This Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies has made it its main focus over the past half decade to highlight through critical analysis and demonstration that the Elite or Left in western societies have embraced a world view that finds Absolute Certainty in the Scientific Method (especially as it plays out in Applied Science) and Absolute Uncertainty in all others. This inverse relationship is indeed a relationship, an intimate and necessary one, but its theoretical explication requires an in-depth analysis of the founding of “Universal Math,” the basis of all contemporary science, and the equally modern “Open Society” – both attributable to the same French philosopher, Rene Descartes. In other words, the relationship and the results were not established by chance.
While such explications tax our patience and our focus on matters of day-to-day concern, this does not prevent our understanding of the phenomenon as it plays itself out in plain view. For an almost laughable example we point to a federal district judge’s ruling in Philadelphia just a few days ago, which posited that the Absolute Certainty of the Scientific Method had a CONSTITUTIONAL protection against the insertion of a preamble to a high school biology class textbook suggesting that evolution was only a theory and as such could not negate the idea that “an intelligent design” might be built into the cosmos. The astute judge smelled “religious” motives and knew with certainty that all matters not certified by the scientific method were UNCERTAIN and ruled that a school district could not so color a biology class without infringing of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. If that decision is not a good case for the complete dismantling of the public educational system nothing is.
Another example more to the point but hardly laughable given its murderous nature appears in the Thursday, December 22, 2005, edition of the New York Times. No one doubts the Times’ position as the Elites’ paper of record. In this esteemed paper, the editorial writers demand that Israel not prevent a Palestinian election in which the Hamas organization will take part – and likely show well given its popularity among the Palestinian electorate. The paper’s reasoning is that such tactics would be a “greater evil” than Hamas’ actual participation. The Times claims that democracy is the highest good and we must perforce not interfere. In other words, Israel and the world should accept the political participation of a murderous organization that openly calls for the destruction of Israel and of all of the Jews in the Middle East because to deny them this “right” would be a “greater evil” than what a normal man would consider in normal times to be Just.
This embrace of murderous terrorists in the name of democracy is the quintessential point of the Certainty/Uncertainty principle. Democracy, as understood in the multicultural world of the Open Society or One World State, embraces all views equally except any view that does not embrace all views. How though does that reduce itself to the point where the Times embraces murder and terror in the name of Democracy? If Science and its Method represent the only Certainty and all of political life, the Just or Virtuous Life, becomes meaningless Uncertainty, Society regains a certainty through Absolute Uncertainty – in a democracy that demands no truth but Uncertainty. This is the Open Society that demands a certitude in its absolute rejection of all distinctions between good and evil, between terrorist political parties and political parties proper, between one nation and another. Democracy, the Open Society, sustains no certainty other than its own uncertainty. Science reigns supreme. Is it any wonder that the Times and others among the Elite turn so incessantly to the United Nations, the One World Government in making, the Greatest of Open Societies, for “authority” and “moral substantiation” on the one hand and science in the name of cellular biology, definitions of viable or unviable fetuses, and the like on the other? But there is “method” in this.
Advising the State of Israel to succumb to the Open Society, multiculturalism and voting rights at second remove for Hamas which seeks the death of Jews and the death of Israel, only assumes the position already taken by Israel’s Peace Now Jews. Shimon Peres and his supporters of the Peace Process have long been in the habit of calling the murder of Jews by Muslims like Hamas (or Fatah for that matter) “sacrifices for peace.” This is how Israel’s governments fail to keep faith with its own people, in effect rendering the votes of Jews for rulers a kind of Russian roulette where the State decides who it will accidentally protect for the sake of peace. Here, in the case of the New York Times badgering the Israeli government to do what it already does (i.e., sacrifice Jewish lives and land for "Peace"), it becomes dubious if the Israeli government has real standing to claim that the editors of the Times have themselves become the rulers of Israel, and are now to become the murderers of Israelis at second remove. The Times would remind us that an overwhelming majority of Israelis support Sharon, who is now a comrade of Peres and the Left. But that makes the point of democracy removed from any Certainty of the sanctity of Life and the first, second and third imperative of government, which is to defend every citizen's Life, the nation's existence and borders.
The Open Society, and indeed the entire string of positions and arguments in support of it according to a grounding in Science=Certainty (as Fact) versus the remainder of human affairs=Uncertainty (as “values”), comes always to death and irresponsibility.
David Yerushalmi
Printer-Friendly
Version
