War Machine- prelude II, a comment on a critic
The most respected critic of American Imperialism is unquestionably Noam Chomsky. Although I think that his critique is important, there have always been aspects of his morality which trouble me. Because the developing War Machine thread will rely heavily on Chomsky’s work in building its argument, I think that it is appropriate to talk a little bit about what is wrong with that argument, and how that affects a thoughtful consideration of Imperialism, its imperatives, and its consequences, namely, his assertion that “the principle of universality” is “perhaps the most elementary of moral truisms” (Failed States, p. 36, p. 81). To an extent, a Thelemic view of this can permit that universal principles provide moral legitimacy (it is their universal perfection which provides the imparitives 'do what thou wilt' and 'love under will' with their power), but we must remind ourselves of Crowley's instruction which I recently quoted in No God but Man:
"We start to penetrate the stratosphere; and we have to modify our machines in all sorts of ways which were not altogether foreseen. I wish to thunder forth once more that no questions of right or wrong enter into our problems. But in the stratosphere it is 'right' for a man to be shut up in a pressure-resisting suit electrically heated, with an oxygen supply, whereas it would be 'wrong' for him to wear it if he were running the three miles in the summer sports in the Tanezrouft.”
-Second Yoga Lecture
In other words, the only way for the same principles to logically universally apply to the conduct of various members of the international community is if the west acheives the hegemony which so distresses Chomsky. Only if conditions are the same is it appropriate for conduct to be the same as well. This may seem like a minor point, and practically speaking it is, but I'd like to say a few things about it now, so I don't feel compelled to address the issue every time I quote Chomsky in future installments of this thread.
Of course, this notion of universality of conduct, often expressed as the "golden tule" creates serious logistic problems. To paraphrase the Beast, updating his allusion for clarity’s sake, if a man like Ted Haggard did unto others as he would truly like them do unto him, they would resent it bitterly, even if he used adequate lubrication. This, then, is not a good criticism. A great deal of Chomsky’s moral argument is founded upon this mistaken notion of misapplied (i.e. deontological) ethics, and considers to be the obvious starting point for the legitimacy of international law. Certainly, as he observes, the Nuremberg Trials attempted to uphold this principle by refusing to convict German officials guilty of crimes perpetrated by both sides (although never solving the moral equivalency problem as it pertains to Hiroshima, but that’s another story) and setting the paradigm for international tribunals to come.
In his consideration of this principle in Failed States, and US self-exemption from it, Chomsky looks at two paradigmatic attacks on America, Pearl Harbour and 9/11, observing that America was preparing to attack both the Japanese and the Taliban before they were hit is a pre-emptive strike. The planned Japanese assault has been well documented, as has the tempestuous relationship between bin Lauden and his former American allies, as well as the knowledge that the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl provided the legal grounds for his extra-judiciary execution. Surely, if a pre-emptive strike is ever justified, it must be in response to an immanent threat.
Let’s be clear: I am not one who ascribes to the notion that every person or every country should be held to the same ethical standard in every situation, BUT, I hold to the principles expressed in Liber OZ and Magick Without Tears cap 49 that: "The basis of our criminal law is simple, by virtue of Thelema: to violate the right of another is to forfeit one's claim to protection in the matter involved." With respect to this, it is interesting to note what standards individuals and states choose to hold themselves to, in comparison with the ethical implications of their actions. An Empire must manage its interests, and to be a good manager, that is, to have things well in manos, one must take a careful analysis of reality as the starting point for one’s calculations. If one’s true motives and interests are repressed, this is very difficult. It is rare, perhaps unthinkable, to see an authentic discussion about the motives and interests of the politicians in government take place within a democracy, and the result is that the governing body (likenable to the role of the intellect in the individual) must re-present itself to the values of the people by covering up what its really doing, focussing on very shallow ideologically divisive issues, and generally obfuscating its genuine motivations. Under these circumstances it is impossible to arrive at the self-reverence, the fundamental self-certainty, which Nietzsche tells us is what ennobles the soul (Beyond Good and Evil cap. 287).
The result is an intellectual climate of repressed desire, not unlike the formation of the socially conditioned self in the individual. Ultimately then, my criticism of America is not that it IS an Empire, but rather that it is a badly managed Empire, whose imminent collapse, like the collapse of all Empires, threatens the economic and social condition of the whole world. This Empire, however, is an Empire of corporate ownership rather than occupied territory. When it falls apart, the usual sectarian conflicts will begin, and they will be fought, not between ideologically cohesive, racially cohesive or religiously cohesive groups, but rather between competing economic interests and investments. The consequences of this are almost impossible to predict, because this kind of Empire is literally without precedent in human history. It is an Empire of images and ideas which directly impact the global economy through media.
In his Critique of Traditional Religion, Spinoza observes that religion is a tool that is used to manipulate people so that they will be “fighting for slavery as they would for salvation,” and believing that they are fighting for an noble cause. Is there now a means which is more effective at achieving this end then religion, which is an issue that divides our society along lines which do not serve the interests of the War Machine, requiring the creation of a secular society? Is that means not liberal democracy, sometimes expressed as American nationalism?
Rather than asking us to adhere to some questionable cosmology, or giving us the promise of eternal bliss in the afterlife, liberal democracy is offering something which Erich Fromm contends that we all naturally desire: freedom. And herein lies the inherent contradiction in the argument of Chomsky and other supporters of democracy. Freedom and democracy are not compatible, because freedom is not universalizable. We can wax poetic about my right to swing my arm ending at your nose, but ultimately, in an industrialized economy reliant on cheap labour and mass production, the arc of that arm is incalculable, and its impact felt all around the world.
On the other hand, having that non-universal freedom gives us in the west a significant amount of freedom TO. The classic problems of humanity are not unsolvable, but as long as providing solutions to them is a matter of business, in which profit is to be made, the treatments provided will always be symptomatic. Providing a cure would be bad for business. This is why no progress can be made unless truly noble souls rise to power in the west, because only such individuals who are committed to an ideal of human development beyond their own personal profit could sacrifice profit for any kind of greater good. If evil proceeds from weakness, what makes us strong, as a race, is the ultimate good. The medical establishment, the energy industry and therapy culture all have a vested interest in human weakness. This application of the profit-motive to the practice of healing (using that word in the most broad sense possible) is the reason that the consequence of these “healing institutions” has been an enervation of the body and spirit. This is the reason for the Rosicrucian moral command, a command which must be brought to public policy if we are to make any authentic progress toward STRENGTHENING the human race.
War Machine Prelude I,