Order out of chaos
Listen to article
Master disclaimer: If I manage to cover all disclaimers in this piece, I will get to the core of my argument today. Otherwise, perhaps I will rename it Disclaimers and leave it at that. But you will appreciate these disclaimers are necessary.
First disclaimer: The phrase "order out of chaos" ("ordo ab chao" in Latin) is often attributed to the 33rd Scottish Rite Masonry. This piece has nothing to do with them. I use the phrase because it resonates with my message, as you will see.
Second disclaimer: There is a beautiful quote attributed to Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of Theranos, a privately owned corporation once touted as a breakthrough health-tech company. It goes like this: "First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the world." Upon closer inspection, it seems to be a paraphrase of the following statement, commonly misattributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
In reality, this too is a rewording of a statement by Nicholas Klein, an American trade union activist speaking in 1918. Consider the statement: "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." I like all three versions because they correspond with my lived experience.
The third disclaimer relates to one of my own recent positions. In my piece titled "Why states fear complexity", dated 14 September 2024, I pointed out that two forces — complexity and acceleration — were making societies too complicated to be governed by any state, resulting in the state's woefully inadequate responses like repression, spin, propaganda and moral pollution. Then I wrote: "With such state-driven projects to subvert and pervert all arguments, moral pollution will only add to complexity... States' reaction to this turf encroachment will not present a pretty sight."
Then I suggested a remedy: "What can ordinary citizens do? The best disruption is the simplest — basic human decency. We can take charge of the future if all decent souls worldwide are vigilant. If you count yourself among them, wake up, be ready to use everything you have got, and watch this space."
You are within your rights to complain that this is the context — where is the disclaimer? So here it is: I believe the simple remedy worked, and is still working.
Now to my core argument today, albeit with some context. In my past columns, I have repeatedly pointed out that in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington was being manipulative rather than prescient. With the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, one can say that his chief purpose was to divide and prime the world for a clash that could conveniently be weaponised and used by his favoured groups and entities.
I have also mentioned that while the direct impact of this sordid propaganda piece started to wane after the retirement of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in 2017 — due to the emergent complexity of politics — two of its and GWOT's key beneficiaries and committed Islamophobes (India and Israel) clung to it as if their lives depended on it. While nations are bigger than ideologies, their ruling elites often are not. Especially when their rise to power and influence can be directly linked to such a virulent ideology or philosophy.
Since the governments headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi have repeatedly tried to reshape their respective countries' internal political structures and the global rule-based order through a clever use of Islamophobia — with diminishing returns and capacity — they have been growing restless.
So, in the past sixty days, both nations initiated dangerous wars. India attacked Pakistan. Israel attacked Iran. Their sense of entitlement has been informed by their experiences spanning decades.
Since Kargil in 1999, India has felt that most of its claims are taken at face value. After 9/11, this trend was solidified. In 2016, it claimed the Uri incident was perpetrated by Pakistan-backed militants, against whom it had carried out a surgical strike. The world did not see any reason to dispute either claim. In 2019, on the cusp of a national election, it again blamed Pakistani militants and claimed to have carried out aerial strikes — again, without much proof. No disputes there either. The international media only questioned the claim about downing an F-16. This time, everything changed.
Likewise, Netanyahu did the same. Since the ghastly attacks of 7 October 2023, he has launched a forever war. Gaza, then Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. But forever wars need superpower-level resources, which Israel lacks. So, his recent attack on Iran was an attempt to externalise the forever war by dragging the US into it. But through his cleverly calculated moves, President Trump demolished that attempt.
The question is: what changed?
The first reason: the law of diminishing returns. If you destroy the international rule-based system to such an extent that it can do nothing about your atrocities in Gaza or Kashmir, then the very order which rescued you repeatedly in the past can no longer come to your rescue. You got greedy and slew the golden goose.
The second reason is even simpler. It speaks to the nature of complexity I flagged earlier. While the inner workings of everything are getting complex, their end result is a simpler interface. For instance, you once needed knowledge and practice to code, make music, or create videos. Now you tell AI what you want and, with some refinement, it delivers results. The same goes for narratives. If you keep calling out propaganda, prejudice, and manipulations consistently and clearly, people begin to listen. Again, this is my lived experience. You need coherence and credibility, not sophisticated perception management. Just tell people what you hear and see. Since they can relate to your estimation of the objective truth, they pay attention.
Now the question is: where do we go from here? These two elements are down but not out. If they can be convinced that the age of spin and conspiracy is over, the world can take a beautiful turn.
But will they? Sadly, there are few signs that they will. In fact, they might want to hurt President Trump. In their diminished capacity, Indians are already trying to do that.
But Mr Trump is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls 'antifragile', growing with every attempt to undermine him. Perhaps after such outdated tactics are exhausted, they may discover a better world is possible: one where all prejudices — Islamophobia, Christianophobia, antisemitism, Hinduphobia — are equally repulsive, and we can all progress in harmony. Order out of chaos, perhaps!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
US SC curtails power of individual judges to block Trump
WASHINGTON: A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents. Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had 'a whole list' of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'No political space in sight for PTI'
Political space for opposition parties, particularly the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), may have further shrunk after the establishment bolstered its ties with the West, as analysts suggest that the beleaguered party's chances of making a political comeback during the current regime were virtually nonexistent. However, they caution that the budding relationship with the Trump administration could be a volatile, double-edged sword for the powers that be. Former Punjab caretaker chief minister and senior political analyst Hasan Askari said that PTI has no political future under the current dispensation, which he described as being firmly controlled by a powerful establishment. According to him, the establishment has only grown stronger in the wake of two mini-wars in the region. 'This setup will not cede any space to PTI, as it would mark the beginning of their own undoing. They cannot afford for PTI to do politicking on the streets. As long as they have power, they will keep Imran behind bars,' Askari said. He further noted that no government since Benazir Bhutto's first stint in power had ceded this much ground to the military as the current one has. Askari said that the current setup, which derives its strength "from the very top," could last for a considerable period. However, when it falls, 'it will go down like a house of cards'. He added that PTI will likely outlive this regime and will 'rise from the ruins' the moment it is granted political space. Regarding Pakistan's relations with the US, he said that Islamabad's 'relations with America will last for as long as their interests and ours are aligned'. Pakistan may benefit in the short term, he added, but this relationship is contextual. 'Tomorrow, when our utility diminishes, so will the warmth in the relationship.' Another political analyst, Rasool Bakhsh Rais, said that while PTI may currently be in a bind, it was rapidly regaining ground. 'PML-N and PPP are steadily losing what little public legitimacy they had,' he said. Rais pointed to the Supreme Court's recent decision to hand over PTI's reserved seats to PML-N and PPP, saying it 'has exposed the underbelly of this hybrid-plus regime'. He said that the West has a long history of supporting dictatorships and autocratic regimes when it suits its interests. 'Even in our case, American support for the establishment is only delegitimising the political government. The system might have gained strength, but constitutionally it has become frail.' He added that PTI founder Imran Khan would not buckle under pressure and would stand his ground. 'Imran Khan is a beacon of hope for Pakistan's political system. His stand is in the interest of the country,' Rais said. He noted that while the current dispensation may ignore public perception for now, 'soon they will understand what the opinion of a common man is worth'. Another analyst, Salman Abid, agreed that cordial ties with the US come at a price. He described the US-Pakistan relationship as purely transactional. 'America has significant strategic interests in this region, and it sees Pakistan as crucial to achieving those goals,' he said, adding that this friendship would not come as a 'free lunch". Abid expressed concern that Pakistan's growing closeness with the US could distance it from its long-time ally, China. 'This system has no political weight, and it will continue to function only so long as it has wind in its sails,' he said. He warned that such power structures in Pakistan have a long history of failing spectacularly.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Order out of chaos
Listen to article Master disclaimer: If I manage to cover all disclaimers in this piece, I will get to the core of my argument today. Otherwise, perhaps I will rename it Disclaimers and leave it at that. But you will appreciate these disclaimers are necessary. First disclaimer: The phrase "order out of chaos" ("ordo ab chao" in Latin) is often attributed to the 33rd Scottish Rite Masonry. This piece has nothing to do with them. I use the phrase because it resonates with my message, as you will see. Second disclaimer: There is a beautiful quote attributed to Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder of Theranos, a privately owned corporation once touted as a breakthrough health-tech company. It goes like this: "First they think you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the world." Upon closer inspection, it seems to be a paraphrase of the following statement, commonly misattributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." In reality, this too is a rewording of a statement by Nicholas Klein, an American trade union activist speaking in 1918. Consider the statement: "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." I like all three versions because they correspond with my lived experience. The third disclaimer relates to one of my own recent positions. In my piece titled "Why states fear complexity", dated 14 September 2024, I pointed out that two forces — complexity and acceleration — were making societies too complicated to be governed by any state, resulting in the state's woefully inadequate responses like repression, spin, propaganda and moral pollution. Then I wrote: "With such state-driven projects to subvert and pervert all arguments, moral pollution will only add to complexity... States' reaction to this turf encroachment will not present a pretty sight." Then I suggested a remedy: "What can ordinary citizens do? The best disruption is the simplest — basic human decency. We can take charge of the future if all decent souls worldwide are vigilant. If you count yourself among them, wake up, be ready to use everything you have got, and watch this space." You are within your rights to complain that this is the context — where is the disclaimer? So here it is: I believe the simple remedy worked, and is still working. Now to my core argument today, albeit with some context. In my past columns, I have repeatedly pointed out that in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington was being manipulative rather than prescient. With the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, one can say that his chief purpose was to divide and prime the world for a clash that could conveniently be weaponised and used by his favoured groups and entities. I have also mentioned that while the direct impact of this sordid propaganda piece started to wane after the retirement of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in 2017 — due to the emergent complexity of politics — two of its and GWOT's key beneficiaries and committed Islamophobes (India and Israel) clung to it as if their lives depended on it. While nations are bigger than ideologies, their ruling elites often are not. Especially when their rise to power and influence can be directly linked to such a virulent ideology or philosophy. Since the governments headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi have repeatedly tried to reshape their respective countries' internal political structures and the global rule-based order through a clever use of Islamophobia — with diminishing returns and capacity — they have been growing restless. So, in the past sixty days, both nations initiated dangerous wars. India attacked Pakistan. Israel attacked Iran. Their sense of entitlement has been informed by their experiences spanning decades. Since Kargil in 1999, India has felt that most of its claims are taken at face value. After 9/11, this trend was solidified. In 2016, it claimed the Uri incident was perpetrated by Pakistan-backed militants, against whom it had carried out a surgical strike. The world did not see any reason to dispute either claim. In 2019, on the cusp of a national election, it again blamed Pakistani militants and claimed to have carried out aerial strikes — again, without much proof. No disputes there either. The international media only questioned the claim about downing an F-16. This time, everything changed. Likewise, Netanyahu did the same. Since the ghastly attacks of 7 October 2023, he has launched a forever war. Gaza, then Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. But forever wars need superpower-level resources, which Israel lacks. So, his recent attack on Iran was an attempt to externalise the forever war by dragging the US into it. But through his cleverly calculated moves, President Trump demolished that attempt. The question is: what changed? The first reason: the law of diminishing returns. If you destroy the international rule-based system to such an extent that it can do nothing about your atrocities in Gaza or Kashmir, then the very order which rescued you repeatedly in the past can no longer come to your rescue. You got greedy and slew the golden goose. The second reason is even simpler. It speaks to the nature of complexity I flagged earlier. While the inner workings of everything are getting complex, their end result is a simpler interface. For instance, you once needed knowledge and practice to code, make music, or create videos. Now you tell AI what you want and, with some refinement, it delivers results. The same goes for narratives. If you keep calling out propaganda, prejudice, and manipulations consistently and clearly, people begin to listen. Again, this is my lived experience. You need coherence and credibility, not sophisticated perception management. Just tell people what you hear and see. Since they can relate to your estimation of the objective truth, they pay attention. Now the question is: where do we go from here? These two elements are down but not out. If they can be convinced that the age of spin and conspiracy is over, the world can take a beautiful turn. But will they? Sadly, there are few signs that they will. In fact, they might want to hurt President Trump. In their diminished capacity, Indians are already trying to do that. But Mr Trump is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls 'antifragile', growing with every attempt to undermine him. Perhaps after such outdated tactics are exhausted, they may discover a better world is possible: one where all prejudices — Islamophobia, Christianophobia, antisemitism, Hinduphobia — are equally repulsive, and we can all progress in harmony. Order out of chaos, perhaps!
