The Rebellion of Anarchy is Not New.

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 6, 2012 at 14:26

As the world goes through its convulsions of determining how to achieve peace, one thing remains apparent from time immemorial; a subliminal disregard for authority. It should be no wonder that this is as much a problem for mankind as any in a time when fighting for dominance over others seems the paramount objective in many places, not the least of which it the Middle East.

Anarchy is innate in human nature; a source of rebellion that is derived from youth against the authority of parents; and more easily engendered in those participants which had little or no affirming parental guidance that is eventually directed against governmental control. It further gains momentum when associated as it is by some with a utopian mindset that individuals are thought to be more at peace in interrelations without government influences.

Were mankind bereft of the common influences of selfishness, jealousy and other characteristics of the innate war like character, a utopian philosophic stance might be adopted. History has myriad proofs that this is unsustainable. Anarchy in its more recognizable form of terrorist rebellion is then easily revealed as the means for some to throw off the perception of acknowledging a rule of law and/or government, even in place where rule of law has demonstrated a limited form of benevolence.

But more typically, a beneficial government once considered as an appropriate means under which people may live a secured lifestyle is undermined by a sector of society that takes advantage of the security and 'steals' the peace for selfish profit, thereby opening the argument once again that efforts towards utopia might be achievable by government imposition-an oxymoron if ever there was one. Thus the return is made to the basic instinct of every man for himself.

But anarchy becomes a tool. Witness the more modern events that led to the Russian revolution in 1917. Once the efforts of deposing the Czarist regime was accomplished, a government, albeit communistic, replaced the anarchism. In the context of this forum, is this not what we are seeing today in the Middle East? Terrorism under the color of Islam is rejected by the 'moderate' Muslim as a radical means to an end is nothing more than an anarchist scheme of deposing the current government for the ideal of ridding government once and for all; yet government (whether theocratic, oligarchic, military, totalitarian or otherwise) finally gains control.

Anarchy is not new; it resurfaces all too often, sometimes many times in one's lifetime. As a threat, it lays in the water like a crocodile waiting for its chance yet again for an unsuspecting victim to enter into calm waters, springing into action when its opportunity approaches; then returns to the deep to wait again for the next time.

Rampant anarchy, that of a worldwide pandemic of rebellion is ripe for the argument of a world wide solution to quell the rebellion. Think about the intentions of the Iranian Islamic revolution: is this not what they are hoping for to gain supremacy for the al-Madhi? As such, who really thinks that the government of the United States is going to convince the world of peace when the government of the United States has no more control over the anarchy elsewhere than any nation in the past?

There is only one rule to counter anarchy: obedience to the higher power. The question remaining-whose higher power is one going to be obedient to?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".