"...traditions are never defended. If they need to be defended, the cause is
already lost. Traditions are supported and, if they’re no longer
supported, collapse."
Comment by bjk on The American Conservative.
Friday, August 10, 2012
It's all about me
Apparently there was once a book published, entitled Everything That Men Know About Women.
Every page was blank.
Ho, ho, ho.
Of course, as a stunt, a book entitled Everything That Women Know About Men would be too expensive to produce.
Every page would be a mirror.
Every page was blank.
Ho, ho, ho.
Of course, as a stunt, a book entitled Everything That Women Know About Men would be too expensive to produce.
Every page would be a mirror.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Syria
It's the truth, man.
What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?
Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.
Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.
Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.
Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.
But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?
The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.
The kids are alright, man.
The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.
When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.
So, what is going on in the middle-east?
The ending of the Cold War, that's what.
Jigsaw pieces.
The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.
Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.
In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.
When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.
The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.
What now?
The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.
America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.
Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.
America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.
Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.
Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.
Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.
If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).
Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.
And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.
Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.
Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?
What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?
Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.
Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.
Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.
Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.
But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?
The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.
The kids are alright, man.
The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.
When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.
So, what is going on in the middle-east?
The ending of the Cold War, that's what.
Jigsaw pieces.
The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.
Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.
In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.
When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.
The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.
What now?
The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.
America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.
Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.
America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.
Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.
Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.
Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.
If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).
Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.
And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.
Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.
Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Decline and Fall
For his novel Foundation, Isaac Asimov is said to have been inspired by Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Wherever he got his information from, he certainly understood the symptoms of a society in decline, as evinced by this scene in Foundation:
'"We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the periphery they've lost atomic power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has blown up because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that atomic technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict atomic power."'
That was in 1951. This year, in Britain, after a series of relatively dry winters that have depleted underground aquifers, a couple of months of almost continuous rain has produced frequent flash flooding. First because the ground was too dry to absorb it, then because the ground was too wet to absorb it.
Continuous immigration and urban expansion in the south-east of England has resulted in water shortages and hosepipe bans. Because the infra-structure in place was built by the Victorians and is now out of date, having been unable to keep pace with population needs.
And the solution? To build more reservoirs that can trap and store all that flood water flushing down towards the sea?
No. The chief recommendation is that water meters should be made mandatory in everyone's homes to discourage them from using water.
This is in Britain, an island surrounded by water, and with a temperate, exceedingly damp climate. But current fashions dictate that we treat water as scarce.
This is a minor example of the mindset of decline that Asimov highlighted. Of course he was talking about 'atomic' power, so how does this compare to the ideas surrounding nuclear power today?
Well, nuclear power is being rolled back too. The recent tsunami in Japan and the problems it caused when a nuclear reactor went into meltdown has caused a rethink of nuclear power there, but nuclear power is also being abandoned in Germany, in spite of it having a good safety record there. And France, 100% self sufficient in carbon-free electricity thanks to it's unique and far-sighted nuclear network, is also cutting back, with the incoming President Hollande pledging to cut France's nuclear power generators by half.
Europe has been in decline since 1914. Its greater exposure to the 2008 credit crash - in spite of being more social-democrat and less casino-capitalist than the US - is down to its systemic weakness and its crumbling foundations.
It could also be put down to what could be called a 'decline mindset'.
'"We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the periphery they've lost atomic power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has blown up because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that atomic technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict atomic power."'
That was in 1951. This year, in Britain, after a series of relatively dry winters that have depleted underground aquifers, a couple of months of almost continuous rain has produced frequent flash flooding. First because the ground was too dry to absorb it, then because the ground was too wet to absorb it.
Continuous immigration and urban expansion in the south-east of England has resulted in water shortages and hosepipe bans. Because the infra-structure in place was built by the Victorians and is now out of date, having been unable to keep pace with population needs.
And the solution? To build more reservoirs that can trap and store all that flood water flushing down towards the sea?
No. The chief recommendation is that water meters should be made mandatory in everyone's homes to discourage them from using water.
This is in Britain, an island surrounded by water, and with a temperate, exceedingly damp climate. But current fashions dictate that we treat water as scarce.
This is a minor example of the mindset of decline that Asimov highlighted. Of course he was talking about 'atomic' power, so how does this compare to the ideas surrounding nuclear power today?
Well, nuclear power is being rolled back too. The recent tsunami in Japan and the problems it caused when a nuclear reactor went into meltdown has caused a rethink of nuclear power there, but nuclear power is also being abandoned in Germany, in spite of it having a good safety record there. And France, 100% self sufficient in carbon-free electricity thanks to it's unique and far-sighted nuclear network, is also cutting back, with the incoming President Hollande pledging to cut France's nuclear power generators by half.
Europe has been in decline since 1914. Its greater exposure to the 2008 credit crash - in spite of being more social-democrat and less casino-capitalist than the US - is down to its systemic weakness and its crumbling foundations.
It could also be put down to what could be called a 'decline mindset'.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
"Sometimes the warlords decide that everything worthy of plunder has been extracted, and that the hitherto rich sources of revenue have dried up. Then they begin the so-called peace process. They convene a meeting of the opposing sides (the 'warring factions conference'), they sign an agreement, and set a date for elections. In response, the World Bank extends to them all manner of loans and credits. Now the warlords are even richer than they were before, because you can get significantly more from the World Bank than from your own starving kinsmen."
Ryszard Kapuscinki - The Shadow of the Sun
Ryszard Kapuscinki - The Shadow of the Sun
Monday, April 16, 2012
Good vs Reason
Gerrard Winstanley once wrote; "Let Reason rule in man and he dares not trespass against his fellow creature, but will do as he would be done unto..."
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)