Have you ever asked yourself why it is that when reading a
presentation that was put together by someone discussing what they want for
themselves or what they would deny to others, you can easily identify one that
was put together by a Jew? If you did, the answer is that the Jews are raised
to be absolute about the rights they believe they are entitled to; the very
rights they absolutely believe no on else is entitled to.
That approach strips every presentation they make (be it to
give themselves or to deny to others) of any sense of understanding that we
live in a society bound by a “Social Contract” we have among ourselves. We
constantly invoke the provisions of that contract to bargain for what we wish to
give ourselves or what we would deny to someone else. In doing so, we are never
so absolute as to believe that our rights cannot be reduced or that the rights
of others cannot be expanded.
This view contrasts sharply with that of the Jews who
believe that their “Compact” is not a social contract drawn up with their
fellow man; it is one they made with God long ago, a compact that is full of
promises they believe God wants them to grab by hook or by crook … by deception
or by hypocrisy … by pounding on the table or by groveling on their knees.
You will detect these tendencies when you read two articles
published on December 1, 2015 in National Review Online. One article came under
the title “Airbrushing Our Collective Memory,” written by Victor Davis Hanson.
The other came under the title: “A Response to the 'Trauma' of
Institutionalized Racism at Columbia
University
Rather than review the two articles – which eloquently speak
for themselves, anyway – what follows is a discussion on how the social
contract came to be, and what it stands for in a diverse society.
Words that relate to a system of governance such as
'liberty', 'individual rights' and 'democracy', are abstract concepts that
acquire a concrete meaning when processed by the cultural disposition of the
recipient hearing them. This is why it is imperative to define these words
before we start a conversation on the related subjects, or we end up living a
dissonance of the kind that fated the Tower of Babble
When I hear any of those words and wish to find out how I
would define it, I start with the idea that all organisms begin life as free
agents, motivated by their instinct and what they must do to stay alive. This
being the case, all species live a good part of their lives free to do what
they decide for themselves. But as we get higher on the evolutionary ladder, we
see that the species tend to have a more rigid hierarchical social structure;
one that imposes stricter limitations on the individual. This is necessary because
the welfare of the species and its progress depend on rules that apply to
everyone in the group.
Because we, human beings, are situated at the highest rung
of the evolutionary ladder, we developed a set of social norms that is
exceedingly elaborate. It helped us achieve all the things that we enjoy –
things that go beyond anything the other species were able to muster or to give
themselves … and yet, we always yearn to return to the simple life. We dream of
a life that does not rob us of the liberty to follow our instinct – one that
would allow us to live free of the rules that restrict or forbid us from fully
engaging in certain activities.
Alas, it is getting evermore difficult to live that kind of
a life for even a short vacation we might take once or twice in a lifetime. And
so, we accept being condemned to live the bargain we made; that which is
spelled out in the social contract; the set of documents which bind us to the
larger group with rules we obey or become an outcast. It is a social contract
that is a testament to the tradeoff we must make at every moment between
personal liberty and the benefit that we draw from living in an organized
society. As law abiding citizens, we strive to honor that bargain the best way
that we can while enjoying the fruits of leading a civilized existence.
The trouble is that all of our wishes cannot be fulfilled
just for the asking. Instead, we find ourselves constantly negotiating with
other individuals, with institutions or with the state itself to acquire a little
more of what we believe is due to us. Most of the time, we give up something to
get something; at other times we give up nothing in return for what we get
because the right of citizenship allows us certain preordained entitlements
which the state is obligated to deliver to us in accordance with the provisions
of the social contract.
Now, depending on how we define the words that pertain to
the system of governance under which we live, each of us has a different view
as to how much we are entitled to receive in return for what we are asked to
cede. In a pluralistic society where varied cultural groups live together,
things become even more complicated because the interpretation of what the
social contract promises, differs from group to group. This happens because
each group would have a different definition for words like 'liberty',
'individual rights' and 'democracy', a situation that leads to the varied views
we develop for the rules by which we must all live.