Dear Friends,
It seems to me, I don’t understand why someone will fight to the death, over minutia, with one they agree with… almost totally. The other side of this coin is that the same people will tolerate the antithesis of what they believe without a murmur? The whole thing seems counter intuitive to me, but when hypothesis is in contradiction with observed reality, the reasoning person must discard hypothesis. Reality? You ask. Observed reality is that the enmity between Shia and Sunni, Protestant and Catholic, as well as the Chili cannot have beans and Chili must have beans debate… is far more spiteful than Muslim v Christian. It is almost like, those captured by their sectarian ideology, don’t see people who’s philosophy is far removed from them as counting. Only those they mostly agree with matter.
I would think people who think alike, or at least mostly alike would be better able to co-mingle, not less. I wonder if, agreement on everything but a single point, since agreement is so overpowering, that small disagreement is magnified because, at heart, we hold in reverence the person who’s opinion we must either have in its entirety, else kill them. An illogic like that of infatuated love. A knifes edge between adoration and hate. At heart then, the most ardent hater of Mormonism, really would like to convert them, and in doing so would adore them. As long as the former Mormons followed the new lore to the letter. This also applies to a lesser extent to the next level out. That the most ardent haters of Islam, Christianity or beans in chili, want the respect and agreement of the other.
Obviously, there are depths of violence that some will go that others will not. Which, I reckon, is a matter of culture. I think we can all agree that mankind is better served where sectarian violence, and indeed all violence, is kept to a minimum, culturally, not criminally. For a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is the wealth generated, for everyone, by the economic booms that occur in times of quiescence. It is no uncanny coincidence then, that those cultures where sectarian violence is common, have lower standards of living. It would be shocking if this were not true. The more violent the combatants, the harder it is to run a business, raise children or get a good chilidog. Sane people will seek to actively foster a culture, where sectarian squabbles can be settled, without a blade.
How do we change a culture, to make sectarian violence utterly unacceptable, so much so that those who engage in it are socially ostracized. Is there any way to do that? Well Timmy, there is… it’s called Capitalism. No Timmy, Capitalism is perfectly safe, but communism can poke your little eyes out, so wear these safety goggles when handling it. When capitalism, not democracy, is introduced into a culture, it changes that culture. Anti Capitalists hate this. When your livelihood depends on selling a product, service or idea, pragmatism is vital. The pragmatic petite bourgeoisie has an advantage, driving his competitors to be pragmatic. That pragmatism infiltrates the culture making it less accepting of business interrupting violence. People weigh personal interests rather than tribal.
In those places where we can get culture to change… so that sectarian disagreements are less likely to come to open violence, we have moved the needle a point towards good. Since sectarian violence is almost inevitable given human nature, and is so detrimental to society, the economy and humanity, limiting the violence, not the disagreements, is a must. To that end, in those cultures where sectarian violence is common and especially where it often turns deadly, an inoculation of free enterprise is just what the doctor ordered. The elite tried introducing democracy around the world, leaving in place the socialist kleptocracies, spending thousands of lives and billions of dollars doing it. They failed. Maybe we should try something else for a change? Something that costs less and earns more. For everyone.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
