Philosophy rants

So, 21st Century Enlightenment, is it?

Martyn Richard Jones — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:40:46 GMT

In the UK, Matthew Taylor of the Royal Society of Artists has come up with a brand new big idea, which is being touted as a call for calling for a "21st-century Enlightenment". This was my response to an article by Madeleine Bunting (guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 June 2010 21.00 BST), Comment is free - Hail the 21st-century Enlightenment - Ideas don't come much bigger. We need to live very differently, argues a bold new text. And that calls for nothing less than a revolution of the mind.

Here is my response:

Over the two decades we have seen leaders of western democracies failing to heed the lessons of history; we have seen the likes of Blair and Bush turn western enlightenment on its head in order to justify the unjustifiable, and the abuse and misuse of institutions born out the lessons of history and the spirit of the enlightenment.

Of course, the values and notions of empathy and empathic concern are not new, even though the results of scientific research have provided additional theoretical support – see Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilisation.

But, is Mathew Taylor really doing anything more than polymorphism to represent a unified and repackaged view of aspects of the enlightenment, evolutionary biology, neuro-cognitive science, pedagogy , child development, Judaeo–Christian values, etcetera, and in order to revive interest in the fundamentals of the original enlightenment and its impact on society, as it were, a re-launch of the enlightenment dressed in 21st century social-democratic clothing?

Of course, conspiring to pretend that 21st Century Enlightenment is new and as potentially significant as the first European Enlightenment, relies on a mirage, the mirage of the enlightenment seen from a 21st century perspective. That is, our current viewpoints and our modern references can be used to recreate the enlightenment, even to the extent of pretending all of this was invented by some bloke in New Labour in 2010. Of course it can be claimed to be new, but that is a mistake. From the fundamental aspects of its broad sweep of philosophy we can even call 21st century Enlightenment modern, but in reality, it is not something new, and is certainly something far older than New Labour’s philandering with bourgeois liberalism and it’s dalliances with the soulnessness and debasing influence of the third way.

Of course, I take issues with academics who take intellectual autism to extremes, and I find Gray’s criticism of Rifkin’s ideas to be somewhat problematic, because they seem to have been derived not only from an intellectual stance, but one that seems far from empathic. In addition, whilst agreeing that empathy (as defined by Simon Baron-Cohen, etc) is something very important in a decent society, there are other aspects and values that must also be considered, such as: gratitude, honesty, sincerity, responsibility, generosity, solidarity, wisdom, learning, self-control, sensitivity, sacrifice, constructive criticism, detachment, optimism, love, compassion , responsibility, will, understanding, patience, friendship, loyalty, respect, joy, etc.

Simply stated, after the neo-liberal, neo-conservative and post-modern mugging that the European Enlightenment has suffered in the last decades, and with all the subsequent obfuscating spin, bluff and bluster that has been used against the values of the enlightenment, it’s perhaps time that we were reintroduced to the fundamental richness, values and the lessons that can be learned from the enlightenment.

But, my main concerns are thus:

1) Are the people who have brought it upon themselves to re-launch the enlightenment in the UK, really the most appropriate people to do so, and, does it matter?

2) Is this re-launch of the enlightenment going to be anything like the third way re-launch of Labour in its New Labour guise, a re-foundation that is deliberately designed to exclude a whole swathe of public and published opinion, whether they are atheists, liberal democrats, democratic-socialists or the Marxist left.

3) Is this a cunning way of reformulating the enlightenment by going back and reforming Locke, picking and mixing some Rousseau and some Kant (conveniently forgetting the categorical imperative), and then fast forwarding to the future, conveniently missing out Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx, to name just three, and packaging it all in the same way that New Labour was branded?

Let’s hope this isn’t just some more cynical and expedient posturing and manoeuvring, eh.

Israel: State of Jews or Jewish State?

Martyn Richard Jones — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:26:00 GMT

ISRAEL. STATE OF THE JEWS OR JEWISH STATE?

The situation between Israel and Palestinians in the middle east is tremendously confusing, not least because of the marked tendency to overplay the positive and to play down, and then deny, the negative aspects in ones own camp.

Here'a an example of toxic crass stupidity writ large:

If there were indeed schools of Zionist thought that debated such issues they would be in Hebrew and it is interesting how Martyn would cope with that.

I would include the numerous possibilities that occurred to me if I did not have experience that the moderators tend to delete comments that they can't understand,

This intellectually challenged cheerleader, who claims to live in Israel, has never heard about differences of opinion within Zionism? Yet, not only that, claims that one would need to understand Hebrew in order to be able to detect these inexistent divergences of opinion.

1. Background

In common with many other people, I occasionally waste time commenting on internet blogs. One recent blog was an article written by Maajid Nawaz (Director of the Quilliam Foundation), and it basically argued that "just as Islamists should not call for nations exclusively for Muslims, Jews should not label Israel as a Jewish state".

Here is the original article: Israel must be a secular state for all citizens

My first comment on reading the article was:

I suppose that's entirely up to the Israelis, isn't it? I mean, I want the UK to be a democratic, secular, constitutional, egalitarian, civil society, where the rule of law prevails, and international treaties (UDHR, etc) are the highest laws of the land. I think it's a good plan to follow, but I'm not ready to impose that on anyone, outside [of] what I consider to be my political sphere.

Which apparently was not seen as too controversial.

Later, on the same thread, I responded to PaulLambert, another commentator on the blog, who had written:

17 Jun 09, 1:03pm
It doesn't take a genius to work out why so many Palestinian Arabs are reluctant to recognise Israel as 'the Jewish state'.

My reply, which I admit to be moderately polemic, was as follows:

You know, the argument over whether Israel is a Jewish state or is a state of the Jews, has been another cause of division between Zionists for many years.

What Nethanyahu and others are doing, and let's make no mistake about it, they know what they are doing, in demanding that the Palestinians recognize Irsael, not only as a sovereign state recognized in international law, but as the Jewish State, means that they are asking the Palestinians to endorse one faction of Zionism over all the rest. In effect, they are seeking to legitimate their position on this issue of "Jewish State" or "state of Jews" through Palestinians.

So, not only is it an issue for the Palestinians but also a divisive game that divides Zionists and Israeli nationalists, even more so.

That is a somewhat unprincipled and cynical political ploy IMHO

Of course, then the politically incorrect brigade jump down my throat, not for the polemical analysis, but simply for suggesting that there is even a plurality of opinion on the "fact" that Israel is the "Jewish State".

I followed this up with the following:

Surely the recognition of the State of Israel, as a sovereign state, with an inalienable right to exist, to conduct its own affairs, and to be assured the inviolability of its international borders, is enough, isn't it?

I would be interested in knowing who else, to date, has specifically recognised Israel as "the Jewish State"?

The reaction was as if I'd been directly responsible for some kind of gross sacrilege.

Anyway, here's what Eric Yoffie had to say in an opinion piece published by Forward (The Jewish Daily):

First of all, what does the term “Jewish state” mean? Does it refer, for example, to a state governed completely or in part by Halacha, by traditional Jewish law? Does it refer to a particular set of linguistic, cultural and educational policies that the state will adopt? In my experience, if you put a half-dozen Jewish Israelis in a room and ask them what it means for Israel to be a Jewish state, you will receive four or five different answers, along with at least one indignant insistence that the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. Debates among American Jews on the topic are no less heated.

These ongoing debates about the meaning of a Jewish state are good for Israel, as are the serious and intense discussions taking place about the proper relationship of a Jewish state to its non-Jewish minority. These are highly charged issues that will not be resolved easily or soon. But making the debate a part of the diplomatic landscape is a decidedly bad idea.

Obviously I'm not the only one to have a divergence of opinion with the "my team, right or wrong" crowd.

2. Video Introduction

The first reference item in this blog article is a short documentary called "ISRAEL: A JEWISH STATE OR A STATE FOR JEWS".

It is described as an "Excellent indepth video seeking to answer: how Jewish should the Jewish state be?"

The video was produced by The Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education, Youth and Hechalutz Department.

3. A round of quotes

Here are what some people had to say about the issue of a Jewish State or a state for/of the Jews:

Amnon Rubinstein, former Chairman of the Knesset Law and Constitution Committee, an Israeli law scholar, politician, and columnist. A member of the Knesset between 1977 and 2002, he served in several ministerial positions. He is currently dean of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya and a patron of Liberal International:

Thus the Jews’ own state would... be, as Herzl entitled his famous booklet Der Judenstaat, a state of the Jews, hardly a Jewish state.

Shulamit Aloni is an Israeli politician and left-wing activist. She is a prominent member of the Israeli peace camp, founded the Ratz party and was leader of the Meretz party and served as Minister of Education from 1992 to 1993:

I do not accept the idea of a “Jewish state.” It is a “state of the Jews,” to be exact. Herzl wrote a book called The State of the Jews.

Moshe Zimmermann is an Israeli historian and publicist. Since 1986 he is director of the “Richard-Koebner-Center for German History“ at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1993 he was honoured with the Humboldt-Prize, in 1997 with the Jacob-and Wilhelm Grimm Prize of the German Academic Exchange Service, in 2002 with the Dr.Leopold-Lucas-Prize of the university of Tuebingen and in 2006 the Lessing-Prize for critique. His focus of research are the social history of the 18th and 20th century of Germany as well as of the German Jews and Anti-Semitism:

In Israel... the Herzlian concept of a “state of the Jews” is developing in the direction of a blatantly ethnocentric “Jewish state”....

Amos Oz is an Israeli writer, novelist, and journalist. He is also a professor of literature at Ben-Gurion University in Be'er Sheva. Since 1967, he has been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2008 he received an Honorary Degree from the University of Antwerp. He also received the Dan David prize in 2008 for "Creative Rendering of the Past":

Herzl’s book was called The State of the Jews and not The Jewish State: A state cannot be Jewish, any more than a chair or a bus can be Jewish....

4. More On Zionism

Zionism is predominantly, but not exclusively, seen as one of the various manifestations of nationalism. Amongst secular and non-secular Jews there was and is disagreement over what should be the nature and form of Zionism. This discourse and disagreement covered the spectrum between the exclusive nationalism of the Revisionists led by Vladimir Jabotinsky and and the all-inclusive nature of the nationalist camp headed by Martin Buber.

Jabotisnky warned that the conflict with the Arabs was inevitable that talk of compromise and negotiation would have no sway with the local population. This contrasted with the completely inclusive Zionism of the philosopher Martin Buber, who in 1925, together with his followers, founded Brit Shalom (the Peace Covenant). Brit Shalom called for mutual reconciliation between the Jewish and Arab national movements in Palestine. Buber discarded the idea of Zionism as simply another national movement and wished instead to create an exemplary society. He argued that such a society should embrace Jewish domination of the Arabs. It was therefore incumbent on the Zionist movement to reach a consensus with the Arabs even at the cost of the Jews remaining a minority in the land. Brit Shalom embraced the idea of bi-nationalism and saw in its promise of a single state the moral and just resolution to a heartbreaking and tragic conflict. A third major faction of Zionism born of the curiously and frequently conflictive partnership of David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann took a more pragmatic stance, and although they were also committed to the enterprise of a Jewish State, they attuned their position in accordance with the shifting conditions in Palestine and elsewhere.

Zionism therefore came from Europe, and was in main a reaction to the evolving nationalism of European peoples and the increase in anti-Semitism in Europe. European nationalism had two key drivers: the exaltation of feeling and identity, which characterized the nationalistic romantic period in arts, and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state is about people rather than, for example, a dynasty, a deity or imperial domination. In defining national identity in Europe, there were two distinct approaches. One was the all-inclusive approach, anyone who accepted loyalty to the state was a citizen, and the other was to define citizenship in ethnic terms. Therefore, not all nationalisms ended up as chauvinistic and destructive, but the nature of all nationalism determined the necessity of boundaries.

To put things in simpler terms, the rise of bourgeois nationalism in Europe went hand in hand with a marked increase in xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Many more Jewish Europeans became victims of the consequences of this nationalism, and added weight to the fact that they were, to some extent, marginalized in all societies in which they lived. Jewish Europeans saw how the nationalists used their nationalism as a way to reduce their alienation and to claim their positions in society; it was therefore hardly surprising that some Jews took the idea of nationalism to be both a threat and as a way of protecting themselves.

Therefore, it should not be so difficult to see how, from these and other social-economic imperatives, the various nationalist interpretations of Zionism were gradually brought into being.

5. A Liberal's View

Noah Nissani (Beersheva) in an article titled "Post Holocaust Adaptation of Jabotinsky Peace Plan" (and translated from Hebrew) wrote:

Today's Iron Wall must guarantee the security of the Jews, both in Israel and abroad, even in demographic conditions that would not be in our favor. The first step that must be taken as soon as possible, for the sake of all the people of our country, is to replace the current regime with a Liberal Democratic constitution. It should be based on a mutual consideration of the real needs of all the social components in the "State of the Jews and all its citizens". We must insist on including in the new constitution, based on two communal autonomies, the following conditions:

1) To safeguard the security of the Jews in their land and abroad:

a) Since the Jews are and will be a minority wherever they live and Israel is the only Jewish state, every Jew must have the right to be a citizen of the state at any time and regardless of his / her location of residence.

b) Since the Jews are and will be a minority in the Arab-Muslim world, security and immigration policies will be determined exclusively by the authorities of the Jewish autonomy.

2) To secure equal civil rights for all citizens, regardless of the majority's will, both autonomies will receive equal representation in all branches of the joint government.

D) To guarantee full civil, national and religious rights to all the state's citizens, most of the roles and powers of government will be transferred from the central authorities to the two communal autonomies.

There evidently are divergences of opinion about what a state should constitute, and plainly, this is no different in Israel. What is alarming is the maniacal way in which some elements of extreme rightwing fundamentalism not only argue that alternate opinions, views and arguments are mistake, false or even lies, but that they are quite capable of denying the very existence of plurality. Especially when it comes to sensitive arguments, for which they are intellectually and emotionally ill equipped to deal with.

6. Actors and Players

Theodor Herzl was an Austro-Hungarian journalist and the father of modern political Zionism.

Herzl was born in Pest (today the eastern half of Budapest, Hungary) to a Jewish family originally from Zemun, the Kingdom of Hungary (today in Serbia). When Theodor was 18, his family moved to Vienna, Austria-Hungary. There, he studied Law, but he devoted himself almost exclusively to journalism and literature, working as a correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse in Paris, occasionally making special trips to London and Istanbul. Later, he became literary editor of Neue Freie Presse, and wrote several comedies and dramas for the Viennese stage.

As a young man, Herzl was engaged in a Burschenschaft association, which strove for German unity under the motto Ehre, Freiheit, Vaterland ("Honor, Freedom, Fatherland"), and his early work did not focus on Jewish life. His work was of the feuilleton order, descriptive rather than political.

Did Herzl work for a state of the Jews or a Jewish state? Herzl essentially saw that state as a secular entity. It was to be a haven of safe refuge for harassed Jews, rather than a vibrant centre of Jewish spiritual life.

Martin Buber was an Austrian-born Jewish philosopher best known for his philosophy of dialogue, a religious existentialism centered on the distinction between the I-Thou relationship and the I-It relationship.

Buber, together with a number of key Central European Zionist activists and intellectuals, including Shmuel Hugo Bergman, Gershom Scholem, and Henrietta Szold, participated in political organizations like Brit Shalom and the Ichud, which worked toward Jewish-Arab rapprochement. Zionism would succeed, they argued, only if it would find a way to reconcile the equally legitimate claims of both Jews and Arabs to some form of national self-determination in the Land of Israel.

Their insistence on an equality of national rights led them to support voluntary Jewish limits on immigration as a tactic to build trust with the Arabs, and the establishment of a bi-national state where both groups would find national-cultural expression through a sharing of political power.

Martin Buber's vision of Zionism is in marked contrast with the "scaffolding of corruption" and "... foundations of oppression and injustice" peddled by some denizens of web forums.

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am, was a Hebrew essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. With his secular vision of a Jewish "spiritual center" in Palestine he confronted Theodor Herzl. Unlike Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, Ha'am strived for "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews".

It's there, in black and white, for all to see. Ha'am strived for "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews". What next, will the rightwing "my team, right or wrong" crowd be denouncing the works of Herzl?

--- to be completed ---

7. Say what? A sideline

When I was a child in Wales, an Uncle of mine used to tell me jokes, one of them went something along the lines of:"What is a Zionist?" the answer to which was "A Jew who takes the money of a second Jew in order to send a third Jew to Palestine."

Well, at least the money was once spent on sending Jews to Israel, and not spent on lifting anti-Semitic racists out of poverty traps in Eastern Europe and then planting them where their reactionary nastiness can be given full rein.

8. Conclusions

Your guess is as good as mine.

--- to be completed ---

The Eagleton has landed .. splat!

Martyn Richard Jones — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:06:00 GMT

WORK IN PROGRESS

My responses to:

God, Dawkins and tragic humanism: In a new book, Terry Eagleton argues that liberal humanism woefully underestimates the horrors of which humans are capable.

By: Mark Vernon
Published: guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 11.00 BST
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/11/humanism-eagleton-dawkins-christianity-atheism

Or consider Christianity. Christians in history have undoubtedly perpetrated many crimes. But their most fearsome judge is the very individual they claim to follow, the man who blessed peacemakers, tended lepers and loved enemies.

Well, if you follow the Christian narrative, then yes. However, if Christianity were a criminal offence - and I am not suggesting for one minute that it should be a crime - just how many Christians could be prosecuted for Christianity based on the evidence of them practicing their faith?

Another thing, if our most fearsome judge is a projection of our imagination, why wouldn't we mould the judgment of that super-being in order for it to fit in with our own idea of right, wrong and judgment?

I guess that what I am saying is that Eagleton takes the game to his territory, and then frames the debate accordingly, which is perfectly reasonable, in a political debate, but hardly a rigorous defense of an assumed and indefensible posture, no matter how cleverly we can manage the dialectic, subvert the rationale and twist an already badly bent metaphysics.

Eagleton's second point follows from this thought. He believes that the problem with the liberal humanism that the new atheists follow is its woeful underestimation of the horrors of which humans are capable.

Given the overwhelming evidence of man's inhumanity to man, within the last two hundred years, this charge against liberal humanism falls flat on its arse.

Revisiting The Euston Manifesto

Martyn Richard Jones — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:41:00 GMT

Why?

I never really wanted to comment on the pro-imperialist twaddle known as The Euston Manifesto. It's not that my comments would ever serve to legitimise a document that I considered a pretty duff manifesto, supported as it was, by some pretty duff names, and some even worse arguments, it was just that it was so obviously a piece of turgid propaganda.

The Euston Manifesto was a contribution of mendacious and mischievous cant in favour of empire and hegemony, and against all forms of rebellion. It replaced the outdated notion of "aid as imperialism" with "democracy as imperialism", a cynical attempt to justify the unjustifiable by arguing, not that the anti-imperialists, anti-globalisation and anti-western movements are wrong, but that they are not democratic, and they that do not share "our values" or our political or philosophical heritage.

Moreover, in order to legitimate their pro-imperialist position, they deliberately went out of their way to try and redefine the left, in their terms, to delegitimize a plural left, to exclude those on the left who genuinely and honestly seek reasons to explain why the world is screwed up; politically, economically and socially.

What they say it is

Well, the Euston web site seems to have been hacked in February 2009, and they don't seem to have wanted to reinstate the "About" page. I can't say that I'm really surprised. This kind of sucking up to the former Bush-Administration is probably as welcome these days as a fart in a spacesuit.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

The Euston Manifesto is a 2006 declaration of principles by a group of academics, journalists, and activists based in the United Kingdom. The statement is a reaction to what are asserted to be widespread violations of leftist principles by others who are commonly associated with the political Left. The manifesto states that "the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between forces on the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values.

What is it?

The Euston Manifesto is presented as a statement of principles, a statement of principles that seems awkwardly uncomfortable with the principles in and of themselves, often finding the need to qualify the doctrine with relation to particular people, communities and movements.

Simply stated, The Euston Manifesto is a thin libertarian veneer on reactionary neo-liberal dead-ended shallowness.

Devil in the Details

As a manifesto, the Euston Manifesto is rubbish, but a lot of the devilishly cunning deviousness can be found in the detail.

If I am in favour of the principle that everyone's vote in an election should count, do I need to qualify that by stating who I would like to be favoured by such an equitable electoral system, and more importantly, whom I would like to see disadvantaged by such a system?

My argument would be that an equitable electoral system, including an equitable way of making votes count by counting all of the votes cast, rather than by weighing votes, is a principle, a principle that doesn't require qualification for cases that we don't particular like.

The same goes for the principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We cannot be for these principles just when it suits us, or against them when the principles are an inconvenience to us and the achievement of our aspirations, fulfilment of reasonable needs and the attainment of legitimate goals.

The oddly titled principle "No apology for tyranny" (#2), is yet more selectively principled relativism from the Euston lot. What they fail to understand is that we do live in a globalised world, where Kennedy's interdependence of nations, is a real and evident presence. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed oppressive regimes, to replace them with less repressive and arguably more corrupt regimes. As my grandmother used to say, if you are going to do something, then do it well, or don't bother. What is also odd about this principle is that it violates other principles, principally the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

3 - In principle #3, Human rights for all, they argue for fundamental human rights, but then take to task people who are more concerned about lesser human rights abuses closer to home, rather than more important human rights abuses further afield. This is a variation on the Bush theme of "don't look at Iraq, look at Mars", or the more commonly used ruse of "don't look at Gaza, look at Darfur". What they fail to understand is that, in Human Rights terms, some people can actually chew gum, walk and fart, have a conversation with their partner, whilst using their mobile phone to message a bloke half way around the world, all at the very same time.

6 - Principle number six deals with something that they describe as anti-Americanism. The Euston bunch seem to feel that there is no relationship between cause and effect, that anti-Americanism is some sort of phenomenon that just happened, because of errant left-wing ideology. A lot of people around the globe have suffered from the consequences of empire and imperial hubris, and they still do. Anti-Americanism is as much a consequence of hegemony, as dislike of western values is the product of a completely unfair notion of globalisation, which favours the developed countries, at the expense of the weak. The Euston bunch made a principle out of anti-Americanism, but failed to identify and condemn the anti-Europeanism of the Bush era. Actually, its isn't a question of anti-Americanism or anti-Europeanism, but a respect for people, irregardless of the political and cultural orientation of the countries they come from or live in. However, of course, principle six is not a political principle at all, but more of a "suck up to power" point.

This is a sample of what Nick Cohen had to say about anti-Americanism (Why it is right to be anti-American, New Statesman, 14 January 2002):

"Anti-Americanism" is a transparent slur that libels and subverts the best of American freedom. It's a propaganda insult that is as contaminated as "terrorist". Right-wingers in London and Washington use it shamelessly to suggest that those who are not happy with their abysmal status quo are the moral equivalents of blood-drenched murderers.

7 - The inclusion of a reference to the two-state solution in relation to Israel/Palestine, as a principle (#7), is incomprehensible. What principle does this article actually embody? Alternatively, is it, as I suspect, just a meagre political sop to certain political interest groups?

9 - Principle 9, United against terror, simply fails to address the phenomenon of state terror, and therefore is not valid either as a principle or a balanced political perspective. It focuses on terrorism as inspired by "Islamist theology" but completely ignores the terrorism of "capitalist expediency".

10 - A new internationalism. This is just an unprincipled case for armed intervention in the life of nation states. It is a crudely pornographic form of Lady Bountiful jingoism, wrapped in a neo-liberal brown-paper bag.

12 - Historical truth. It is perhaps telling that "Political honesty and straightforwardness" don't seem to be the primary obligation of a number of the Euston Manifestos supporters.

Conclusions

Call me an old-fashioned bourgeois liberal, but I find the absence of any mention of the "right to life" in the Euston Manifesto a reason in itself to suspect its purpose.

In addition, notable by its absence is any explicit reference for the need of a democratic society to go hand-in-hand with a secular society, it is coy about the meaning if the separation of religion and state, whereas it is expansive about more peripheral crap.

A manifesto of principles that mentions anti-Americanism and Muslims by name, yet fails explicitly to mention the universal "right to life" - that's real living people's lives, not the abortion issue - and "secularism". That is neither a statement of principles nor a manifesto that is really worth wanting. A manifesto that is so clearly a suck-up to the status quo of the Bush Administration era, and so obviously Anglo-centric, was never a universal and egalitarian manifesto that one could be trusted or taken seriously.

In my opinion, The Euston Manifesto pretends to impose a hidden hand of rigid and uniform interpretation of historical developments and their consequences as manifested in present day reality. They fail to draw the distinction between approval and understanding, and fail to draw the distinction between support and concurrence. If we are for the right to life, if we are for the United Nations Charter, then this is the case, no matter who coincides with our views.

The definers of Euston Manifesto have been rightly criticised for their blatant support of the USA lead invasion and occupation of Iraq, their conflation of opposition to government policies and actions with racism, and as a covert attempt to subvert the liberal-left politics and to rally a pro-war response from people on the left.

It is perhaps also telling that the writers of the Euston declaration do not mention capitalism even once in their manifesto, nor do they mention empire, and the only time they mention imperialism is to rail against "a blanket and simplistic" anti-imperialism.

Simply stated, as a public declaration of principles and intentions, the Euston Manifesto is a particularly suspect, reactionary, inconsistent and rubbish attempt at a new declaration of human rights principles for the liberal-left.

Heidegger and the Nazis

Martyn Richard Jones — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:02:00 GMT

Heidegger's fascism, his indisputable and overwhelming support of the Nazis, was linked inextricably to his philosophy. Heidegger turned to National Socialism precisely because of his philosophy, not in spite of it.

It's true that Heidegger eventually abandoned Nazism, but not because of any genuine ethical concerns but because the Nazis would not fully accommodate his ideas about how German society and its education system should be run.
Heidegger was fixated all through his life with ideas and thoughts that were anti-humanist, anti-democratic, and Volkish in nature.

We have to thank people like Professor Tom Rockmore for exposing the nakedness and hypocrisy of Heidegger's philosophy, not only politically, but also in the realm of theory.

Rockmore puts Heidegger in the correct context of his position relative to Nazism, that is, an integral part of the greatest act of capitalist criminality in the 20th century and not, as has been said many times elsewhere, an unwilling participant in a wholly "accidental" tragedy.

As Rockmore states:

Much of the Heidegger literature is limited to exegesis in which his disciples, who routinely forgo criticism, expound the "revealed truth".
….
Heidegger was concerned to conceal what he was not obliged to reveal about his Nazism, to provide what can charitably be described as an indulgent, even a distorted view of the historical record of his thought.

In my opinion, this article is just another example of what Professor Rockmore was referring to.