Philosophy - July '98

I feel that if we cannot pick holes in the arguments of past philosophers then one of two things must be the case: either we have not progressed past the ideological state in which the idea found its conception, or the point must be valid (pending the input of future thinkers) regardless of time-frame.


Control is one of the most important factors in the maintenance of modern democracies. The pretence in these societies is that any given individual enjoys the right to choose the path of his/her life and effectively regulate his/her own destiny, the facade of these rights is backed up by the society’s constitution (in those democracies that have one) which guarantees certain fundamental principles in a supra-governmental capacity, supposedly safeguarding them from the day-to-day tinkerings of an emerging dictatorship. Thus, in theory it is the constitutional right of every American to burn the flag of the United States in peaceful protest, in practise however it is ill-advisable to do so especially in Southern states as one can expect to have the aforementioned constitutional article violently beaten out of you! This is rather bizarre when one compares this with England, where there are no constitutional rights to safeguard the citizen and yet one would not expect any reprisals if one was to burn the Union Jack, excepting certain areas of East and South-East London where the extreme right-wing forces are in abundance. The tactic in a democracy is that if one goes to such ends to proclaim a freedom, the populous must at least believe that they have it, and if not then a viable scapegoat must be provided that the public can reasonably believe is subversive enough to try to thwart the benevolent State and would sink so low as to deny them their rights:- foreigners, non-conformists, teenagers, students, political deviants, social deviants (homosexuals), anyone normally marginalised, the details are unimportant. There are usually enough people pushing the right buttons for anyone feeling downtrodden to be able to take their pick from the list of suitable ‘offenders’, the ‘Usual Suspects’ as it were. This is not a new situation in Western Europe, the Jews an testify to that over many centuries of purges and pogroms as in fact can the Hugenots, the heretics, the Catholics (at the hands of the Protestants) and the Protestants ( at the hands of the Catholics). In my opinion though, the difference with contemporary nationalism is a subtlety and a slickness and an almost state sanctioned quiet arrogance that the leaders appear to possess.

The targets of these movements are becoming more and more random and it is increasingly difficult for the man in the street to keep himself out of the “persona non grata” section of society. Christian fundamentalism is “justified” as being a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism, the latter presumably using precisely the same argument. Both of these groups are no more than religious fascists and I would imagine that the one that finds it least amusing is God/Allah/call him/her what you will, and I would wager that the profits are hardly chortling in corners. If this sounds blasphemous and I an criticised for it, I suggest that one first looks at the members of these groups committing mortal sins, killing one another before we are to start blasting people for exposing idiosyncracies and injustices of it all. For the genuine religious souls who adhere to their teachings and at heart humanist ideals my sympathy and admiration goes out. I can only hope that they continue to do so and contrive that this will be the example set to the new prereligious generation, rather than the one of those who masquerade under the guise of goodness and religion. Is it really surprising that in Marx’ writings organised religion was termed “opium for the people”. It is no coincidence that most of the wars fought involve to a greater or lesser extent groups of differing religions (however slight these differences may seem to the casual observer) Northern Ireland, the Persian Gulf and the states of the former Yugoslavia are merely small contemporary selections of twentieth century conflict that is happening on our doorstep. This is unfortunately no new phenomenon and whilst many people across religious, socio-political and geographical divides may be aware of the effects, they may not pay due attention to the causes and the bigots high up in the political and religious spheres who use the fear to their advantage and to reinforce their opinions. Knowledge and mass condemnation of the holocaust in WWII leads many nowadays to believe that ‘it could never happen here, not in the civilised world’. After many such events throughout history it should come as no surprise that these crimes against humanity occur, perhaps more surprising is that they do not happen more often. By this I mean, that as such episodes of genocide have occurred since WWII and yet the international community stands idly by, it is a wonder that not more tin-pot dictators do not try their luck to call the U.N.’s bluff. The peoples of East Timor, Cambodia and Bosnia amongst others have been subjected to policies of ethnic cleansing in the last 20 to 30 years. They would argue that such policies have been happening all along in one shape or form in nearly every conflict since WW11 but the international community has either chosen not to notice or somehow the details are never allowed to reach us, and lo and behold! we return to the problems of the media.


Noam Chomsky did a study of press reports from the late 1960’s comparing those in the New York Times concerning Cambodia and the atrocities committed there and the invasion of East Timor by the Indonesians that happened concurrently. A massive amount of reports flooded in about Cambodia, including information about a mass genocide at the hands of the Khmer Rouge before it had in fact been committed. Sadly the same situation was true in East Timor, but the articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post had been lifted sentence by sentence from the London Times and factual information was scant to say the least. Chomsky asserted that the reason for this was clear: the Americans, at that time were rampant in Vietnam, and had promised to protect Cambodia and its people from the marauding Khmer Rouge guerillas. The Khmer Rouge, who in turn were supporting and were supported by the Vietkong, were therefore at war against the Americans by association. The necessary vilification of the “communists” ran in tandem with standard American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. East Timor, however was attacked by the Indonesians, who were considered friends of the Western World, good arms and munitions buyers and it would therefore have been politically hazardous to upset such a lucrative trade. Many inside East Timor have probably perished trying to do just that. Those of us on the outside will never know and the status quo: the Indonesian led puppet state, Western Arms dealers (and thereby Western governments will probably never care. The realisation of the futility of the task that the dissidents, revolutionaries and those constantly banging the drum of civil rights face, will lead to most of them moving on to another worthy cause (there are after all so many) and those left fighting behind will be consigned to exist as pocket groups of subversives that the state and counter-revolutionary forces will pick off one by one.