Universalism: Palliating the unpalatable

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 21 January 2007 23:58.

I am very pleased to post the third of the essays PF has sent to me, venturing this time upon global and third world politics, and Iraq. PF will now join the MR writers panel and post without further need of my engagement. On behalf of everyone, then, I welcome a “potentially” valuable and unquestionably interesting and informative new member of the team.
GW

It certainly was an interesting facet of 20th century politics that both CIA and Communist intelligence agents were most interested in peddling/enforcing their universalist ideologies in oil-rich and resource-rich regions (Bolivia, Chile, Iran, Kosovo).

Its an open question whether the CIA and Russian intelligence were motivated by “Freedom” and “Socialism” respectively, or by the potential for large-scale resource acquisition.

What is not in doubt, however, is the use of universalist doctrine to disguise, palliate and justify support for tribal warfare (eg, Angola, Kosovo). The trick is this: an essentially ethnic conflict is dressed up in ideological terms, a tip of the hat to the competing universalist powers who are supporting either side in the hope of later being given priviledged access to local resources. Or, alternatively, if you believe the hype, of making the world safer for “Freedom” or “Socialism”.

According to a formula, third-world powers organize themselves so as to mirror what first-world and former Soviet populations could see themselves justified in supporting: groups of deracinated rational actors, whose conflicts amount to disagreements over how society should best be organized. It then becomes easier for major powers to support one side or the other, since their motives are seen through the prism of universalist doctrine. In the fog of universalist acronyms it becomes possible for Westerners to lose sight of this forbidden truth: that tribalism is, outside the Western world, furious, ubiquitous, largely unquestioned, and, considering its limited local objectives, extremely successful.

This explains the posturing of various African dictators and political factions during the Cold War, who draped themselves in various conceptual costumes so as to gather support from the Soviet Union or from the United States. Hence we have the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), whose precursor was the Angolan Communist Party. Needless to say, they were backed by the Soviet Union during the Angolan Civil War. Of course, it is absolutely irrelevant that this movement consisted of ethnic Mbundu/Kimbundu and Luandans- one is meant to assume that they were fighting for Marxist ideals. To recognize that they were fighting the Bankongo and Ovimbundu who made up the FLNA and UNITA, respectively, is of course to recognize the primacy of tribalism. Considering that Africa is a place where the heights of intellectual abstraction are very rarely reached, I cannot believe that the arguments of Marx gave the primary impetus to these warriors, most of whom, if literacy rate statistics don’t lie, could probably not even read.

How does this relate to the Iraq war? Basically, in this way: when the media report on the efforts of the United States to erect a State in Iraq- meaning a police force, a military, and a bureaucracy - they act as though they were recruiting neutral people who are above tribalism. These are naturally the “good guys” in the eyes of the western Press. But nobody in this region is “above tribalism”, and these neutral actors simply do not exist. Shiite Muslims view this as a way to come to power, because in a democratic process which is actually tribal head-counting, they are sure to win. So the whole premise on which the Iraqi “State” is being built, is actually misunderstood by many of the Americans supporting and participating in it, with the possible exception of some Machiavellians near the top. Shiite Muslims are patiently waiting, knowing that this new State-apparatus being built is going to sooner or later fall into their hands. As regards the penetration of Shia militants into the new Iraqi state, see here and here and here.

So both on the top and bottom, we have a misrepresentation of motive: Universalist ideologies (Democracy, Anti-Communism, Communism) are used to disguise greed and strategic resource acquisition in the upper echelons, and tribalism amongst their third-world puppets.

Tags: World Affairs

Comments:

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:18 | #

Universalism is a broad topic and, in an effort to link it to majority rights, we present Resisting Defamation’s take on the subject. It can be seen at:

http://www.resistingdefamation/sub/g46.htm

Universalism is the notion that we live in a global monoculture characterized by universally accepted cultural attributes like rights and values. The ultimate goal of persons making claims based on universalism seems to be the creation of a global monoculture which will be a vastly different culture from one arising from, or influenced by, the cultures, folkways, and pastimes of ordinary European Americans.

It is likely that the global monoculture that universalists have in mind is one that will treat most ordinary European Americans much the way that the minority slave-taking Turkish peoples in their Ottoman empire treated the majority European Slavic peoples for 500 years, and the way that the minority slave-taking Arab peoples in their Iberian empire treated the majority European Spanish and Portuguese peoples for 700 years, that is, as serfs, soldiers, and silenced taxpayers. The ancestors of European Americans have a great deal of experience with being a majority population dominated by market dominant minorities, not to mention tyrannical dominant minorities.

It is important to decode the messages that bombard European Americans about universal human rights and universal justice, for example, and to note that every appeal to universal values (i.e., global monoculturalism) is unfortunately always an arguing tactic in support of a particularistic goal that benefits the speaker’s preferred group, race, gender, religion, or nation.

Universalism is never an argument in support of the trumpeted universal principle in question; it is just an arguing tactic. European Americans must learn to look behind universalist claims to determine just whose interests are being served by the claims.

Resisting Defamation knows of no instance in which an appeal to universal values is not an argument made to support the interests of the members of an identifiable group.

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:22 | #

Oops, it is:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g46.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:03 | #

“It is important to decode the messages that bombard European Americans about universal human rights and universal justice, for example, and to note that every appeal to universal values (i.e., global monoculturalism) is unfortunately always an arguing tactic in support of a particularistic goal that benefits the speaker’s preferred group, race, gender, religion, or nation. Universalism is never an argument in support of the trumpeted universal principle in question; it is just an arguing tactic. European Americans must learn to look behind universalist claims to determine just whose interests are being served by the claims. Resisting Defamation knows of no instance in which an appeal to universal values is not an argument made to support the interests of the members of an identifiable group. (—Bo)

Outstanding comment there by Bo, making what are extremely important points which all Euros absolutely must begin to grasp fully before more damage is done. What Euros are confronting in all these attacks on them is purest tribalism in the guise of universalism. Wake up please, Euros, and for once start smelling the coffee!

Incidentally, I love tribalism. I am extremely happy and proud to belong to a tribe, I love my tribe, and I highly recommend tribal membership and tribal identity to everyone. Far from being something primitive, tribalism is one of the most advanced, sophisticated, fundamental, and enduring facets of life — always was, always will be. The man who does not belong to a tribe is a nobody with no past, no present, no future. He’s a man who does not exist.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:05 | #

Needless to add, the Jews are among the biggest tribalists in the world today.

Posted by PF on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:35 | #

Fred Scrooby wrote: “Incidentally, I love tribalism.”

Doesn’t it feel strangely good, doesn’t it feel right? Does anybody remember, if they ever had a time in their lives when they were World-Citizens, embracing everyone and treating everyone equal? I had a phase where I tried that, when I was very young, and it made me feel like sh*t.

“I am extremely happy and proud to belong to a tribe”

It would be even better if we could acknowledge it publicly and if our coethnics felt the same way.

Posted by Tribal Savage on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:09 | #

“I am extremely happy and proud to belong to a tribe, I love my tribe, and I highly recommend tribal membership and tribal identity to everyone.”

What do you consider to be your tribe?