by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Push the clock back to 1789. France was getting high with the phrase “The Rights of Man,” and the United States had just ratified its Bill of Rights. Each of those events made a huge difference in the lives of their citizens for a long time.
Turn the clock to December 10, 1948, the day the General Assembly adopted, as a resolution (the GA has no law-making role), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This would bring enlightenment to the Third World persons who were soon to get free of the British, French, and other empires. It also gave women everywhere a new view.
In 1953, the Council of Europe produced a Convention on Human Rights which, since 1998, has had a court whose decisions are binding on all 47 members states.
I don’t call those ideals and institutions obsolete; they have value, but the concept of human rights is out of whack with the reality of power-holding that we understand today. We need something much stronger for use in the forthcoming war between the human beings and the … “cabal.”
Th Rise of “Rights”
The 1789 concept was anti-theocracy and anti-aristocracy. It consisted of a discovery by the un-powerful that they were just as worthy of respect as the rich and that the rich had no inherent right to stomp on them.
It helped an awakening of the ordinary person to the games of the powerful rulers and also, including — as Luther had said in 1517 — the games of the powerful Church.
Freedom, equality, and justice could then be discussed, and were passionately and poetically discussed. (Consider Robert Burns’ “A Man’s a Man for All That.”)
In the America of 1776, newly-independent from Britain, it was easy to get the feel of equality. Social strata were not yet in place, as there were no trappings of the rich already present on the land. The “pilgrims” had to create everything from scratch. They also got to set up a government, the designing of which led to great debates about who had a right to boss anyone else.
The 1948 Declaration of Human Rights was more like a list of what gifts Santa Clause should bring to all people. It said, for example that every person had a right to marry freely – it would not easily work in places where forced marriages were common. That declaration also said a person has the right to economic protections such as the right to be paid fairly for his labor.
That caused the UN Human Rights drafters to break the thing into two parts – The Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on Social and Economic Rights, both treaties open to signature by states as of 1966. In general, the capitalist states rushed to sign the former and the communist states defended the latter.
The Lack of Inter-National Forum for Human Rights
The aforementioned human-rights instruments take for granted that a person lives in his own society and that his rights must be obtained within that setting. I believe that is proper and realistic; there is no way to get a supra-state entity to care for the members of all states.
The UN committees must have known this – they refrained from setting up any mechanism for “citizens of the world” to apply for help from the UN body. Yes, you could write to them, but they wouldn’t work for resolution of your case. It’s “not their job.”
The UN Charter did have an addendum, consisting of a protocol for all member states to join a judicial body that could settle disputes between governments.
That is the International Court of Justice, but it does not allow any individual person to bring an action. Only a state could bring a case and it must be against another state. For example, two Scandinavian states sought an ICJ ruling on the demarcation of their contiguous harbors.
As mentioned, the European Court, which is housed in Strasbourg, France, does allow individuals (and organizations) to approach it for resolution of human rights complaints. But then, this Court was the creature of a supra-state. All citizens of what is now called the European Union live in states whose domestic authority is indeed curtailed. The EU is the boss. (The EU had predecessors: the common Market, the Council of Europe, and so forth.)
What about the International Criminal Court that started to act in 2002? An individual can write to it asking for help but its Charter calls for it to submit its proposed indictments to the UN Security Council – the wold powers – for vetting. This reveals that an international criminal court is a joke. If the bad guy belongs to one of the powerful nations, he’s protected from indictment.
Back to Luther, and Madison, for Perspective
Martin Luther, in his 95 Thesis of 1517, railed against the Church’s way of dispensing (actually selling) indulgences (a pardon for a sinner who would then get time off his after-life punishment). Note: Luther was not one to say “Religion has no right to boss us.” In fact he instituted even stronger religious authority.
The Founding Fathers of the US did say “the monarch has no right to boss us.” Or at least they said “We have decided not to put up with King George anymore.” So they had to look elsewhere for authority. They found it in law, especially the new law they were devising, called The Constitution. And they found authority in the whole of society, “the sovereign people.”
In designing the US government, they had an eye for “moral hazard.” That is, they knew the tendency of human nature to drift toward runaway power. Their main way of trying to curtail that was by checks and balances. If Group A started to overstep its bounds, Groups B and C could move in, legally, to thwart that.
But there has never been (and, in my opinion, cannot ever be) a way to write the ethics for international behaviour. No Luther or Madison exists who can pontificate on the subject of what rights a weak nation has against a powerful one. Thucydides said it all: The strong exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.”
Sure, the UN Charter contains some platitudes about peace, but since when did a platitude ever constrain the powerful?
The Human Rights Concept as Intellectual Stumbling Block
My generation’s exposure to the chatter about “human rights” has been harmful as well as helpful.
First, we were never sufficiently indoctrinated into the simple fact that the basis of a right is your ability to get others to stick up for you. If you have not got their willingness, you really don’t have a right, that is, a practical right. Therefore, any of the human rights documents that tend to teach that the rights are inherent are misleading. (They are not “inherent” – although the desire for them is inherent.)
I do agree that it was better to have those documents than not. It is better to give a person a dream of what might come about. If he likes the dream he may work to find ways to materialize it. Still, we should have emphasized citizens’ duty to protect the rights of all others.
Second, there has come to be a fine-honing of rights in the US to such a degree that they may sound ridiculous. This week’s press reports of a woman making a court case out of her boyfriend’s posting of intimate photos of her (taken in their bed).
Third, that sort of emphasis on interpersonal violation of rights makes us forget the original issue of the difference between the power-wielders in society and the average person. It is usually the power-holders who are violating everyone’s “rights.” That should be our emphasis, shouldn’t it?
In sum, I say the current state of the concept of human rights is intellectually off the mark.
The New Power-Holders Belong to No Particular Society
I have seen the world change radically in my lifetime. As recently as 1990, I was awarded a PhD in Politics, of which the main component was “IR” — international relations. All of the books I read for that degree should now be considered inaccurate guides to reality. We no longer have “a balance of power” among states with certain ones competing for dominance.
Rather we have globalism. We have someone at the top who not only didn’t get elected by the governed but whose name we do not know! Much of the governing is done in secret. Much of it is done by economic controls and especially by the machinations of “finance.” Local governments (by which I mean national governments) may pretend to issue legislation but they are on a puppet string.
Little of governance is carried out in accord with the laws that society’s thinkers consciously created. Morally, the new system is a free-for-all.
Rights Done Gone
The point I wish to emphasize here is the locus of responsibility and/or authority. The human species began in small societies which were characterized by trust of one’s leader. We are mentally predisposed to trust our leader. In this new system, where there is no apparent leader, how can there be “responsibility”?
To whom do you feel responsible (besides intense responsibility for your family?) And what public person do you expect to see exercising responsibility towards you?
I suggest that in the globalized world as it now stands, we do not have rights. There is no authority to whom we can turn for enforcement of the “rights.”
In the last 40 years, there has been a change from citizens’ expectation that if a piece of merchandise, or a commercial service, was faulty, you could demand rectification. First you would go to the business with your complaint, second to the media (to threaten exposure), and third to court. You felt secure.
But now those three act as a unity – business, media, and judiciary. It is my guess that some major “human rights organizations” — funded by “Foundations” — are in the unity, too. Their job is to absorb complaints. (Same for ombudspersons, perhaps.)
Hence, your efforts to correct the issue will be expensive and probably futile. Importantly, you won’t even expect your neighbours to express indignation over the issue! They have gradually accepted the new normal!
Abandon Hope
Another trait of human nature that appertains here is hope. People automatically calculate their chances as better than they really are. Thus it’s hard to wake people up. I said in the title of this article “We do not now have rights.” Please wake up to that fact.
What we have instead – sorry to say – are some very anti-human rulers who perform genocides at the drop of a hat, and who alter the weather to create fires and hurricanes. They work hard at dumbing us down in schools, and they do what they can to wreck religious values, and even the family. Wow.
With enemies like that, you need friends. Indeed, friends are our only hope. At this point we really do have to form solidarity in our societies. “Hand across the ocean” sounds nice, but it is not as likely to work.
Suggest you abandon “hope” and jump into action. Find some persons you can trust, even if a very small number, and get a plan of action going. Forget what the documents of rights promise, but can’t deliver. Just concentrate on what is most needed today, and how you can inspire people to aim for it.
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of a 1990 book entitled Morality among Nations (which says there isn’t any and will probably never be any.)
I have no disagreement with any of Mary’s contentions, bar one; and this is only one of her minor points, but one that is manipulated powerfully by those who oppress us.
The elite have vigorously promoted the myth of our ancestors, as cavemen… as people living in caves, and who enforced social and economic conformity with physical power and with grunting and brutal indifference to any other ethic of behavior.
There is not a single shred of evidence to support this.
First, let me say as an inveterate hunter and gatherer for some sixty years, and a keen observer of traditional Aboriginal culture, that cave dwelling would have resulted in starvation in around three weeks. All sources of animal protein would be rapidly exhausted or would have fled to safer regions. In point of fact, caves were used for ceremonial purposes, hence the ochre and carbon artwork with clearly spiritual overtones. This was as true for Australia’s Aborigines as it was for Kung or Inuit or Sami, or the many other surviving hunter-gatherers.
All evidence demonstrates that these cultures practiced the purist of democracies… that is, all decisions were made through the application of consensus protocols. Interestingly, all such cultures were extremely peaceful; and the Inuit possessed no concept of warfare whatsoever.
The globalist elitists love to overlay history with their Machiavellian view of the world; proselytising the absurd belief that mankind is essentially evil and merely strives futilely for enlightenment. This outlook suited the theocrats and aristocrats just fine, their argument being that they stood between us satanic chaos and misery.
Today, we should ask ourselves, why would only one species of animal on this planet be evil. The very concept is a joke.
The evidence now available shows that such cultures as we know existed, had a view of the universe which incorporated the nuclear family at its centre, surrounded by extended family and by related but more distant clans. Moreover, they created social rules of behavior to regulate responsibility, reciprocity, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Overlaying this was an acknowledged framework that showed the entire universe as an integrated whole.
All of mainland Australia saw the world in this way, which is known in Arnhem Land as Dhuwa and Yirritja and this emerged around 24,000 years ago. In contrast, the Chinese perceived that same universal balance, which they named as Yin and Yang, three and a half thousand years ago. Sadly for the Chinese, various emperors refused to abandon the concept of hierarchy, which is diametrically opposed to Yin and Yang philosophy.
My point here, without boring you all with ancient prehistory, is that mankind existed in a very sophisticated interaction with each other, with nature, and with the universe at large.
So, what went wrong?
I contend that the adoption of agriculture launched a perennially out-of-balance living environment, with climatic fluctuations creating surpluses for one group and famine for others. Defence of one’s food wealth soon led to more aggressive hegemonies, and when these went intergenerational, this inspired the formation of dynasties, and then aristocracies and monarchies.
One very prominent attribute of hierarchies is the presence of oppression, poverty, slavery, torture, incarceration, and war. No consensus culture ever experienced any of these scourges.
Now, when we speak of RIGHTS, we need to appreciate that the concept only relates to pre-existing oppression, with which rights is a meaningless word. Those cultures without hierarchies and oppression do not need rights. What also follows is that constitutions are an adjunct to oppression.
Ergo… in a consensus society we do not need a constitution. All decisions are thus made by all of the people, who have a natural inclination to avoid conflict or confrontation. As they outnumber any aspiring bosses, no power pyramids can form and hence, no hierarchies.
Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that all constitutions are written by lawyers (the servants of the elite) and that not one national constitution mentions the word democracy. Nor is Thomas Paine’s central principle permitted to survive… that All Authority Resides in the People.
Finally, as our own best expert on the Australian Constitution, Arthur Chresby MLA and constitutional lawyer, pointed out, our own Constitution gives us the power to whinge to the Queen; which she cheerfully ignores.
As Mary said… we have no rights. None whatsoever.
Great comment Tony. I am certainly not at your depth of reading and understanding but may I recommend the book “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind’ by Yuval Noah Harari.
He eloquently and logically describes the transition from the hunter gatherer phase to the ‘domesticated’ agricultural phase and thence herding and domestication of animals.
Profoundly, he ventures to say that indeed it was agriculture (by accident – seeds dropping and giving rise to new plants) that domesticated the H. Sapiens rather than the other way around – the nomadic people stopped roving and started to gather around the sites where seeds had fallen and ’magically’ gave rise to new food-source plants.
He describes how those ideal (tribal) democratic communities were of a maximum size (say a couple of hundred) in which everyone knew and spoke with everyone else directly – as these tribes grew larger, different forms of communication were necessary … which in turn gave rise to the myths which define ‘humankind’ today … and so on.
I am looking forward to reading his sequel “Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow”
Really liked reading your comment Tony (and Julius).
It has been a long time since I read “Collapse” — Jared Diamond’s book. And if I remember, a society / civilization depended on resourses… Successful societies managed their resources well. Societies who did not eventually led to collapse.
Being from ‘Africa’ I had always thought that groups naturally elevated someone wise into a leader and mediator. To lead that group — however small. The leader / chief / whatever guides the group and becomes the version of people having the right to heard.
Was this was kind of played out by Nelson Mandela…
I find this a fascinating discussion.
But agree, it seems we have no rights.
Absolutely agree with Tony’s remark that, “when we speak of RIGHTS, we need to appreciate that the concept only relates to pre-existing oppression……….” , but the balance of the comment strikes me as being seriously misconceived.
e.g: “The Prince” is nothing more than a series of pertinent observations; there is no such thing as a “Machiavellian view of the world”
e.g: The problem with turning back the clock is that the unforeseen/undesired hour is destined to roll right back around
Mary this article is quite apt to me today. I have just re-viewed Oliver Stone’s movie Ed Snowden.
This brings out your very point, “that there are no rights, if Big Brother says so”. They can override your rights by classifying EVERYTHING as National Security. This idea is evil! The Cabal knows this, but they know that most people will fold to their bidding because the people are scared of the consequences. As you suggest, no person or institution of authority will take up your cause.
“The Cabal knows this, but they know that most people will fold to their bidding because the people are scared of the consequences.”
Mal, it’s an open question as to what motivates people to buckle under to a boss. Some people seem to love buckling under, even when there is not pressing need for it. I am guessing that this is an instinct traceable back to earlier species.
Henpecking teaches each hen in the barnyard where she stands and once they all accept it they are better off (I know this is a politically incorrect statement) than if they had to fight everyday.
Mal, do most people accept the clearly-nonsense official story of 9-11 because they are “scared of the consequences” of rebelling, or is there a deeper psychological reason, closer to masochism.
Do humans have a death instinct?
To Tony: I did not, and do not, promulgate the following:
“The myth of our ancestors, as cavemen… as people living in caves, and who enforced social and economic conformity with physical power and with grunting and brutal indifference to any other ethic of behavior.”
I imagine life then was closer to family-style caring.
Tony I also disagree with this:
“Nor is Thomas Paine’s central principle permitted to survive… that All Authority Resides in the People.”
Nobody ain’t stoppin’ moi from saying – and firmly believing — that “All Authority Resides in the People.”
I guess I am willing to say that authority resides in whatever entity we “give” it to and if we have given it to tyrants , well, it was still ours to give.
And we can grab it back.. Just you watch and see.
Takes a modicum of balls, though. No ballsies, no grabsies.
Off-topic.
A friend has asked me to post this request. If you are in US please call your Rep and give your opinion of the bill (which has already passed the Senate!!!) sending $38 BBBilion, to militarily aggressive Israel.
No ballsies, no grabsies, Folks. If you want to participate in the weird things Israel is doing, by all means neglect to act. But if you are critical of Israel, it doesn’t suffice to chat about it over the back fence, or post it on GumshoeNews. You actually have to exert your power and authority.
A simple principle of physics indeed.
Who needs enemies if we’ve got Lawyers (Caesar’s “department of laws’), Scribes (the media, public “informers”, educators), Pharisees (the rich and powerful), and Sadducees (convenience ideology masquerading as the religion of scientism)?
There is an old Latin saying: “What Caesar giveth, Caesar can taketh away”. The idiotically presumptuous “Rights of Man” and its myriad variations sold to the unwary as “Democracy” is a recipe for the enslavement of ordinary people to the above oligarchy while pretending that “it’s the will of the people”. Perhaps it is a demonically inspired self-love/hate (paranoia) that is a natural result of moral/intellectual perversity.
So, according to “Evolutionary” ideology, “progress” is by “survival of the fittest” and the way to “survival” is by dominance. By what irrational fantasy could a religiously fanatical believer in the doctrine of “Evolution” object to the dominance of them that can?
The alternative is that “rights” are not man-made but are inherent in the nature and purpose of the existence of the being. A right is that which is proper to nature and purpose… in the human realm it is Justice and Charity.
I will contend that Justice is not the “justice” according to the fanciful interpretations of Caesar’s lackeys.
“… sold to the unwary as “Democracy” is a recipe for the enslavement of ordinary people …“
This profound phrase prompts the following passage worth sharing – bear with me. I will make two points in a moment …
From “Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman” – Robert K Massie
“Books were her refuge. Having set herself to learn the Russian language [she was from Germany/Prussia, born Sophia], she read every Russian book she could find. But French was the language she preferred and she read French books indiscriminately, picking up whatever her ladies-in-waiting happened to be reading. She always kept a book in her room and another one in her pocket. She discovered the letters of Madame de Sévigné describing life at the court of Louis XIV. When a “General History of Germany” by Father [William Vincent] Barré, recently published in France in ten volumes, arrived in Russia, Catherine read a volume every week. She acquired the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique by the French philosopher Pierre Bayle, a seventeenth century philosophical freethinker and precursor of Montesquieu and Voltaire. Catherine read it from beginning to end. Gradually, guided by her own curiosity, she was acquiring a superior education.“
[]
To shield herself and to make life bearable [you have to read it for yourself], she turned again to books. That winter she read the “Annals” of Tacitus, Montesquieu’s “L’Espirit des Lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”) and Voltaire’s “Esai sur les Moeurs et L’Espirit des Nations” (“Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations”).
[]
[On Voltaire …] “Reason, not religion [] should govern the world. But certain human beings must act as reason’s representatives on earth. This led him to the role of despotism and to conclude that a despotic government may actually be the best sort of government possible – if it were reasonable. But to be reasonable, it must be enlightened; if enlightened, it may be both efficient and BENEVOLENT”
It goes on …
“Catherine, like many of her contemporaries was charmed by Voltaire. []
Here was a philosopher who could teach her how survive and laugh. AND HOW TO RULE.”
My two points:
• All truly great benevolent leaders/rulers are incredibly well and widely read (let’s make a list).
• Maybe we need to “un-demonise” Benevolent Despotism.
Go Mary 😊
A reply to your very reasonable observations has been rejected by their excellencies.
I will try to log in again according to the new protocol.
Not sure why that’s happening OlDavid
Even in our own Constitution we do not have the rights to free speech. The one fundamental freedom that embraces the concept of Human Rights yet we are denied that privilege. Our PRISON system is abhorrently neglectful of people humans rights. The miss use of solitary confinement [Prisoner X Risdon Jail ].
And therefore, Tom, it is your duty, if you believe in rights, to see that Prisoner X at Risdon is not kept in solitary confinement.
I dare you to do it. I honestly believe you can do it. Whose toes will you have to step on? Those of the effing cabal who need to have more than their toes stepped on.
Pardon me. I got carried away.
What are human rights exactly? I believe the American Constitution sets out precisely what those rights are – inalienable human rights – and that is, God given rights, and as such, that no government composed of mere mortal humans has any right to declare otherwise.
But, that has not stopped them (governments, who only exist because of the acquiescence of the governed) from denying us our God given human rights over many centuries, and even unto today, would put us into bondage to serve their own purpose.
That should have been your sum total of this essay Mary, but you failed in not acknowledging what the Founding Fathers of the United States were intellectually equipped to broadcast – that God has already ordained what our basic human rights have always been, but have always been ruthlessy denied at times, by those who pretend to control us.
“I believe [in]… God given rights, and as such, that no government composed of mere mortal humans has any right to declare otherwise”.
Oh for Pete’s sake, Nem, of course you don’t believe that.
Excuse me, Everybody, for botching up my main point. I will try it again below. But it’s nice that it brought forth Tony’s dissertation.
I mean this: We all have desires for freedom, for pleasure, for property (I mean where would you be without your toothbrush?) for mobility, for learning a skill, for finding a mate, whatever.
Instead of yakking about “rights” — which I claim was a mistake — we should think in terms of PROTECTIONS. So if some greedy person wants to take my property, or curtail my mobility (say if Homeland Security puts me on the no-fly list), I should be yelling for the protection that could be furnished by my fellow citizens.
They, en masse, are capable of getting my property secured, they are capable of bulldozing a bunch of bullies called DHS. I alone cannot do it.
Admittedly there was a time, in the 20th century for sure, when Americans could call for PROTECTION by saying HEY I WANT MY RIGHTS, and the government employees assigned to be protectors would stand up and do it. (Police, judges, legislators). They would represent the society and whack the bully.
Today it is clear they don’t do it. Judge George O’Toole comes to mind. He has many responsibilities toward the accused in a murder trial, and many responsibilities to the public for seeing that a trial is run according to Hoyle. He could protect us all, but HE AIN’T A-GONNA DO IT.
Thus instead of calling for Jahar Tsarnaev’s “rights” we need to call for society to protect Jahar.
We need to protect him, as it were, against all the faux players in the “Justice Department” and the “judiciary.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Now please note: the public, unfortunately, can’t be bothered. They are peacefully sleeping in the dream that was created in the 1960s — that in America the law jumps to the aid of the underdog. Some intellectuals I know think it can be worked out on paper — “Rights” will prevail if we can only express the issue insightfully.
Har har. When it’s too late, the LAZY PEOPLE OF BOSTON will find out that it’s not a matter of words.
Human rights were taken from the baby when their berth certificate was registered. The baby then became a human resource ie a commodity. Commodities have no rights they only have uses. It’s all to do with trade. And trade needs human resources to do the rowing and written words to account the cargo, Hence in the beginning we had the word and the word was god. It’s in the bible, commodities. This archontic waste world is self perpetuating now it has religion, education and judiciary; media, banking and the false prophets of politics. In other words: it has our minds. Complaining might give some of us some relief but nothing can change nor will change while the mind virus has sea legs. This artificial intelligence is not our future; it’s our now and our past. We chose to be here, supposedly. Three score and ten plus however many more linear years and it will all be over. Phew!
Don’t get upset, Fellow Commenters, if you get frisked by Her Bossness. Even the Opinion Editor’s comments above had to be moderated and I had to re-identify myself.
I think she is on the prowl for Amahl the Night Visitor.
Reading between the lines of the following it’s not hard to figure out that when one form of exploitation was no longer sustainable it was simply replaced by another:
“the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because “he was the Lord’s anointed”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
“Enlightenment philosophers believed that rational thought could lead to human improvement”
https://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html
Not surprisingly,both articles accommodate popular deception. In the first instance the Hollywood embellished myth that David and Solomon were men of integrity and wisdom. In the second instance the idea that spiritual bondage can be broken by knowledge of the physical world
Sorry Berry, don’t know why it popped into moderation
Tried to put it through 3 times and it didn’t work.
So now your stuck with a triplicate!
If you read between the lines of the following it’s not hard to figure out that when one form of exploitation was no longer sustainable it was simply replaced by another:
“the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because “he was the Lord’s anointed”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
“Enlightenment philosophers believed that rational thought could lead to human improvement”
https://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html
Both articles centre on popular deception. In the first instance the Hollywood embellished myth that David and Solomon were men of integrity and wisdom. In the second instance the idea that spiritual bondage can be broken by knowledge of the physical world
If you read between the lines of the following it’s not hard to figure out that when one form of exploitation was no longer sustainable it was simply replaced by another:
“the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because “he was the Lord’s anointed”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
“Enlightenment philosophers believed that rational thought could lead to human improvement”
https://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html
Both articles centre on popular deception. In the first instance the Hollywood embellished myth that David and Solomon were men of integrity and wisdom. In the second instance the idea that spiritual bondage can be broken by knowledge of the physical world
Interesting, Berry, that you mention “popular deception” and “knowledge of the physical World” as though to infer that the two are somewhat mutually exclusive. What about if “popular knowledge” and “popular deception” were one and the same? I will cite the “science” of “global warming” as just one instance of the confluence of the two that is not likely to be very contentious in this forum.
And, just what is “spiritual bondage”? Is it “bondage” to the laws of logic (science; certainly metaphysical) and/or the laws of morality that are both inextricably bound to reality and the nature and purpose of existence?
Contrary to other allusions above, I will contend that the so-called “pristine or primitive” societies are exiles or fugitives from civilisation and not examples of any kind of exemplary “primordial excellence”… another “popular deception”.
Just what are “human rights” in the “hunter-gatherer” or “survival-of-the-fittest” scenario?
By ‘bondage” I meant enslavement, which condition is, of course, a lot more complex than is generally acknowledged.
The idea that an increase in scientific knowledge is intrinsically liberating is totally skewed; it’s not hard to figure out that knowledge of what a nuclear bomb/chemical weapons will do doesn’t stop such devices from being put together.
What interests me is that, even though that was the general consensus by the 1960s, there was still all this talk about how technological advancement was going to increase the prosperity of Mr & Ms. Average to the degree that that they’d only have to work a couple of days a
week !
Paragraph 4 of your comment is spot-on; you only need to look at the counter-culture of the late ‘60s.
[quote=berry] there was still all this talk about how technological advancement was going to increase the prosperity of Mr & Ms. Average to the degree that that they’d only have to work a couple of days a week ! [/quote]
Well, what’s intrinsically wrong with that? Back in Medieval times, which produced many wonders of scholarship, architecture and art that the modern world hasn’t come within a bull’s roar of being able to even reproduce, there were over a hundred Church mandated holidays in a year. You can’t do that if everyone is trying to scrape a subsistence living hoeing their garden for every waking hour. (Or fighting futile, destructive wars). You know? the estimated product from Australia that was exported in WW II to be sunk in the sea or to destroy the infrastructure of other peoples could have provided every Australian family with a luxurious mansion.
However, if “spare time” is spent in consumptive hedonism rather than productive pursuits civilisation will collapse as it has done many times before.
Anyhow, the money-lenders made a killing on both sides of that “argument”.
So what is “enslavement”? To acknowledge and defer to the natural order? By inference, you seem to claim that “freedom from enslavement” is the liberty to defy or deny the natural order.