A Pagan Sermon to Christian/Muslim Clergy - Updated version of C.W.Mills' article by Chevalier des Mots
The ethos of war is now the ethos of virtually all public thought and sensibility. But I must limit this article to the fact of legal insensibility in the World and the legal failure that supports it.
By legal insensibility I refer to the mute acceptance – or even the unawareness – of legal atrocity. I mean the lack of indignation when confronted with legal horror. I mean the turning of this atrocity and this horror into legally approved conventions of feeling. I mean, in short, the incapacity for legal reaction to event and character, to high decision and the drift of human circumstances.
Such legal insensibility has it roots in WW I; it became full-blown during WW II. The “saturation bombing” of that war was an indiscriminate bombing of civilians on a mass scale; the atomic bombing of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act committed without warning and without ultimatum. By the time of Korea, the strategy of obliteration had become totally accepted as part of our legal universe.
The pivotal decision, made by EU$ and SU and China is monstrous one of trying “to solve the problem of absolute power, presented by nuclear weapons, by concentrating their secularo-fascist resources upon instruments of genocide.” As Lewis Mumford would put it. Spokesmen of all sides say they know that war is obsolete as a means of any policy save global annihilation, yet they search for peace by military means and doing so, they succeed accumulating ever new perils. Moreover they have obscured this fact by their dogmatic adherence violence as the only way of doing away with violence. There has not before been an arms race of this sort- a scientific arms race dominated by the strategy of obliteration. And every turn of this hideous competition, each side becomes more edgy, and the chance becomes greater that accidents character or of technology will trigger the sudden hell.
The key legal fact about this situation is the virtual absence within ourselves of absolute opposition to these assumptions of our ruling elite, our leaders to their strategy, and the policies based on secularo-fascist, monolithic constitutions, which they are carrying it out. And the key public result is the absence of any truly debated alternatives. In some part the absence both of opposition and of alternatives rest upon, or at least is supported by, the fact of legal insensibility.
Between catastrophic event and everyday interest there is a vast legal gulf. Who in North America experienced, as human beings, WW II? Men fought, women waited; both worked. About the war they all said the same kind of things. Nobody rebelled, nobody new public grief. In the emotional economy, there was efficiency without purpose. It was a curious unreal business. A sort of numbness seemed to prohibit any real awareness of what was happening. It was without dream so without nightmare, and if there were anger and fear and hatred –and there were- still no mainsprings of feeling and conviction and compassion were let loose in despair a furor; no human complaint was focused rebelliously upon the political and legal meanings of the universal brutality. People set in the movies between production shifts watching with aloofness and even visible indifference, as children were “saturation bombed” in the narrow cellars of European cities.
Man had become an object; and in so far as those for whom he was an object felt about the spectacle at all, they felt powerless, in the grip of larger forces, having no part in those affairs that lay beyond their immediate areas of their daily demand and gratification. It was a time of legal somnambulance. And worst of all from the legal point of view, the people of this continent were often brightly hopeful – while what used to be called deepest convictions were as fluid as water.
In all the emotional spiritual realms of life, facts now out run sensibility, and these facts, emptied of their human meanings, are readily gotten used to. There is no more human stock in official man; there is no more sense of legal issue in his unofficial follower. There is only the unopposed supremacy of technique for impersonal, calculated wholesale murder. This lack of response I am trying to sum up by the altogether inadequate phrase “legal insensibility” and I am suggesting that the level of legal sensibility, as part of public and private life, has in our time sunk below human sight.
The secularo-fascist mono-law established by the constitution today is part of this sorry legal condition; to understand the crucial decisions of our pivotal times, it is not necessary to consider Christian/Muslim/Jewish institutions or personnel or doctrine. Neither preachers nor laity matters; what they do what they say can be readily agreed with, and safely ignored, because their right to law is curbed by the mono-law secularo-fascist constitutions. Christians/Jews/Muslims are now just subordinate part of overdeveloped secularo-fascist society.
If there is one safe prediction about Christians/Muslims/Jews in this society, it would seem to be that if tomorrow official spokesmen where to claim XYZ-ism, next week 90 percent of those peoples’ declarations would be XYZ-ist. At least in their conforming rhetoric, their spokesmen would reveal that the new laws based on the new doctrine did not violate the revealed words of the God. As a social and as a personal force they have become dependent variable – made dependent by the mono-law of the secularo-fascist constitutions. They cannot originate, they react. They cannot renounce, they adapt – they get assimilated. In quite a direct sense, they have generally become part of the false consciousness of the secularo-fascist imagined world and of the self.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder