The Impossibility of Difference

There is an interesting result of believing that all things are absolutely equal. Before long, everything becomes the same. It becomes impossible for people who believe in absolute equality to long believe that everyone is not at same the base.

The first consequence is personal. The person who harbors ill will towards people soon comes to believe that all people secretly do as well, and that they are simply not honest about it. If someone is dishonest, or shifty in their dealings with others soon comes to believe that everyone is just as dishonest. We saw attitude in the political realm with Bill Clinton's travail with Monica Lewinsky. Many people, although to his credit not Bill Clinton, excused this indiscretion with the glib statement of "Well who hasn't."

The second consequence is a political, and social one. This is often the goals of those who use the ideologies of post-modernism. People who espouse absolute equality do not make any moral differentian. This is often called moral relativism, and this is what has the most impact in the political world.

In the modern world, each action is judgable, because there is qualitative difference between both people and actions. Although on the surface it may seem that two things are the same, they actually are not. e.g. There is a difference between withdrawing money out of a bank, and stealing from the bank are two totally different things, even if they have the same result of decreasing the total amount of money in the bank.

In the post-Modern world there are no such distinctions. All things are alike. (Only the very ardent Marxist, however would agree that there is no difference between robbing a bank and taking a withdrawal.) It doesn't matter the reason why you do anything, only the action itself matters. You may or may not love the 'state', or the 'people,' but it doesn't matter as long as you do what you are supposed to.

On a personal level, it doesn't matter what you believe because all beliefs are the same. It doesn't matter what you do, as long as it is good for you. (This doesn't hold absolutely true in practicality.) If you get stoned, and stay in your house all day, or if you go out and work and become an engineer, it is all the same thing. You see this in practice in the countries of Europe which have a collosal unemployment rate and taxes that support a tremendous welfare state that makes no distinction between the value of individuals.

This becomes important in the international realm especially now with the analysis of international affairs. People both in the United States and outside regularly compare so-called mujaheddin to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, to the ignorant there is a superficial similarity. If we only look at the very surface, we see a group of people in an area with people who speak a similar language fighting other people who are different in some way, and not from that same area.

However, these similarities ignore all of the differences. We have to accept the idea that all people are the same, and take it a step further, all Arabs are the same. There are of course fighters from within Iraq fighting coalition forces, but people who make that claim do not differentiate between them. Of course there is a large difference between Iraqis and other Arabs. Also, many of the Iraqi so-called mujaheddin are mere criminals, which actually brings us to the questions of motive.

The critical difference between George Washington, and by extension the modern Americans, and say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a question of intent. George Washington wanted to establish an independent country where people would be free from the tyranny of a king. Although Washington was not an absolute democrat, insofar as there was still slavery in the nascent country, the nation established at the time was largely free. Likewise, Americans are not fighting to establish a monarchy, but instead a democracy with Iraqis at its head.

Mr. Zarqawi, by contrast has the desire to re-establish the caliphate. This is an actual and literal return to a Middle Ages absolute monarchy, not some organization of Arab, or Muslim states. Make no mistake, while in terms of science the original caliphate was far in advance of European states at the time, it was still a dark ages Monarchy. Brutal repression, secret police, religious fanaticism, with all of the inquisitions that came with it, slavery, and coporal punishment of every kind accompanied that monarchy. Even a return to that monarchy would be a destruction of almost all of the rights that people have come to assume are theirs. However, at least that monarchy allowed people to be Jewish or Christian if they so chose. Zarqarwi has made it obvious that he has no intention of allowing the same liberties today.

How then could people possibly make a comparison between him and men like Washington who ,even given the opportunity to establish a monarchy, did not. Simply put, results and intention have no bearing in the post-modern world. Washington fought, and Zarqawi fought. That alone is enough of a similarity for comparison.

This helps to explain the colosally different world views that we are seeing, and we can see where post-Modern ideas have most taken root. There is plenty of room for disagreement over international policy. Modernism actually would encourage disagreement. However, there is a distinction to be made based on intention. People after all, are different and there is a need to look at the world through that perspective.