How Respect For Infamy Subconsciously Taught
Does USA Academia Teach Respect for Wealth & the Leader Principle?
In a society, institutions teach insidiously the subconscious often more efficiently than what they profess officially. Precisely because, being insidious, the “teaching” is subconscious, surreptitious, thus undefended against.
American Academia teaches the Leader Principle (Hitler’s Fuerer Prinzip in German) in subtle ways.
One way to do that is to give a human being’s name to prestigious chairs. Then proudly, firmly and very officially, it is announced, often by the beneficiary himself, that said beneficiary of the Chair is “The Blah Blah Von Bloh Bloh Bloh Professor of Such and Such at the University of This and That”).
Thus, the impression is imprinted on teenagers that it is by the good grace of someone extremely wealthy that the professing professor seems to have been created. Hence wealth creates intellectual, academic authority.
[French soldiers were killed in combat in the CAR, while stopping a huge civil war/holocaust in the making; All the more a reason to act well, with nothing to hide.]
One can instill reverence for money in a myriad of related ways. Buildings get named according to wealthy individuals or corporations. The (self-described) “best” universities flaunt their wealth, in billions of dollars (they call that wealth “endowment”).
Better: one can force students to pay “tuition” which is of the order of the average family income. Thus wealth, and wealth only, makes access to knowledge and wisdom possible.
(Some will object that there are scholarships given on merit, or “racial”, ethnic, or gender reasons. However, the fact remains that even the scholarship are processed, loud and clear according to wealth distributed.)
The “Leader Principle” is continuously taught in the USA. The paradox is that a real democracy is ruled by the People, not leaders. So the very prominence of the Leader Principle admits that democracy is secondary.
How To Avoid War Crimes:
Some soldiers in the French Army were accused in a secret United Nations report of sex abuse against some boys in the Central Africa Republic (CAR) during the on-going Operation Sangaris. The report was leaked to the French Military by a UN official, and the French immediately started an enquiry.
Now it has become a huge affair. The UN heavily depends upon the French Military to intervene all over Africa, ever since French paratroopers blocked the Cuban army from invading Congo (wars Shaba I and II), and engaged in spectacular operations such as the rescue of Kolwezi.
16 soldiers are involved (and, apparently, only 4 of them French, contrarily to what journalists in England claimed; others were Africans, yet still under the UN Mandate).
In any case, full light will be made: the French Republic recognizes the authority of the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed by its own soldiers.
Overall, the greatest difference between the Western democracies and their enemies in the Twentieth Century, was that they (mostly) did not engage in war crimes.
Perhaps the greatest crime was committed in Algeria in 1945, when the French engaged in a crack-down against would-be independentists (or just ex-soldiers who wanted full rights). This did not work well, as ultimately, as a result of this (war) crime, a terrible civil war happened in France and Algeria (which is basically unresolved to this day!)
Right, the French engaged in torture in Algeria (but that was entirely excusable). Right, the USA engaged in massacres in Vietnam (but the most famous such massacre, My-Lai, was prosecuted). Right, the greatest crime of the USA in Vietnam, clearly a massive war crime, the usage of Agent Orange, was abominable (one million were killed, disabled, or severely affected). But it can be argued that these dangers were not clear at the time (the British had used defoliants during the Malaysian Emergency, without a significant outcry).
And of course the British, French and Americans had been pretty rough with the Nazis in 1944-45, to the point the Nazis had whined about it. Surrendering to Americans was difficult, they tended to shoot until there was obvious peace; the British fired-bombed cities… But, there again, the Nazis had got it all started. The first raid in Germany, a raid on Berlin, by French Naval aviation, was a direct retaliation to Nazi attacks on French cities…
The USA has gone, though, the other way, in recent years. Obvious war crimes in Iraq were covered-up for all to see. And the USA does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court.
Too bad Obama did not have the guts, and brains, to even try to change these things, when he (supposedly) controlled the politics of the USA, six years ago.
Instead, those who reveal the crimes were prosecuted. This subconsciously teaches the world that it is OK for violence to be used criminally by authority in the USA. And thus by any authority, anywhere in the world. And then even by those who have no authority.