| Edward Graham Macfarlane
108 Forthill Road Broughty Ferry Dundee Scotland DD5 3DR tel & fax: +44 (0)1382 730971 Email: globdem@sol.co.uk |
 |
| Chapter 11
Persons, Priorities, Parties and Paradise For this, my final chapter in this book, I come to the real nub of the most difficult problem facing us all, that of succeeding in presenting a mental picture of the way in which the many millions of human beings can be brought together to accept a common single system of law and order instead of the present divided society which is naturally in constant danger of committing race suicide! The raw material of the posited world society is the human being. Now we call human beings persons and each person is a sovereign entity in reality. The person lives in a mental state which is cut off from all the other millions of persons in the world. No man or woman can even get to know a life-long mate fully and properly so far as getting interpersonal agreement about basic beliefs, priority purposes, party preferences, patriotic scale, and the picture of the ultimate paradise we can usefully work towards as common citizens. The sovereignty of each person is the basic fact of life from which we must start in the picturing of a path to a common paradise and each one of us - as persons - have to make out own personal decisions about what is credible and what is incredible. There is no unquestionable authority to which we can all turn for a resolution of the conflicting beliefs which different persons select for themselves. 'Even deeply religious and irreligious people cannot deny this basic fact. Christians are divided amongst themselves. Moslems are divided amongst themselves. Hindus are divided amongst themselves. Marxists are divided amongst themselves. Roman Catholics are divided amongst themselves. Americans are divided amongst themselves. Britishers are divided amongst themselves. Jews are divided amongst themselves. We also find Jews becoming Christians. Christians becoming Jews - 'though less likely. Protestants becoming Humanists or Atheists or Communists or Buddhists or Mormons or Mooneys - and so on. Now these are all evidences of the difficulties we all face as persons who are obliged to face life without firm knowledge of the correct goal of moral living. Many of us would pursue the same end if we could pursue a goal which could be authoritatively established to be the Truth about the knowledge of goodness and badness. I have long thought that much of the confusion and conflicts within the human race are due directly to lack of knowledge of the Truth. People who wish to be personally addicted to Truth and thus live a life of goodness rather than badness are frustrated and divided by this basic lack of direct knowledge or the proper final goal or purpose of living righteously. There is a saying attributed to W. Somerset Maugham as follows: "Man.... lives not by Truth but by make-believe." But what else can we do when the "Truth" is witheld from us. We cannot really know whether it is “right" or "better" to live than to commit suicide. This choice - between living and dying- requires some form of positive faith in the absence of sure knowledge of the Truth because we cannot live on as persons capable of consciously rational self-guided living if we do not consciously fill the basic void in our need for certainty before acting without some kind of faith to play the part of the positive knowledge about Truth which we all lack. "Make-believe" is of course the reality lying behind all faiths. Christianity and Islam and Marxism and all the other social faiths are really forms of make-believe. There is not one scheme of belief available and accepted by some human beings which can justifiably claim to be the way of Truth. All the great leaders of people are undoubtedly positive and dogmatic about the rightness of the ideas they bequeath to or teach their followers to uphold - but there cannot be said to be absolute certainty of rightness about Christianity, Marxism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Freemasonry, Buddhism, judaism, Zionism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism or any other form of "make-believe". Cosmopolis itself is a scheme of make-believe. In this book I am really asking persons to admit in the inner depths of their personal consciousnesses that it is not Truth but make-believe that their minds are working on when they use words like the "ultimate purpose of life" or the "best faith" or make political decisions in favour of putting the interest of Britain (or USA or USSR or Zionism or Christianity etc.) before all other human concerns in the sphere of chosen faiths. It is not every day that persons review these fundamental starting points but if we wish to see radical reconstitution of global society from the present extremely dangerous multi-national one to a unitary law and order society we must become fully conscious that we have to deal with a society where there are millions of sovereign persons who tend to form themselves into parties which stem from a choice of priorities which differ in hundreds and thousands of different ways but which all must become amenable to life within a paradise for everybody which, like all other parties formed of human beings must have a common purpose or goal which will make general interpersonal global social co-operation possible and actual. I have cited bent journalism - which means journalism which pursues a non-Cosmopolist purpose or party and paradise - as the greatest enemy of human progress towards a civilized world. Let me now, in pursuance of the principle that the old "best" is probably the worst enemy of anything "better still"! If I was asked to name the newspaper which comes most nearly - but is still, disastrously far from being - a Cosmopolist newspaper I would name the NEW YORK TIMES with its "global" off-shoot the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE. The last-named has all the attributes of the kind of global newspaper a truly Cosmopolist society requires apart from the central and vital matter of being inspired by USA patriotism instead of Human patriotism. USA patriotism is of course vastly inferior to Human patriotism for the same reasons as UK patriotism is vastly inferior to Human patriotism, and the same can be said of USSR or Indian or Australian or Canadian or any other hundreds of other part-world patriotisms which are enemies of Human patriotism for the simple basic reason that they are schismatic rather than unifying so far as general global social unification is concerned. Any form of patriotism which falls short of globality is evil and disastrous and opposed to world civilization. From the global viewpoint USA, USSR, UK and all other part-world patriotisms are enemies of Cosmopolis and there can be no softening of this logical position. This is a diamond-hard dogma which all global aspirants must be united about maintaining if they are to be successful in their actual quest for a global agnostic democratic unitary political paradise. The latter quest needs a newspaper something like the INTER-NATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE but cleansed of "internationalism" and its basic USA part-world patriotic stance which is inimical to Cosmopolis and therefore quite damnable at the very core of its nature - a product of nationalistic egotism just as damnable as Mrs Thatcher's British national egotism towards a unitary state in Europe of the EEC states. The parent body of the IHT is of course the NEW YORK TIMES organisation which is frankly politically parochial - but no more so than Isvestia or the London Times or the Manchester GUARDIAN or the Toronto GLOBE AND MAIL etc. All existing newspapers are evil from this strictly Cosmpolist viewpoint because not one of these newspapers. would disown their present patriotic or sectarian affiliations or the theory of a multi-national paradise which is their daily inspiring purpose which all assume is a "good" point of view to have. All part-world nationalists will spring to their defence and argue that small is beautiful and that a movement grounded in local loyalty is only natural. But 1 deny this thesis in terms of my diamond-hard dogma that if you want a world civilization this is precisely what you must have in your own mind from the very outset of your conscious political thinking. This applies with particular force to the editors of the IHT. Their paper is antagonistic to Cosmopolis every day they publish and in every way that they select articles and letterpress columns to fill their -global newspaper". They are indeed global only in distribution and technical matters. They are rotten at the very heart of their enterprise due to the wrong selection of the paradise they select for the object or goal of their journalism - which is "international" in its stated concept and therefore evil from a Cosmopolist standpoint. "International", in the name "INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNW, actually destroys the very possibility of creating a Cosmopolist paradise by insisting that all the hundreds of nations in the world have a "right" to "i ' ndependent sovereignty in statehood". This is a basic error in global social thinking which has been backed by all the newspapers I have mentioned above and many others also. And the fault is so serious in its effects that I can only appeal to individual Cosmopolists to refrain from buying any of these un-ideal newspapers if they possibly can and to support the invention and regular production of a truly globally inspired as well as globally spread newspaper to replace the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE and thus put it out of business. I myself purchased the IHT for a short spell of six months to study it and to test its editorial ideology-application by submitting letters which contained traps for editorial bias and the taboos which accompany any choice of ideology. I found clear proof of my supposition that the editors would refuse ideas which are inimical to USA patriotism and multi-national world. IHT is an evil paper from a Cosmopolist viewpoint because not only does it see nothing wrong with USA-first.thinking, it allows no real criticism of a multi-nation world because the paradise which inspires IHT editors is an "internationalism" which is obviously anti-global insofar as the chief fault with most thinkers about politics in the world at the moment is that they are anti-global and anti-Human in the deepest recesses of their conscious minds. These editors are not wittingly evil. On the contrary I believe that they are doing the best they can think of doing but are woefully unaware of the stupidity of choosing an "international" paradise. Earlier in this book I have mentioned - and condemned as "evil" from my Cosmopolist viewpoint - the basic instruction given by Lord Reith and the British establishmentarians to the "British media" viz. "Nation shall speak peace unto nation." This is the very heart of the "evilness" of British establishmentarian thinking because "nations" are socially uncontrollable in practice. Persons are the stuff of social group legislation - not groups or parties or churches or nations or races. The truth - as a Cosmopolist sees it - is that "internationalism" is the deeply established error of social thinking which lies at the heart of the failure to get peace in a multi-nation world. I cite another evidence to indicate how fundamental is this error. Nearly all brain-washed "British" or "American" or "Russian" or "Australian" or "Canadian" etc. journalists would fail to see anything "wrong" about the following dedication which I find in the "ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA WORLD ATLAS" Dedication. "To the men, women, and children of the world who, by increasing their knowledge of the earth and its people, seek to understand each other's problems and through this under-standing strive for a community of nations living in peace, the Encyclopedia Britannica dedicates this volume." The "error" is of course the error of “internationalism” as a basic principle of social thought which can only be seen by persons whose minds have been awakened to an understanding and acceptance of the Cosmopolist – “truth" that to civilize the world we must create a world full of aspirant world citizens rather than a world full of ardent "British" or "Americans" or "Russians" or "Indians" or "South Africans- or "Israelis" or any other "nationality" whose idea of human bliss is "a community of nations living in peace". The acceptance of this basic "error" destroys any faith we might have had that the "Encyclopedia Britannica" is a source of objectively reliable information. Clear thinking is required to spot this "error" and under-standing and acceptance of "internationalism" being an "error" is utterly necessary before the journalists of the world can "progress" from being internationalists to being sound interpersonalists as required by the teaching of Cosmopolis which I am giving here. A world of selfish nations is hell on earth - and that is what we get and actually have got from meek acceptance of Britannica thinking which is internationalist thinking. A world of selfish persons is really less frightening because persons are legally controllable whereas nations are not. The Cosmopolis ideal is a world of world-minded persons who have seen the "error" of internationalism with its hypocrisies and duplicities. The choice offered by this book to the politicians of the world - and keep in mind here that in the projected unitary world agnostic democracy of Cosmopolis EVERY person in the world becomes a world politician in a very real sense since it is agreed in advance that a majority vote of the whole People of the globe is the one and only available source of ultimate political authority in practice for the human race. We get bemused religious people talking about Jesus Christ returning to the world to organise his followers into creating a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth but this is poetical nonsense rather than hard reality. The Cosmopolist "truth" is that human personal sovereignty is the one and only basis for reasonable political authority which intelligent human beings can turn to as a means of settling social problems due to the co-existence of differing interpersonal human opinions. Anyhow, I and all other persons should reject all Popes and Commissars and would-be religious autocrats like Ayatollah Khomeini and other Moslem and Roman. Catholic dogmatists as being' generally acceptable sources of correct moral assessment of social situations and affairs. Men like Hitler and Mussolini and Gadaffi and Khomeini and Stalin and Reagan and Kennedy and Truman and Churchill and Trudeau and de Gaulle have really no better an idea of how to run the world than any of us ordinary world citizens. But we must study matters like these and try to apply commonsense and wisdom to them in our own individualistic ways so that we may vote wisely on all occasions ranging from the election of a world parliament down to our local district councils at general election times as well as be ready to vote in referenda at any of the various levels of parliament we will need to run a global society which is based soundly on interpersonalisrn rather than internationalism. But to return to the I.H.T. (the International Herald Tribune) which started me on this train of thought: I hope this will show why this journal is quite unfitted to be a Cosmopolist global journal. It is to be condemned for accepting USA patriotism and internationalism as the basic purposes it seeks to serve and I could not now advise anybody to support it financially until this "error" in editorial ideologising is replaced by Cosmopolist ideology of global agnostic democracy. An investor's advice sheet recently gave the news that the New York Times had a first quarter 1984 earnings of 0.62 dollars per share which was up 44% whilst newspaper profits were up by 17%. It also owns a one-third interest in the IHT and appeals to the thinking of 934,000 New Yorkers and other Americans on weekdays with 1.5 million sales on Sundays. Now these results are tiny compared with what the IHT alone could do if it was reordered from an “international" basis of truth to an "inter-personal" basis of thought because there must be literally millions of individual persons in all parts of the world who are now ready to pay for Cosmopolis type journalism and who should scorn to buy internationalist journalism. I am only one of these and in a letter to the Editor (Circulation) in Paris I informed him of the urgent need to allow unitary globalism and agnostic democracy to be publicised in its pages. But I got no response from the actual editor in charge of articles and there was no change in the suppression of letters I sent asking for the release to the public of real global and unitary agnostic democratic messages. So of course I stopped buying the 1HT and will refuse to buy it in future until this bent journalism emanating from USA patriotism and internationalist theory is deposed or at least allowed to be criticised by globalists and advocates of unitary agnostic democracy. But some journalistic enterprise will see the enormous business potential in a truly global newspaper which is not only physically able to organise the daily up-to-date delivery of news all over the world but does so working from a proper basis of interpersonalism and globalism etc: in Cosmopolis theory. The only reason that the New York Times is economically viable in New York, USA and the world generally is due to the fact that bent journalism has conditioned so many minds to be uncritical of the folly of part-world patriotisms and internationalistic nonsense. It is a case of the blind leading the blind with the blind readers unblissfully unaware of the way in which the starvation of their intellects by an internationalist press is leading mankind into ever deeper and more terrible international wars which stem from the part-world patriotisms and vile internationalism of highly respected (but wrongly so) agencies as the New York Times, the British Broadcasting Company and the Encyclopedia Britannica. All these agencies and thousands of others I could have named are regularly poisoning the minds of millions of peopl~! against an interpersonal world with proper equality of social status being given to everybody. This is where the source of war-making and terroristic practices is to be found - in part-world patriotisms and internationalism. The cure is to be found - only in some form of interpersonalism and justice for all citizens such as I have advocated in this book. I believe there is no more important message for human minds than "Cosmopolis" to be found in the world at the moment. I have spent most of my life thinking and writing about this central and very radical re-orientation of human social theorising from a multi-nation world to a single-nation world. But we who advocate a unitary global society are scorned by all nationalists and internationalist paradise- mongers in their nefarious and dangerous activities. It is for the persons in the world to assess where truth lies. In the choice between a "community of nations" and a "community of persons" I advise the latter. I can only hope that millions of you will agree with me and pass on this gospel to all. To get a really beneficial political revolution we must go to the source of all political action - Persons. To get realigned political views which will give us interpersonal co-operation - vital for getting results - we must have persons accepting a common goal. This goal must be globality of concern as the first precedence priority for all persons concerned in getting a world civilization. This means the new creation of a global political party in every one of the hundreds of separate sovereign states which stupid politicians have bequeathed to us along with the media to preserve all these hundreds of part-world patriotisms. This new global-oriented party must teach all its adherents to put personal faiths of all kinds, theistic as well as atheistic, firmly in a subsidiary position of political or patriotic priority. Loyalty to the party must take precedence over all other loyalties whether the personal priorities now held are religious or patriotic or racist or economic class or family or anything else. Nothing must be allowed to take precedence of political loyalty over the new global social democratic party no matter whether the person concerned lives in Britain, USA, USSR, or any other part-world state or whether the person is religious or irreligious, black or white, rich or poor, male or female, etc. etc. Voting decisions are basic to the success of the global social democratic movement and no reformed person should vote if. no global social democrat is not standing for an election. A parochial vote is a wasted vote so far as the getting of the political re-orientation we need is concerned. For example if the person is an American it is useless to vote for any of the offered American-patriotic politicians because not one of them supports global social democratic ideas. What Americans - or rather persons now domiciled in USA- should do is to take steps at once to form a party with global social democratic principles to oppose the present America-First politicians like Reagan, Mondale, Hart, jackson by putting forward a global social democratic representative in every election in the USA. Be FIRM about this because if your vote goes to any USA-first politician you are perpetuating a divided world instead of making an intelligent move to put an end to a divided world. This is something I have learned from the fortunes of the Alliance in the U.K. The SDP-Liberal Alliance grew fast until it became clear that they put Britain before globality. I have voted for them in the past- but never again - simply because there is no sign of them being globally inspired and overtly addicted to a globality-first basic principle of loyalty for their alleged social democracy. Global democracy must be our first priority political precedence principle and nothing must be allowed to come between us and our dream of global social democracy. So, no votes for Steel or Owen or any of their supporters unless and until they clearly and positively adopt the mantle of GLOBAL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY which is not tied to any form of religious privileges or irreligious privileges. The same reasoning applies to Canadians, Danes, Russians, Iranians, Africans, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Jews, Christians of all sects and so on. Our global paradise of Cosmopolis must be the goal of all of us. But there is one final warning about a form of dishonesty in politics and publishing which really must be noted by all potential world peace-makers. Sometimes the actual policies or purposes of a group or politician are not fully stated in the name of the party or the publication or the movement which is being offered for political or social approval. I think the SDP - first started by Roy Jenkins is one of these and it was Jenkins himself who insisted that the name should be made up of the three words "Social" and "Democratic" and "Party- in that order. Where the DIS-honesty comes into the naming of this party lies in the fact that Mr Jenkins did NOT also state that the "Social" he had in mind was really "BRITISH social" rather than "HUMAN social" and this failure to be explicit is what I am saying is "DIS-honest". Actually it could have been fuzzy thinking by him that caused him to fail to place the word "British" in front of the name of his party because we find that when he came to think about contesting a Euro-election the kind of patriotism offered by the "S.D.P." could have been said to be "European" rather than "British". But this haziness about the scope of the word "Social" in the three-word title "Social Democratic Party" undoubtedly caused some truly global democrats to vote S.D.P. when what he was offering was a British Social Democratic party or a European Social Democratic Party. But the importance of EXACT naming of a political party must be emphasised here if true voting on principles and priorities in politics is to be obtained. Mr Jenkins is not alone in getting votes for being assumed to have principles which he has failed to state he has in his mind when he named his party. For example Mrs Thatcher is just as guilty of implicit DIShonesty if she states that she is a member of "A Conservative Party- instead of saying what is probably the full description required to indicate the political decisions she is likely to make in practice. Even "British Conservative Party" does not give the full story of her political principles because we find that the words "British Unionist Conservative Party" would be in line with her policy towards Ulster and if we want to take her implicit antagonism to Roman Catholicism into account she would really have to describe her political ideology as being that of a "British Protestant Christian and Monarchist Representative- democratic Conservative" since we find that she does not wish to merge Britain with the other EEC states into a Euro-unitary democratic state - this is a policy which stems from her ,choice to be a "British patriot" rather than a "global patriot" or even a "Euro-patriot". In this matter of becoming a Euro-citizen there is no difficulty for an aspirant -global citizen" like myself because my "global" aim can contain a devolved Euro-patriotism within itself, just as I can say I am a British patriot within being a Euro-patriot and that within an all-embracing "global patriotisrm”. This is why we must all seek out overt “globalists” -when we look for persons to vote for in local, regional, state, continental, or global democratic elections. But there is one more example of inaccurate or misleading political party nomenclature that I would like to deal with here. A person by the name of "The Reverend Ian Paisley" has originated a political party to which he has given these three words in their given order -which is also important since the sequence of words in any political party nomenclature gives an indication of the sequence of priorities in the mind of the party maker. Mr Paisley's choice was as follows viz. "Democratic Unionist Party". Now if I was not aware of the kind of statements on politics that Mr Paisley usually makes I would be tempted to vote D. U.P. If I was a citizen in Ulster because I would much prefer to vote for a politician who puts "Democratic" before "Unionist- rather than "Christian" or "Protestant" or "Ulster" or "British" - and I have no doubt that Mr Paisley collects votes from many individuals who mistakenly imagine that the D.U.P. is basically "democratic" (first) "unionist" (secondary) and that is all. All we have to do is to listen to some of Mr Paisley's speeches to discover that a much truer description of Mr Paisley's political aims and so his more honest party nomenclature would be that he is a "Christian, Protestant, British - Ulster Unionist Democrat" than a "Democratic Unionist". Mr Paisley is a theistic dogmatist first and foremost and he has not abandoned his basic theism although he craftily does not mention it when naming his party. Now basic theism is not an acceptable basis for a social democratic party for Britain or Europe or for the world. So Mr Paisley's failure to put his real aims into his naming of his party is really misleading to the general public. All votes for Mr Paisley would be giving support to a latent form of Protestant Fascism since Mr Paisley has often said that his first priority is his Protestant religion and if we translate a Protestantism-first ideology into political action we would not get a form of state which would be fair to atheists and theists alike. Mr Paisley probably thinks it is. impossible to live as an agnostic far less an atheist and thus the legislation he would produce on subjects like education would suppress the right of atheists to be heard in the British media just as has always happened during the political rule of "Christian democratic British Protestant Monarchist Conservatives" or their bi-partisan colleagues in the "Christian democratic British Protestant Monarchist Labour Party". Anyhow let no Cosmopolist be willing to vote for any of these parties which do not display their priorities and allegiances fully and honestly but let us all insist that any so-called "Democratic Unionist" also tells everybody that there are values (un-stated) which come before and above their willingness to be democrats - as in the notable cases of Mrs Thatcher's Conservatism, MrJenkins's Sodal Democracy and Mr Paisley's Democratic Unionism. In practice Mrs Thatcher is concerned first and foremost with keeping Britain a separate sovereign state governed by a party elected to power which will retain the establishment of a Protestant Church and its sub-servient Monarch and all the effects on education and other aspects of social policy which stem from the true first priority basics of Mrs Thatcher's ministerial goal-seeking for her party and state - with NO thoughts of supra-national merging for Britain into Euro-unity or global-unity which is absolutely essential for advance to world civilization. Get your own social political priorities right by insisting on globalism as the FIRST ideological requirement, agnosticism as the second and democracy the third. These are the priorities in political principles for a practical paradise. |
| Edward Graham Macfarlane
108 Forthill Road Broughty Ferry Dundee Scotland DD5 3DR tel & fax: +44 (0)1382 730971 Email: globdem@sol.co.uk |
|
| my writing |
|