History in 2 Minutes

http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/history.html

Nature Bats Last

Thanks for the quote Jane.

Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.

― Wendell Berry

Happy Samhain!

Blessed Be! oh Guardians

Blessed Be! loved ones and friends

Another year's upon us

As the wheel has turned again

We invite the ancestors one by one

In anticipation of the next commercial/retail holiday on the calendar, a bit about the harvest festival Samhaim, the old "Halloween" (All Hallows' Evening). Essentially, this was New Year's Day in Pre-Christian Europe, except for the Romans and those latinized, who celebrated the new year at the same time modern Euro Americans do.
A quaint Samhaim custom in some parts was the Wicker Man. "A wicker man was a large wicker statue of a human allegedly used by the ancient Druids for sacrifice by burning..." Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentary on the Gallic War).

The Druids were one of the two religions "persecuted" by Rome. The other being the Christians.The Christians were accused of violating the Roman law of sacrilege, that being the prohibition of criticism of another's religious belief in public. The Druids did not obey the Roman prohibition on human sacrifice.  

doubleplusungood

One of the reactions to my post of 10/05/2012 was that the opening quote sounded "socialist". Hence, it could alienate the reader from the rest of the piece. Probably true. That also points to how the Right has already won in the U.S.

I think that illustrates both how far our understanding of the Founders, their influences and history generally we have traveled.I recommend to the reader a review of the concept of Socialism. Such as by visiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#History . 
You will note the term being coined in Europe in 1827. Quoting from the article:
"The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism". The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth. They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition. They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation."
If you want to see another interesting take on this, how about a post-factual world one? I think this read is closer to how Americans think of the word "socialism". This article also appears in an "pedia", i.e., an online encyclopedia. This is ironic though, since the "encyclopedia" is a creation of The Enlightenment, and this one is anti-age of reason, anti-rational. Conservapedia, http://conservapedia.com/Socialism
My favorite thing in that article is this picture;



I think the Right in the U.S. has fully grasped the importance of Orwell's famous observation; "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' "

It is kind of cute how the Democrats seem to be for the most part still tied to the Age of Reason / classical concept of the "fact". The idea that there are events in space time that are behind us along our common world line. At heart, such Democrats are the actual "conservatives" on the U.S. political landscape.

At this point you may want to consult a standard dictionary to refresh your recollection on what "conservative" actually means.

On the other hand, the Republicans for their part seem to approach the past as a stage for postmodern performance art. Such as that splendid performance in the Texas School Board a few years back. They decided, among other mind bending moves, to eliminate T. Jefferson from history texts. This was due to his apparently secular / Enlightenment views, which did not want to promote.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Intelligent_Design 

I think that Democrats, or "liberals" (who are actually similar to the classic concept of conservative, in the post-Clinton party) are ill equipped to oppose this. While many still consider facts to be important, they are as ill informed about history as are the Right. This is not because they feed upon some equivalent of the revisionism found in the books by Fox News pundits that "educate" their cat's paws. Rather, they do not care about history for the most part, and know little of it. This make's the Right's historical revision project easier.  

Stray Thoughts on the American Transition

“What is meant by a Love of the Republic in a Democracy. A love of the republic in a democracy is a love of the democracy; as the latter is that of equality. A love of the democracy is likewise that of frugality. Since every individual ought here to enjoy the same happiness and the same advantages, they should consequently taste the same pleasures and form the same hopes, which cannot be expected but from a general frugality. The love of equality in a democracy limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow-citizens. They cannot all render her equal services, but they all ought to serve her with equal alacrity. At our coming into the world, we contract an immense debt to our country, which we can never discharge. … The love of frugality limits the desire of having to the study of procuring necessaries to our family, and superfluities to our country. Riches give a power which a citizen cannot use for himself, for then he would be no longer equal. They likewise procure pleasures which he ought not to enjoy, because these would be also repugnant to the equality.”

Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, On the Spirit of the Laws (1748)

This book was one of the common references of the Founders.

“How sweet to live before the new barbarism! At this extreme point of fate that will continue to dawn for a long time, there is a great temptation to make a bed of out of fallen things, a heaven out of shattered dreams, and settle down to wait for the irreparable wrong—surrender and abandonment before the procession of evil.”

Bernard-Henri Levy, Barbarism With A Human Face, p. 191, (1977

As the 2012 election approaches I feel the urge to write a bit about the world line of the United States. I do this aware of my co-culpability for our lot, as a card carrying member of the worst generation, the  generation of swine.

I have never belonged to one of these “pernicious factions”, (what the Founders called political parties).  Living during the period I have, politics for me has been a spectator sport, other than the periodic voting against (never for) a candidate. I habitually vote, if for no other reason to honor the deaths of those who fought for me to have that right, during our revolution.

Why never for a candidate? I was lucky or tricked by, depending on your druthers, being a child during the space race years. It gave me the vision of a world where the promise of our revolution; science, rationality and liberty would circle the world. You know, that seal on the money. The truncated pyramid (knowledge) with the all seeing eye (reason). Novus Ordo Seclorum baby!  

Being a good child of the Founders, I thought that in matters political,  I should weigh decisions as to how it affects res publica, (the public thing, the meaning of “republic”), i.e., the public good, as opposed to my benefit, a private good. Being born late in the 20^th Century, and having a basic understanding of  the sciences, made voting for available candidates really hard.
My exposure tolerance to national and state level political theatre has decreased since Citizen’s United, and I have been avoiding election coverage for the most part. But, my political theatre inflow is pretty much limited this fall to:

• The Onion
• If in the car mid-day, one of my favorite comedians, Russ Limbaugh
• The BBC World Service U.S. coverage
• The Princeton Election Consortium
• OpenSecrets.org (who funds who, and how much, good Super Pac tracking)

The American Transition, What Do I Mean?

It is the path of development of the United States of America along the following world line;

• The first revolution grounded in the principles and thought of The Enlightenment /Age of Reason.
• The creation of a Republic , done in awareness of that form’s weaknesses.
• The initial shared liberal ideology of the polity.
• The natural erosion of the Republic as territory  increases, conquest occurs  and wealth concentrates.
• The emergence of the Plutocracy.
• The decline of liberalism and the rise of Neoliberalism.
• The rise to dominance after 1980 of Idiota Politics (a Greek word “An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.”).
• Most recently, the alliance in the Republican Party between Neoliberalism, Producerism, and Dominionism, and the apparent final abandonment of the philosophy of the Enlightenment (except for the capitalism part).

This Election and the Transition

"Pessimism is of no value unless it brings forth at the end a slender

but solid ground of certainty and refusal. 

...I say we must give in less than ever before to the insupportable. I say if we cannot raise him up, we must do everything in our power to prevent man from lowering himself."

Bernard-Henri Levy, Barbarism With A Human Face, p. 192, (1977)

The re-election of President Obama will slow the transition, but the slowing will be very little. The Democrats are no longer the children of FDR. They are the children of Clinton. The election of Governor Romney, especially in light of his Randian-Objectivism VP pick, could significantly increase the rate of transition. I think the world line of the American Transition is now difficult to predict very far ahead, because:

• The path featuring  a governance structure that is a fusion of Neoliberalism, Producerism, and Dominionism, has probabilities of a number of future states, including ; a mature plutocracy, Corporatocracy, Facism, and Theocracy or some mixed variant. Assuming Republican Party ideological dominance, much will depend on the power struggle within that alliance.
• Similar transitions in history, while perhaps occurring in accompaniment with a Tainter Symplification, have not also been during a period of biogeophysical change/forcing on a planetary scale. This is a major wild card of multi-linear relationships and causalities.
• The rising of a great power that is fascist (China), especially with the spector  of wide spread Tainter Symplification fueled by biogeophysical forcing adds to the predictive uncertainity.
• The United States is, as a mathematician might put it, a “strange attractor”. Consequently, the near total lack of dialogue again, this election year, about the current and future  biogeophysical forcing amplifies that forcing, and how it will play out in human societies.

The Little Things That Count

On a Beaver Being a Fish

The abandonment of Enlightenment Philosophy by the Republican Party has made it easier to compete. As that abandonment’s great prophet, President Reagan said, “Facts are such stupid things.” This has allowed them to rhetorically break free from the bonds of rationality, and sail the seas of fear and superstition. The message is keyed to the lowest common denominator.  Most Democrats have not really started to grasp the enormity of this change in their opponent, and that may be their doom.

The Power of Luntz on the Post-literate Landscape

Anti-intellectualism is In U.S. politics is not new. Consider Democrat Andrew Jackson’s rise to power in the 1820’s. But the alliance that is the Republican party has taken it, refined it and bottled it into their anti-science brand. At the same time, their consultants use the latest science to craft a communication/media strategy that aims purely for the limbic/emotional response. The Democrats appear to me to not doing this, or when trying, to aim way to high. True, many Democrats I know, at times seem to be loath to leave the sinking ship of the Age of Reason, and perhaps that contributes to their communication problems. They seem slow in adapting to the post-factual “marketplace” of ideas.

Who Woulda Thunk It

Ending on a positive note. How many people one hundred years ago, in 1912, could imagine a presidential race between an African American and a Mormon?