March 14, 2025
John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
“Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.”
John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
“Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.”
~ Heather Cox Richardson, historian
You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
There’s always a boomerang effect.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again – rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
Arresting political activists engaged in lawful, nonviolent protest activities is merely the shot across the bow.
The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.
This is how it begins.
Consider that Khalil Mahmoud, an anti-war protester and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested on a Saturday night by ICE agents who appeared ignorant of his status as a legal U.S. resident and his rights thereof. That these very same ICE agents also threatened to arrest Mahmoud’s eight-months-pregnant wife, an American citizen, is also telling.
This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.
Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.
If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?
We are all at risk.
History shows that when governments claim the power to silence dissent – whe – that power rarely remains limited. What starts as a crackdown on so-called “threats” quickly expands to include anyone who challenges those in power.
President Trump has made it clear that Mahmoud’s arrest is just “the first arrest of many to come.” He has openly stated his intent to target noncitizens who engage in activities he deems contrary to U.S. interests – an alarmingly vague standard that seems to change at his whim, the First Amendment be damned.
If history is any guide, the next targets will not just be immigrants or foreign-born activists. They will be American citizens who dare to speak out.
If you need further proof of Trump’s disregard for constitutional rights, look no further than his recent declaration that boycotting Tesla is illegal – a chilling statement that reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of both free speech and the rule of law.
For the record, there is nothing illegal about exercising one’s First Amendment right of speech, assembly, and protest in a nonviolent way to bring about social change by boycotting private businesses. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) that nonviolent boycotts are a form of political speech which are entitled to First Amendment protection.
The problem, unfortunately, when you’re dealing with a president who believes that he can do whatever he wants because he is the law is that anyone and anything can become a target.
Mahmoud is the test case.
As journalists Gabe Kaminsky, Madeleine Rowley, and Maya Sulkin point out, Mahmoud’s arrest for being a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States” (note: he is not actually accused of breaking any laws) is being used as a blueprint for other arrests to come.
What this means is that anyone who dares to disagree with the government and its foreign policy and express that disagreement could be considered a threat to the country’s “national security interests.”
Yet the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.
Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.
Unfortunately, the Deep State doesn’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.
This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.
Throughout history, U.S. presidents have used their power to suppress dissent. The Biden administration equated the spread of “misinformation” with terrorism. Trump called the press “the enemy of the people” and suggested protesting should be illegal. Obama expanded anti-protest laws and cracked down on whistleblowers. Bush’s Patriot Act made it a crime to support organizations the government deemed terrorist, even in lawful ways. This pattern stretches back centuries—FDR censored news after Pearl Harbor, Woodrow Wilson outlawed criticism of war efforts, and John Adams criminalized speaking against the government.
Regardless of party, those in power have repeatedly sought to limit free speech. What’s new is the growing willingness to criminalize political dissent under the guise of national security.
Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is taking this hostility to new heights.
The government has a history of using crises – real or manufactured – to expand its power.
Once dissent is labeled a threat, it’s only a matter of time before laws meant for so-called extremists are used against ordinary citizens. Criticizing policy, protesting, or even refusing to conform could be enough to put someone on a watchlist.
We’ve seen this before.
The government has a long list of “suspicious” ideologies and behaviors it uses to justify surveillance and suppression. Today’s justification may be immigration; tomorrow, it could be any form of opposition.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.
Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.
This is not just about one administration or one set of policies. This is a broader pattern of governmental overreach that has been allowed to unfold, unchecked and unchallenged. And at the heart of this loss of freedom is a fundamental misunderstanding – or even a deliberate abandonment – of what sovereignty really means in America.
Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.
In other words, as the preamble to the Constitution states, in America, “we the people” – sovereign citizens – call the shots.
So, when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.
That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?
In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.
The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”
This is how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.
If we are to put an end to this steady slide into totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none, we must begin by refusing to allow the politics of fear to shackle us to a dictatorship.
President Trump wants us to believe that the menace we face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.
Don’t believe it. That argument has been tried before.
The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have all been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.
We are walking a dangerous path right now.
Political arrests. Harassment. Suppression of dissident voices. Retaliation. Detention centers for political prisoners.
These are a harbinger of what’s to come if the Trump administration carries through on its threats to crack down on any and all who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and protest.
We are being acclimated to bolder power grabs, acts of lawlessness, and a pattern of intimidation, harassment, and human rights violations by government officials. And yet, in the midst of this relentless erosion of our freedoms, the very concept of sovereignty—the foundational idea that the people, not the government, hold ultimate power – has been all but forgotten.
“Sovereignty” used to mean something fundamental in America: the idea that the government serves at the will of the people, that “we the people” are the rightful rulers of this land, and that no one, not even the president, is above the law. But today, that notion is scarcely discussed, as the government continues its unchecked expansion.
We have lost sight of the fact that our power is meant to restrain the government, not the other way around.
Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, derailed or desensitized.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the moment these acts of aggression becomes the new normal, authoritarianism won’t be a distant threat; it will be reality.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
There’s always a boomerang effect.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again – rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
Arresting political activists engaged in lawful, nonviolent protest activities is merely the shot across the bow.
The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.
This is how it begins.
Consider that Khalil Mahmoud, an anti-war protester and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested on a Saturday night by ICE agents who appeared ignorant of his status as a legal U.S. resident and his rights thereof. That these very same ICE agents also threatened to arrest Mahmoud’s eight-months-pregnant wife, an American citizen, is also telling.
This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.
Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.
If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?
We are all at risk.
History shows that when governments claim the power to silence dissent – whe – that power rarely remains limited. What starts as a crackdown on so-called “threats” quickly expands to include anyone who challenges those in power.
President Trump has made it clear that Mahmoud’s arrest is just “the first arrest of many to come.” He has openly stated his intent to target noncitizens who engage in activities he deems contrary to U.S. interests – an alarmingly vague standard that seems to change at his whim, the First Amendment be damned.
If history is any guide, the next targets will not just be immigrants or foreign-born activists. They will be American citizens who dare to speak out.
If you need further proof of Trump’s disregard for constitutional rights, look no further than his recent declaration that boycotting Tesla is illegal – a chilling statement that reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of both free speech and the rule of law.
For the record, there is nothing illegal about exercising one’s First Amendment right of speech, assembly, and protest in a nonviolent way to bring about social change by boycotting private businesses. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) that nonviolent boycotts are a form of political speech which are entitled to First Amendment protection.
The problem, unfortunately, when you’re dealing with a president who believes that he can do whatever he wants because he is the law is that anyone and anything can become a target.
Mahmoud is the test case.
As journalists Gabe Kaminsky, Madeleine Rowley, and Maya Sulkin point out, Mahmoud’s arrest for being a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States” (note: he is not actually accused of breaking any laws) is being used as a blueprint for other arrests to come.
What this means is that anyone who dares to disagree with the government and its foreign policy and express that disagreement could be considered a threat to the country’s “national security interests.”
Yet the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.
Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.
Unfortunately, the Deep State doesn’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.
This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.
Throughout history, U.S. presidents have used their power to suppress dissent. The Biden administration equated the spread of “misinformation” with terrorism. Trump called the press “the enemy of the people” and suggested protesting should be illegal. Obama expanded anti-protest laws and cracked down on whistleblowers. Bush’s Patriot Act made it a crime to support organizations the government deemed terrorist, even in lawful ways. This pattern stretches back centuries—FDR censored news after Pearl Harbor, Woodrow Wilson outlawed criticism of war efforts, and John Adams criminalized speaking against the government.
Regardless of party, those in power have repeatedly sought to limit free speech. What’s new is the growing willingness to criminalize political dissent under the guise of national security.
Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is taking this hostility to new heights.
The government has a history of using crises – real or manufactured – to expand its power.
Once dissent is labeled a threat, it’s only a matter of time before laws meant for so-called extremists are used against ordinary citizens. Criticizing policy, protesting, or even refusing to conform could be enough to put someone on a watchlist.
We’ve seen this before.
The government has a long list of “suspicious” ideologies and behaviors it uses to justify surveillance and suppression. Today’s justification may be immigration; tomorrow, it could be any form of opposition.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.
Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.
This is not just about one administration or one set of policies. This is a broader pattern of governmental overreach that has been allowed to unfold, unchecked and unchallenged. And at the heart of this loss of freedom is a fundamental misunderstanding – or even a deliberate abandonment – of what sovereignty really means in America.
Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.
In other words, as the preamble to the Constitution states, in America, “we the people” – sovereign citizens – call the shots.
So, when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.
That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?
In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.
The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”
This is how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.
If we are to put an end to this steady slide into totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none, we must begin by refusing to allow the politics of fear to shackle us to a dictatorship.
President Trump wants us to believe that the menace we face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.
Don’t believe it. That argument has been tried before.
The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have all been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.
We are walking a dangerous path right now.
Political arrests. Harassment. Suppression of dissident voices. Retaliation. Detention centers for political prisoners.
These are a harbinger of what’s to come if the Trump administration carries through on its threats to crack down on any and all who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and protest.
We are being acclimated to bolder power grabs, acts of lawlessness, and a pattern of intimidation, harassment, and human rights violations by government officials. And yet, in the midst of this relentless erosion of our freedoms, the very concept of sovereignty—the foundational idea that the people, not the government, hold ultimate power – has been all but forgotten.
“Sovereignty” used to mean something fundamental in America: the idea that the government serves at the will of the people, that “we the people” are the rightful rulers of this land, and that no one, not even the president, is above the law. But today, that notion is scarcely discussed, as the government continues its unchecked expansion.
We have lost sight of the fact that our power is meant to restrain the government, not the other way around.
Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, derailed or desensitized.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the moment these acts of aggression becomes the new normal, authoritarianism won’t be a distant threat; it will be reality.
Bruna Frascolla
After a massive pro-Ukraine campaign, right-wing Americanophile journalists are more confused than a prostitute’s son on Father’s Day. On the one hand, they should prefer Trump to Biden because they are right-wing or anti-woke. On the other hand, they should be pro-Ukraine because the Ukraine vs. Russia war actually represents Democracy vs. Dictatorship. Now that Trump has been elected and dumped Zelensky, even the New York Post, responsible for the scoop on Hunter Biden’s laptop, has put a picture of Putin on its cover with the words “This is a dictator.”
The article that corresponded to the title was written by the genocide cheerleader Douglas Murray, a right-wing atheist gay who, like only right-wing atheist gays, flatters Zionist Jews. He has even said that the lives of Jews are worth more than those of Christians and Muslims – I hope they are worth more than those of pedantic atheists too. The article says the same old thing: it portrays Putin as Hitler, who is expanding Russian territory out of pure evil and, if no one stops him, will conquer all of Europe. Hitler, as we know, is the secular Satan of the 20th century. So first there is the imperative to stop him because he is the height of evil, and only then is a practical consideration suggested (preventing Putin from reaching his home). It is, therefore, a deeply moralistic discourse.
Now, atheism, which claims to be based on skepticism, must be quite economical in adopting moral imperatives. For example: if we believe that the great sacred texts of monotheism do not contain any transcendent morality, then we have no reason to adhere to dietary taboos. It makes no sense for an atheist to make a fuss because someone ate a nice steak on Good Friday. However, it is possible to defend a more generalist morality based on the intrinsic necessity of the social order. For example: if we believe that there is no problem in stealing from our neighbors, no one will want us around. This is the hypothetical example of the society of thieves in the Republic: in order to maintain a society, even thieves need to be ethical with their colleagues, even if they are far from being virtuous. It makes sense for an atheist to be outraged by theft. At least on a social level (rather than a personal level), it is not true that, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. The Chinese can attest to that.
With the Age of Discovery and, later, with cultural anthropology, it was possible to compare peoples in search of universal characteristics in cultures. Given this, two opposing perspectives can be adopted: either Providence gave man a kind of natural morality, derived from feelings and the use of reason, or a basic morality is the result of natural selection, so that some antisocial relatives of Homo sapiens sapiens may have fallen by the wayside.
Hitler’s extermination policy undermines this basic or natural morality, especially if we consider that people of Jewish blood (unlike gypsies, for example) were a highly assimilated part of German society. The idea of making your doctor work like a starving slave until he dies and killing children who could study with your children is naturally horrifying, before being theologically reprehensible. It makes sense for an atheist to be shocked by Hitler and transform him into a secular Satan.
Very well: what did Putin do to be the Satan of the 21st century? Hitler was not the Satan of the 20th century because he annexed the Sudetenland, nor because he was a dictator (among many in the 20th century). Hitler was the Satan of the 20th century because of the Holocaust. As any well-informed person knows (a category that unfortunately excludes devotees of Saint Zelensky), the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine, since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014, was under the care of a State that had incorporated an anti-Russian neo-Nazi paramilitary battalion (the Azov Battalion) into the Army. Thus, even if we do not know of any sophisticated plan to eliminate the Russian minority, we can certainly consider that there is a humanitarian justification for the Russian invasion of this Ukrainian territory. Or do we have to consider that the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland, perpetrated after Hitler’s defeat, was a good thing? What if Austria were stronger than Germany and said to Hitler: “Enough with deporting Jews and gypsies. You can stop the euthanasia program, too. Otherwise, I will annex Germany!” For me, that would be fine. Because using my reason, I conclude that the State must serve the preservation of human life, and my hypothetical Austrian State would be a better State than that of Nazi Germany.
The idea that one should never start a war by invading a country is not at all self-evident. So much so that, in the 2000s, the excuse of chemical weapons was invented to justify the invasion of Iraq, even though the U.S. was miles away. And remember, chemical weapons do not have the same impact as biological weapons: if the fight against the coronavirus justified so many anomalies, what would the U.S. do if it believed that Mexico was developing biological weapons on its border? Would mere economic sanctions solve the problem? Why didn’t they solve the problem with Iraq? This shows that the problem is not that Putin invaded Ukraine, but rather the fact that a president who is not from the U.S. invaded a country with a claim that is not supported by the infamous “rules-based international order”. Let’s face it, being outraged by this is as specific as being outraged by a steak on Good Friday. The difference is that a Catholic knows that his outrage is based on a religion and is not naturally self-evident, since it involves a revelation.
And if Putin is a dictator, why should that be as outrageous as Auschwitz? The first great dictator in history was not Hitler, it was Julius Caesar. The Roman Empire was not Nazi Germany, and its moral legacy is celebrated by any reasonable person. If the Russian people have a dictator instead of a president elected according to criteria that satisfy Americanophiles, I do not see why the rest of humanity should be outraged. That is their problem. If we want to make comparisons with Nazism, it is more reasonable to be outraged by Canadian democracy, which continues to expand its euthanasia program. What kind of morality is this that rejects Nazism but accepts euthanasia, as long as it is endorsed by democratic institutions? So the moral standard is the formalism of a given system of government, not this basic morality common to humanity.
In view of all this, one can only conclude that Americanism is not a mere product of Protestantism in the United States. It is, and continues to be, a religion that even atheists adhere to without realizing it. Worse still: it is a state religion that people all over the world adhere to. The cult of the United States and democratic formalism is based on the Calvinists’ Manifest Destiny, and it is good that anyone who does not openly profess it should reconsider their beliefs.
After a massive pro-Ukraine campaign, right-wing Americanophile journalists are more confused than a prostitute’s son on Father’s Day. On the one hand, they should prefer Trump to Biden because they are right-wing or anti-woke. On the other hand, they should be pro-Ukraine because the Ukraine vs. Russia war actually represents Democracy vs. Dictatorship. Now that Trump has been elected and dumped Zelensky, even the New York Post, responsible for the scoop on Hunter Biden’s laptop, has put a picture of Putin on its cover with the words “This is a dictator.”
The article that corresponded to the title was written by the genocide cheerleader Douglas Murray, a right-wing atheist gay who, like only right-wing atheist gays, flatters Zionist Jews. He has even said that the lives of Jews are worth more than those of Christians and Muslims – I hope they are worth more than those of pedantic atheists too. The article says the same old thing: it portrays Putin as Hitler, who is expanding Russian territory out of pure evil and, if no one stops him, will conquer all of Europe. Hitler, as we know, is the secular Satan of the 20th century. So first there is the imperative to stop him because he is the height of evil, and only then is a practical consideration suggested (preventing Putin from reaching his home). It is, therefore, a deeply moralistic discourse.
Now, atheism, which claims to be based on skepticism, must be quite economical in adopting moral imperatives. For example: if we believe that the great sacred texts of monotheism do not contain any transcendent morality, then we have no reason to adhere to dietary taboos. It makes no sense for an atheist to make a fuss because someone ate a nice steak on Good Friday. However, it is possible to defend a more generalist morality based on the intrinsic necessity of the social order. For example: if we believe that there is no problem in stealing from our neighbors, no one will want us around. This is the hypothetical example of the society of thieves in the Republic: in order to maintain a society, even thieves need to be ethical with their colleagues, even if they are far from being virtuous. It makes sense for an atheist to be outraged by theft. At least on a social level (rather than a personal level), it is not true that, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. The Chinese can attest to that.
With the Age of Discovery and, later, with cultural anthropology, it was possible to compare peoples in search of universal characteristics in cultures. Given this, two opposing perspectives can be adopted: either Providence gave man a kind of natural morality, derived from feelings and the use of reason, or a basic morality is the result of natural selection, so that some antisocial relatives of Homo sapiens sapiens may have fallen by the wayside.
Hitler’s extermination policy undermines this basic or natural morality, especially if we consider that people of Jewish blood (unlike gypsies, for example) were a highly assimilated part of German society. The idea of making your doctor work like a starving slave until he dies and killing children who could study with your children is naturally horrifying, before being theologically reprehensible. It makes sense for an atheist to be shocked by Hitler and transform him into a secular Satan.
Very well: what did Putin do to be the Satan of the 21st century? Hitler was not the Satan of the 20th century because he annexed the Sudetenland, nor because he was a dictator (among many in the 20th century). Hitler was the Satan of the 20th century because of the Holocaust. As any well-informed person knows (a category that unfortunately excludes devotees of Saint Zelensky), the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine, since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014, was under the care of a State that had incorporated an anti-Russian neo-Nazi paramilitary battalion (the Azov Battalion) into the Army. Thus, even if we do not know of any sophisticated plan to eliminate the Russian minority, we can certainly consider that there is a humanitarian justification for the Russian invasion of this Ukrainian territory. Or do we have to consider that the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland, perpetrated after Hitler’s defeat, was a good thing? What if Austria were stronger than Germany and said to Hitler: “Enough with deporting Jews and gypsies. You can stop the euthanasia program, too. Otherwise, I will annex Germany!” For me, that would be fine. Because using my reason, I conclude that the State must serve the preservation of human life, and my hypothetical Austrian State would be a better State than that of Nazi Germany.
The idea that one should never start a war by invading a country is not at all self-evident. So much so that, in the 2000s, the excuse of chemical weapons was invented to justify the invasion of Iraq, even though the U.S. was miles away. And remember, chemical weapons do not have the same impact as biological weapons: if the fight against the coronavirus justified so many anomalies, what would the U.S. do if it believed that Mexico was developing biological weapons on its border? Would mere economic sanctions solve the problem? Why didn’t they solve the problem with Iraq? This shows that the problem is not that Putin invaded Ukraine, but rather the fact that a president who is not from the U.S. invaded a country with a claim that is not supported by the infamous “rules-based international order”. Let’s face it, being outraged by this is as specific as being outraged by a steak on Good Friday. The difference is that a Catholic knows that his outrage is based on a religion and is not naturally self-evident, since it involves a revelation.
And if Putin is a dictator, why should that be as outrageous as Auschwitz? The first great dictator in history was not Hitler, it was Julius Caesar. The Roman Empire was not Nazi Germany, and its moral legacy is celebrated by any reasonable person. If the Russian people have a dictator instead of a president elected according to criteria that satisfy Americanophiles, I do not see why the rest of humanity should be outraged. That is their problem. If we want to make comparisons with Nazism, it is more reasonable to be outraged by Canadian democracy, which continues to expand its euthanasia program. What kind of morality is this that rejects Nazism but accepts euthanasia, as long as it is endorsed by democratic institutions? So the moral standard is the formalism of a given system of government, not this basic morality common to humanity.
In view of all this, one can only conclude that Americanism is not a mere product of Protestantism in the United States. It is, and continues to be, a religion that even atheists adhere to without realizing it. Worse still: it is a state religion that people all over the world adhere to. The cult of the United States and democratic formalism is based on the Calvinists’ Manifest Destiny, and it is good that anyone who does not openly profess it should reconsider their beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment