Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Almost 2,400 years ago, Aristotle, the founder of political science and the greatest political scientist, discussed, in his Politics, the various causes of insurrection and revolution. He drew from his knowledge of some 150 ‘city-states’ on which he wrote treatises (now lost, except for fragments from his treatise on Athens).
One of the causes of insurrection and revolution, he saw, was “heterogeneity of stock,” by which he means what is now called “multiculturalism.” We see the consequences of multiculturalism violently manifested in France, which has not been able to “integrate” its five million Muslim inhabitants. In hundreds of French “no-go” zone neighborhoods, Muslims have intimidated the government into largely ceding authority over them. Neither tourists nor cops dare enter these Muslim-dominated areas.
America may eventually face such a dilemma with the large and illegal immigration of Hispanics across her southern border. Crime is rampant among them.
It should be obvious that democracies, which are most inclined to multiculturalism, will be most susceptible to “ethnic violence,” a euphemism for budding insurrections. Aristotle emphasized that the strongest bond of society is friendship, hardly to be expected in multicultural societies.
A related point: Aristotle distinguished between five different types of democracy. The worst is anarchy, which, he said can hardly be called a ‘regime’ (or polis). All democracies have an inherent tendency toward anarchy because their two cardinal principles, equality and freedom, lack ethical and ethnic constraints.
Moreover, the egalitarian principle of one adult/one vote is tilting political power to the Left, which is why Barack Obama, a self-professed Muslim, as well as an undisguised anti-American, turns a blind eye to illegal Hispanic immigration, on the one hand, and appoints pro-Muslims to his administration, on the other. American “civilization” is evaporating.
Israel is not immune to this problem, given its burgeoning Arab population, now almost 20 percent. Most of these Arabs oppose the existence of the Jewish state. Yet no public official dares address this problem, lest he or she be labeled a “racist.” Sooner or later, however, “heterogeneity of stock” in Israel will explode, and more violently than the Muslim uprisings in France. A Muslim insurrection in Israel will have the support of Israel’s neighbors.
Thus, when a French prime minister reaches out to Muslims by tacitly admitting France has failed to live up to its egalitarian ideals, he is not only seeking Muslim votes; he’s hastening the demise of France.
Like Hamas and other Muslim terrorists, the Muslim “rioting” in France is not animated by economic inequality so much as by ethnic antagonism – again, “heterogeneity of stock.” But it’s precisely French “egalitarian ideals” that provide the political cause of that rioting.
Economic motives aside, French egalitarianism is the ideological cause of France’s permissive immigration laws. More and more European statesmen have begun to see this, and are limiting the immigration of Muslims to their respective countries.
Aristotle was well aware of the economic causes of insurrection and revolution. Gross economic inequality among the citizens of a polis can transform a democracy into an oligarchy and thereby arouse envious resentment and hatred by the poor. This may be happening in Israel. Israel has the greatest income inequality among the developed nations; indeed, a small minority controls the wealth of the country.
Aristotle offers constructive advice on these matters, much of which is consistent with Jewish law. Instead of welfare programs that make citizens dependent on the state, he urges the creation of jobs that will make citizens self-reliant. This will lead to the development of a large middle class, which tends toward moderation and is amenable to the rule of law.
However, just as the laws require the support of morality, so morality requires the support of the laws. But how can morality and the laws integrate ethnic groups having antagonistic conceptions of morality and law? French leaders obscure this dilemma, as do Israeli politicians. Like typical bourgeois, they believe ethnic conflict can be overcome by economic prosperity and equality – the panacea of Shimon Peres’ New Middle East (which has infected Netanyahu).
Here I am reminded of the 1937 Peel Commission Report, which stated: “Although the Arabs [of Palestine] have benefited from the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary, improvement in the economic situation in Palestine has meant the deterioration of the political situation.”
The ethnic and ideological significance of this report seems never to have penetrated the democratic mind, including Netanyahu’s. To this day it is widely believed, by socialists or Marxists as well as by capitalists, that the ultimate cause of conflict is economic scarcity.
Aristotle had a far more comprehensive view of the subject than contemporary political scientists, especially those addicted to “conflict resolution.” It behooves Israeli (as well as European) politicians to consult Aristotle, whose understanding of politics is without equal.☼
Centinel2012 