Hegel's Legacy: Historical Events, not Democracy

(...) political Messianism in the sense that it postulates a preordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive (...) is often refered to in these pages as Hegel's Legacy: nominally democracy subordinated to the state, the latter embodying a vehicle in which Providence expresses itself, culminating in an ethical Utopia - an event on the scale of the Second Coming. In short: progressivism.

American Thinker: "America's Descent Into Totalitarian Democracy", by Lee Cary

Over fifty years ago, Jacob Leib Talmon defined the battle now underway for America's soul by comparing liberal democracy with totalitarian democracy. Talmon (1916-1960), Professor of Modern History at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, wrote The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (foreword dated 1951, published in English in 1960). His notion of "liberal" democracy was founded on liberty, rather than collectivism. Talmon was a devout anti-Marxist.

In our search for language to describe what then candidate Barack Obama meant when he said, shortly before the election, that, "five days from now we will fundamentally change America," Talmon offers another option. Fundamental change meant the transition into totalitarian democracy. (Michael Barone introduced a tactic of totalitarian democracy with his concept of Obama thugocracy.)

"The essential difference between the two schools of democratic thought as they have evolved is not, as is often alleged, in the affirmation of the value of liberty by one, and its denial by the other. It is in their different attitudes to politics. The liberal assumes politics to be a matter of trial and error, and regards political systems as pragmatic contrivances of human ingenuity and spontaneity. It also recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavor, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics.

The totalitarian democratic school, on the other hand, is based upon the assumption of a sole and exclusive truth in politics. It may be called political Messianism in the sense that it postulates a preordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive. (...) >>>

July 27, 2009
~

Politeia: "Transnationalism: Manmade Disaster or 'Evolution'"

In the present discussion with Carl Rove and John Bolton at Glenn Beck's we see the ongoing disaster known as transnationalism clearly presented as a manmade process: it is pushed by people and politicians with an agenda. According to others a world government is the logical outcome as man progresses on his way through history and evolution. This meme is the result of a two centuries old phantasy, a theory set out by the reactionary philosophers Kant and Hegel who saw it as the outcome of man passing through history, bringing himself on higher levels of morality through strife and struggle. (...) >>>

April 25, 2009
~

Dr Sanity: "Ayers and his Cohorts are what's Wrong with Education Today"

(...) Hegel, building on Kant, Rousseau and Fichte, would go on to write, "It must be further understood that all the worth which the human being possesses--all the spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State."Hegel's heirs went on to divide into left- and right-wing camps. The charge of the left was led by leftists like Karl Marx, who transformed Hegel's "dialectic of Spirit" into an economic and social system that depended on godless dialectic of "oppressors vs oppressed." The right-wing Hegelians tended to stress the omnipotence of the state and were less willing to abandon a deity. For more than a 100 years, the two camps have been battling it out, each trying to impose their utopian vision onto the human species.Both Hegelian offshoots summarily dispensed with free will and human freedom; and between them, they brought forth the philosophical abomination that we now call "postmodernism". (...) >>>

Updated: 25th Apr 2008
~

Elsevier: "EU against ban on Turkish Governing Party" (automated translation)

The European Union is against a attempt by the Turkish Justice Dept. to ban the government Islamist AKP party. The highest prosecutor in Turkey has asked for a prohibition because of 'activities against secularism', such as the suppression of the ban on Islamic head scarves on universities. The prosecutor also wants Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul (both AKP) banned for five years from political life. The European Union reacted, rejecting the proposals. "In a normal European democracy political questions are discussed in the parliament, not in the courts", said European Commissioner Olli Rehn (enlargement EU) in a declaration. Rehn hopes that the question does not endanger the reforms, desired by the EU concerning a future accession of Turkey. Reason for the action of the Turkish prosecutor is the ban on head scarves on universities that AKP recently proposed to abolish. The proponents of a secular state believe the AKP wants the Islamisation of Turkey. Erdogan said Saturday in a response that a prohibition of his party "would be against the will of the people". The AKP won last year's parliamentary elections with decisive returns. Erdogan, a pious Muslim, in the past already has been banned from having political functions, after reading a controversial Islamic poem.
>>>

Updated: 16th March 2008
~

The Lighthouse: "An Existential Answer"

The question posed yesterday, i.e. is any majority ever justified in abolishing the state of democracy, was not only given in by the constitutional problems presently playing out in Turkey - by which the E.U. blindly sides with fundamentalism over preserving democracy - but also by the remarks made by a Dutch Government Minister that - if such would be the wish of a constitutional majority - it should be possible to impose Sharia Law in The Netherlands. That remark was made some months ago, but frankly - after a storm of protest - I haven't seen him retract the statement! (...) >>>

Updated: May 1st, 2007
~

Background of the issue:

Politeia: "Heckling Hegel"

(...) 'World historical figures' as operatives of God's Plan, might be exacting high cost in terms of human lives, but collective historical development is of a higher order than mere morality. This hierarchy of ethics sounds familiar. (...) Europeans (...) have not given up being the pawns of Hegel's 'world historical figures', the new operatives of 'God's work' who happen to be carving out a heroic role for themselves as unelected road-builders to Kantian world government. Admittedly EU citizens were misled by their political leaders, but how else can one account for the civic tolerance of the collectivist, centralist super behemoth, the post-democratic techno-rule that is now controlling most of the continent and the United Kingdom? Is Hegel's hierarchy of ethics, the flow of 'world historic events' before individual rights - empire building before democratic values - alive and kicking in the third millennium?

The EU betrayed its Hegelian credentials in the matter of the wave of Islamic fundamentalism that is encroaching on the Turkish secular democracy, founded by Kemal Ataturk. The latter - knowing his Youngturks from his Liberals - made the military the custodians of the secular government. In a recent crisis (see above "An Existential Answer") the EU made a perhaps not surprising, but very revealing choice. The military were to stay in barracks, Sharia come what may.

This choice should not be interpreted as a mark of respect for the fundamentalists' freedom of conscience: this liberty has officially been subordinated to postmodern moral legislation. This was a choice for sacrificing democracy over military intervention, for putting the flow of 'world political events' before the values of democracy. Collectivist habits die exceedingly hard. >>>

Dated: 27th Mar 2008

The conglomerate of Hegelian thinkers is potentially huge: not just the Leftist parties, but as well the all-powerful Christian Democrat bloc.

Related:

- "Neototalitarianism"
- "Building the State of Europe"
- "Transnational Progressivism"

Review: "In Praise of Prejudice", by Theodore Dalrymple

Pajamas: "Can Prejudice Be a Good Thing?", by Bernard Chapin

“Prejudice is like Nature in the famous line from the Epistles of Horace: you may toss her out with a pitchfork, yet she will soon return.”

Lies propel political correctness in the manner that oxygen fuels life. Without fabrication, melodramatic sacrifices to the shrines of sensitivity and diversity would be impossible.

Reality informs us that human beings, as a rule, are neither sensitive nor pluralistic. Our species intrinsically features both the fiendish and the beatific, yet our elites are oblivious to this fact. They pretend that only certain kinds of people possess goodness, whereas those who oppose them are evil incarnate. But their’s is a special type of evil, a product of miseducation and improper social engineering rather than birth.

Such is the way a person infected by prejudice becomes categorized. Our commentariat has even reached the point in which they are so offended by prejudice that they meld representations of it into scandals. James Bowman noted in his recent book, Media Madness, that the Fourth Estate, in 2007, met the news of the Pope being Catholic with wonderment and indignation.

At one time this phrase was used to describe information that was completely obvious. The Sovereign Pontiff’s proclamation that the identity of the church of Christ must be the Holy Catholic Church was another instance of it, yet the quotation stunned. (...)

While cultural Marxism is vile, easy to ridicule, and often pathetic, it remains remarkably tenacious. The various areas of life in which it has insinuated itself still manage to astound. (...)

With so much effort devoted to constantly defending utterances, it is little wonder that conservatives fair so poorly against radicals in the marketplace of ideas. One spends so many hours explaining why disagreeing with them is not indicative of racism or sexism that little time is left with which to mount a counterattack. That’s the situation most of us find ourselves in, but not Dr. Theodore Dalrymple. His new work, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, delivers a deluge of resounding blows.

We find here that, in keeping with the Manichean manner of our elites, prejudice has become a word devoid of positive connotation. Those who refuse to discard their preconceptions soon find themselves put up for membership in the “Church of Verbal Atonement.” The author skillfully illustrates, however, that presuppositions are what made civilization distinctly possible. Discrimination once symbolized the possession of sensitivity, good judgment, and connoisseurship. Today it suggests a devotion to homophobia, bigotry, and racism. A word which once illustrated perspicacity has become a pejorative. Judging something better than something else is now deemed undemocratic.

Well, that’s not exactly true because the person who judges is regarded as the moral inferior of the person who refrains from judging. Dr. Dalrymple contends that “it does not follow that because some prejudices are harmful, we can do without prejudices altogether.” As an example he points out that our daily habits are nothing more than a form of behavioral prejudice.

To not discriminate is to not learn from a lifetime of experience. (...) Via a syllogism he demonstrates that only prejudice allows us to separate good from evil. (...) The non-judgmental life is a sentence served in an environment of perpetual amorality.

Suspending discernment is akin to terminating the immune system. (...) What we wish for is not what generally occurs. A far more pro-social value than non-judgmentalism is the recognition that things can always get worse. Political correctness nefariously fills the void of principled authority. (...)

Government’s dedication to non-judgmentalism has given rise to “an urban hell” in which certain groups of people — particularly those on the dole — are not expected to act in a civilized manner, as supporting them is no longer contingent upon the behaviors they exhibit. The Leviathan is above distinguishing right from wrong in the case of its wards.

(...) In closing, the questions Dr. Dalrymple posed in an article within the latest issue of National Review — concerning the archbishop of Canterbury — apply well to the dilemmas outlined here: “At what point does willful blindness become plain cowardice? At what point does intellectual incoherence become downright dishonesty?” Indeed. (...) >>>

Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

- Filed on Articles in cat. Book Reviews (sidebar) -