Pico Ultraorientalis

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for April, 2017

The Gun You Should Reach For When You Hear the Word “Culture”

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 24, 2017

Why “Culture” is a loaded word which needs to be disarmed

All advocates of a civilized world, and most emphatically all Christians, need to be skeptical every time the word “culture” is mentioned.  Evolution and culture are the two key concepts which have destroyed genuine anthropology, anthropology in the Christian sense of the word.  If today we live in a world where the barbarians are at the gates, it is only because the vital distinction between civilization and barbarism was first erased from the scholarly vocabulary in the name of an ambiguous and relativistic understanding of human nature, an understanding which is encapsulated in the term “culture.”

The word “culture” (an otherwise unobjectionable term) was adopted by secular anthropologists as the label for a mental package deal known as “the culture concept.”  The essence of this concept is that human beings create their own mental reality.  Even humanists are humble enough to realize that human beings do not create their own physical reality.  That sort of thing went out of style with Renaissance magic.  Humanists claim that the universe has arisen through something other than human agency, and since human agency is the only rational design they recognize, they conclude that it is a result of chance plus vast quantities of time.  This is the celebrated theory of evolution.

There is another sense in which Humanists exhibit a minimal degree of humility.  The culture concept implies that “Man Makes Himself” to quote a title  from V. Gordon Child, from a day when even left-wing scholars could use masculine pronouns.  However the culture concept admonishes the would be Ubermench that human individuals do not make themselves, only groups have the power to shape the mental environment of their members.  Since the culture concept derives ultimately from the thinking of Immanuel Kant, this is an important revision in the theory.  Kant asserted that the human mind creates its own reality, but he was very abstract in his presentation.  He didn’t stress the role of groups in forming their own environments.  This was worked out in the century after Kant by various neo-Kantian scholars and passed down through the educational system in the form of anthropological dogma.

This formula, that 1) evolution makes the physical environment, and 2) culture makes our mental environment, is the one-two punch of all Humanist thought.  It is diametrically opposed to Christian anthropology, which sees the human race as part of creation dependent upon almighty God.  To be sure, in the Christian view the human race occupies a unique role in creation, as the thinking and governing part, just as in Humanism the humans are unique in possessing “culture.”  However there is a world of difference in these two forms of uniqueness.  The first uniqueness is related to something personal outside itself, a condition which renders objective morality possible.  The second uniqueness, the uniqueness of “culture” is purely self-referential.  It cannot be brought to the bar of any moral standard higher than itself.  From the Humanist viewpoint, this isolated uniqueness reflects the principle of human autonomy.  From the Christian viewpoint, it is an illusion resulting from sin.

Culture as the moral ultimate means that culture itself cannot be judged, and implies relativism.  The history of the culture concept is the progress of increasingly consistent forms of relativism.  In the 19th century anthropologists tried to rank cultures on the basis of degrees of civilization, or put negatively, emergence from barbarism.  However as the relativistic implications of the culture concept were systematized, notably by Franz Boaz and his followers, attempts at judging cultures were suppressed.   Today, all judgments of different cultures according to some objective standard outside culture are considered prejudicial.  However this moral conclusion is the consequence of the supposed impossibility of any objective standard.

When the Nazi German Propaganda Minister Goebbels famously exclaimed, “When I hear the world culture I reach for my gun!” he was diametrically opposed to the cultural criticism which we are trying to undertake.  Like Franz Boas, Goebbels was aiming for the idea of “high culture” as opposed to barbarism.  We should translate his words as “when I hear the word ‘civilization’ I reach for my gun.”  Both Nazism and cultural relativism have tried to make it impossible to isolate barbarism as a descriptive category and set it over against civilization.  Of course there were profound moral differences between Boaz, the liberal Jew, and Goebbels, the German fascist.  The latter went beyond theory and was determined to normalize barbarism by acting it out in real life.  However in the long run it has been the gentle scholar who has been more effective in destroying civilization, first as an ideal and then as a reality, among people of good intentions.

Yes, traditions exist

The major opposition to a frontal assault on the culture concept is the contention that culture aptly describes the variety and richness of human traditions found throughout the world.  However this diversity has always been recognized, certainly prior to the academic hegemony of the culture concept.  Some of these traditions were instituted by the Most High God, some are human innovations, and some have been inspired by lesser spirits.  Human innovation is not to be gainsaid, either for good or for evil, and neither is the vast diversity of traditions.

The culture concept adds nothing to our understanding of the richness of human institutions.  However by insisting on the human origin of our mental world, the culture concept begs one of the most significant questions which can be asked about history: Who, or what, instituted institutions?  Its long range effect is to flatten out the mental world into the single, flat, plane of human reality.  Cultural Humanists boast of having an “immanent frame” in which they are free to make any judgement they wish about human affairs.  However “any judgement” ultimately means that no judgment is authoritative, and hence that all are meaningless.  This default to meaninglessness and nihilism is the next to last stage in the decline of cultural relativism.

The final stage occurs when “culture” having outlived its usefulness in the promotion of nihilism is reabsorbed by “evolution” the master-concept which required culture as a temporary supplement and diversion.  When the ideals of humanity have lost their charm, the spiritual descendants of Goebbels will round on the spiritual descendants of Boaz, with guns metaphorical or otherwise.

It is to save these people of good intentions, these so-called “Humanists” from the fate which dooms their concepts, their bodies, and their souls (not necessarily in that order) that we must insist on a God beyond culture.

Posted in Anthropology, Appologetics, culture, Culture & Politics, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Politics, Theology, Traditionalism, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Dear Michael Savage, here is your prize-winning proof of Human Stupidity (which assumes the existence of God)

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 12, 2017

Dear Michael Savage,

First of all I want to let you know how much I enjoy your program.  After taking a lot of guff and being called a deplorable, you have now dumped the Trump train over Syria.  Just goes to show, that for true blooded deplorables, it was more than just a “thing” about the orange hair.  Oh well….

So much for WWIII and the other small stuff.  Now getting down to that proof of the existence of God!  As you and I and everyone else knows, God exists.  However there are a certain class of scholars, known as apologists, who go beyond just knowing that God exists to trying to prove that he exists.  God must love these people very much, since he doesn’t blast them out of existence for doing something which is ultimately blasphemous.  I love them too, especially the really complicated ones like Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz, who’s thoughts are as intellectually challenging as they are useless.   These are the people who attempted  a frontal assault on human infidelity and ignorance, which in itself is rather stupid.

The correct procedure is to reverse the question and ask why human beings reject God and all knowledge of His existence and character.  In scholarly circles this method is called “presuppositionalism” and if left to run amuck it will lead to academic disputations as obscure as anything spawned from the pen of Thomas Aquinas.  However the basic insight perfectly simple.  We all live in a world which is screaming at us 24 hours a day seven days a week, “I am God’s creation!”  Yet there are two classes of human beings, those who accept the Creator and their creaturely status, and those who feel that both the universe and they themselves are self-made.

Since both the believers and the God-rejecting people live in the same world, a world in which we are nurtured and have our being, there would not seem to be much ground for metaphysical disputation.  Even rather evil people such as Martin Heidegger have never doubted that existence exists, although that benighted philosopher expressed great surprise that Being had managed to nudge out non-existence in the contest for reality.

No, both classes of human beings inhabit the same life-world, but they think according to different principles.  As scholars would say, they adhere to different epistemological systems.  The believers see themselves as mentally naked in front of God and the world.  For them there is no “problem of knowledge” per se, since the  information we get from our world is abundant and, except in limiting cases, generally reliable.

However, in the case of the non-believer, one must have an epistemology before venturing into the wilds of the universe.  For such people, there is a gap between the ego and reality, a gap which can only be bridged through strenuous philosophical or scientific investigation.  However this plight of inadequate knowledge is not just an epistemological inconvenience, but rather grounded in the moral attitude of the non-believer him or herself, since before staking any claim to knowledge the non-believer has already declared a state of ego-autonomy.  This declaration of independence has the unfortunate consequence of stranding the ego on a deserted island of his or her own making, from which venturing out into the world of bruit fact, governed only by the laws of chance,  is a perilous adventure.

Well now Mr. Savage, even if you accept all that I have written above, it certainly doesn’t present a “proof of the existence of God”…at least in the classic sense.  However, from a forensic point of view, it ought to make us suspicious of of the non-believer’s motivation.  Why the insistence on autonomy?  Why the cumbersome epistemological apparatus?  It would almost seem as if there were something or Someone out in the wilds of reality whom the non-believer was afraid of, and for whom this gap between the ego and the Other was improvised.

Indeed, there are grounds for supposing that the gap between the ego and its environment is not a fact of nature, but an improvisation designed to suppress the original confluence between the human mind and God.  This would also explain the general uselessness of “proofs of the existence of God” since these are attempting to employ a metaphysical tool in order to solve a moral problem.  The “proofs” usually only work on people who are already believers.

To conclude, Mr. Savage, I know that this is a rather bleak judgement, and furthermore begs the question, “What is to be done?”  After all it implies that humanity is divided into two non-communicating epistemological camps.  Instead of offering you an inductive or deductive proof of God’s existence, all I have done is explain the irreducible ignorance of a vast segment of humanity.  Or as you would say, the reason why “they are stupid.”

Well, I suppose prayer wouldn’t hurt.

Blessings upon you and yours,

Mark Sunwall

Posted in Anthropology, Christian Education, Christianity, Culture & Politics, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The Culture Conspiracy: A critical investigation into the destruction of civilization (Introduction)

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 10, 2017

The Culture Conspiracy

This is the first installment of a multi-part series on how the modern “culture concept” has, as a complement to the theory of evolution, demoralized and degraded civilization, or actual “culture” in the original intent of that word.  While it is not intended to be an exhaustive overview of the topic, the investigation will try to hit on all the major aspects of the problem.  Tentatively, it will be organized along the following themes,

  1. The Great Baton Pass
  2. The Measure of Man vs. the Measure of God
  3. From Custom to Culture
  4. Erasing the essential Civilization/Barbarism distinction
  5. From Kant to Hegel: From the individual to the species
  6. From Hegel to Boaz: From the species to the people
  7. The Super-organic, the Spiritual, and the Ugly
  8. The Enigma of Innovation
  9. Man Makes Himself Part II: From Custom to Customization
  10. Beyond the Culture Concept

Though each of these contains enough to provide a mini-course in itself, in its present state the work is likely to appear as the outline of a syllabus rather than a detailed treatment of the subject.

Introduction: The Culture Conspiracy

Suppose you were able to travel back in time to the mid-Victorian era.  Just to pick a date, let’s suppose it were 1859, the year in which Darwin published his master work, Origin of Species.  You arrive in London, England and are able to established communications with a middle class person, of either sex, and ask them two questions about the future.  First, do you expect technology to improve in the future?  Second, do you expect culture to improve in the future?  If I am not greatly mistaken, the answer of a well-informed Londoner of 1859 would be a resounding “Yes!” to both questions.

Next, through the magic of your time-traveling you offer them a vista of life at the beginning of the twenty-first century.  Now they are able to judge whether their optimistic prophecies have been vindicated.  There is no need to waste time on the answer to the first question.  The mid-Victorian would find the technological wonders of the present to be little less than a magical transformation of the human environment.  Even if the lady or gentleman in question were a Luddite, or like Mr. Butler, apprehensive of “machines” in general, they would be forced to admit that the machines had won the day, whether or not the technical triumph was in the long range interests of the human race.

And what of culture?  If cultural optimism were vindicated in proportion to the Victorian’s technological optimism, what wonderful variations on Moore’s Law might one expect?  In the year 2017 music would be one-hundred times more sonorous than Mozart, paintings one-hundred times beautiful than Turner, the law-courts one-hundred times more just and expeditious, families one-hundred times more peaceful and harmonious,  architecture one-hundred times more symmetrical and stately,  and the religious life of the average man or woman one-hundred times more pious.

I am sure everyone understands that such exaggerated expectations would suffer bitter disappointment.  But I would go beyond that and hypothesize that our representative Victorian would judge that much of culture had regressed rather than progressed.  Looking around at a population dressed in t-shirts and jeans, the well-dressed Victorian might assume that he or she (especially she) had landed in a sartorial dark ages.  Dress might be the most ubiquitous and offensive sign of cultural degeneration, but further investigation would reveal a myriad of aspects in which 21st century culture had decayed far beyond the lowest level of Victorian expectations.

Art might be cheap and easily accessible but so primitive, cartoon-like or commercial that the Victorian time-traveler would deem it rubbish.  Language, (unless our Victorian were a rater in Her Majesty’s Navy)  would have become unutterably vulgar.  Human relations would have become broader but shallower, and the family reduced to just one of the many nodes of association provided for the convenience of individuals.  The poor-house and the debtors prison would have been abolished, but by the year 2017 debt would have become the primary nexus holding the economy together.  Indeed, from the point of view of a middle-class Victorian, by the year 2017 society itself would have become one giant debtor’s prison.

This is not even to speak of the actual prisons of the 21st century, or the fact that Jack the Ripper (still in the future for 1859) would spawn, like some forensic Adam, a class of registered and unregistered offenders.  Finally our representative Victorian, even if not an enthusiast for the works of Herbert Spencer, might dimly recognize that by the standards of classical liberalism, the 21st century state had itself become a criminal network, engaged in perpetual borrowing and taxation for extensive regulation at home and endless warfare abroad.

Having safely deposited our Victorian time-traveler back to the homely 19th century, and drugged him with the obligatory milk of amnesia so that history won’t be spoiled, a familiar figure enters from stage left to deliver a soliloquy.  This is Mr. Carping Critic, who objects to the whole little drama.  He claims that our whole little experiment is a sham, based on false premises from the start.  He says that the two questions were apples and oranges from the start, and that the “no” verdict to the second question rests on biased judgment.  He says that when we jump from technology to culture we go from the measurable to the intangible, and we have entered into that shady region of values where nobody’s opinion (even that of a time-traveling Victorian) is more objective than that of someone else.

From the point of view of Mr. Carping Critic, the Victorian’s view of art is just an outmoded taste, so of course we should expect a negative verdict.  If the growth of the prison population is viewed negatively, it just shows the enduring grip of pastoral romanticism over the advantages of cozy confinement.  And so forth and so on in every department of “culture” since after all, culture is a matter of values, and as we all know, values change.  The seal of the entire argument is the whole ridiculous subject of clothing, which our time traveler had nothing better to venture than the opinion of a bigoted prude.

With that coup de grace, Mr. Carping Critic thinks he has stripped the Victorian of her secret!

I cannot refute Mr. Carping Critic on his own grounds, since they are not grounds at all, but the quicksands of a shifting and relativistic doctrine.  However it is a doctrine which has a history and that history can be exposed and criticized.  Indeed, I will go beyond Mr. Carping Critic to criticize the one concept which remains beyond criticism for him, namely “the culture concept.”  Yes, he is right to say that the time-traveling questions were not consistent, for in 1859 the word “culture” hadn’t quite assumed the connotation that we give it today.  Soon that would change, and it would change in such a way that people would no longer be as confident about making statements about objective reality as they had previously.

I think, in contrast to Mr. Carping Critic and his ilk, that objective reality, not just in the natural but the human world, continues to exist, and that an inability to talk about it puts anyone thus incapacitated at a severe disadvantage.  However our inability to talk about human affairs objectively is the end result of a kind of conspiracy, a conspiracy that started long ago and today has come to fruition in a multitude of crises.  In subsequent installments I will unmask this conspiracy… the culture conspiracy.

Posted in Anthropology, Art, Culture & Politics, Esoterism, Paleoconservativism, Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

From Old-papers to Lie-papers, this is what the media calls “progress”

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 7, 2017

Newspapers never used to contain “news”…but now the situation has been corrected

Decades ago when I heard an old monk exclaim, “These things you call newspapers…they contain nothing new!”  it was more of a self-evident truth than a revelation.  Aristotle, writing 2400 years ago, observed that if you read one book by Thucydides you didn’t need to read another history book for the rest of your life.  A lot of history has been written since then, but the principle still holds, for while the specifics of time and place may bear recording, the human comedy (or perchance tragedy) recapitulates the same old themes in every generation.  As “Rick” (portrayed by Humphrey Bogart) asked Sam the piano player to croon…

Its still the same old story,

A fight for love and glory,

A case of do or die

Of course if you really want to known the specifics of what was happening in North Africa c. 1942, Thucydides isn’t of much help.  That’s not what Aristotle or the old monk meant.  For “as time goes by” the concretes of time, place, and technology alter, but the human passions which animate the historical drama remain constant.

So I became rather casual in my attitude towards the media, deeming the daily old as soon as it was printed, and even before it redeemed its paper-value as a wrapper for the remains of maritime edibles.  Looked at in that way, there was something quaint about the Old-paper, as it regurgitated the same facts about different people while the generations cycled through their time on Earth.  To epitomize, the Weather section was paradigmatic of all the other sections.  Sun and storm might iterate through the seasons, but one never expected an entirely new form of weather to emerge.

This is not to say that novelty was entirely absent.  There was technological innovation and discovery of remote locations.  However these were like gardens which were expected to grow over time.  If there had been no innovations or discoveries, that would have been a far greater novelty. Moreover, since it was just the same expansive human nature which motivated the discovery process in accordance with human needs (or curiosity) even the greatest innovations lined up with the same doctrine of human nature.  Yet most importantly, even the greatest changes were reported on, as if they were a part of a natural order, they were not…what shall I say…they were not “promulgated.”

However I must now confess that, either I was wrong in my assumption that “no news is new news,” or something has changed.  I suspect the latter.  At some point the media moved from reportage to promulgation.  One suspects that deep in the heart of the media complex, people no longer recognize a distinction between journalism and fiction.  Selective reportage, outright suppression of facts, story-crafting, and agenda-fitting have replaced investigation.  The archetypal media man or woman no longer aspires to uncover a great story so much as to become the Great Novelist, rewriting reality according to the inspiration of their genius.  Today the newspaper has at last become a novelty.  Indeed, it has become “poetry” according to the Greek root of our word, i.e., total innovation.

In Journalism and elsewhere, Post-Modernism is past Marxism

How has this odd situation come about?  We are all aware of that confluence of factors which has changed “the news” in the past several decades, from the rise of social media to corporate concentration of the older journalistic outlets.  None the less, I am inclined to count what men and women have in their heads at the salient factor, in accordance with the principle “ideas have consequences.”  Journalists don’t just bloom like lilies of the valley, and before they are recruited into the media complex they must matriculate from the academic complex.

If it ever were, the academic complex is no longer a free marketplace of ideas.  Rather certain ideologies have gained an ironclad ascendancy on American campuses.  The most general and erudite (were it not elitist to admit) of these ideologies is so-called “post-modernism” which claims that human minds can have no contact with anything remotely resembling objective reality.  Rather, particular humans spin out their narratives, much like a caterpillar weaving its cocoon around its body.

Taken at face value, this sounds like a formula for toleration and harmony, such as was claimed on behalf of the ancient skeptics and cynics.  Those ancient “know-nothings” professed not to care about social opinion, to the point where whether a person wore clothes or not was a matter of indifference.  Whatever the merits of such skeptical liberty, it is a far cry from the atmosphere which surrounds post-modernism.  As anyone who has contact with modern academics is aware, hypersensitivity and condemnation are the qualities most apparent on university campuses today.

In reality, the hippy-like indifference on the surface of post-modernist thought masks a deeper level of ideological doctrine.  This doctrine is invariably Marxism of one or another ilk, but most especially the cultural Marxism associated with the Frankfurt school or the ideas of Antonio Gramchi.  The idea is not just to create novelty, but to create novelty which is subversive of the present state of affairs.  A new idea or a narrative which created greater harmony in society, though superficially compliant with postmodernist thought, is not sufficient.   The new narrative must be destructive of the old narratives.

This is the ideological reason why today’s media not only embrace new perspectives on human nature, but why these new perspectives are designed to create conflict and chaos.  To be sure there are other, simpler, reasons.  The most evident is the standing insight of yellow journalism that disasters sell newspapers, and that while natural disasters can’t be conjured up to order, wars and riots can be.  So today conflict, both domestic and global, is not just reported on, but spawned by the media itself.

The idea that human beings can create their own world ex nihilo is, of course, blasphemous.  But this is an attitude which goes back, behind even the Marxists, at least to Kant and the way modernity defined “culture” in opposition to nature.  Ultimately it goes back to Adam, or whoever that human was who first knowingly spit into God’s eye.  Unfortunately today’s corporate journalists are not such of whom one expects genuine, Godly, repentance.  Rather, and unlike wise King Canute, they are apt to stand stubbornly on the shore of their own subjective fancy, until engulfed by an objective tsunami far beyond their reckoning.


Posted in Culture & Politics, History, Media, Philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Africa through the Leftist looking glass

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 4, 2017

Leftist “Afrocentrism” is not Africa-centric at all, rather, it is Negative Euro-centrism

The cardinal, and supposedly indisputable, fact which determined modern Africa’s destiny is what people generally refer to as “The Partition of Africa” as if Africa were a huge cake that was cut into slivers by greedy and importunate dinner guests.  Indeed, there was a conference held in 1885 to ratify the European states’ spheres of influence in Africa, and it set the standard for determining the boundaries, not just of colonial Africa, but the territorial limits of today’s independent states.  Thus this phrase, and the image it evokes, has endured as the beginning of all disquisitions and inquisitions into the matters and morals of modern Africa.

Unfortunately this notion of “partition” fails the reality-test.  Apart from the history of European diplomacy, the “Partition of Africa” has no utility or even meaning.  In order to divide something up, the “something” has to first exist as a unified entity, and (except as a geographical concept) there never was any such thing as “Africa” to divide up.  In contrast, when historians speak of the division of Poland in the 18th century, they are referring to something concrete.  There was indeed a unified historic Polish state which suffered dismemberment at the hands of Prussia, Russia, and Austria.  Poland disappeared, its neighbors were enlarged.

This is not what happened to Africa.  Granted, something very important did happen in and on the continent of Africa during the late 19th century, and it happened (primarily) through the intervention of the European powers.  However, the actual process was precisely the opposite of a partition.  What happened circa 1885 to the various peoples of Africa was a process of forced unification, not forced division.  From the point of view of genuine Afro-centrism, or what might be more objectively called “ethnological realism” the 1885 event is better described as the (forced) unification of the African territories.

Yet somehow the myth of a division of a non-existent country called “Africa” has persisted in the collective imagination of world history.  The original impetus for this myth was, as everyone might suspect, the ignorance, chauvanism and pride (I abjure the term “racist” but you get the general point) of the European ruling classes at the height of Western world power.  It no doubt flattered them to think that they were able to enforce their will on territories who’s indigenous populations had no say in the matter whatsoever.

I won’t be going into the pros and cons of colonialism, a vast subject.  Rather, what I am arguing is the reality or otherwise of a single thought-construct, the “partition” of Africa.  After 1885 Africans found themselves inhabiting much larger political units than they had ever experienced before.  Some aspects of life in these larger units were beneficial, some were degrading, and let the chips fall where they may in each department of evaluation.  However what happened post-1885 was a unification rather than a sundering.  Sundering did occur in isolated instances, as when a boundary was arbitrarily drawn through the middle of a village, or though the grazing territories of a nomadic tribe.  However these were the exceptions which proved the rule.  The rule was that Africans woke up to a new reality, and in this reality they now were thrown into political relations with people whom they had had little contact with previously.  And these other people were not just the Europeans, but, most importantly, other Africans as well.

It is this unification which was the salient reality at the dawn of modern Africa, not sundering.  However, to say that unification was salient is not by any means a value judgement.  The pros and cons of this unification are all arguable, what is not arguable was its reality.  In fact the history of African politics, and of the rest of the world’s attitude towards Africa, largely revolves around the pros and cons of large political units.  Indeed, this is a theme which is hardly unique to Africa.  What is a nation?  What is a state?  What is the relation between these two, and are either of them or both of them good or evil?  This has been a universal theme since at least the times of the American and French revolutions.  However events on the African continent can throw these themes into either sharp relief or obscurity, depending on what kind of moral handle one has on the issues.

My thesis is that the political left has grabbed these issues at the wrong end, and that conventional discourse has slavishly followed the tone set by the left.  It is as if we had a telescopic view of Africa but were looking through the telescope from the wrong end.  This has had disastrous consequences, both for Africans and for everyone else.

Ethnographic realism and Federalism, Negative Euro-centrism and the unitary State

The seemingly abstract discussion above has more than historical relevance.  It is true that much of  Africa experiences debilitating social and economic conditions.  Furthermore, it is true that outside agents play a disproportionate role in the affairs of African states.  However it is singularly unhelpful to label these concrete conditions the result of “neo-colonialism” when in fact they are manifestations of the same globalist system which interferes in the affairs of non-African regions.  Due to the weakness of African political systems organizations such as the IMF, the World Court, and the so-called “peace keeping” UN military play the exaggerated role that they would like to assume throughout the world at large.  The reason why they are unable to play this role universally is that states outside Africa are stronger and less amenable to outside pressure.

And why are African states notoriously weak?  The general consensus is that “tribalism” (variously defined) keeps the political situation of all but the most stable African nations in a state of perpetual turmoil.  This is certainly true, however people have been analyzing the phenomenon of “tribalism” through the leftist looking-glass for several generations, and still no solution has been found to this problem, if “tribalism” is indeed a problem.  The leftist-Marxist view is that every African nation should have a unitary state, which will then enact economic and social planning to lead its population out of poverty and dependency.  Any groups which stand between the individual and the state are seen as running interference with this program are deemed reactionary.  Prominent among these groups are tribes, ethnic, and kinship organizations.

Does this sound familiar?  It should, since this has been the left’s prescribed rout to utopia throughout the world, not just Africa.   Worldwide, this started at the end of the 18th century, when the Paris Jacobin government abolished the provinces (the “tribes” of France) in favor of direct rule over localities by centrally appointed “prefects.” (N.B.:  This policy was extended to French West and Central Africa in the 20th century, and was inherited by the Francophonic states after independence.)

However in the case of Africa, the left ultimately envisions a continental union.  Hence the Marxian endorsement of the outmoded and Eurocentric notion of a “division” of the African continent circa 1885AD.  This is bad historiography but shrewd politics, since it gives substance to the myth of an undivided continental polity which should be restored in the future.  In fact what happened was not a division, but a forced unification of vast territories which have now become the nations on the African map.  If there had been no such forced unification there would have been no general problem of “tribalism” since the forcibly unified tribes would have been nations in themselves.

What has been done has been done, and today’s African political units are, and will remain, multi-ethnic.  This can be either a blessing or a curse.  If we look at it from the left-wing viewpoint, which I am equating with advocacy of political centralization, it interferes with the smooth operation of a unitary state.  However there are alternatives to this viewpoint.

The salient alternative is federalism, or having weak central governments and strong local governments.  The fewer rewards which can be contested at the national level, the less likely it is that various groups, ethnic, religious or otherwise, will have an opportunity to come into conflict.  Thus federalism, in any region, but notably in Africa, is likely to diminish the likelyhood of inter-group friction.

Advocates of political centralization generally fail to contest the above premise.  Rather, they claim that strong unitary states are necessary to resist outside pressure, generally framed as “imperialist” or some kindred threat.  However, even here the case for centralized unitary states is dubious.  In fact it is far easier for outside political forces to subvert a single political head than to deal with a multitude of layered political agencies.

Yes, the root problem in Africa is the one factor that the left refuses to blame: excessive political centralization.  Federalism would keep contentious ethnic forces from each other’s throats, and furthermore would minimize, though not eliminate, outside political interference in the affairs of the various nations.  The forced political unifications of 1885 are irrevocable, but their negative effects can be mitigated through decentralization.

Should be be surprised that the political solution for African nations is the same as the political solution for other regions of the world?  After all, the root human condition is the same everywhere.  That is what the left professes to believe.  Why doesn’t it endorse local autonomy and limited government everywhere on Earth?  Perhaps because it has simply adopted its historiography from its alleged imperialist enemies.

“Division of Africa” indeed!  Would that it were so.  We need smaller political units on every continent, so that people can easily trade, cross borders, and be friends.


Posted in Constitution, Constitutionalism, Culture & Politics, Libertarianism, Paleoconservativism, Politics, Traditionalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »