Various Revelations IV

A few days ago, as a response to Syria's gas attack on its own citizens, the United States struck the airfield from which the planes dropping the gas had come. The attack was roundly condemned by those nations that routinely condemn us for any action and applauded by some of our allies. Interestingly it was not condemned by other countries that usually find fault with us. And that includes many states in the Middle East.

This morning (April 9, 2017), I heard on the radio a criticism of the action by one of our “experts” who claimed we had acted without a strategy. It has become clear that the Syrian regime, among others, takes inaction as irresolution and it provides a background for the furthering of its goals. A few years ago, after a gas attack, President Obama declared the use of gas a “red line” that couldn't be crossed without response. Of course it was crossed and the “response” was a pact with Russia to demand the removal of all chemical agents from Syria. Russia opposed any action against Syria, which was its ally. So Syria was free to act, and it did. Our threat about crossing the red line was not followed up by any real action even though Assad had challenged the president by his continued use of chemical agents.

I don't know the response of the expert mentioned above to the failure of the US to take more definitive action earlier, but it is clear that the “strategy” that accompanied our pact with Russia failed. Perhaps a show of force will have more long-lasting effects than a verbal display of anger. That appears to be the assessment of Middle East nations which have remained silent. They're better aware of the situation than we, and they haven't protested our actions, although they usually join together in opposition to anything we do in the area if it doesn't contain criticism of Israel. Are they beginning to recognize the risks of terrorism? Are our strength and determination welcome signs? Can they identify a strategy we're missing? We'll see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two Coptic churches in Egypt were blown up today, Palm Sunday, by ISIS members. (How typical to attack on someone else's holy day, but that's the way you make “holy war.”) Imagine. There are still Christians in the Middle East despite the attempts of some Islamists at ethnic cleansing. It's clear they're not welcome since there has been war against Christians in the area for years. Numbers are dwindling for which the world usually blames Israel. The smallest of the Abrahamic religion is blamed for the attack on the largest, while the one like to take over the lead in a few years is pitied and defended. Meanwhile the Christians seek a place in the region where they can pray openly – and only Israel provides that.

What's most striking is the lack of world response. It's not an issue of consequence to most nations. Christianity may, for the time being have a lead over Islam in number of adherents, but most Christian leaders seem to have little interest in the problem. It seems to be better for liberal church leaders to overlook the actions of Islamic terrorists and blame all problems on Israel and the Jews. Islamophobia is sinful, but antisemitism is not. Antisemitism has a long history and takes precedence over the deaths of Christians, and condemning Israel and the “zionists” overrides any other consideration.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It strides me that Big Brother had the right approach – at least in one way – although he didn't apply it the way I'd prefer. “Newspeak” (and “doublespeak”) makes a lot of sense conceptually. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, we can only think about things for which we have words. For example, nadi in Balinese refers to the idea of “temporarily inhabit[ing] another dimension” (Rheingold, They Have A Word For It) which is not an idea that has much meaning among westerners. We wouldn't think in such terms.

Big Brother redefined words, giving them meanings that suited his political agenda. “Minipax,” which is the “Ministry of Peace” is actually the ministry of war and responsible for perpetuating conflict as justification for the actions of the government and for its longevity; “Miniluv” (the Ministry of Love”) is in charge of brainwashing. After a while people accepted concepts which might be contrary to common sense, but, repeated often enough while excluding all other uses of particular words from public use, became the only meanings that could be associated with those words. Those were the definitions and that became the only thoughts imparted by them.

It works the same way for the rest of us, especially with the rapid changes that occur in slang (and abbreviations and solicisms in the social media). As an example, what used to be “good” or “great” became “bad.” Repeated often enough, and with adequate manipulation the definition could be made to change. And with time, pejorative uses of the word would disappear from our consciousness.

If Sapir and Whorf were correct, and we changed the meaning of “war” to relate to positive interactions of nations – if the idea of fighting were made to disappear – perhaps the reality would disappear with it. Similarly, by establishing a “national language board” or its equivalent, charged with the responsibility of changing the language to meet social and political “needs” we might, at the cost of language, civilize civilization. We have a violent vocabulary much in need of softening. Some changes might be beneficial.