From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 24 Oct 2004 - 19:06:10 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Taylor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Funny how often those who would lay claim to a liberal democratic
> viewpoint are so intolerant and dismissive of what they perceive as
> illiberalism. Maybe M. Dewael would benefit from asking some of his
> 'free' burka-wearing citizens how they feel about it? What about
> balaclavas -- are they next? Bikinis all round? Maybe it's security
> paranoia; "Butt naked and free -- no bombs on me see!" :)
Can 't agree more !
But a point to remerber, at least IMO is that our modernism creates
its own myths_ controlling the democratic ratio often ends up in its own
I feel that like the great totalitary regimes like those of Stalin and Mao
democracy will end up in its own paradox.
Carl Smitt wrote/ said once,
" Liberalism leads to unhuman/ unretainable conditions_ the world of
[ democratic ] politics has no longer a goal and ennemies are of a sudden everywhere ! The public ennemy, as he existed in the time of Smitts [ presupposed] Ideal State, is old and abolished and replaced by a certain " personal" one ( in a sense for freedom, liberty and equality that would then be Islam).
Not only by their rejections to gain and to keep real political power
[ other ' social' areas like economics and open discussions] have now
' political ' power, also on a complete different level, liberal societies are playing with high risks_ namely in wars. Despite their peace- keeping methods and peace- loving ideas, gestures and behaviors, liberal societies do fight wars. But to justify themselves they conduct wars in the ' name of humanity '.
By the way, ' old fashioned fought wars " are ordinair, cheap and complete
in opposite with their own justified neutrality and pluralism.
According to Smitt, showcases like these are more dangerous, because
not only liberal societies want the moral and physical destruction of the(ir
ennemy, but it goes much further, it is more extreme_ they want the total
Forcing back the ' ennemy' is no longer an option. Moreover, wars must be
fought with their ' preventive ' notion attached to them . "
( extract from an article read in FM, July/ August 2004 by M. De Vries)
<< What strikes me in the discussion about this subject is how " absolute
moral " we think we are ! Who do we think we are !?
We are the ' good ', we live in a ' democracy ', we got freedom, equality
and liberty. But to gain and to keep those, we go far over the limit of
what is moral acceptable and that throw back upon our own moral
And one reason why terrorists are laughing in all of their sleeves, is the
above paradox. Who conducts wars, is prepared to do anything to win,
[ even starting yet another one]_ and who wants a total and absolute war [ like the War on Terror is one] is prepared to offer everything and eveyone, and thus is prepared to give up the sworn liberties of the people they govern. In its worst case the state takes over the " methods " of those they try to defeat and embraces in the end a regime of terror itself.
Our Western society ' knows ' its own ' mass- movements ', like the
fight for freedom, liberty and equality is one; like the efforts to win the
war on terror is yet another, but the way to a mere totalitarism isn 't
in principle closed down.
That we the peoples are due to fight side by side with those guys who
want to save us all from a far greater danger is a democratic notion,
we participate in a political structure, but that at the same time our own
liberties are getting tangled up in measures to keep any ennemy out; is
paradoxal with any democratic element.
And that is something I am willing to fight...
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 24 Oct 2004 - 19:05:32 GMT