of Congo [dictatorship until 1997] and Gabon [whose dictator died in 2009, but his son is now in power] are dissuading and rendering it near impossible for the native people there to establish their own system. This populist disconnect from policy and reality is a feature created by the former colonizers and was mostly promulgated during the Cold War, with the establishment of anti-Communist dictatorships, but is still very much a systemic staple of Western foreign policy today; all done in the name of safety, democracy, and 'moral doctrines.'

Although current French President Sarkozy has attempted to distance himself from Françafrique, it's implications are still felt and still being pursued. France has been in more military operations in the past few years than it has been in the last 50; its intervention in its former colony Ivory Coast, its intervention in the Libyan Civil War (which it conducted before the emergency meeting of Western powers in Paris), its co-opting [with the U.S primarily] of the 2004 Haitian coup d'état of former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, its troop deployment into the former French colony of Chad, and its military involvement in the Afghanistan War. All of these, claimed to be purely humanitarian wars, have much of the criteria of a neo-colonial mentality - and aims at establishing French (or Western) dominance in these regions of the world.

And perhaps equally commercially imperialistic is the World Bank and the WTO, where the World Bank gives loans to autocratic regimes in the Third World, only to see that money go to waste and then asking the WTO to demand repayments; which always comes in the form of severe cuts for programs necessary for those not in power. It is this dynamic that is exploitative and ultimately prevents these nations from ever reaching real global status, among other things.

Seemingly so, ignorance always benefits the state - and that certainly holds true in this case. The disillusionment of the public on foreign policy is rather frightening, and the imperial trends will continue to be cyclic and unbroken until it is realized. I take an anti-imperialist stance from an ethical, philosophical, and morally-pragmatic perspective; because the self-determination of peoples in realizing their own destinies cannot be undermined, no matter how elusively humble the cause or how great the safety that is promised thereafter.

The Paradox(es) of Yugoslav Communism & Sovietism

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" it is commonly said. This idiom has proved to be true on countless occasions, and the Communist experiments of Eastern Europe are no exception.

In 1957 Milovan Đilas, a prominent Yugoslav dissident and Communist thinker, published his magnum opus "The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System." In it, he exposed the material privilege the nomenklatura had in Soviet society and the paradox of what has become the 20th century Marxian interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Milovan Đilas believed that Eastern Communism was perpetually in a state of false transition; it was centralizing state power and rendering the revolution(s) fruitless. He was correct in his analysis, and he only validated the well-established idiom of power [quoted above] that was espoused by John Dalberg-Acton in the mid 1800s. The vanguards of 20th century Communist systems did little to nothing in bringing their respective society to classlessness. Rather, they created a new class of wealth and power that were perhaps more oppressive than the system they initially overthrew. This is the true paradox of the 20th century Marxist experiment.

But here lies the conundrum of Marxist thought; how is the transition to egalitarianism achieved, and is the irony of establishing dictatorship necessary in reaching the Communist ideal?

Milovan Đilas would argue that true egalitarianism would not be achieved through an Orwellian vanguard, and I tend to side with his sentiments. Eliminating democracy and ousting dissenters creates an environment based on fear and passivity. Karl Marx, in his criticism of capitalism, noted the systemic alienation of the proletariat from production. He hypothesized that the capitalist means of production separated the worker from the output of his labour and made him surrender his self-autonomy and destiny to maximize the surplus value of the bourgeois; In essence, ripping apart individuals [workers] from their right to be directors of their own actions. The Marxist experiments of the 20th century did very little to fix this and include the workers (i.e reincorporate them into the means of production), rather it perhaps even furthered their alienation, another ironic paradox, through obedience and mass-surveillance, making them puppets of the domineering state.

But what is the missing link to eliminating this unnatural alienating aspect in production? Simply, you must let people be free, rather then servile to the state (state socialism) or corporatist demands (capitalism). In revolutionary Catalonia this was tried and something radical was done to put production into the hands of the workers. Money was abolished, being replaced with a voucher system, and industry functioned on direct democracy. Goods were allocated effectively, and needs were met. Most importantly, some from of horizontal power was reached and there was solidarity in the workplace; it was a beautiful creation and lasted until its demise by the onslaught of fascism in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. While it existed it was a true living example of a tried attempt in eliminating alienation, as Marx described, and real progress toward classlessness.

The only similar attempt made by the self-described Communist states was in Yugoslavia, where Tito attempted to institute independent socialism which was one of the reasons for their split with the Soviet Union [known as the Informbiro period]. Milovan Đilas was very much involved, advocating workers' self management in state run industries. However after Đilas' imprisonment, the main architect of the workers' experiment was Edvard Kardelj who favored decentralized workers communes rather then state-controlled industries. Sadly, the project failed to get the traction it needed. Although Yugoslavia was distinctively better than its Communist counterparts in Eastern Europe and Asia, it still failed to give the workers the sufficient power over production they so deserved - however they should be applauded for attempting it, albeit insufficiently.

Thomas Jefferson, a champion of the Enlightenment, eloquently wrote:

 "...every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

This is the issue of 20th century vanguardism that we cannot overlook. The creation of a "New Class" is an major issue in leftist thought and we must be weary in calling for its future reestablishment. An examination of 20th century failures would be wise in formulating the basis for Post-Marxist thought, and we must always remember that freedom should never be compromised; because someday we might find little of it left. Slavoj Zizek in his essay "A Permanent Economic Emergency" published in the New Left Review writes,

 "What was wrong with 20th-century Communism was not its resort to violence per se—the seizure of state power, the Civil War to maintain it—but the larger mode of functioning, which made this kind of resort to violence inevitable and legitimized.." 

He goes on to say that when a state believes that it is the "instrument of historical necessity" it has no limitation on the terror it can inflict in achieving its ends. This is the danger, and I stand by localized, decentralized power as a probable solution; and if not that, a less oppressive vanguard of weaker stature that derives its true might from the regional workers' communes rather then from itself. This, I feel, is fair and truly progressive in the Marxian sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zizek's 'A Permanent Economic Emergency'
Tito on Self-Management

The Semantics of Irreligion

[An old note that I feel deserved to be posted]

Oftentimes I see atheism and agnostism get confused in meaning and intent, causing individuals to feel overly cautious when using these words to identify themselves. It is important that the semantics are fully clarified not give the false illusion that the atheist label is improperly used. Being precise in definition is essential in establishing a cohesive rebuttal to the religious right, which has dangerously been very active.

Atheism by definition is the lack, or absence of belief in god(s).
Agnosticism is the position that we simply do not know.

Here lies the major difference; while skepticism shows one has a healthy respect for reason, one should not obscure the potentiality of something being true by giving the two possibilities unjustifiable equal weight. Based on empirical evidence and the scientific burden of proof doctrine, you make the assumption something does exist because there is little rational reason to believe otherwise since there no evidence supporting the opposing view. Falling into the fallacy of giving a proposition with no evidence the same weight and value as a proposition with evidence is a distortion of facts.

If you bring this to its logical conclusion regarding atheism you reach the same outcome; you should not give the existence of God the same weight as its nonexistence, because there is not equal measure, or evidence, on both sides. The standard position of a skeptic is that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise, especially in the realm of scientific inquiry; but this shouldn't be used as a excuse to validate false ideas.

You would be essentially an "atheist,” in the more vague general term, toward many positions you deem to be factually lacking because you make an assumption and live you life based on that fact that it isn't true. It would be silly to keep oneself purely "agnostic" in that position, because you would need equal reasoning for that object existing and it not existing to be a true agnostic; you would need equal weight of reason on both sides. You don’t know if that object exists but you assume, or believe, it does not making you an agnostic-atheist.

Thomas Henry Huxley first coined the term agnostic as “not a creed, but a method,” although it has now become something of a weasel word in the modern context. The definition of one’s own agnosticism is vital to its usage and clarity, because the term on its own is essentially meaningless. An agonistic-atheist would be the most complete phrasing when clarifying one’s lack of belief in a deity. It presents that the individual does not believe, but has not ruled out that deity might exist, not matter how unlikely. Disowning this possibility is as a poor suspension of reason as is being certain there is a deity [theism].

Simply said, agnosticism answers the question of "is there a _____" where 'I don't know' is a completely valid answer, since it addresses a question of certainty. Atheism fundamentally answers a different question of "do you believe in ____" in which the answer is yes or no, simply. There is little room for uncertainty; if you live your life as if it exists, you believe. If you don’t, then the contrary applies.

The Invaluable Right of Freedom of Speech

It is certain that in the west, secularism has prevailed; Well, at least in Europe, replacing religious ethics with cultural hedonism that is paradoxically more restrictive than religion ever was. Hedonism, rather then being the construct of a divine text, is directly derived from the individual. This creates something of a more limiting environment. The west has embraced this pleasure-seeking ideal, but not without a few strings attached. The west's hedonistic culture has in itself created artificial walls of conduct that has proved to be more restraining than dogma at times, because it is a product of something much more fundamental; one's own mind; and we must cherish this right and not let it be dwarfed in the name of "protection from offense." This is where I fear most of all that the west, especially Europe, might relinquish their Voltairean principle of free speech.

In January of 2012, France passed the 'Armenian Genocide Bill' which criminalized the denial of it happening. Although noble in writing and true in its intent, this type of legislation is particularly dangerous. Why are we constructing a society free of offending? The real purpose of free speech, as espoused in the age of Enlightenment, is for the protection of unpopular speech; popular speech has little to be protected from. It is this dilemma from which I fear the subtle censorship that is present in European society, which is done in the name of protection from offense. As Christopher Hitchens, the prominent journalist, eloquently put it in this video; "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" simply because you are in majority. If one person disagrees, and says so, then there should be special protection bestowed to that individual because what that person has to say is intrinsically more important. Now, this is not because that person has something more of substance to say; it is because what that person has to say is vital to reverifying truths that may be taken for granted. It refreshes the principles of the majority, in this case the recognition of the Armenian genocide. And moreover, if your opinion is truly the correct one you should not fear the dissenting opinion of one mere individual to the point where you have to resort to censorship.

Furthermore, who is going to protect you from the offensive language? When you empower the state to censor your society, to decide who is the harmful speaker, you have relinquished your right to dissent; and pity you when you need that right of speech, if you ever do.

The largest threat to limiting our fundamental right of speech, it seems, is those claiming to be protecting in the name of religion. Islam, especially, in European society feels it is entitled to special protection under the law. In the case of the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, where pictures of Muhammad were drawn and printed in a newspaper, they were said to be "offensive" by some Muslims in the community. They protested the cartoon, and there was a global movement where they called for the Danish government to bring it down. Self-censorship ensued. Is this the society we've grown into, where it's forbidden to offend and exercise one's right to say what he or she wishes? Retrospectively this is offensive to us, those who follow the Enlightenment, to have to see our rights of speech slandered for the religious. No creed deserves to special protection under the law, for then it becomes tyranny to all those not under the that umbrella of "tolerance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchens on the Danish riots.

The Reality of Trickle-Down Economics

The Future Dilemmas of Keynesian Capitalism

Although I do not believe the current economic paradigm will fully collapse on its own, since that would be naïve, there are a few problems the modern market, and even the state, cannot properly solve and Keynesians should consider:

The issue of ecology and environmentalism; during the 2009 Copenhagen Summit this was especially evident, where the state and its corporate interests failed to make any law-binding decisions. This problem has been going on for a while, where the consensus has always been “We urge people to pollute less!” without enacting any legislation to enforce that. And the inevitable collapse and depletion of the oil and the energy market, predicted to happen around 2040, will prove to be destructive to globalization.

The issue of transhumanism and the rapid advancement of biogenetics is an issue the markets will fail to control and the state will probably succumb to, which would ultimately create a physical and intellectual divide between the wealthy and the poor, aside from their socio-economic status, because only the rich will have access to such enhancements.

The issue of intangible capital; the market has always functioned on physical capital that could be exchanged in the real world, but now with the rise of digital assets (which is now worth more than real world assets) all that is changing and it seems that the current laws on intellectual property and copyright are proving to be useless. The problem comes from that regulating this kind of capital and the digital market in general is inherently intrusive and stripping of liberty. The pressure of corporations on the state to enact further laws to limit internet freedom will surely come as a result, representing a new form of censorship and Orwellian infringement of basic rights (more info here).

The issue of new forms of apartheid; Zizek discussed this in a few of his interviews, in which there is a new class of people that are just excluded from the system completely. This is becoming increasingly prevalent in South America, Africa, Asia, and even in the United States, where there are artificial barriers being set up between the slums and the rest of the nation. There is little state control in these areas, and they are completely disregarded in the political sphere and there is little hope of incorporating them back into the system since they are so disproportionately poor. A good example of these “little Berlin Walls,” that Zizek calls them, are the slums of the Romani people (the Gypsies) in Europe, specifically Eastern Europe. Just look up modern antiziganism and you will find the oppressive hatred and exclusion the Gypsies face in modern day Europe, and their rights are completely ignored in the political sphere and even by the transnational bodies like the UN, which is apparent in their reaction to Roma refugees in the aftermath of the Kosovo war. 

And finally, the issue of state interventionism is a problem in itself. I think most Keynesians would agree that if that state did not intervene the market would abolish itself; the allocative capacity of the market is just not efficient enough, especially in a world where there are more overweight people (1.5 billion) than malnourished individuals (925 million), where food is being misallocated to areas where it is not needed because of unethical profits. Industries are attracted to areas with high levels of GDP. Since the ‘Golden Age of Capitalism’ after WW2, there has been substantial growth but with this economic expansion also comes increased state involvement. This destructively centralizes democratic power rendering it useless, and increases state power to bounds that could endanger democracy in itself. Authoritarian capitalism, or ‘capitalism with Asian values,’ as is present in Singapore and China, is at this point in time working more efficiently than liberal capitalism which is something we should all be concerned with. It used to be that argument that free markets will ultimately lead to democracy eventually, but now the authoritarian way is proving to be much more efficient in many respects and that liberal argument for capitalism may soon be disproved.

Christianity and the Founding of the United States

In response to an individual who used the founding of the United States to justify opposing gay marriage:

Well I would expect you to at least give me one example as to why [the right to marry established in Supreme Court cases overturning interracial marriage laws] doesn't apply to gay marriage, or to recall your statement that marriage is a "privilege" but I suppose that would be too much to ask:

And don't justify your religious agenda by using "this nation was founded on theistic religious belief." This is the most overused, and misrepresented argument uttered by conservatives in defense of injecting religion and legislating morality in public policy. No, this nation was not founded on "theistic religious belief" and let me elaborate;

Firstly, many of our Founding Fathers were deists or anti-clerical, but most importantly they were children of the Enlightenment, believing in empiricism and the worth of scientific endeavors to support a seemingly naturalistic world view. This isn't to say they were all deists, some were religious, one being John Jay who believed that Christians are best fit to serve this country, but does not represent a public policy position. For that, you have to look at the ideas that were behind the Founding Documents.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was vehemently opposed to religion. In his letters to Adams, he talks of the religious superstitions of Christianity as "one day being amongst the likes of Jupiter and other false gods." He authored the Jefferson Bible, where he rewrote the New Testament taking out the supernatural, believing strongly in the ethical teachings of Jesus but denying his divinity. Jefferson was the first to note and advocate the "wall between church and state" of the Founding Fathers, initially used by the founder of Rhode Island Baptist Roger Williams. He demonstrated his support of this separation in public policy as well apart from his private letters, writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which would become the basis for the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, has expressed in countless letters his original secular intent of the government, calling for the "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" in a letter he wrote to Edward Livingston in 1822. He even expressed opposition to Congressional chaplains and days of prayer.

George Washington was arguably a deist, or at least a nonreligious man, although not expressing it in public, but rather his personal letters. He refused to take Holy Communion on Sundays. Benjamin Franklin was a deist, denouncing religion in many of his writings; "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." John Adams expressed doubts, especially in his writings to Jefferson. And Thomas Paine was perhaps the most outspoken of them all, completely denouncing religion and despising it in his book "The Age of Reason" and his other writings.

Also you should note, the Constitution makes no mention of "Jesus Christ, divinity, Bible, Creator, Divine, or God." And the Declaration of Independence, although mentioning the rights "endowed by our Creator," this does not make it explicitly Christian, it was simply the reiteration of a Lockean concept that Jefferson elaborated on.

And lastly one of the most important pieces of evidence for the secular intent of the United States is the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is the direct quote from it, and was passed unanimously in the Senate, being read out loud on the Senate floor and copies being passed out for each Senator to read. There were no objections, because the secular intentions were clear, no matter how religious these Senators were they agreed on this basic concept of separation because they feared religion in politics would be destructive in the United States, as it had been in Great Britain. It was even published in the Pennsylvania Gazette with no public backlash. Although this treaty is now defunct, it makes the position of the Founding Fathers quite clear; that we were to be seen as a secular nation throughout the world, that we do not profess any particular faith, and that we are a nation that allows all different creeds none of which would ever hold an advantage or special privilege in the rule of law.

I hope that clears everything up for you, and I hope you also realize that even if all of this nation was Christian that would not make the United States a Christian nation. We are, at least our original intent was, to be a secular republic that does not succumb to mob rule of the majority; where the rights of the peoples are protected, and this includes their right of religion or belief not to be infringed by the legislating power of another. It was a pure product of the intellectual followers of the Enlightenment, and its importance cannot be understated.