“One party in power and all the others in jail.” – Mikhail Tomsky

The overwhelming sense of social and intellectual claustrophobia so pervasive in America since the 2016 election didn’t begin with Trump. That much should be obvious. Rancor and ideological calcification has been present in American politics since the founding. Anyone who thinks “this is the worst we’ve ever been divided” need only spend a moment reflecting near Bloody Pond in Shiloh, Tennessee. Nevertheless, our current moment does feel unique in its conformism. Each new event gets treated like political mad libs on social media. Variety is traded in for a smug Manichaeism and complexity flattened.

The question, as the saying used to go, is whether this is a bug or feature. Ruminating over Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed back in May, First Things editor R.R. Reno writes, “Insofar as liberalism has become an ideology rather than a differentiated, even paradoxical tradition, we have become incapable of dealing sensibly with our social and political problems. The liberalism of restraint has calcified into a mechanical libertarianism, often allied with economic theories made into ideologies…. This captivity to theory prevents us from experimenting with political responses to the catastrophic collapse of marriage among the working and middle classes. …Meanwhile, the liberalism of empowerment has become a neo-Puritanical political correctness.” The problem, as Reno sees it, is our having made idols out of a living tradition of liberalism. The problem isn’t liberalism itself, but ideology.

Reno reaches through Deneen to develop criticisms of American liberalism familiar to any reader of Robert Nisbet or Alexis de Tocqueville. But another thinker useful to understanding the present moment is the late French mystic and political scholar Simone Weil. Her essay “On the Abolition of All Political Parties,” as radical as it is, provides one of the best diagnostic tools for fathoming our current collective knee-jerk reactions. Written in London in 1943 towards the end of her short life, it’s a kind of distillation of her social theories. Synthesized within are her Neoplatonist and mystical Christian notions of being along with a nuanced understanding of the history of democratic political thought. Having been active in leftist French politics through the 1930s (Trotsky actually drafted plans for the Fourth International in her parents’ apartment), and having spent time in Berlin around the time of the Reichstag fire, Weil had personal experience with political tribalization, which was in most ways more complex and pernicious than our own. But instead of inducing a bunker mentality, Weil’s experiences with communism and fascism caused her to move, not further left or right, but vertically towards first principles. Her political disappointments caused her to hunger for wisdom.

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tribal-passions-totalit...

Unfortunately, Weil was unusual among twentieth-century left-leaning intellectuals, as she became more religious and inclined towards mysticism later on in her short life. Religions are hierarchicalkingdoms and organised businesses, preying on the uncertainty of our understanding of life. Religions (through mysticism) sell an "after-life"-insurance that is not worth the cash, nor the philosophy thereof.

Syria: peace implies international condemnation of the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood

by Thierry Meyssan

DAMASCUS (SYRIA)

Although several peace projects are currently circulating in the chanceries, Thierry Meyssan points out their inadequacy for this sort of war. According to him, those who begin with an amputated analysis of the conflict, yet still believe they are doing the right thing, will not only fail to resolve the problem, but will pave the way for a new war. It is imperative to treat the ideological question as a priority.

Syria should soon be experiencing the end of armed hostilities on the whole of its territory, with the exception of the areas occupied by Turkey and the United States. The international Press is now focused on the return of the refugees, the reconstruction of the areas of devastation, and preventing the return of European jihadists.

But these questions are secondary compared with two others.

Since 2001, the Pentagon has adopted the doctrine of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, Donald Rumsfeld’s choice for Director of the Office of Force Transformation. The objective is no longer to grab natural resources for the USA, but to control the access of other powers to these resources. For that, it will be necessary to maintain indefinitely a state of chaos that only US Forces can contain. According the formula of President George W. Bush, this is to be an « endless war », which the USA must neither lose nor win [1].

So the war against Libya has been dragging on for seven years, the war against Iraq has smouldered for fifteen, and the war on Afghanistan is perennial since 2001. Despite all the soothing words, none of these countries has known peace since they were hit by the Pentagon.

The story will be the same for Syria as long as the United States has not officially abandoned the Cebrowski doctrine. Admittedly, President Donald Trump had announced his intention to put an end to « American imperialism » and return to a form of « hegemony ». However, despite his efforts, he does not seem to have succeeded.

It is not clear whether the announcement by General James Mattis (Secretary of Defense) and by Michael Pompeo (Secretary of State) concerning the desire of the United States to re-establish peace in Yemen within thirty days should be interpreted as the end of a Saudi initiative or the end of the Cebrowski doctrine [2].

While the events in Syria were presented as a civil war, it was without doubt an ideological conflict. The two principal slogans of the demonstrations of 2011 were : 
 « Allah, Syria, freedom! » (the last word does not signify Western-style political freedom, but the freedom to apply Sharia law). 
 « Christians in Beïrut, the Alaouites in their graves! »

The conflict is far deeper than we think it is. The initial watchwords were not aimed at the Syrian Arab Republic, nor at President Bachar el-Assad, but at the very essence of Syrian civilisation. The goal was to put an end to a multi-confessional society without equivalent anywhere in the world, and to install in its place an imposed lifestyle which conforms to the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Syria is a space in which everyone can freely practice their religion and help others to practice theirs. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is a sanctuary built around the relic of the head of John the Baptist. For centuries, every day without exception, Jews [3], Christians and Muslims pray together.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a religious group, but a political fraternity. It is organised on the model of the European Masonic lodges that many of their founders used to frequent. Its members militate within a number of public political parties and jihadist groups.

Every single jihadi chief without exception, from Oussama Ben Laden to Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi, is either a member or an ex-member of the Brotherhood.

The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood claims that there are two types of action – those which, according to the ideology, are authorised by God, and those which He forbids [4]. Consequently, it divides the world into two – the servants of God and the enemies of God. Finally, it glorifies those who follow this conception of the actions authorised by God, and encourages the massacre of those who do not.

This ideology is professed by the Saudi preachers (even if today they condemn the Brotherhood, preferring their own royal family), as well as by the Turkish and Qatari governments. This ideology is not only at work in the war against Syria, but also in all the jihadist attacks committed everywhere in the world.

Supposing that the United States were ready for peace with Syria, it would not be possible unless the General Assembly of the United Nations, or failing that, the Security Council, were to explicitly condemn the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a result, peace in Syria would ease the situation in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, and would participate in the weakening of international terrorism.

It is therefore dangerous to speak of a « general amnesty » when in fact we need to expose and judge the crimes which may be attributed to this ideology. Just as at the end of the Second World War, the ideologists and apologists of Nazism were judged, in the same way we should judge today those who spread this ideology. And, unlike Nuremberg, we need to pursue this goal in respect of the rule of law, whereas at Nuremberg, certain retroactive texts were used. Let this be clear – the important thing is not to condemn individuals, but to understand an ideology in order to eliminate it.

In 1945,the USSR / Russia reconstructed itself around the one heroic exploit that all its citizens shared - the fight against the racial ideology of Nazism. In other words, they stood for the affirmation that all human beings are equal and that all people are worthy of respect. In the same way, Syria can only rebuild around the struggle against the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood – the affirmation that all human beings are equal and that all religions are worthy of respect.

Since the Muslim Brotherhood has enjoyed, and still enjoys, the support of the United Kingdom [5], it will not be possible to judge their leaders. But no matter, what counts is that the ideas and the crimes to which they lead directly must be publicly exposed.

Conclusion

A war always ends with the victors and the vanquished. This war has destroyed lives not only in Syria, but also in France and Belgium, in China and Russia, and in many other countries. Peace must therefore be conceived of not only in terms of local realities, but also of the crimes committed by the jihadists in other states.

Given that the 124 states who touted themselves as « Friends of Syria » have lost the military confrontation, but acting through the proxy of mercenaries, very often experienced no military losses on their own territory, they are not ready to accept their defeat and are seeking only to dissimulate their responsibilities for the crimes committed.

Not only can there be no peace in Syria unless we condemn the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, but this war will continue in other countries if we fail to do so.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Pete Kimberley

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article203743.html

Read from top. See also: http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/34254

and: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35479

See also:

In 1939, the same year the Germans and the Russians mutually consented to rape Poland, T.S. Eliot rather famously (or, I suppose for some, infamously) declared: “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” Eliot, of course, could not have been more correct. In 1936, you had three choices: National Socialism, international socialism, or dignity.

In 2018, we find ourselves in similar circumstances, even if they aren’t quite as clear cut as they were in 1936.

Of all the disturbing developments in culture and ideas over the last several years—including violence against legitimate authority, violence against the average citizen, and violence against the very ideas that undergird the West—few have been more disturbing than the reemergence of communism and socialism.  

Why is this happening now, as much of Western civilization lingers in its twilight state?

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/birzer/socialists-and-fascists-h...

In regard to this questions, the answer though very complex in how we got there is quite simple: capitalism. If we look at the way civilisations evolved through history, there always has been one common factor: someone is going to rob someone else. Capitalism is the essence of this process. We will invent various names to sanctify this "capitalistic" robbery: slavery, kingdom, colonialisation, empire, unilateralism... The list of crap is long. Without capitalism always on the warpath against socialism, socialism has not been able to evolve into a better social construct where people are free and respect other people. In our Western culture, though capitalism isn't a system of government, neoconservatism is the leading US philosophy, in which deceit is the central mainmast of the circus tent.

You cannot mention socialists and fascists, without mentioning the other fuckers there: capitalists...

Read from top.

Remember?:

Declawing Simone Weil

Why do moderns have such a hard time with this Christian writer and mystic?

By SCOTT BEAUCHAMP • August 29, 2019

Unfortunately, novelist and essayist Karen Olsson’s recently published The Weil Conjectures: On Math and the Pursuit of the Unknown is an example, albeit an enjoyable one, of how not to write about Weil. To be fair, the book itself is about much more (or less, depending on how you look at it) than Simone Weil and her ideas. Billing itself as “a meditation on the creative life,” The Weil Conjectures is a light and impressionistic sketch of the biographies of Simone and her math genius brother André, mixed with Olsson’s own autobiographical musings on being a math major in college. It’s very charming and socially sophisticated, yet ubiquitously accessible in the same way that mid-century modernist furniture is. There are many gestures at the ineffability of life, along with a sort of watercolor dappling of upper-class emotional bromides:

A quality of both good literature and good mathematics is that they lead you to a result that is wholly surprising yet seems inevitable once you’ve been shown the way, so that – aha! – you become newly aware of connections you didn’t see before.

...

But this is exactly why Olsson’s book is useful. Of course, it’s enjoyable to read, and there’s much to learn about the life of Weil’s genius brother and the biographies of a few other mathematicians. Olsson has a natural, clean, and sophisticated voice. But most importantly, The Weil Conjectures is a counter-demonstration of Weil’s principles. It represents all of the emotionally vibrant bourgeois spiritual lassitude that Weil lived her very life against. And so, in the end, its faults are a kind of fascinating felix culpa.

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/declawing-simone-weil/

Gus:

Why is SCOTT BEAUCHAMP having a hard time with Karen Olsson?... felix culpa? Happy mistake? I guess that The Weil Conjectures: On Math and the Pursuit of the Unknown is more about combining a yuppy memoir of Olsson's college years with a biography of mathematician André Weil, with a detour via Simone Veil the life of whom has been overblown by the religious mob. Emotionally vibrant bourgeois spiritual lassitude? Mixing bourgeois and spiritual is a bit like abutting "military" and "intelligence" while vibrant and lassitude are like chalk and cheese in a dirty milk bar.

Pathetic fallacy and the Brooklyn flea market? Wow... That is below the belt. Writing about Weil shouldn’t be quaint or pleasant or nice. It should shock you and it should leave you disturbed? writes Scott. Why should it? Simone Veil's mysticism is outdated and is lacking bases in a world in evolution. Her writings would only shock god-botherers by their demands, while non believers can see through the plod as an annoying waste of time. Been there done that when a teenager. Simone's brother had far more to contribute in complex mathematics which border on the loony tunes, should one not pay attention to his proof of the Riemann hypothesis for zeta-functions of curves over finite fields... Good luck.

Read from top.

See also:

and plenty more on this site...