East and West

M

Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakr

Registered Member
How will the world look if the East controls it? You will not even be able to express your opinion individually, as you are saying it now here on Facebook or in any other open space. East is East, and West is West. This is not a geographical phrase, but a realistic description of two radically different paths in understanding the human being. Imagine a world dominated by Eastern countries in all their forms, from the Middle East to Asia, including China and Japan. In this world, asylum will not be a right, but a rare exception. And citizenship will not be the result of integration, but will face a hundred layers of discrimination, sorting, suspicion, and cultural and ethnic classification. The world today is divided, not only geographically between East and West, but in terms of the possibility of being welcomed as a human being, as a free individual. Either you are treated as an individual responsible for yourself, or you are shackled within a herd, even if it is called “discipline.” For the East wants you to bring the tribe, ethnicity, ancestors, and the first and last with you, even inside your bedroom. In the East, you cannot reach a position in the state while being an immigrant. You will not see a head of state like Barack Obama, nor a decision-maker like Sadiq Khan, or many other names who reached high positions in Europe and America despite their immigrant origins. This humanity will find no structural counterpart in the East. If you ever think of traveling or escaping from your country to live the rest of your life — neither as a tourist nor as a temporary visitor — you will head West. Even the refugee, when fleeing, does not think of the East, but heads West. So why all this hypocrisy in denying this truth? The world is divided today between two clear systems: a system that understands and respects the individual human being, and a system that suppresses the individual in the name of the group, the state, or identity. In the West, even the concept of the state itself has transformed from a person or individual authority into an institutional system. The state there is not based on the leader, but on the law, and is not reduced to a person, but is distributed among institutions. For this reason, the internal structure is stronger; because every individual takes their right within the system, and cannot be used as a tool to fragment the state from within, nor as fuel for mobilization against it at the first crisis. America and Europe did not “win” by technology and industry alone, but because they redefined the position of the human being within the system: they turned the individual into a protectable legal file, turned suffering into a procedure that can be dealt with, and turned the idea into a right that is not punished. In contrast, any system that seeks “victory” without individual freedom, without protection for difference, and without recognition of the exceptional case, is like one who wants to build a skyscraper… without a foundation. The world, if these models prevail, will be shaped in a disturbing oppressive way in the name of conservatism, which is not conservatism, but molds of oppression and coercion that will find no ear to hear it; even if there are technically strong and industrially advanced areas in the East, they will remain repulsive to the different human being, suppressing freedoms, looking at individuals intrusively in the name of their violation of the pattern of molds, and not with respect that each person represents an individual in themselves.

...

Regards:

Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakri
 
Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakr said:
How will the world look if the East controls it? You will not even be able to express your opinion individually, as you are saying it now here on Facebook or in any other open space. East is East, and West is West. This is not a geographical phrase, but a realistic description of two radically different paths in understanding the human being.

Imagine a world dominated by Eastern countries in all their forms, from the Middle East to Asia, including China and Japan. In this world, asylum will not be a right, but a rare exception. And citizenship will not be the result of integration, but will face a hundred layers of discrimination, sorting, suspicion, and cultural and ethnic classification. The world today is divided, not only geographically between East and West, but in terms of the possibility of being welcomed as a human being, as a free individual. [...]
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the West also invented the intellectual weapons for undermining itself, that "Eastern" countries like China, NK, and Vietnam actually inherited. So in some instances the global decolonization of Euro influence and the mass integration or hybridization of conflicting cultures will involve just feeding the West's own ordure back to it. The missionary work of Christianity was a vanguard of colonization that contributed to the rise of Western oppression, so it's only healing justice that secular romance with religions like Islam and formerly downtrodden indigenous beliefs (guided by humanities and social sciences recommendations) gradually replace the devious and exploitive Jesus stuff in terms of elevated cultural respect.

For almost a century (excluding classic collectivist developments in the 19th-century), occidentalism has been on a self-deprecating guilt trip into devising those academic tools for derailing its own Enlightenment tendencies, deeming itself to be the primary hegemony in history that has committed great evil. While capitalism exhibits enormous resourcefulness in even adapting to some contemporary authoritarian systems (kind of reminiscent of Buddhism's ability to flex to new circumstances), that would be an absurd hope for eventual "rescue". It just means -- contrary to what Western experts believed back in the 1990s -- that heavy participation in commercialism and markets actually does not erode tyrannical states (their restrictions on and control of speech). Capitalism is inherently opportunistic rather than ethically liberating.

Given that civilization has wallowed beneath the covers of rigid rule for most of its history, a return to such is more the revival of normality than a throwback to darkness. And like China, tomorrow's regimes will be paternalistic in a better way, actually investing in the welfare of their citizens alongside the intense technological monitoring of their activities (evaluating them as subversive or not).
_
 
Re-formatted for readability:

Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakr: paragraphs = clarity of thought = effective communication


"How will the world look if the East controls it? You will not even be able to express your opinion individually, as you are saying it now here on Facebook or in any other open space.

East is East, and West is West. This is not a geographical phrase, but a realistic description of two radically different paths in understanding the human being.

Imagine a world dominated by Eastern countries in all their forms, from the Middle East to Asia, including China and Japan. In this world, asylum will not be a right, but a rare exception. And citizenship will not be the result of integration, but will face a hundred layers of discrimination, sorting, suspicion, and cultural and ethnic classification.The world today is divided, not only geographically between East and West, but in terms of the possibility of being welcomed as a human being, as a free individual. Either you are treated as an individual responsible for yourself, or you are shackled within a herd, even if it is called “discipline.”

For the East wants you to bring the tribe, ethnicity, ancestors, and the first and last with you, even inside your bedroom.
In the East, you cannot reach a position in the state while being an immigrant. You will not see a head of state like Barack Obama, nor a decision-maker like Sadiq Khan, or many other names who reached high positions in Europe and America despite their immigrant origins. This humanity will find no structural counterpart in the East.

If you ever think of traveling or escaping from your country to live the rest of your life — neither as a tourist nor as a temporary visitor — you will head West. Even the refugee, when fleeing, does not think of the East, but heads West.

So why all this hypocrisy in denying this truth?

The world is divided today between two clear systems: a system that understands and respects the individual human being, and a system that suppresses the individual in the name of the group, the state, or identity.

In the West, even the concept of the state itself has transformed from a person or individual authority into an institutional system. The state there is not based on the leader, but on the law, and is not reduced to a person, but is distributed among institutions.

For this reason, the internal structure is stronger; because every individual takes their right within the system, and cannot be used as a tool to fragment the state from within, nor as fuel for mobilization against it at the first crisis.

America and Europe did not “win” by technology and industry alone, but because they redefined the position of the human being within the system: they turned the individual into a protectable legal file, turned suffering into a procedure that can be dealt with, and turned the idea into a right that is not punished.

In contrast, any system that seeks “victory” without individual freedom, without protection for difference, and without recognition of the exceptional case, is like one who wants to build a skyscraper… without a foundation.

The world, if these models prevail, will be shaped in a disturbing oppressive way in the name of conservatism, which is not conservatism, but molds of oppression and coercion that will find no ear to hear it; even if there are technically strong and industrially advanced areas in the East, they will remain repulsive to the different human being, suppressing freedoms, looking at individuals intrusively in the name of their violation of the pattern of molds, and not with respect that each person represents an individual in themselves."
 
DaveC426913 said:
Re-formatted for readability:

Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakr: paragraphs = clarity of thought = effective communication


"How will the world look if the East controls it? You will not even be able to express your opinion individually, as you are saying it now here on Facebook or in any other open space.

East is East, and West is West. This is not a geographical phrase, but a realistic description of two radically different paths in understanding the human being.

Imagine a world dominated by Eastern countries in all their forms, from the Middle East to Asia, including China and Japan. In this world, asylum will not be a right, but a rare exception. And citizenship will not be the result of integration, but will face a hundred layers of discrimination, sorting, suspicion, and cultural and ethnic classification.The world today is divided, not only geographically between East and West, but in terms of the possibility of being welcomed as a human being, as a free individual. Either you are treated as an individual responsible for yourself, or you are shackled within a herd, even if it is called “discipline.”

For the East wants you to bring the tribe, ethnicity, ancestors, and the first and last with you, even inside your bedroom.
In the East, you cannot reach a position in the state while being an immigrant. You will not see a head of state like Barack Obama, nor a decision-maker like Sadiq Khan, or many other names who reached high positions in Europe and America despite their immigrant origins. This humanity will find no structural counterpart in the East.

If you ever think of traveling or escaping from your country to live the rest of your life — neither as a tourist nor as a temporary visitor — you will head West. Even the refugee, when fleeing, does not think of the East, but heads West.

So why all this hypocrisy in denying this truth?

The world is divided today between two clear systems: a system that understands and respects the individual human being, and a system that suppresses the individual in the name of the group, the state, or identity.

In the West, even the concept of the state itself has transformed from a person or individual authority into an institutional system. The state there is not based on the leader, but on the law, and is not reduced to a person, but is distributed among institutions.

For this reason, the internal structure is stronger; because every individual takes their right within the system, and cannot be used as a tool to fragment the state from within, nor as fuel for mobilization against it at the first crisis.

America and Europe did not “win” by technology and industry alone, but because they redefined the position of the human being within the system: they turned the individual into a protectable legal file, turned suffering into a procedure that can be dealt with, and turned the idea into a right that is not punished.

In contrast, any system that seeks “victory” without individual freedom, without protection for difference, and without recognition of the exceptional case, is like one who wants to build a skyscraper… without a foundation.

The world, if these models prevail, will be shaped in a disturbing oppressive way in the name of conservatism, which is not conservatism, but molds of oppression and coercion that will find no ear to hear it; even if there are technically strong and industrially advanced areas in the East, they will remain repulsive to the different human being, suppressing freedoms, looking at individuals intrusively in the name of their violation of the pattern of molds, and not with respect that each person represents an individual in themselves."
Click to expand...
Thank you very much
 
I read the bible. I know what I'm going to write is not a reliable source but it's my thing.

After the story of the flood, apparently Noah was depressed, who knows. He discovered that fermented grape can provide an excellent drink that can diminish his sad status. Because it is hard to any person to be watching lands that were so fertile before and now converted in desert areas after water covered everything.

I guess this situation is the one taking Noah to find refuge in alcohol. No AA help was available in those days. One day Noah was so drunk, that he ended naked and sleeping somewhere. Regardless of what really happened between his son Cam and drunk Noah, point is that when Noah came back to his senses, he found out what happened.

He decided then, to reward the good behavior of his sons Shem and Yaphet. And surely with great pain, because I heard is painful, he cursed the firstborn of Ham.

From here, we have that Shem (I know you won't like what you are going to read next, but...) is the white race we know today. Yaphet is the yellow race we know today. Ham is the black race we know today.

The distribution of the descendants of these three brothers was Shem standing in that area and going towards what is today's Europe. Yaphet was to move to the East. Ham was to move to the South. Of course, in those times what it was North was South, and what it was South was North. This is topic for other discussions if any.

Let's keep with Noah and his three sons.

To Shem, Noah gave him the best blessings. By the way Noah wasn't a racist guy, in those times Yaphet also carried sons with white color skin. Gossip from ancient legends say that in the ark something happened to Ham that changed him physically, others say it was right after, others even before the flood. No one knows with certainty.

Point is that Noah mentioned that Yaphet will enjoy the tents of Shem.

In other words, Yaphet will also enjoy wealth similar to Shem's.

When we observe today's map, we see South Korea, China, Japan, India, Vietnam and several other eastern countries enjoying wealth similar to Western countries. Of course their wealth is not evenly distributed between populations, but yes, they do run machines and produce well.

To me, biblically speaking, the eastern nations are not to rule the world but are enjoying wealth similar to Westerns.

Hard to accept it, but this is a beautiful coincidence caused by Noah's hangover.
 
Luchito:

I think your biblical mythology stuff would be better suited to the Religion forum than to World Events.

Don't you?
 
Luchito said:
The distribution of the descendants of these three brothers was Shem standing in that area and going towards what is today's Europe. Yaphet was to move to the East. Ham was to move to the South. Of course, in those times what it was North was South, and what it was South was North. This is topic for other discussions if any.
Click to expand...
Wow the similarities are just so....
6,000 years ago.
"Middle-earth is the main continent of Earth (Arda) in an imaginary period of the past, ending with Tolkien's Third Age, about 6,000 years ago. Tolkien's tales of Middle-earth mostly focus on the north-west of the continent. This region is suggestive of Europe, the north-west of the Old World, with the environs of the Shire reminiscent of England, but, more specifically, the West Midlands, with the town at its centre, Hobbiton, at the same latitude as Oxford."
Middle-Earth
so, Shem was standing on the North West part of the continent of Middle-Earth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top