The Great Paradox of American Society (and other Liberal societies)

[Desert Fox]

I came across two very interesting videos on a topic that is seldom discussed and a issue which most people are not even aware of, despite its immense importance especially because it concerns those men and women who enlist to fight for their respective countries.

Maybe in some societies this matter is taken very seriously, who know's? But for the most part this is not discussed in day to day lives of the great majority of the people, especially in this day and age of consumerism, materialism and the self-centered individualism which has only been exacerbated by social media and smart phones (further atomization of society, less human-to-human contact) and how this atomization in society affects those who served in the armed forces (not necessarily deployed in combat, as the speaker in the two videos points out), and this is becoming a global problem in every corner of this earth where modern communication technology has made inroads (now the pro's and con's are a whole nother topic for a different thread, lets keep it simple for this discussion).

Please watch these videos in their entirety as the speaker brings up many important points besides the ones i have mtnioned, would like to hear your views:

Now in the second video the speaker mentions a very important observation he made regarding the distinction in treatment of veterans between Liberal mainstream American society and that of the more tribal and warrior oriented Native American societies or even Israel where it is mandatory for all Israelis to serve in the military. Please take note of this.

Also, it would be interesting to know from anyone who has relatives or friends that served in the military (could be from any country), were deployed and saw combat and how well did they adapt to society, or rather how well did society accommodate them for serving their country?

In Pakistan our society tends to be very pro-military and the Army has always been viewed positively (for the most part when compared to our Democratic civil institutions) in our history and Pakistani society is also more traditional and tribalistic in comparison to Western societies (by tribalistic i mean cohesive and stronger familial/social networks compared to western atomized societies).

How well have Pakistani (former) military servicemen faired in Pakistani society as compared to former military servicemen in Liberal societies where cohesiveness is lacking, at least to the extent it exists in Pakistan? Particularly those Pakistani servicemen who served in Siachen, which is perhaps the most brutal battlefield existent today?

Low oxygen levels, sub-zero temperature, threat of avalanche;
Words cannot do justice when describing what these soldiers
have to go through on a daily basis on this battlefield in one
of the most harshest environments any army has ever fought in.
​

So the reason why i have titled this thread as 'Paradox of American Society (and other Liberal Societies)' is because it is indeed one of many paradoxes of Liberal societies and the history of Liberalism in that it pushes individualism/atomization yet in the advancement of this very individualism/atomization it utilizes anti-Liberal means (the military and military tradition/culture) to impose its Liberal imperialism abroad.

Thus why this same Liberalism considers it very foot soldiers a threat to itself. Source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

"Republicans said Wednesday that a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists.

The party's leader in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner, described the report as offensive and demanded that the agency apologize to veterans.

The agency's intelligence assessment, sent to law enforcement officials last week, warns that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members.

The assessment also said that returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence.

"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," Boehner said.

David Rehbein, commander of The American Legion, a congressionally chartered veterans group that claims 2.6 million members, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing concern with the assessment, which made its way into the mainstream press after conservative bloggers got wind of the analysis."



Similarly, another great paradox of Liberal societies is the expectation of its constituents to follow and obey laws and those who enforce these laws, yet the Liberal culture promotes destructive individualistic behavior (thug culture, the IDGAF attitude) and the pursuit of worldly pleasures at all costs.

Would like your feedback.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Metanoia @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote

 

[Desert Fox]

@Indus Pakistan @vostok @waz @Vergennes

@Arsalan @TOPGUN @fatman17 @django

@F-22Raptor @LeGenD @Sher Shah Awan

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

 

[Nilgiri]

I came across two very interesting videos on a topic that is seldom discussed and a issue which most people are not even aware of, despite its immense importance especially because it concerns those men and women who enlist to fight for their respective countries.

Maybe in some societies this matter is taken very seriously, who know's? But for the most part this is not discussed in day to day lives of the great majority of the people, especially in this day and age of consumerism, materialism and the self-centered individualism which has only been exacerbated by social media and smart phones (further atomization of society, less human-to-human contact) and how this atomization in society affects those who served in the armed forces (not necessarily deployed in combat, as the speaker in the two videos points out), and this is becoming a global problem in every corner of this earth where modern communication technology has made inroads (now the pro's and con's are a whole nother topic for a different thread, lets keep it simple for this discussion).

Please watch these videos in their entirety as the speaker brings up many important points besides the ones i have mtnioned, would like to hear your views:

Now in the second video the speaker mentions a very important observation he made regarding the distinction in treatment of veterans between Liberal mainstream American society and that of the more tribal and warrior oriented Native American societies or even Israel where it is mandatory for all Israelis to serve in the military. Please take note of this.

Also, it would be interesting to know from anyone who has relatives or friends that served in the military (could be from any country), were deployed and saw combat and how well did they adapt to society, or rather how well did society accommodate them for serving their country?

In Pakistan our society tends to be very pro-military and the Army has always been viewed positively (for the most part when compared to our Democratic civil institutions) in our history and Pakistani society is also more traditional and tribalistic in comparison to Western societies (by tribalistic i mean cohesive and stronger familial/social networks compared to western atomized societies).

How well have Pakistani (former) military servicemen faired in Pakistani society as compared to former military servicemen in Liberal societies where cohesiveness is lacking, at least to the extent it exists in Pakistan? Particularly those Pakistani servicemen who served in Siachen, which is perhaps the most brutal battlefield existent today?

Low oxygen levels, sub-zero temperature, threat of avalanche;
Words cannot do justice when describing what these soldiers
have to go through on a daily basis on this battlefield in one
of the most harshest environments any army has ever fought in.
​

So the reason why i have titled this thread as 'Paradox of American Society (and other Liberal Societies)' is because it is indeed one of many paradoxes of Liberal societies and the history of Liberalism in that it pushes individualism/atomization yet in the advancement of this very individualism/atomization it utilizes anti-Liberal means (the military and military tradition/culture) to impose its Liberal imperialism abroad.

Thus why this same Liberalism considers it very foot soldiers a threat to itself. Source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/

"Republicans said Wednesday that a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists.

The party's leader in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner, described the report as offensive and demanded that the agency apologize to veterans.

The agency's intelligence assessment, sent to law enforcement officials last week, warns that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members.

The assessment also said that returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence.

"To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," Boehner said.

David Rehbein, commander of The American Legion, a congressionally chartered veterans group that claims 2.6 million members, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing concern with the assessment, which made its way into the mainstream press after conservative bloggers got wind of the analysis."



Similarly, another great paradox of Liberal societies is the expectation of its constituents to follow and obey laws and those who enforce these laws, yet the Liberal culture promotes destructive individualistic behavior (thug culture, the IDGAF attitude) and the pursuit of worldly pleasures at all costs.

Would like your feedback.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Metanoia @Gomig-21 @Hamartia Antidote

IMO (to really distill it to the core essence of the issue)... when you are on the ascendancy (relatively speaking to your historical norm) and have an adversary to unite against etc....conservatism (whatever the particular's society version of it) generally does not have to be even defined, it is just accepted and consolidated. This creates for a strong concrete for the societal foundation...with good leadership and captains+stewards....a cohesive spearpoint is formed to perpetuate that "golden age". It largely harnesses the positives of the inherent human nature/spirit to propel from A to B.

Now when you get to B and suddenly (or over time) perceive you have reached an "Apex"...the fallibility and self doubt starts to catch up with you (successively in each generation more and more)...and that conservatism (that raw societal inertia) that propelled you from A to B actually has to be defined (its not just accepted inherently like before, because you feel like things have stalled) because suddenly you have much more idle hands and idle thoughts (given you were born into and always known just the apex rather than the striving to get there). This gives rise to things that fill in that void (neo-conservatism, extreme liberalism etc etc) with all kinds of neo-isms to go along with those to replace the earlier vaunted edifices of tradition, faith and family etc as they are increasingly abandoned.

This becomes literally physically unsustainable past a certain point...because humans by and large are not extreme individualists...there is a need to form a cohesive society. So the whole things becomes imbalanced over time and large parts of (or even whole part) of a polity/civilisation (especially the political manifestation) collapses, quite abruptly....with all the great turmoil and violence that comes with that. What still persists beyond that collapse is generally what was always the core of that civilisation....and often you can introspect and find what that is in your own individual case....it can often be a layered onion.

The wax and wane of this process throughout history varies by region and time period...but I feel it is rooted in our psyche ....especially how we grapple with our intuition (that we know so little and are so little...so what are the greater forces and drivers that matter?) versus our ego which over time catches up and displaces it. When true philosophical debate and thought is taken prisoner by sheer materialism (guided by its more persistent bigger brother envy)...that is the indicator you are past the point of no return. This is for example why each Avatar in Hinduism is essentially an ego-crusher....and the same goes for each prophet in the Abrahamic religions. Our ancestors were not fools, they were very attuned to what drives civilisation and what destroys it.

 

[Desert Fox]

IMO (to really distill it to the core essence of the issue)... when you are on the ascendancy (relatively speaking to your historical norm) and have an adversary to unite against etc....conservatism (whatever the particular's society version of it) generally does not have to be even defined, it is just accepted and consolidated. This creates for a strong concrete for the societal foundation...with good leadership and captains+stewards....a cohesive spearpoint is formed to perpetuate that "golden age". It largely harnesses the positives of the inherent human nature/spirit to propel from A to B.

Now when you get to B and suddenly (or over time) perceive you have reached an "Apex"...the fallibility and self doubt starts to catch up with you (successively in each generation more and more)...and that conservatism (that raw societal inertia) that propelled you from A to B actually has to be defined (its not just accepted inherently like before, because you feel like things have stalled) because suddenly you have much more idle hands and idle thoughts (given you were born into and always known just the apex rather than the striving to get there). This gives rise to things that fill in that void (neo-conservatism, extreme liberalism etc etc) with all kinds of neo-isms to go along with those to replace the earlier vaunted edifices of tradition, faith and family etc as they are increasingly abandoned.

This becomes literally physically unsustainable past a certain point...because humans by and large are not extreme individualists...there is a need to form a cohesive society. So the whole things becomes imbalanced over time and large parts of (or even whole part) of a polity/civilisation (especially the political manifestation) collapses, quite abruptly....with all the great turmoil and violence that comes with that. What still persists beyond that collapse is generally what was always the core of that civilisation....and often you can introspect and find what that is in your own individual case....it can often be a layered onion.

The wax and wane of this process throughout history varies by region and time period...but I feel it is rooted in our psyche ....especially how we grapple with our intuition (that we know so little and are so little...so what are the greater forces and drivers that matter?) versus our ego which over time catches up and displaces it. When true philosophical debate and thought is taken prisoner by sheer materialism (guided by its more persistent bigger brother envy)...that is the indicator you are past the point of no return. This is for example why each Avatar in Hinduism is essentially an ego-crusher....and the same goes for each prophet in the Abrahamic religions. Our ancestors were not fools, they were very attuned to what drives civilisation and what destroys it.

Informative post as always my friend

It is interesting to note that this pattern, or cycle, can also be witnessed on the individual level too, particularly in the case of those who experience what's called a "mid life crisis" and as a result sink into nihilism. When that earlier driving force is no longer present and has been exhausted in the pursuit of whatever material or worldly goal there sets in nihilism, a feeling of emptiness, regret in the realization that one has not left a legacy and the future remains an unknown. I'm not sure if this phenomena (mid life crisis) is a recent one, especially on the scale it exists today, as it is claimed to have been reportedly first experienced in large numbers by those of the "baby boomer" generation which was also the generation that experienced the most economically prosperous years in America's history. I'm sure this problem exists in all developed countries.

This is for example why each Avatar in Hinduism is essentially an ego-crusher....and the same goes for each prophet in the Abrahamic religions. Our ancestors were not fools, they were very attuned to what drives civilisation and what destroys it.

True. This is why all religions have a concept of an afterlife and a purpose that transcends the immediate, obvious and material. Muslims believe that every nation of mankind was sent a prophet until the final Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

There is a central source for truth from which all nations received a messenger according to Islam.

Our ancestors were not fools, they were very attuned to what drives civilisation and what destroys it.

Indeed. They understood that civilization, just like human beings, too have a cycle, although unlike degenerating civilizations or degenerating individuals, there have been and there still are (increasingly becoming rare however) individuals who might physically get old, but spiritually they have not degenerated but have rather continued to develope even up until they pass away and even beyond that in view of the afterlife. We hear about these people, especially in Eastern countries like India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Middle East (whether they are called "Sufis", Gurus, Monks, etc)

And by Sufis I don't mean people who intoxicate themselves with drugs (the favorite strawman of secularists/atheists) and claim they are "connecting" with God.

I'm currently reading Evola's Revolt Against The Modern World. So far in the first two chapters. He mentions the common understanding of life as a cycle within all traditional societies of the past, this is in stark contrast with the modern view of life as a linear progression which in fact is an illusion and contradicts historical reality; that civilizations rise and fall and their undoings are contained within themselves (think of MAD and the capacity to bring us back to the stone age, as well as potential for global economic problems peculiar to modern civilization and its various inherent structural weaknesses).

The symbol of the cycle, which is also the wheel, has so many different meanings (besides the one mentioned above, there is also the understanding of The center around which everything else revolves and which is the source of all life and truth) and this really does surprise one who is used to the literal and material meaning of everything in our secularized modern world which at one point had a sacred meaning in the past.

@Metanoia @LeGenD @Psychic @django

 

[django]

This is for example why each Avatar in Hinduism is essentially an ego-crusher....and the same goes for each prophet in the Abrahamic religions. Our ancestors were not fools, they were very attuned to what drives civilisation and what destroys it.

Indeed. They understood that civilization, just like human beings, too have a cycle, although unlike degenerating civilizations or degenerating individuals, there have been and there still are (increasingly becoming rare however) individuals who might physically get old, but spiritually they have not degenerated but have rather continued to develope even up until they pass away and even beyond that in view of the afterlife

In complete contrast to this type of thinking, an atheist may contend by stating that this whole argument assumes that some omnipotent entity created the entire universe for some sublime purpose. This is true, but by removing this assumption will only result in presuming atheism to be true, as Nietzsche argued in clear concise pronouncements that the world and human history does not have any meaning, any rational order or aim, that there is only a mindless chaos, a directionless world drifting towards no end, the logical conclusion of atheism is that our very existence is pointless, which is a conclusion not many atheists would like to follow through due to it being at odds with our innate nature and psychological disposition yet I have always wondered why the Scandinavian nations have the highest suicide rates in the world despite their extremely HDI.Kudos gents

 

[Desert Fox]

In complete contrast to this type of thinking, an atheist may contend by stating that this whole argument assumes that some omnipotent entity created the entire universe for some sublime purpose. This is true, but by removing this assumption will only result in presuming atheism to be true, as Nietzsche argued in clear concise pronouncements that the world and human history does not have any meaning, any rational order or aim, that there is only a mindless chaos, a directionless world drifting towards no end. the logical conclusion of atheism is that our very existence is pointless, which is a conclusion not many atheists would like to follow through due to it being at odds with our innate nature and psychological disposition yet I have always wondered why the Scandinavian nations have the highest suicide rates in the world despite their extremely HDI.Kudos gents

Well said. Add Korea, Japan and other developed countries to the list.

The problem with atheism is that it does not explain the fundamental questions of human existence, like what is our purpose? Its main argument against religion is science and technology. But science doesn't explain everything and a theory that is accepted as fact one day is dropped the next day in the face of a new theory that has more evidence backing it. There's nothing wrong with this method and it has its practical usage within the material world but how this proves religions to be obsolete or defunct and that God does not exist is beyond me. This is why atheism is only confined to a very tiny minority of people who are nihilistic, and is rather on the decline, it is dying out. Russia and China, the once paragons of Soviet Communist atheism are now projected to become Christian majority. In Russia's case the state already gave Orthodox Christianity an official status.

Religion will never be obsolete. Atheism is obsolete.

 

[django]

Well said. Add Korea, Japan and other developed countries to the list.

The problem with atheism is that it does not explain the fundamental questions of human existence, like what is our purpose? Its main argument against religion is science and technology. But science doesn't explain everything and a theory that is accepted as fact one day is dropped the next day in the face of a new theory that has more evidence backing it. There's nothing wrong with this method and it has its practical usage within the material world but how this proves religions to be obsolete or defunct and that God does not exist is beyond me. This is why atheism is only confined to a very tiny minority of people who are nihilistic, and is rather on the decline, it is dying out. Russia and China, the once paragons of Soviet Communist atheism are now projected to become Christian majority. In Russia's case the state already gave Orthodox Christianity an official status.

Religion will never be obsolete. Atheism is obsolete.

Totally concur bhai, science cannot and will never preclude the existence of an intelligent entity that transcends cause and effect, for to do is beyond the scope of the scientific method.Kudos bhai

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The problem with atheism is that it does not explain the fundamental questions of human existence, like what is our purpose?

Science doesn't give those answers, because it doesn't yet know those answers.

And if you don't know the answer, what can you do? Except for saying, I don't know the answer.

the logical conclusion of atheism is that our very existence is pointless

That's more like nihilism. As an atheist/agnostic I don't believe my life is pointless, certainly not. For me, meaning in life is about helping others, specifically my family but also friends and to a lesser extent the rest of society.

I don't necessarily believe the universe is without meaning either, just that we lack understanding of the universe, and believe that it MIGHT have arisen purely through natural processes, without requiring the existence of an intelligent God. But since there is no proof either way it's impossible to say.

On the other hand, saying that this world is a "test" to qualify us for some particular afterlife (in which religion I don't know)... well that might sound nice, but is it true? Again, no proof either way.

 

[django]

Science doesn't give those answers, because it doesn't yet know those answers.

And if you don't know the answer, what can you do? Except for saying, I don't know the answer.

These are questions which are philosophical in nature, science can never really answer this question, it can tell us "how" the Universe came into being but not "Why", from the point of view of an atheist their is no why, just random fluctuations which led to our current state.Kudos Sir

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

These are questions which are philosophical in nature, science can never really answer this question, it can tell us "how" the Universe came into being but not "Why", from the point of view of an atheist their is no why, just random fluctuations which led to our current state.Kudos Sir

Science doesn't know why, *yet*. And sure, it is possible (or even likely) that science will never know why.

But what else is there? Personally I have no problem with not knowing the greatest mysteries of the universe, how can life be interesting if we already know all the answers?

Good for you Sir,,,,,,though as a theist I find it bizarre that one believes all they will amount to at the end of the day is maggot feed, but each to their own, their should be no compulsion in religion. Kudos Sir

That's not what I believe. I am hopeful that there is something else out there, but wondering why there is no evidence for it?

 

[django]

That's more like nihilism. As an atheist/agnostic I don't believe my life is pointless, certainly not. For me, meaning in life is about helping others, specifically my family but also friends and to a lesser extent the rest of society.

Good for you Sir,,,,,,though as a theist I find it bizarre that one believes all they will amount to at the end of the day is maggot feed, but each to their own, their should be no compulsion in religion. Kudos Sir

 

[Desert Fox]

Science doesn't give those answers, because it doesn't yet know those answers.

And if you don't know the answer, what can you do? Except for saying, I don't know the answer.

And yet this is an important question, it does matter and because science cannot answer it doesn't necessarily mean science is useless but what it does mean is that science is not the be-all-end-all.

Because let's be honest, before the advent of science and technology human life existed and some of the greatest civilizations in human history flourished and left their mark. If anything technology is a luxury and not a necessity.

But knowing ones purpose is a necessity and not a luxury. All classical civilizations and traditional societies had an answer to this fundamental question which atheism and science cannot provide an answer for because of their limitation to the material and wordly realm.

 

[Nilgiri]

And yet this is an important question, it does matter and because science cannot answer it doesn't necessarily mean science is useless but what it does mean is that science is not the be-all-end-all.

Because let's be honest, before the advent of science and technology human life existed and some of the greatest civilizations in human history flourished and left their mark. If anything technology is a luxury and not a necessity.

But knowing ones purpose is a necessity and not a luxury. All classical civilizations and traditional societies had an answer to this fundamental question which atheism and science cannot provide an answer for because of their limitation to the material and wordly realm.

If God doesn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire meant it in a different way....but the way I take it is Humankind does not fare very well when there is no absolute source of morality (and thus absolute perfection)....because we are essentially imperfect beings (eternally so) and thus without an ultimate fealty to absolute perfection/provider of moral-hood (outside of human control..also eternally so)...we largely (with of course exceptions) tend towards being controlled by those humans among us that have the highest relative power (who are imperfect, and potentially much worse than that) over us.

This concept of the fountainhead of perfection is what stayed at the core of the various civilisation and societies through the ages...even after their various collapses....again its quite rooted in our psyche, since we all experience childhood mostly by way of our parents (or other source of authority)....whom we are dependent on and who shape our lives. We are not born isolated, having to fend for ourselves from the onset (much less have that capability to do so).

We are thus hardwired this way by the very natural processes that create us. Bad things happen when we try to replace all of that (without much serious debate on it especially) with a system that has no role for a fundamental conscious creator with some basic absolute (pre-existing mankind and outside of his realm) moral code for delineation of good and evil. It is why Atheism fails in the end on a pragmatic and practical level (theologically it can be made to look sound esp at the individual level)...humans are just not hardwired as a species to really flourish long term without an absolute moral code because of the way of nature itself exists and our own clear internal imperfection.

Thus because of that imperfection, the most powerful of us seek for control/subjugation of others much more easily and readily when a relative moral code system is allowed to replace one of absolutes (because people who submit to relative earthly power are much more easily moldable into clay as needed).....and even (egotistically and haughtily) deemed to be superior (because then it simply becomes a fight for who controls that relativity). Some may say thats what religion does anyway...but I always delineate even religion (especially those bits of it which are clearly man made and/or interpretation) from the core spirituality/faith and root philosophy we must always be engaged with....and I definitely never doubt the basic function and importance of a good religious set up that has a balance of both solid edifice and scope for deep debate (but ultimately has to recognise that perfection is out there and eternal and must be sought, but it is not within neither can it be created by us). The basic theme is found in the story of Prometheus and also Adam and Eve (w.r.t Garden of Eden)....the concept of sin because of internal ego and lack of faith (in an absolute source of moral-hood). In a way it is the most pragmatic of sciences, because it addresses the highest plane of human need (though many do not understand this)....thus everything must ideally be within that frontier, but we are a species that also do have our pride and ego, as the Tower of Babel showed, that the story of Icarus showed and many more.

We have to probably constantly learn things the hard way to keep our ego in check....could very well be rooted to our overall psyche just as much....ever since we actually perceive the concept of life and the self itself.

 

[Abdussamad]

The problem with atheism is that it does not explain the fundamental questions of human existence, like what is our purpose?

It does. There is none. Religion only gives you a false sense of purpose. Live for an imaginary afterlife where the wrongs of this world will be righted. Eh no. There is no after life. The universe is unthinking and indifferent and as a result unfair. Get over it.