On superiority, reasonableness and incompetence

I received an email today, not unlike many we all are getting. It was from a former co-worker, who happens to be Jewish and who is distressed about events you-know-where.

He said,

There is never justification for any crime no matter the reason. Insanity prevails in this world and this sad incident is but one result of the hate we have for each other for perceived reasons. Muslims hate other Muslims, Muslims hate Israelis, Muslims hate Jews, Muslims and Kurds have no use for the other, Muslims and Christians are opposed, Sunnis and Shiites, and on and on. Whites and blacks...... Insanity brought on by differences and devoid of tolerance and understanding. The world and the U.S.............. GOPers and Dems, Christian right and left.

This got my mind going, and out came the following reply:

Re the first part of this, I have often wondered how the world - the buildup, the attitudes, the leaving behind of rational thought - came to such intensity in the 1930s as to turn into WWII. Of course, it also happened before WWI as well, but I know much less about that period, so I have no opinion on that. But the little I know of the 1930s is that Hitler encouraged the German people to believe that they were special, and then he fed that and fed that.

I read a great history of the 20th century that talked at length about how the Germans had no intention at all of fighting the English and French, whom they considered fellow civilized Europeans. However, they did NOT think that of the Slavs and other Eastern Europeans. These Hitler saw (and he either talked the German Volk into it or they already believed it and he simply fed it) as literally subhuman. As Jewish, you can identify with that attitude of his, I imagine. Along the way, they came up with the idea of "Lebensraum", or "living space"; the Germans needed Lebensraum, to spread out their Aryan bloodlines. The whole point here is that this was a group that saw itself as better, superior, to others.

Germany was being starved for room to grow (or at least they thought so), and all those open plains to the east - Poland, Belarus and especially the Ukraine - beckoned to them mightily. The whole purpose of invading Poland was to get to the Ukraine. Hitler's plan was to seize the lands to the east and exterminate the people who lived there, leaving it available for the German Volk to live in and to feed their nation. This was in the 1930s. They had already, at that time, come up with a plan to exterminate people they saw themselves as superior to.

The fact that all that ended up with World War II ties into what the current antagonisms may lead to.

Aside: It didn't go the way Hitler figured it would: He completely thought that he would have to fight the Soviet Russians, and pretty damned soon, as soon as he crossed over Poland. But when the English and French declared war on Germany - catching him completely by surprise. He had thought they were too big of wimps. He also didn't think that they would put themselves on the line for those inferior Slavs. Hitler adjusted to the declarations of war by the Brits and French by agreeing to a Non-Aggression Pact, so that he wouldn't have to fight a 2-front war. But after France was taken in about a month, and the collapse of the Brits that ended in the evacuation at Dunkirk, Hitler thought the western front was at least neutralized, so in the summer of 1941, he returned to the east and invaded Russia. Had it not been for the weather, he might have won that war, too.

All - ALL - of the hatreds that you talk of are connectable to one thing: A group who thinks of itself as special. The Muslims with their, "Their is no God but Allah, and his one prophet was Mohammad" are one. The Jewish people, with their belief in themselves as "The Chosen People". Sunnis with their belief that Mohammad's leadership passed to his next in line. The Shiites, with their belief that Mohammad's leadership passed to his son. (I might have those reversed.) The Americans, with their continuing belief in a Manifest Destiny, the later version of which includes the hegemony of the world. The Christians, with their beliefs that Jesus was the one and only son of God, and that his followers are special and on the brink of ascending to Heaven to be at the right hand of God in the Rapture, and that the simple existence of Israel as a nation is proof that this time period is the time for that ascending. GOoPers, with their resurrection (actually it never died in the first place) of the idea of the divine right of kings, wrapped in the disguise of "free markets", which is their mechanism for the economically powerful to devour those who are not (the followers get their thrills in this vicariously, as do fans of sports teams). The Liberals, with their belief that their logic is the only valid logic extant, and which they belabor ad infinitum, thinking that any sane person could not possibly think different (if you don't think so, tell one that global warming or ozone depletion are not actually proven science). Historical Americans, with their belief that the indigenous Americans were inferior savages, easily believed that it was their right to steal 3,000,000 square miles of real estate, and used their military to affect that thievery and their legislature to bless it as just.

Aside: Hitler (or tried, anyway) did nothing the Americans themselves didn't do a century before. Before WWII was over, Hitler's forces killed at least 8,000,000 soldiers in the East and 7,000,000 civilians, so he did manage to go a long way toward his goal. (By comparison, the U.S. total dead in the war - including the Pacific - was only 295,000.)

What do these groups all have in common? Each one sees itself and its fellow followers, as superior. That entitles them to something, they believe. For some, it is the extermination of those who don't agree with them. Thus, you get jihads, crusades, Karl Roves, Richard Nixons, Hitlers, "Trails of Tears", Manifest Destinies, pogroms, slavery, and military conflicts. It is no accident of history that in nearly all of the U.S. wars in the 20th century, and up to now, one strategy of our government was to demonize the opponent: The Kaiser, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Stalin, Khruschev, Vietnamese "gooks", Mao, David Ortega, Muammar Qadafi, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic, Muslims in general, Kim Jong-Il . . . Were/are ALL these people or peoples actually as evil as our government has declared them to be? To my mind, it is far more likely that we have propaganda at work.

Belief in the superiority of one's viewpoint and entitlement is - IMHO - the root of all these conflicts and increasingly belligerent positions. In every one of these antagonisms, at least one side thinks it is entitled to something. I actually think it is both in all of them but I could be mistaken. America thinks it is entitled to run the world. It is convinced that it is the savior of the world. What a load of crap! The Jewish people took the land that they claim is theirs, but which had been in the possession of what we call the Palestinians since the Romans tossed the Jews out in 73 AD (the ones they didn't exterminate on the spot). Had the Jews of the time been patient, and waited for the Roman Empire to fall, they - like the rest of the Mediterranean and Europe - would have simply inherited the land. When they decided to revolt, the Romans kicked their butts. (I remember an account that when the Romans came into a district during the Jewish Wars, they killed every man, woman, child, dog, cat, donkey and cow they laid eyes on.)

Having two people claim the same land as their own is ALWAYS going to produce conflict. (And yet, I believe it can be settled!) Obviously, both of these groups thinks it is entitled to that land. So, it will go - in any given period - to the one with the biggest dick (back in 73 AD, the Romans; at present the Israelis; in the future, who knows?). But that means the other side will have an axe to grind.

Just 6 years ago, many of these antagonisms were in a calm period. All of these were being managed somewhat capably, and had been for at least a decade - some of the antagonisms for two or three decades or more.

Differences do NOT have to end in antagonisms. Reasonable and competent people can manage differences among themselves. However, in order to do so, they have to be in position to affect events. If the positions from which to affect events are denied them or are placed in the hands of unreasonable people (Hitler and Cheney come to mind) or incompetent people (Bush comes to mind), then I believe that chaos will begin to take hold and will grow as long as the situation holds that way.

Incompetence stands alone, but unreasonableness is a quality that is tied to belief systems. Those who consider themselves superior can (and IMO do) believe that they don't need to be reasonable to those they consider their inferiors. In this is what I above called the root of all these antagonisms. One is reasonable only with others one acknowledges to have more or less equal standing; inferiors are treated differently, with disdain. Look through the list of antagonists you mention, and all of them have one or both parties disdaining the opponents. Until that disdain is eliminated, no reasonableness can ensue.

In today's world, the one position that is most able to affect events, is the Presidency of the US. It could be argued that what has changed in the meantime is that the most powerful position in the world has been inhabited by an incompetent. I suggest that the following formulas are prevailing:

Political unreasonableness = political chaos
Political incompetency = political chaos
Political disdain = political chaos

I think there is no doubt that if the US Presidency was held by a reasonable and/or competent person, all if the chaos will subside, possibly even some of them will disappear. If competency came to the fore, where it could affect events, a whole panoply of possibilities becomes available; until that time, no progress can be made. If reasonableness was allowed a foothold in any of these antagonisms, the effect would be seen as miraculous. Where the world stresses reasonableness, conflict disappears. It is not a miracle; it is people respecting each other.

No reasonableness is possible as long as incompetency holds the floor. Incompetency does not have the capacity to affect events, except incoherently, and incoherence equals chaos.

We have chaos now, and we will continue to have chaos until competency steps to then fore. (That, IMO, was what Kerry's candidacy offered, but we will now never know for sure. Kerry was a very reasonable man, but his lack of courage blew his chances to bring competency and reasonableness to the world stage.)

. . . . TD