Xi Jinping = anti-social?

It struck me when reading a speech tonight by the Australian Ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, that the kind of character that he describes in the person of Chinese President Xi Jinping, would most likely meet criteria for anti-social personality disorder if he was put under the rigours of diagnostic testing.

In the speech, Ambassador Rudd was describing his relationship with the Chinese people over 50 years. A relationship that had its high points and is currently in a low. Mr Rudd blames this cold chill on the leadership of President Xi, who has been the instigator of a more militarily ambitious foreign policy (i.e. Criterion A1: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours; and Criterion A5: reckless disregard for safety of self or others) as well as a more conflictual foreign policy in non-military matters (such as in the recent trade war between Australia and China, Criterion A3: impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; Criterion A4: Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated fights or assaults; and Criterion A7: Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another). While only 3 of the 7 criteria from the group under the heading of Criterion A are needed to qualify for a diagnosis, the 5 of the 7 relevant criteria listed here are enough to warrant concern.

We learnt over 80 years ago the danger that is present when a world leader pushes the boundaries of the acceptable and seeks to promote and initiate violence. No doubt the Chinese Communist Party saw in Mr Xi the ambition and ruthlessness that they admire or at least have enough fear of to justify giving in to – for who ever really believed that Communists had enough of a backbone to stand up to such a figure? Communism is a system that seeks to subjugate reality to its theory of ‘class warfare’ – perhaps the change with Mr Xi’s presidency is simply removing the ‘class’ bit but keeping the ‘warfare’ bit?

If war does eventuate there will certainly be much analysis of Mr Xi’s personality and psychological style simply to make sense of his brazen rejection of reason in preference for the madness of war – which it seems to me is the choice every person makes when they promote violence over prosperity and goodness.

From a distance, it also seems that this change brought about with Mr Xi’s presidency is more indicative of a fascist fundamentalism than the Soviet Communism that reigned in Eastern Europe for much of the later half of the 1900s. For in seeking to maintain power by allowing capitalism to reign in a state-controlled manner, as was the plan since Deng Xiaoping, it seems sowed the seeds for a new kind of ‘national’ socialism, if you like, a socialism in which the communist party seeks to maintain power by showing what it does for the nation. Add in tow the Han-racial propaganda and cultural purity campaigns that the communists have put in place since Xi’s rise to power, the comparison with Fascist Germany in the 1930s does not seem too extravagant.

It seems to me that one defining feature of Mr Xi is his hunger for the ‘good old days’. Yet if there is one period in history that appears ‘good’ to Mr Xi, my bet would be it is the period of 1914 to 1945, where there was great destruction, yes, but also great influence by ‘great men’. It seems to me that Mr Xi is looking for his moment to define his greatness for posterity. Could this be the ‘pride before the fall’ of Proverbs 16:18 that was so instrumental in the collapse of Europe in the period of history mentioned above?

Freud and sexual potency

In two academic papers from 1894 and 1895, Sigmund Freud suggests that sexual function that differs from what he considers ‘normal’ is the cause of a variety of disorders he names ‘anxiety-neuroses’. ‘Abnormal use of sexuality’ for Freud consists in a variety of practices, including ‘voluntary abstinence’ and ‘coitus interruptus’, the basic condition of which is the lack of a fully completed orgasmic release by a man within a woman and by the woman from the man’s input. So far, so morally and practically ambiguous. For what are we to do with the mass of physically mature, but emotionally and intellectually infantile teenagers and young adults? What is to happen to the mass of celibate men and women in public religious life? Why is sexuality suddenly the core value of Dr Freud’s followers and admirers, without consideration of such practical and moral matters? Are these irrelevant – for they certainly cannot be said to be unimportant in the scheme of things.

Here we meet the perils of a class of scientifically trained individuals, who have a sophisticated knowledge of the instrumental use of the body and its functions, and who have never considered the reality that exists beyond the petri-dish. If we were all physically, emotionally, spiritually and psychologically isolated nomads with no need for consent, accountability, love, responsibility, and all the cultural heritage of the history of humanity, such a message might be appropriate. For all Freud’s concern for the traumatised individuals he met, it is his bravado and invulnerability that most comes across in the two academic papers I mention. It seems to me that he must have been seeing a lot of problematic and criminal expressions of sexuality in his practice, or at least been concerned enough by what he did witness second hand, that forging through with his strident call for a ‘normal vita sexualis‘ seemed the most provocative, if not the most effective way of proceeding.

I feel that Freud’s observations and theories had a resonance far beyond the confines of his Vienna clientele even into shaping the expressions of an increasingly murderous political scene. The natural pride Germans took in their nation became increasingly inspired by a barbarism in which they no longer knew why they were living within the bounds of civil and natural law. All the possible inspirational foundations for this national pride seemed to only be pushing Europe further and further towards the brink of war and cataclysm.

Yet for all the fear of wowsers, Freud himself was never giving a blanket condemnation of the ‘abnormal use of sexuality’. It seems that he is building the case for having given advice to certain individuals to be more bold in their sexual expression – perhaps in the hope that by promoting a ‘normal vita sexualis‘ as the most effective way of stigmatising criminal expressions of sexuality. I doubt it was ever his intention to undermine established forms of life, highly valued in his native Austria both then and now, such as priestly celibacy and the vow to chastity of professed Catholic religious men and women. I also doubt, however, that the strident expression of opinions he makes could have been interpreted any other way by people with a working knowledge of Catholic life. The fact that Freud’s papers were all eagerly read by the clergy of Rome seems to me to be a case in point.

Having read something about Adolf Hitler’s upbringing, his familiarity with altar serving as a child followed by his profoundly dysfunctional ‘use of sexuality’ in some analyses that treat of that matter, it seems to me little doubt that Hitler’s abhorrence of ‘Jews’ had its provenance at least culturally if not individually in the abhorrence of Freud’s teaching about sexuality.

If I was to make a defence of Sigmund Freud, I would point to the enduring relevance of the helping professions. The new boldness with which the spiritual teachings of Catholicism and Spirituality in general can to the most part be laid at the feet of this Vienna practitioner. Perhaps the headless enthusiasm for death and destruction that so overtook Europe in the first half of the twentieth century could to some extent be blamed on Freud’s call to boldness. For before Freud’s influence, Europe had wallowed in a mire of reticence and self-abhorrence – which seems apparent in the widespread occurrence of hysteria before the wars. If there was one thing the wars did for Europe in the 1914-1945 corridor, it was to free Europe from its recriminating self-loathing. No one could question a man’s right to live a ‘normal vita sexualis‘ despite any consequences other than anxiety.

For despite the hundreds of thousands of abortions and widespread availability of contraception, the world population has continued to grow and abound. Perhaps because of greater food availability. But certainly also because sexual expression has become normalised. Sigmund Freud had a lot to do with that development.

Lesbians and feminism

I had not considered until recently the apparent link between feminism on the one hand and lesbianism on the other. The notion of sexual freedom is powerfully seductive. I was moved by a paper by Cardinal Ratzinger in the late 1980s, which laid out how feminism, even feminist theology, is a different religion to christianity. Judaism was unique among the ancient religions for its lack of a female priestess class. But here is this new movement, purporting to promote women’s rights and welfare, yet often failing.

I would like to have a firmer grasp of this issue as it manifests. The early psychoanalysts may have been aware of this phenomenon but did not seem to build any theory regarding the place of lesbianism in the family and workplace, church and sports team. Feminism on the other hand provides a ready made justification for such women, suggesting to them that these actions and fantasies are wholesome and fulfilling.

It is apparent to me however, with the story of person-centred therapy and the collapse of religious life for women that lesbianism is a strong impulse among women and has become an influential force in our society today. There seems to be a move to remain respectable and the fear seems to be that religious life is too exposed to allow such practices to remain hidden.

Women’s role models these days however often flaunt their lesbianism as an attractive attribute in their approach to fans and such behaviour is considered welcome. This is the salvation offered by feminism it seems to me is sexual freedom and with that the promise of a secure lifestyle pampered and privileged, or else the pathway to heterosexual marriage still remains open. The lesbian was always more covert in her attempt at respectability and exposure of her was less likely given performance is not front and centre as it is for the male personage in the bedroom.

In this sense lesbian women have always had it easier as compared to their gay male counterparts in the attempt at remaining respectable in their lifestyle choices. To my mind though, it remains a rebellion against parents and their interest in the integrity of their progeny for such women to engage in that sort of behaviour. It is an affront against their nature as women insofar as women can receive the fullness of life and grace without sacrificing their bodies to the idols of sexual freedom and rebellion against God and man. Yet many women know that the rebel often wins the prize. Would that we had more resilient boundaries in place and were better placed to make choices of suchlike.

Rowling’s myth is the Cold War

It only just struck me recently that the Harry Potter phenomenon was a mythological representation of the Cold War: with Harry’s intent on ‘disarming’ enemies being representative of the Anglosphere’s intent to use military force to pacify enemy states and Voldemort’s intent on ‘murder, mind-control and enforcing pain’ being representative of the Soviet Union’s intent to use military force to kill, manipulate and harm its populations.

It is no wonder then that Rowling’s idea of a novel series was conceived at the cusp of the Soviet demise, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall. No wonder also that this series caught the imagination of the youngest generation. A generation that had not lived under the Cold War era.

Canadian Psychologist, Jordan Peterson’s notion, expressed in his Biblical series on Genesis, that our culture is caught in a space where ‘we think things we don’t act out and we act out things we don’t dream’, might be illustrated by this example of the Harry Potter phenomenon. I don’t know of anyone who has articulated this link, which is obvious now I think of it, between Harry Potter and the Cold War.

It explains why reading Harry Potter feels like a bit of an internal Cold War: so much struggle and frustration and narcissistic self-loathing is caught up in the experience. This is because no one can question the reality that much of the series was caught up in excitement regarding this ‘new power’ that Voldemort and his ‘Death Eaters’ exercised. The authority of Harry, his friends and the ‘Order of the Phoenix’ is the authority of fear: here is something we don’t understand that is causing pain, hurt and death and we need to trust Harry and the others to stare it down.

Who might Harry, Hermione and Ron represent here except Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan? The sympathy we feel for Harry growing up an orphan with his Aunt and Uncle, who could not be said to belong in any real sense to the ‘in-group’, though they are not entirely enemies either, except in the sense of family politics. Likewise, Poland, the home nation of Pope John Paul II, was not entirely in one camp or the other and posed no real threat, but did ‘come good’ because of its association with the Pope as his birth nation where he grew up. The fact that the Dursleys allowed Harry to exist and offered their protection to him from the threatening power of Voldemort is much like the Polish Communist Party that allowed Catholicism to remain an influential and visible part of its national culture. Indeed, just as Petunia Dursley really could not do anything about the situation of her nephew living under her roof: so too the Polish Communist Party had no means of ousting the privileged place of the Catholic Church in its national community.

Just like Harry’s family, Ron Weasley’s family works as a metaphor. Ron Weasley belonged to a big family, the biggest family many had seen, which was rich in warmth and solidarity, despite their economic struggles. So too, the United States, the biggest nation by population in the Western World, struggles with many below the poverty line nonetheless has a strong culture and displays warmth and solidarity for those in need.

Likewise, Hermione has a family of professionals, wealthy, respectable and vulnerable, who would rather not be caught up in the harsh reality of the ideological war. Could this be anything like what we saw in the UK? Margaret Thatcher was someone who fought for her country with her grit, determination and searing intelligence. Popular amongst her friends and despised by enemies, Hermione could be said to have lived a similar life while at Hogwarts.

In a way, for me, what this analogy tells me is that JK Rowling, in her mythological representation of the Cold War, gave my generation something that we were missing: an experiential introduction to the horror and fear of previous generations under the Cold War Era. The best spiritual traditions tell us that we all need to maintain continuity with the past. If we don’t maintain this continuity, it is more than likely that something terrible is going to happen. In this sense, we have much to thank Mrs Rowling for in allowing those in my generation the opportunity to reconnect with and feel solidarity with what those in the older generations had to put up with for 45 years after the end of the Second World War. The book series explained to us lessons we did not know we were learning, but knew how much we needed to learn them. This is the reason Mrs Rowling earned her position of prestige and authority amongst all her readers. Something many in my generation would do well to remember.

A culture of War Mongering in American Traditionalism

It struck me recently that one element of the culture of the United States is the inability to move from suspicion to trust. Whole swathes of the US population seem to get caught up in conspiracy theories and delusions of persecution. This state characterises much of the speculation on the political front in both domestic and foreign policy as well as in religion, the family and the intellectual life of the people.

The reason for this stalemate is the refusal of large swathes of the population to demonstrate and develop a sense of home that is open and welcoming rather than closed and suspicious. I don’t have any notion of what might constitute a ready fix to this situation. Except to say that, because of this lack of trust, words seem to easily lose their meaning and personal testimonies become arbitrary. This is a situation where opinions have no weight and so we are constantly in search of a bedrock that will make our opinion ‘count’.

This is to some extent the result of a massive population in which alienation is the everyday byproduct. There is such a great number of people, all with their own opinions, that in the end, they become watered down and the substance of the public discourse becomes empty of authority. It is a de-centred public discourse because no one believes that any one else knows what is going on. This is the soul of the United States to some extent is that all the many different parts each have their own integrity, but because of this suspicion and lack of welcome to different perspectives, the many different parts are unable to bestow a measure of their trustworthiness to the central authority.

Yet what is the bedrock of authority that allows the populations of other nations to feel that their voice counts? It is the ability to love oneself. There might be pockets of the population that demonstrate a concerted ability to show love and respect to each self, but the great majority of the nation believe that they must love others before they love themselves – before they even consider themselves worthy of this attention and attentiveness to their own needs.

This bedrock allows one to be welcoming and to move from suspicion to trust – but only if the state of suspicion is honoured and addressed rather than belittled and made fun of. Too much of US culture is about judgementalism and legalism without demonstrating the patience and fortitude that are necessary for right judgement and mercy to prevail. When we judge others for being suspicious – we question the validity of their self-protection and thus suspicion and fear is met with arrogance and derision. The thing is: we are only arrogant and deriding in the face of suspicion when we do not believe that we are really worthy of that trust to begin with.

Is there something I can do to build my belief that I am worthy of trust? This is the question at the heart of every mature culture. It assumes that trust is something worthy of valuing and having as a part of my life. If we have the courage to face ourselves and our own potential for self-destruction, we can begin, with others’ help, to walk the way of peace and love and consolation. But this is something many of us are only too willing to avoid. ‘It can wait’ seems to be the standard response to such a question.

The Islamic tilt toward Beijing

To the observant ones, the Palestinian debacle in its recent episode has revealed a striking characteristic of the Islamic world as yet unnoticed. The fact that Israel sticks out like a sore thumb in the Middle East, with its liberal democracy and western values, has not, until now, shown up the vehemence with which the Arab world maintains its authoritarian preferences – both in the family and in state leadership. And who, one might ask, is the Arab world intent upon pleasing with its current anti-Israel stance? None other than the leadership in Beijing and Xi Jinping himself. The Arab world stands with China in its desperate need for parental involvement in the lives of their adult children. God knows, they both say, children are always children – you can never trust them.

This comes at a time when the Western world, with the United States at its helm, finds it near impossible to profess respect for parenthood as an institution let alone in its practice. Asia in general, from Turkey in the West to the Philippines in the East, has always professed respect for parents and solidarity with parents in their disciplinary role. The West on the other hand is so out of touch with traditional norms that even staunch communists appear more approachable than their establishment counterparts. The creative purposelessness of Western technocrats appears to such people to seek to destabilise the family without offering anything in its place. ‘Is there anything to be said for such an approach?’ they may well ask.

In such a context, the principle of President Xi, that the Western world is in decline and China must rise to meet its potential, seems not only plausible to many Arabs, but inestimably reasonable and wise. The Chinese ‘way’ appears so much more appealing to an Arab mindset – with the promise of Chinese know-how and ambition belittling Western attempts at maintaining status as the prestige culture in the Middle East. ‘China is the future’ many say. And though the United States is, without doubt, a ‘great country’, a nation that forgets something as basic as birth gender cannot be said to have much going for it.

So, where to from here? Is it reasonable to expect ideological creep from Beijing toward Ankara and Rabat? My personal view is, ‘why not?’ The evident failure of the liberal world order to resolve such a long-standing dispute as that of Palestine, appears to demonstrate without question, the limitations of such an ‘order’. Beijing must step in and claim the role that is rightfully theirs and this may well prove a sticking point in its struggle for ideological prestige. Can Beijing lead a negotiation? Can Beijing assert its authority in a region that sorely needs it?

As the saying goes, ‘opportunity lurks in abdicated responsibility’. In a context where the liberal world order clearly has nothing to offer of any value, Beijing must step up to demonstrate their quality and prove President Xi correct.

Christianity in England and Germany: a cultural analysis

Recently I read a statement comparing the Catholic church in Germany’s progressive agenda to Anglicanism. I have a number of problems with this point of view, which I wanted to tease out here.

Obviously, Germany and England have many similarities and differences, but it is interesting to me just how nuanced these are. Both countries have respect for the rule of law, respect for good moral behaviour and concern for how one is perceived socially. But the way these values play out is nuanced in a way that makes the comparison between the Catholic Church in Germany and the Anglican church in England a bit farcical.

My first point regards the way both countries approach the value of ‘good moral behaviour’. Germany has a long history of cultural appreciation for philosophy and the work of philosophers. Philosophy is respectable in Germany to a degree that it has never achieved in England. To my mind, this is because of a different approach to the tradition of Christianity. In Germany, it is almost as if Jesus has attained the status and respect he has because he is a ‘philosopher-king’, or should have been if history treated him better. So the role of Christians is to ‘proclaim God’s kingdom on earth’, or to make up for the poor treatment Jesus received in First Century Judea. On the other hand, the prevailing influence of Calvinist theology in the Church of England has meant that religion is almost seen as irrational and Jesus as the unlucky, yet loveable, lunatic in that country. It is interesting to my mind here that traditional approaches to religion in England (and Wales) tend to emphasise the Old Testament foundation, rather than the New Testament creativity of Jesus. It seems that ‘respectability’ is harder to come by in England than Germany.

A second point regards the concern for how one is perceived socially and how this plays out in modern religious politics in these countries. In Germany, because Christianity has always been ‘respectable’ and seen as ‘rational’ even, it has been a difficult issue when faced with the irrationality and rebelliousness of people outside the bounds of what is considered ‘respectable’. The desperate situations of such people calls for mercy. One reason why Christianity is respectable in Germany is that Germans, as everyone knows, are ‘direct’ – in their speech, they tell you what is going on: what they need from you or what they are experiencing right now. This directness can be confronting for your average ‘docile’ Christian and if coming from someone in a desperate situation, it can be distressing to know what to do. It is in this context that the Catholic Church in Germany is seeking to expand its boundaries of respectability so as to open the door for mercy to reach such individuals.

In England, it is a whole other kettle of fish. It is questionable whether Christianity commands much respect, at least in the public discourse (outside matters to do with Royalty of course). People respect the demand for moral uprightness of heart – but the tradition of Christianity in England is not one of holding up the torch of rationality – the early saints were troubled people who nonetheless secured a dedicated following because of their meekness and magnanimity. The English, as everyone knows again, are not direct at all. They will couch everyday demands in many different polite expressions so as to make up for the boldness of making a request in the first place. The desire to reach the more troubled members of society therefore has less explicit quality about it than in a German context and may easily be construed as empty proselytism by the more resentful members of society.

Another reason for the difference in respectability of Christianity in Germany vis-a-vis England is that the English were far more willing to use proselytism to promote their brand of Christianity than their German counterparts. This history of sectarianism and prejudice is something the Anglophone is only just beginning to come to terms with. Germany on the other hand has had a far more distinctly anti-christian versus pro-christian situation. You could say that whereas the German churches have sought to win the hearts of people to Christianity through the mind that Anglicanism has sought to win the hearts of people to Christianity through the stomach.

As you can see, obviously there are many cultural differences to tease out here – but the comparison between the Catholic Church in Germany and Anglicanism is more of a cheap shot based on seeing similar responses to modern issues around family life than a serious consideration of what is going on.

Romeo & Juliette as core western text

I was struck recently when watching Jordan Peterson’s dialogue with Peter Kreeft, when Professor Kreeft mentioned by analogy the Romeo and Juliette story as an equivalent in some real sense to Christ’s call to discipleship. Then, more recently, I have come to consider the Asian experience of religion, excluding the levant region, as more typified by the experience of arranged marriage as the equivalent to their religious mindset. It seems to me that this is the real cultural deadlock between East and West is not necessarily a desire for expansionistic militarism in the East, which it seems to me is more a surface issue affecting world politics, but rather the Chinese have recognised the need to defend the rightful place of parents in the romantic space, a place that feels threatened.

It is this issue, it appears to me, that is providing the emotive thrust behind the militaristic posture of the Chinese Communist Party as it presents itself today – because it is a struggle for the existence of East Asia as fundamentally Asian in its religious outlook. There are so many cultural incursions within East Asia – most stridently lead by the Japanese. Moreover, this is happening within a context where the Japanese are not wholly to be trusted, at least as far as the Korean and Chinese are concerned – what with the unresolved experiences of World War II.

I take as a guru in this regard the former Jesuit Father General, Adolfo Nicolas, who spent most of his life in Japan and the Philippines, despite growing up in Spain. For Nicolas, East Asian philosophies should be given just as much weight in Christian attitudes toward Asia as Greek philosophy did for the Christians in Europe. East Asian philosophies are much more dedicated to laying out aspects of reality that have to do with the ‘Way’ we practice our faith and learn to be better people. Nicolas, who died in May 2020, believed that European missionaries to Asia over the last few centuries preached philosophies of ‘truth’, which did not meet well with the local populations. For a more accurate delineation of what Christianity has to offer the East, Nicolas would have us lay aside our European attachment to philosophies of truth and embrace a more open and respectful approach to Asian philosophies as equally valid.

My belief would be that East Asian anxieties regarding their place in the world would be somewhat lessened if Western thought leaders were less eager to sell their learnings from the East as in competition with Western best practice and rather try to approach such learnings without the need to justify, explain or make up for the lack of scientific or religious consensus behind these albeit foreign practices and methods of health and spirituality. There is a tendency in Western thought to draw up lines to distinguish and cordon off areas of knowledge that lie beyond accepted practice and understanding. This has necessarily meant the appraisal of foreign methods toward health and spirituality as a threat. Because of the legacy of colonialism, however, Asian attitudes toward Western health and religious practice has been far more submissive and beyond the cultural pale. There is perhaps a continuum upon which Asian nations stand regarding how far the Western narrative has won over the population – with nations closer to Japan as a rule being more culturally Western in their practice of health and religion even. The Japanese would not see it this way, perhaps – with ‘modern’ being the word they would prefer over ‘Western’, and maybe this perspective has some validity.

Yet the reason Japanese would prefer the term ‘modern’ over ‘western’ is, not disregarding the obvious level of investment Japan has in the modern world, is that this issue of bringing Asian philosophies and ways of practicing health and religious faith into the accepted practice of Western societies without the ‘rebellious’ label they are often afforded (by practitioners as much as by enemies of the practices mind you) seems too far to achieve. There are countries in Europe that still practice arranged marriage. It seems to me that even if Asian thought leaders were to take up the Romeo & Juliette attitude towards religious faith to a greater degree, it would take many hundreds of years for such ideas to gain traction culturally. In the mean time, political skirmishes, such as that around the Taiwan straits currently, appear here to stay.

Ameliorating post-1945 Anglo-American military and cultural expansionism

In my previous post, I wrote of how after the Second World War, Anglo-American jurisprudence was influenced by German philosophy. Yet this was not the only influence of the Second World War upon the Anglophone region. The Second World War also profoundly influenced Anglo-American notions of the legitimacy of Military Expansionism. Since the involvement of Thomas Hobbes in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, an ideal has been held up in Western culture of non-intervention in the troubles of foreign states and principalities. The interpretation of this ideal had, until 1939, for the most part regarded European states as entitled to the fulfilment of the treaty’s promise of non-intervention, while considering non-European states as beyond the ambit of the treaty. This provided a veil of respectability, maintained by the notion of European cultural and civilisational superiority. The apparent respectability this double-standard provided to the British Empire was destroyed beyond repair by the Second World War, which put on show for all to see how the culture of the most civilised European nation can be used to serve brutality and destructive evil. The truth is the the Anglo-American region has been following the wave begun by the mistakes of the Nazi empire and it remains unable to pull out of that wave. It will continue to remain on that wave until we become able as a culture to repudiate the notion that European culture and civilisation is inherently superior. Every country in the Anglophone has as part of its DNA a necessity to vindicate European culture. Yet how is such a thing possible in the face of the crimes of the Nazis, and moreover, in the face of Anglo-American military aggression since 1945? In a way, the Germans were lucky in that they at least had the opportunity to recognise the deceit they had been under for what it was – will our culture receive a similar blessing?

Part of the movement toward such a cultural realisation must include soul searching regarding the role of the Anglo-American region in dictating United Nations policy. I would propose that rather than the UN being a international instrument to legitimise Anglo-American foreign policy – which is frankly how the UN is perceived in the Anglophone – that the UN should not only have procedural independence but ideological independence as well. The UN should be able to censure Anglophone countries, including the US, and indict political leaders from these countries. This Anglo-American dominance at the UN is the elephant in the room that undermines the influence and authority of the Anglo-American region internationally. It is no wonder that international leaders often treat the UN with contempt given the bias present in the UN towards favouring and promoting Anglo-American cultural values.

A further element to world politics that will make it clear that the foreign policies of the US, UK and similar countries have earned their metal is when they use their influence at the UN to prioritise nation building efforts over Peace Keeping efforts in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Such a change in policy would demonstrate the long-term interest that the Anglophone region has in underdeveloped nations’ success and prosperity. This should be conducted with the input of the people of the receiving nations to ensure that the best standards of accountability are demonstrated for all to see.

There are many problems in world politics, but getting the big things right should be the first priority and that effort begins with Anglo-American self-aggrandising self-promotion. With some self-knowledge and insight, the Anglo-American region may well be able to right at least some of the wrongs of the last 77 years and start to be a genuine force for good. Regional stability is a priority that supersedes claims to civilisational superiority. There was a time when the Anglo-American region believed in the power of ‘Big Men’ to solve the world’s problems. The problem with big men is that they often have big heads – which leaves them fundamentally lacking in tact and personal discipline. A culture only needs a Big Man to lead them when it is afraid to support what they think will happen in their names. When the culture is more confident of its humility and good will, only then can it receive the honour of having a vulnerable man or woman as its leader, because that culture knows that it will not be betrayed.

Kant in postwar Anglo-American jurisprudence

In my previous post, I wrote about the postwar restitution efforts in Germany and Japan, comparing and contrasting the efforts at the time and the fruit they bore. In this post, I want to write about the effect of World War II on Anglo-American jurisprudence, the philosophy of law – which I claim was the result of an Anglo-American understanding of rights coming into contention with the German understanding of rights in the act of subduing German military aggression.

In his chapter on ‘the truths of liberalism’ in his book, ‘how to be a conservative’, English philosopher Roger Scruton writes of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is unquestionably the most influential work of jurisprudence in the postwar era. Having trained for the English Bar, Scruton writes of how the first 21st Articles of the Declaration conform to the Anglo-American tradition of jurisprudence up to that time. This is because they define rights as a right to non-interference, which, as Scruton writes, is the Gold-standard bulwark of Anglo-American civilisation against decay and is in fact the foundation of the consent of citizens to their government’s exercise of authority.

The 22nd Article of the Declaration, however, shifts the tone significantly – imposing rights claims upon both government and individual without any legitimate moral basis according to the jurisprudence of Anglo-American society – claims to economic, social and cultural rights in order to protect individual ‘dignity and the free development of his personality’. The provenance of these claims however is not hard to find. The moral philosophy of German, Immanuel Kant, suggests that the highest form of morality is to be valued for who one is rather than what one does. In this view, it is conceivable that my right to life can lay a legitimate claim upon your duty to help and protect me. Moreover, it was the Unified German nation in the 1870s under von Bismarck that introduced the first welfare system – imposing a positive duty upon governments to provide for their citizens basic goods and services.

It is not a very big jump of logic then, once the logic of Hegel and Marx, which considered groups of society able to impose claims upon others for welfare is included in the mix, to see that Anglo-Americans engaged in the rebuilding of Germany after World War II would have come into a vastly different way of doing things. The most intimate act of international interference by Anglo-Americans in rebuilding Germany according to their worldviews, would have led them to question the legitimate boundaries of their own jurisprudence. If non-interference is the core element of Anglo-American citizen-state relations: how does this principle translate when millions of Anglo-American citizens have just sacrificed their lives for their state’s existence? Moreover, how do these citizens make sense of their own interference in another state with comparable civilisational inheritances, but with no principle of non-interference?

This, it appears to me, was a clear breach of cultural standards and a situation that the principle of non-interference was not enough to make sense of. This is because the principle of individual liberty that Anglo-American jurisprudence upholds is dependent upon the notion of individual sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, Individual Sovereignty now had very little practical relevance as the desperation brought on by war led to the decay of respectability that Anglo-Americans had laid claim to. The war effort was an unquestionably noble act, which nevertheless, our nations did not allow any claim to the spoils of war beyond that of justice for the Jewish nation and restitution for Europe. With justice now the by-word, liberty was a luxury that scholars of jurisprudence overlooked. The result is now the dog’s breakfast of Human Rights legislation and in popular culture, fuels the growth of a litigious culture. This is all because we have lost faith in the notion that all that is required of a good citizen and a good government is not to interfere in the private space of sovereign individuals; which is a notion that allows one to maintain dignity and self-worth without imposing claims upon others’ benevolence.