A Few Shiny Pebbles

I have heard all sorts of speeches and debates and comments and op-eds and all, and I want to deal with them, but I am trying to make sense of the vast body of information that surrounds us first. One of my favorite quotes is:

“Give me a standing place,“ said Archimedes, “and I will move the world.” Goethe has changed the postulate to the precept: “Make good thy standing place, and move the world.” — S. Smith

I don’t know about moving the world, but I certainly need to clarify my starting base of operations, my standing place.

In “World at War: In Depth Part One”, I pointed out my belief that because of advancements in science, technology, and funding sources, Ideologies such as Utopian versions of Islamofascism, and of Leftist collectivist philosophies, and of individualist ideologies such as America, are all engaged in an ideological World War being fought by these great competing ideologies about the nature of humankind and what is essential for the good life.

They sometimes join in a temporary alliance against one of their common enemies, but they each want to win. These are not countries battling each other, because the followers of each of the major world ideologies exist all over the world, though some countries or regions have more followers of each than others do, and there is open military warfare in many countries. Any nationalism that is important is a part of the war primarily because some nations are carrying more of the burden of this war than others are, and we need to recognize that this is a world war going on in several theaters of operation, with many fronts, but still it is a matter of battling ideologies.

There are some places on Earth where collectivist Utopian ideas are still being spread by armed forces or force, such as in Africa and Central and South America; however, more commonly these Leftist movements are cultural warfare instead, such as the actions by which Europe has changed into a social welfare union of countries. (This European Union is itself under attack by Islamofascists who want to establish an Islamic theocracy instead.) There have been, in the past, indications in one form or another before this that these forces were building their strength, but like most other people I didn’t recognize them.

In “World at War: In Depth Part Two”, I pointed out that as human beings we live both in a physical world and a mental world, and we share the mental world with all other human beings on Earth. I picture the mental world as an ocean that each of us is wading in, to the depth of our knowledge, with the rest of the ocean stretched out before us so that we are only aware of the surface. We know that under that surface is the extent of human knowledge up to this moment, with all we could potentially learn. As long as we are receptive to learning it, it is available to us in words, sound, touch, sight, and taste. People are constantly adding to it as they write and speak and otherwise create information that can be communicated in some form to others. Any content in this ocean exists only so long as it is available for to be learned or is living in our own mind. Each of us has in our mind a portion of this ocean, and an awareness of some of the rest as our attention is drawn to things we don’t yet know. When something draws our attention, we often barely notice it, because we have our lives to live and we can’t pay attention to and learn about everything.

The broad surface of the ocean of human mental existence stretches out before us, unparalleled in its potential for good and evil. Under the surface, there are massive ideological currents that are like underwater railroads, racing through time.

I have been pretty abstract in the past two posts, but in a way that is the essence of the material I are speaking of now. This abstraction is inherent in the circumstances of the world war in which we find ourselves. I believe that more than at any other time in history, the goals of the antagonists throughout the world are ideological, and the interests of the opponents are for establishing a large empire of lands and peoples under the control of their written and codified ideologies.

What is imperative to recognize is that these philosophical currents travel through time just as ocean currents do. We usually become aware of them when they break the surface of our consciousness, and they do that by coming into contact with opposing ideologies or ideas with such a collision that they explode above the surface of the ocean of knowledge, gaining our notice. Even if we were barely aware of them before, the event of their collision is so powerful that it demands our attention. But unlike a normal war between opposing armies, these ideological wars are fought in unconventional ways, and therefore many people don’t recognize the battlefields, armaments, or attacking events as indications and warnings of a massive war already going on, but rather as individual events that are seemingly self-contained happenings.

There are two main things of importance about these collisions between ideologies that raise the event above the surface of our consciousness: (1) they are terrorist or cultural in nature, and, (2) they are distinctive and should demand our consideration and response.

FIRST: THEY ARE TERRORIST OR CULTURAL IN NATURE

In Cuba, Nicaragua, Eastern Europe (in the 1940s), etc., leftist collectivist movements conquered by conventional armed warfare. In many places in the world as we speak, Islamofascists are themselves using what could be described as fairly conventional armed warfare combined with terrorist acts, such as in Darfur, Lebanon, and so forth. But as far as in the major industrialized countries of the world, except for certain terrorist attacks such as in Spain, London, and New York, the Islamofascists and the Leftist collectivist movements are using the same battlefields and weapons in a way not viewed by most people as a war being waged. In order to see that the war on terror and the culture war are the same kind of phenomena in such countries, I want to consider a list of battlefields and weapons used by both the Leftist Collectivist ideologies and the Islamofascist ideology.

Some battlefields:

Internet, clubs, government, universities, preschools, courts, books, homes, newspapers, news shows, magazines, blogs, lectures, neighborhoods, conversations, art, regions, religious institutions, movies, music, cities, states, political campaigns, charities, religions, kitchen tables, libraries, arguments, lawsuits, games, the human brain, documentaries, institutions, PACS, museums, TV, school auditoriums, computers, videos, research, licenses, names.

Some weapons:

Internet, duty, love, hate, books and tapes, PC, historical revisionism, propaganda, lies, pens/pencils, artwork, school curricula, songs, regulations, threats, word processors, presses, activist judges, TV, funding, research, non-activist judges, values, standards, the media, rules, licenses, metaphors, ridicule, terrorism, praise, polls, Deconstructionism, copiers, printers, word of mouth, unions, honor, screenplays, teachers, lawsuits, bumper stickers, buttons, words.

It can be seen that battlefields and weapons are interchangeable labels and that this is not the sort of war in which one grabs the nearest flame-thrower or assault rifle—or pitchfork—and rushes out into the fray shouting a battle-cry. But I should note here that an activist judge with a social-engineering mandate can devastate an entire community more effectively and permanently than a destructive tornado or terrorist bomb—and the community can’t even have the satisfaction of grabbing that pitchfork.

Those who fight wars as a profession know that psychology, art, propaganda, communication outlets, social relationships, and other equally non-military seeming elements are essential to a war effort. Because a cultural war is a war of ideas, these elements play a disproportionate part in the fight. Courage, determination, vigilance, standards, and curiosity are fundamental, highly prized weapons on such a battlefield. Much of the enemy’s strategic and tactical planning goes into taking these individualistic and deeply personal weapons out of the fight their opponents (that is, us), through such means as, for example, fear, confusion, fraud, distraction, ridicule of values, and diversion of attention.

Here is a piece of advice from Lenin:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in the language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us.

SECOND: THEY ARE DISTINCTIVE AND SHOULD DEMAND OUR CONSIDERATION AND RESPONSE

Because of the seeming normalcy of a vast number of these weapons and battlefields, they seem a mundane part of life even when they are actually serious weapons and fields of battle.

But how do we learn to recognize these particular warnings for what they are, as indications of deep social and even civilizational problems that must be seriously addressed in all their complexity? How do we capture these warnings conceptually, so we can discuss their relationship to other ideas and beliefs, and so we can trace their possible undercurrents and their causes? By calling something “a 9/11”, some are talking of a single terrorist act and some of a war on terror; however, I believe that the war we are engaged in right now is more than the implications from just 9/11. If 9/11 is part of a complex philosophical nexus, how do I communicate this as a complex of ideas?

One way is to give them a special kind of recognition. By giving them a special name, we may be able to start thinking about them in a special way. If we give them a metaphorical existence by giving them a single name and image, they cease to be isolated incidents of ugliness, and become specific warnings about complexly connected dangerous underlying conditions. They become a distinctive kind of warning, separate from an isolated disaster or tragedy, different from a normal problem of life. This named category must capture 9/11 as a warning, and as part of a bigger whole, so that we can see what it means in its larger complexity and danger. So that the warning carries the content and context of a major worldwide battle being waged. What do we call it?

There’s a name I’ve thought of for a long time as a metaphor for a dangerous warning.

Up the California coast near Monterey, there is an extraordinary spot in the ocean. It has the dull name of “Point Joe”—but the Point Joe you see there is far from dull. Out a distance from the shore, even when the surface all around it is calm and still, there is a wild turbulence at one particular spot. Here the ocean has gone mad, tumbling, roiling, a spot of insanity in an otherwise sane surface. Here, something that happens in the depths of the sea, something that happens in the darkness and in violence, forces its way above the surface. Nothing on the surrounding smooth upper layer of the water prepares you for the sight. Nothing else gives even a hint that there are treacherous energies flowing far below in fierce currents.

At Point Joe there are giant ocean currents that are like underwater railroads, massive rivers of water hurtling along at tremendous speed in the ocean depths from different directions. At Point Joe at least two of these undersea out-of-control water-trains crash headlong into each other, the violence of their collision breaking the ocean’s surface in a madness of movement and power. There before your eyes iss a place where the truth of the ocean’s real treachery iss thrust above the surface into public view, an extraordinary statement that under the gentle surface is a world of danger and uncontrolled energies. The OJ Verdict and the reaction to it, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, and 9/11 are all Point Joes.

Point Joes are indications of major, dysfunctional, antagonistic philosophical undercurrents crashing up against each other. Most importantly, Point Joes are indications that currents have become immensely powerful and cannot be ignored. The currents have long histories before they crash into each other, and every day in this country and in this world mental and physical turbulence occurs that may open our eyes to the treachery of much of what we put our trust on in this world. Great currents of the ocean of existence meet in violent collisions that soon force their way through the normal boundaries of society and into the public eye. A Point Joe is born. A vital, special kind of warning, if we but pay attention to it.

If we behave toward it as though it was just another way to tell that things are bad, or if we shrug our shoulders and wonder what the world is coming to, the problems will get worse. If we state that the recognition of a Point Joe is really just a bumper sticker warning, or that it is just a situation that needs to be handled, or it’s just a problem of piecemeal law enforcement crime and punishment, or that we can negotiate with fanatical true believers who are on a mission to destroy us, we are doomed.

Our country—indeed, the whole world—depends on the decisions and actions that we as Americans make. We have a duty to stop the normal process of going back to business as usual after a Point Joe. We must not let the warning go ignored; instead, we have to turn our attention to the truly vital, living differences in philosophy and behavior that mark the continuing struggle of America to maintain its dream and its future. There are legal decisions, events, murders, conflicts between people, books published, speeches made, laws enacted, and decisions made each day in the world; most of them are the normal business of life. But there are some that speak of major ideological collisions, and when there are a cluster of such events in time we have to face the reality that there is something seriously wrong and that we are going to have to deal with it in a larger and more difficult way than we normally do.

A single plane flying into a building may be a terrible accident, as it was when the Yankee pitcher flew into an apartment building in New York City—or it could be a 9/11 Point Joe. An assassination may be an individual acting alone, such as an Oswald—or it may be the murder of Theo Van Gogh, a Point Joe. The U.S. Supreme Court often deals with Point Joe eruptions. Universities contain swarms of Point Joes. We should be able to recognize that there is truly a war between and among ideologies going on right now, and this conflict will determine the future of America and of the whole world. The existence of many Point Joes right now shows that there are ideological wars well in progress. Tracing down the causes and implications of the cluster will tell us much about the societal dysfunctions and conflicts, allow us a way to tie together many disparate events, so that we can separate them from the surrounding ripples of normal life and look at them with extra care.

For—despite the denials or mockery of some—we are at war.

Make no mistake about it.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, DeMediacratic Nation, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, On the Horizon, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.