There has to be a concomitant moral response to why people are driven to destroy one another. To do this here are some salient instructions to follow. Moral rights are a necessity and the way to begin this dialogue is with those whose dignities were violated beyond human recognition. It is a belief that moral human beings have to accept the values of those who survived the horrors of war as the standards of moral righteousness and therefore rights. Blasphemy against God are crimes and no one human being is blameless in this regard. The task lies now in identifying and removing that blasphemy as a means of resurrecting moral law. It is probably hubris to claim that victims of world war II, especially those who perished in labor camps both in Europe and in South Asia, the Jews and those under the rule of a deceitful dictatorship. Non-violent movements during that time is as good place as any to begin such a conversation. But these two events come up over and over again as crimes that are not acceptable. They are not forgivable and never will be because the incidents also were connected to the affairs of God in our lives. The Shoah is not something God accepted, and brutality as a means of living is also not what a loving God accepted. Therefore, the number one lesson that we must draw as moral is that one does not make victimhood a right to their personhood but rather a place of moral contestations. EVERYONE should be a part of this important appeal as it pertains to self-government demonstrated by MK Gandhi and by ambitious democracies in the world such as Israel. Proponents of terror such as ISIS and AlQeida are ruled by the same laws that govern Blasphemy in religion. Their blasphemous activities injure and remove the one on one relationship that human beings are ENTITLED to have with God. No one has the right to take this humanity away. Laws from important religious authorities such as the ones in Jerusalem will take being to take into account events and judge them accordingly. Thus, if one is a terrorist or is training to become one, they should know that the hand of justice is going to reach out to them and mete out concomitant punishment. The only relationship to law a human being has in our world is with free individuals. God is widely acknowledged as the chief advocate of liberty and thus of a different dimension of human freedom, moral liberty. We need God’s help to repair lives and the only way to accomplish is to obey his works. Licentious, predatory, incriminating and other murderous acts that plague our world today have to be accounted for. Both free and enslaved human beings if they espouse the validity of truth dejure establishes all laws, criminal, civil, moral, commercial and so and so forth. Such is the power of truth in action. It is then easy to remove corrupt and disgraced people, whether they are governments, politicians, terrorists, gangsters, law enforcement and every other kind of human being. Without God life is unlivable and this is a moral reality we all accept whether we are religious adherents or adherents of a greater power than ourselves. This is the ONLY way to curb human egotism, the culprit of all actions in this world and beyond.
Why all civil revolutions have been non-violent. Satyagraha as standards of the rule of values. Values as ascertained from the Rabbinate of Yerushalayim.
Individual liberty as peaceful pursuits of innocent people
Throughout his work, Lewis infused an interconnected worldview that championed objective truth, moral ethics, natural law, literary excellence, reason, science, individual liberty, personal responsibility and virtue, and Christian theism. In so doing, he critiqued naturalism, reductionism, nihilism, positivism, scientism, historicism, collectivism, atheism, statism, coercive egalitarianism, militarism, welfarism, and dehumanization and tyranny of all forms. Unlike “progressive” crusaders for predatory government power over the peaceful pursuits of innocent people, Lewis noted that “I do not like the pretensions of Government—the grounds on which it demands my obedience—to be pitched too high. I don’t like the medicine-man’s magical pretensions nor the Bourbon’s Divine Right. This is not solely because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet’s Politique. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ it lies, and lies dangerously.”
Lewis addressed not only the evils of totalitarianism as manifested in fascism and communism, but the more subtle forms that face us on a daily basis, including the welfare, therapeutic, nanny, and scientistic states. “Of all tyrannies,” he stated, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. Throughout his books, he defended the rights and sanctity of individuals against tyranny not just because he opposed evil, but because he considered a life in freedom—including both social and economic freedom—to be essential: “I believe a man is happier, and happy in a richer way, if he had “the freeborn mind.” But I doubt whether he can have this without economic independence, which the new society is abolishing. For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticize its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology.”
Alternately, the term “the politicization of aesthetics” has been used as a term for an ideologically opposing synthesis, sometimes associated with the wherein art is ultimately subordinate to political life and thus a result of it, separate from it, but which is attempted to be incorporated for political use as theory relating to the consequential political nature of art. In Benjamin’s original formulation the politicization of aesthetics was treated conceptually as the polar opposite of the aestheticization of politics, the former treated as a kind of revolutionary praxis and the latter as fascism.