C U L T U R E

C U L T U R E O R E L S E
54p 20,851w 070908
---------------------------------------------------------
CULTURE AND OCHLOCRACY --

A POET'S PROPHECY CULTURE & TRAMPS THE ANTI CULTURE CULTURE "P.C." POMPOUS-ASSISM, CHINESE HONEY BOATS THE AQUARIUS DILUTION STUDENTS FADS THE PHILOSOPHY STRAIN THE DISCONCERTING INTELLECTUAL INTELLECTUAL MUTATIONS GENIUS REWARDEDINCOMPETENCE FACING THE SNAKE BENEFICIAL HYPOCRISY THE KNIGHT AND DAMSEL SYNDROME ADVERSARY STALEMATE SAVING ENDANGERED SURPLUS THE HATE LEGIONS SOCIALISM FOR THE BARNACLES -- ONE-WORLD -- DESPISE THY KIND CYBERNETIC MUTATION FORMED OR INFORMED THE MEDIA GAME THROW THE MASK THE GENETIC COOKBOOK EVEN THE SMITHSONIAN -- THE QWANZAA THING -- SCRAMBLED THOUGHTS
---------------------------------------------------------
.****************************************************************************************

CULTURE AND OCHLOCRACY

Culture, as enlightened excellence acquired by working, intellectual, and moral training, began as an entity within -but distinguished from- the mass of mankind.
It was so special that it developed its own refined fragility and tutelary high priests who sought to nurture it with sacredness and mysteries, like Pythagoras (ca. 580-500 b. c.) in Southern Italy.
It encompassed wisdom, knowledge, taste, and depended on communication by words, represented by ideograms and alphabets.
With the invention of paper in China ( by Ts'ai Lun, ca.erg, ca. 1450 a. d.), culture was gradually unleashed to the uninitiated "general public", but without the esoteric protection of undisputed mysteries and sacredness against sacrilegious contamination.
That opened an inviting door to the ochlocracy (= rule by the mobs), whose members learned, absorbed and misused too much of what they understood too little.
Unfortunately, man was as barbarically impatient as to implement legislated instant-culture before knowing the uncontrollable consequences, as in today's political/economic theories, biological manipulations, religious and educational interpretations.

What used to be cautiously gradual and controlled initiation ended in the hands of prematurely ambitious politicians and educators, deceived by glib confidence in human nature la Rousseau.
This was and is aggravated by the democratic necessity of flattering the masses for their unpredictable support.
The resulting growing primitivism in the functions assigned to culture put the state in control of education, to breed conforming (rather than knowledgeable) citizens and employees.
That distorted to this day the conception of culture's nature and purpose.
Instant-culture became today's anti-culture.
The "postmodern" teaching establishment has become its Church and Inquisition.
The public is only now becoming aware of what looks like a Satanic joke to some.
Since there are no accredited teachers to re-educate the "deconstructionist" teachers, the latter are becoming the destructive termites of true culture.

They are the loose cannons rolling on the deck of Western culture's ship.

=======================================================================

A POET'S PROPHECY
In his Christmas oratorio "For The Time Being" (published in 1944), the poet W. H. Auden let king Herod prophesy the consequences of Jesus Christ's advent as follows:

"Reason will be replaced by revelation. I
Instead of Rational Law, objective truths perceptible to any who will undergo the necessary intellectual discipline, knowledge will degenerate into a riot of subjective visions...

Whole cosmogonies will be created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private languages, daubs of schoolchildren ranked above the greatest masterpieces.
Idealism will be replaced by materialism.

Life after death will be an eternal dinner party where all the guests are 20 years old...
Justice will be replaced by Pity as the cardinal human virtue, and all fear of retribution will vanish...

The New Aristocracy will consist exclusively of hermits, bums and permanent invalids.
The Rough Diamond, the Consumptive Whore, the bandit who is good to his mother, the epileptic girl who has a way with animals will be the heroes and heroines of the New Age, when the general, the statesman, and the philosopher have become the butt of every farce.

Did W. H. Auden think that Jesus was a hippie?
Interestingly, Jesus Christ (0-33 a. d.), like Socrates (470 b. c.-399 b. c.), left no written records. We know of Socrates' philosophy from what his direct disciple Plato wrote in
his famous "Dialogs".
Paul of Tarsus (unknown birth and death dates, but surely alive after jesus died), the main formulator of the written Christian teachings in the "New Testament' (they might just as well be called "Paulist Religion", or "Paulianity" instead of "Christianity")...

The point is open to a puzzling but inane debate...

========================================================================================================================================================= ==========================================

CULTURE & TRAMPS
Culture, seen as an accomplished level of knowledge, social, intellectual, and artistic achievements in a society, in the historic (or oddly called "German") interpretation,
it is often a synonym with good breeding, sophisticated, gracious behavior and most
attributes of human excellence.
In principle, it is still so.

Today, however, culture is being unnecessarily "popularized" to designate any type or societal development state, so that the term "civilization" is more precise for the general total, including also any habits and folklore.
The media and some educators use the term "culture" also for primitive societies.

In the evolution from primitive to higher levels, we can perceive the dark lining of cloudy knowledge.
Crowds of half-educated tourists gather around cultural centers like flies on honey,
attracted by any form of culture that -they hope- can be absorbed without l self discipline or learning.
Catering to art centers is the least demanding means to presumed cultural ascent.

It is a good ersatz for the feeling of self esteem that is Here, the qualification "culture" designates only to an educated and refined level of knowledge and talent in literary, history, disciplined knowledge of any kind; artistic and related activities and results. Democratization of culture has created a large class of experts, but also a larger class of superficially informed persons who expect but cannot obtain cultural status recognition.

The only satisfaction left to them is self congratulation for having a "sophisticated" interest in no matter what they believe they understand.
It is true that art and culture welcome anyone who is interested, but we now have new cultural pundits who redefine art and literature down to their own level.
That means, unfortunately, that the reader or viewer is the ultimate judge, no matter how little he understands, and regardless of what the authors meant.

That plays into the hands of the "deconstructionists", who predicate that the observer or reader (no matter how incompetent), not the author, decides what a book or work of art means.
With the ubiquitous spreading of communication media, culture has been shown in the most remote spots of our society, and readily acknowledged also by the least cultured people.
Even if they understand it, the effects of this new situation can be observed in, and around cultural landmarks, from the Louvre to the Smithsonian.
Most of these places are infested by those who loiter where they can feel good about themselves, in spite of their self-esteeming ignorance.

Another way to feel good about themselves is to protest against established institutions or sduccessfu lnitiatives.
Do the successful happen to be mostly white males in Western culture?
Then: holy war against the white male and the Western culture.

That does not refer to the informed and uninformed who honestly thirst for more knowledge and improvement: They are even more welcome, for culture may benefit the beginners most.

There is a large category of people who learn only what reinforces their resentment against a society in which they have not succeeded yet.
They lack the talent, self-discipline and emotional equilibrium to be useful.
In some cases, they are in a period of transition, like caterpillars before becoming butterflies.

They find their greatest satisfaction in protesting and rioting, which is much easier than learning and producing.
There are some crowds who oppose nuclear energy, on the basis of opinions without competence (they may be right in some cases, but for the wrong reasons).

They are those who want to prove they love peace by brutally attacking anyone who disagrees with them.
The more bellicose they are, the more they feel they are waging war and hatred in favor of peace and love. Just like the suicide bombers and their clergy'
They abhor campaigning for constructive action that would force them to learn the skills for whatever they aspire to.

The only positive things they would advocate are the things they want other people to work and pay for.

Only their peers believe them. Unfortunately, their peers are multiplying in the leftist environment. Politicians covet their votes...
It is not always understood that the greed for votes can prostitute politicians just like money greed.
Clinton's famed surrender to polls was said to have the same corruptive effect, as he was reputed to change his convictions and policies according to poll results.

THE ANTI CULTURE CULTURE

Male Chauvinism", "African American History", just to mention a few
darling subjects, are rungs of the instant golden ladders toward tenured kitsch professorships in the most prestigious American universities.
They have no intellectual significance.
As most assumptions of the new fads are being proven untrue, the new Inquisition comes to the rescue of the authors, while it persecutes and executes the "reactionaries.
The Inquisition crushes even baseball players, gamblers, dentists, rocket scientists or free speech politicians who dare to state any opinion which does not flatter anti male women, "minorities", "gays" or other fashionable pets.

An insidious cultural fetish is the anti Eurocentrism even Harvard and Yale universities love to display.
The trouble is that the need for votes makes insecure politicians hopeless cowards who are
afraid to lose the votes of any insignificant "minority".
The pundits affirm that Americans and Europeans have been blinded by their own cultural chauvinism toward other civilizations. Therefore, universities are improvising required courses that advocate preferred academic status for any other culture no matter how rimitive - instead of the Western, including Russian- and European-American.
Courses on the latter have been eliminated in many prestigious universities.

A closer look at the reality shows it to be quick-sand for the new "cultural" Establishment.

The prominence of our American European culture is due primarily to its unprecedented ability to recognize, absorb and internalize other cultures so completely, that we don't even notice how integrated it is.

We enriched our religion from the Sumerians, Jews, Persians, Egyptians, Romans, Arabs, Chinese,
Indians, and others; our philosophy and politics from the Greeks, Romans, etc.; building, writing, law, military and government administration from the Romans; mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, living refinement from the Arabs; music, sculpture, architecture, painting, banking and cultural Renaissance from the Italians; literature and science from the French, English, Romans, Italians, Germans, Russians, etc..

USA seemed to be destined to epitomize and funnel all those monumental achievements into the future for the whole world.
We internalized so many cultural elements also from the Russians, Indians, Chinese, Muslims and other peoples that we find it hard to separate our original achievements from theirs.
Many of our original achievements result from combined heritage.

We have absorbed and perpetuated so much from all over the world, that other peoples must dig in our culture to find the elements of what they themselves developed and then forgot, because we appreciated and recorded them better that anybody else (such an "immodest" statement is validated by the inevitable excommunication by the anti white and ultra-feminist Inquisition).

At the time of our Crusades (11th to 13th century A. D.), we found out that the Arabs had performed a similar service to mankind not only with their mathematics, astronomy, medicine, but also by preserving the Greek philosophy and other achievements we had lost and forgotten after Rome fell as a military empire in the 5th century a. d.. (not as the powerful cradle of the Western Culture, culminating in Italian Renaissance, Europe and America).
Now the rest of the world is still coming to our universities and other cultural centers to learn not only about us, but also about the other cultures in the world, including someoftheir own forgotten past that Europe and America had recprded and preserved.
Our Establishment pundits are grotesquely unaware of that and instruct our students to mistrust our Western literature, philosophy, religion and other Western aspects because they were dominated by "white males".

Even Western science has has been recently been accused of racial and gender distortions, as if investigations and discoveries about the electronic orbits, trigonometric and integral functions, isotopes, quantum physics, cybernetics or relativity could be distorted by any "white male slant"...

Stupefied by their pathetic male-phobia, today's ultra-feminists have disparaged science as a "product of male chauvinism".
We must recognize the historical merits of other civilizations, but we have done it much better by assimilating them than by granting historical prominence to some primitive "kingdoms" that disappeared without significant traces of any valuable achievement.

Oriental and other philosophers, "gurus", witch doctors, odd religions, artists and performers, honest and dishonest, have traditionally enjoyed great popularity in America and Europe (where else?). They have founded churches, temples, sects, schools and other activities with great and numerous following. Then, they have been forgotten (not excommunicated, mind you) after buying their Cadillacs, building their mansions in America, on the French Riviera, and fizzling out in the midst of a public that had been eager to erect altars to them.

On the other hand, children and adults keep coming from all over the world to absorb a culture that they appreciate more than our pompous "experts".
The present cultural Establishment is the frog that metamorphosed from the hippie tadpole of the 1960's.
As the hippies turned to instant mysticism, psychedelic drugs, crude communal living, immature art, the cultural Establishment of the 80' and 90's chose the new trends that demanded (they thought) very little home work: racial integration or anti-Western Culture "justice", contrived equality of results, liberty, environmentalism, feminism, anti elitism, equal rights, enforced "diversity", abortion- on-demand, homosexual marriage perversipn...
A new Sodom and Gomorrah?

Like any respectable righteous religion, it now has its own Inquisition.
The Western Culture had reached a sophistication that demands more intellectual self discipline than the instant wisdom they feel entitled to.

What need does anyone have for Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Leonardo, Galileo, Goethe, Kant, Shakespeare, Newton, Einstein and the immeasurable quantity of learning required by the Western culture, when equality, feminism, racial integration, anti elitism etc. have become the new fads that require no learning or self control?

In the past, one needed to research, study and assimilate the monumental achievements recorded by past geniuses in order to write a dissertation on most important subjects.
That was how scholars acquired knowledge, credits and credibility.
Today's Establishm...ent's glib scholars have a bonanza: the new fads.

Writings on popular psychology, for instance, need hardly any research in the traditional sense, for psychology is still very young.
Writings on feminist subjects are even easier: who would dare to contradict attributing virtues to women and all the blames to (white) men? Politicians and other public figures would never dare antagonizing women's votes, and they try to play safe by catering to the deceived feminists and/or to the deceiving modernists?.

Still easier is any pompous sanctimony written in favor of any "minority" (the designation keeps changing each time events debunk it) and against the white male. Writings on "Acid rain", "Greenhouse effect", "Ancient African Kingdoms".
Remarkably, our Establishment gurus don't go to the universities of the countries they should try to learn from, in order to find out from the horse's mouth.

The trouble is that they are so busy lecturing, that they don't know how to learn any more.

"P.C." POMPOUSASSISM

Nowadays (about 1 generation into the 21st century A.D.), culture in Academia must be "Politically Correct" (PC).
There is a cultural Inquisition by the disciples and trend heirs of Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man, European philosophers, high priests of "Deconstructionism", and others like (chosen at random) Prof. Richard Rorty, foremost American philosopher of the University of Virginia, and Stanley Fish, of Duke University.

Derrida and de Man and their followers have been attributed the task of "deconstructing" or demolishing the Western culture with their theory that all its records and literature are meaningless by themselves; its meaning can only be in the reader's interpretation, regardless of the reader's incompetence and bias.

Rorty and followers came up with a similar task in questioning truth and values. No philosophy or work of literature or art is prominent or to be accepted as a norm: the American Constitution is no better than Bugs Bunny's "What's up doc?"; Mona Lisa is no better than street-gang graffiti.

Fish predicates the questioning and dissolution of meaning in any text: philosophical, historical or literary.
Some assert that correct interpretation is impossible and give to the teachers the authority to impose arbitrary "truths" based on the prevailing political, racial and ultra-feminist fashions.
That is the ordeal of sophisticated primitivism for ignorant teachers and slothful students.
It is from those premises that today's deconstructionist academics draw their bizarre Afrocentrist, anti/Western and anti/white male revelations.

Drawing from them, and from minor luminaries of the same trends, the American post hippie" intellectuals" built their own Establishment, in which culture is sanctified by its purpose to modify society into a flower children utopia, in which the hippie "constructionism" (a Marxism of sorts that induced Marx to protest: "I am not a Marxist") triumphs and excommunicates whatever it doesn't like (=understand).

First, of course, one must get rid of this monumental Western Culture, which gives an obsessive feeling of inferiority to those who lack the ability to comprehend it.
So, there goes Jesse Jackson and 500 students chanting (at the end of the 1900s) the death of Western culture at Stanford University, with the epic mantra: "He, he, ho, ho! Western culture's got to go!"

So: away with the freedom, democracy, liberty, women's equality, industry, open market, competition, class mobility, printing, art, music, modern economics, science, medicine, prosperity the third world wants to learn... Move over, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Galileo, Michelangelo, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Tolstoy, Jefferson, Lincoln, Newton, Einstein...
Make room for Donald Duck and anti-white-man rap. Back with: slavery, stagnation, genocide, witchcraft, women's inferiority, harems, "sati" (widow burning), clitorisectomy, dictatorships, illiteracy, starvation, poverty...

More modestly, professor Werner Hamacher (only one of the academic deconstructionists, or post Marxists, or whatever they are) proclaims, with pious opacity:

"The term 'individuality' properly applies only to what transgresses the series of forms and the form of forms (typological knowledge and its objective correlatives), dissociating itself from the rigor mortis of canonical life forms, eluding the substantive compulsion to general categories, advancing toward a future that withdraws from every typology and objectification".

Wow! And I was worrying about my cholesterol...

Substitution of pompous obfuscation for deep knowledge is not the only cultural mask.
The seduction of kitsch words often mutates into erotic fetishes; predilection of terms like "phallocratic", "castration" progresses into graduate courses like "Female and male homosocial, homosexual, homophobic, and cross gender relations", or "Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl" by radical feminist Prof. Eve Sedgwick, in the Duke University (1989).
More: "Clitoral Imagery and Masturbation in Emily Dickinson", "Desublimating the Male Sublime: Autoerotics, Anal Erotics, and Corporeal Violence in Melville and William Borroughs" (Publications of the Modern Language Association, 104, #6, Nov. 1989: 1028).

These perineum (=area between the genital organs and the anus) pearls of wisdom and refinement became the prescribed menus of the leading intellectuals in many American universities, ultimately dominated by "anti-Caucasian" racists, ultra-feminists, historically hollowed up Marxists, homosexuals and anyone able to come to prominence on claims rather than merits.

The universities, thus, became an exclusive and excluding elite circuit of disdainful intellectual slob/snobs who could only talk and wallow among themselves, completely outside of the American mainstream.
They achieved their purpose of making the politicians and the half educated regard them as the international last word in cultural sophistication..

.......Until Derrida, Rorty, and Fish declared that they had been misinterpreted by their self appointed disciples:
Derrida: "If you are not trained in the tradition, then deconstruction means nothing. I am in favor of tradition.
I am respectful of, and a lover of, the tradition" (Journal of Advanced Composition, University of South Florida).

Rorty (also from the Journal of Adv. Comp., Uni. of S. Flor.): "I think of America as a spectacular success story of the growth of democratic freedom, whereas my opponents of the left think of it as a racist, sexist, imperialist society."

From the July 27, '93 issue of The Wall Street Journal:
"Mr. Fish scorns the efforts of Afrocentrists, feminists and homosexual rights activists who wish to deploy scholarship in order to transform the academy and society. He asserts: 'There is a great difference between trying to figure out what a poem means and trying to figure out which interpretation of a poem will contribute to the toppling of patriarchy or the war effort' "

Rejected by the gods they worshipped without understanding, and the philosophical rug pulled from under them, the American decostructionist Marxistoid tenured radicals are facing creeping extinction, or support in the history zoos like the Clinton Marxistoid/poll-worshiping administration.

=============================================================================

CHINESE HONEY BOATS

1992. The age of perineum academia is here.
The 32,000 member "Modern Language Association", largest, most influential and most politicized (= leftist) scholarly organization in USA, just had the annual convention in New York, NY.
Dec. 31, 1992 "Wall Street Journal" reports that it had "57 varieties of Marxism, feminism, homosexualism, anti dead white European male ism, all dispensed in smug academic doublespeak".
Under the guise of "Cultural Studies", they produced radical propaganda and sermonizing that "seemed... like so many Chinese "honey boats", little vessels of excrement snaking their way down river":
"In and Against Nature: Goethe on Homosexuality and Heterotextuality".
Of course, normal sex text (?) must be "heterotextuality", just as anomalous "normal" as homosexuality.
"A class on.. Shakespeare is really a platform for denouncing 'Western Colonialism and Imperialism'". "...academics love to castigate Western society for being racist, sexist, imperialistic, etc."
"One eminent literary scholar... was particularly struck by the extraordinary prominence given to exotic sexual subjects" such as:
"Sex Problems Of The Left", "Hermaphrodites Newly Discovered: The Politics of Gender". A panel called "Lesbian Tongues Untied" offered: "Cruisin' for a Bruisin': Hollywood's Deadly Lesbian Dolls" and "The Ins and Outs of Lesbian Sex: Bi Morphic Representations of Desire"
"Henry James and Queer Performativity," "Status of Gender and Feminism in Queer Theory".
"..the real issue is the astonishing prevalence of teachers who regard the investigation of their sexual interests as a form of scholarly research".
In a panel devoted to "Gay Subjects, Mass Culture", MIT Prof. David Halperin states that, according to the classic Western movie "Shane", "..In order for a boy to grow up to be strong and straight, he must first be seduced and abandoned by an older man". He also states that "'Shane' demonstrates that heterosexuality can literally be murder". "Much more attractive, for Prof. Halperin, were the practices of a certain New Guinea tribe in which boys regularly consort with boys or older men as part of their sexual initiation".

The black president of the M.L.A., Prof. A. Baker Jr., approves rap performer Sister Souljah's reference "... that literacy perpetuated Western hegemonic arrangements of knowledge".
Then, Baker's "..main point was that teachers of literature should subordinate literary concerns to the task of fostering radical political activism". Furthermore, "He interpreted the recent democratic victory as a signal that a 1960s style radicalism will be coming back with a vengeance".

"This leaves us with two questions: Will students continue to allow themselves to be cheated of an education by teachers who are more interested in radical politics than imparting knowledge?"

My point is: many of today's teachers, from the Berkeley, Stanford, Duke, Yale and other notorious universities, would not understand the difference between their loony radicalism and knowledge, no matter how we explained it to them.

More than intellectual, the reasons for this cultural sickness in our educators and new "elite" are of a still to be defined psycho emotional nature, for lack of a better explanation.
Their obsession with unprecedented subjects accessible from instant culture could mirror a hidden resentment by today's pundits for being unable to even approach the hard work and competence of their predecessors.

It is obvious that every present culture benefits from the Western European world and caters to its history, philosophy, technology, science, literature, art.

Equalizing Western Culture with, say, black African culture (don't ignore that there is also a live black Western, and black Oriental culture) would be similar to equalizing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony with the noise of a tribal drum.
Yet, campus riots can be caused by an approach that dares to assert that Western Culture deserves more attention than a black-African culture, at least in USA, where the blacks themselves have immeasurably more roots in Greek, Roman, German and British -let alone American- culture than in Nigeria, Zimbabwe or Kenya customs.
No matter how the black Americans strive to wear different garbs and hairdos, they speak English, not Bantu, they play piano, violin or guitar, not the African tribal drums, they use Western medicine, chemistry, technology, accounting, management skills, etc. etc.: none of the African equivalents, no matter for what. Even in Africa, nothing can function without methods and systems developed by the white Western man.
There is nothing African in them, no matter what they are told. They are American.
Why then this self destructive disparaging of a culture and style which is their own as well as of any "white male pig", and which they cannot, and have no reason to, ever abandon?
Well, you know that Jesse wants your votes and your money.
Or else, he'll shake you down, for he chose to become his own kind of African.

===================================================================================

THE AQUARIUS DILUTION

STUDENT FADS

The various student demonstrations and their fanatic activism for many causes are often a mirror of their immaturity.
Or, perhaps, they could be a proof that what we teach them is either false or too far removed from practical life.

Unfortunately, the students are too inexperienced to know that they are enthused by "truths" on false premises, false images, or by their incapacity to see the world in other colors than a "psychedelic" black and white rainbow.

The "revolution" of the 60's is a good case in point, including their anti Vietnam war movement, anti Establishment and Marxist trends.
The following years proved them wrong, as they themselves recognize.
20 and 40 years later, we witnessed the same misinformed fanaticism against the CIA, nuclear energy plants, US armaments, American investments in South Africa and other "developing" countries.

On one side, our "deconstructed", or "semeiotic", or "hermeneutic", "neo Marxist", or "feminazi" university professors are not able to enlighten these young men or themselves.
But, probably, this is the arrogance that has blinded the opinionated "intellectuals" in all times.
Perhaps it is typical of certain intellectuals to reduce all facts into black and white patterns.

That approach fits young people better, because the world can be more easily belittled in such simplifications.
The half-educated inexperienced young tend to prefer the instant knowledge of oversimplified reality.

They unwittingly flaunt their primitivism by calling their more knowledgeable opponents "simplistic".
That approach is also the stuff of many historical revolutions.

This brings the question of whether any (and which) revolution gave better overall results than a peaceful evolution that would have occurred anyhow.
For instance, I cannot avoid wondering whether the Americans hurt their future by separating from Great Britain.
It is probable that, without separating, after a peaceful American revolution, USA, Canada and Great Britain would now be one nation: the richest, most sophisticated, creative and beneficial in the world.

=================================================================================================

THE PHILOSOPHY STRAIN

The original meaning of the Greek word "filosofia" is still valid today: love of knowledge and wisdom, or search of knowledge and truth.
This search, however, can be contaminated by the methods by which philosophy is taught in opinionated environments.

As far as I know, such environments include not only Islam, but USA itself.
Almost every American university or other institution I know introduces philosophical concepts in terms of "a-priori" right-and-wrong interpretation.
Whether this differentiation means "correct" and "incorrect" or "good" and "evil", it hardly makes any difference.

We strongly objected when the Soviets introduced students to the concept of democracy, or freedom, with their biased interpretation.
We teach the same concepts with our own biases.

Philosophy is now so suffocated by rationalizations, that modern philosophers have taken refuge in sterile analysis.
The present "Deconstructionism" and its pretentious corollaries cannot be more than mentionable cultural flatulence.
I was taught philosophy with the historical approach. The method simply teaches the history of philosophy.
In my case, it began with Thales (625-?547 b. c.) of Miletus, the first known Greek cosmological philosopher of approximately over 2500 years ago: who and where he was, what he believed and how, without any opinion which would agree or not with his thoughts.
In other words, the method allowed the student to adopt the thinking of the philosopher being studied.

Then, the philosophy of his successors (Anaximander, Anaximenes, etc.) was taught, one after the other, individually.
The student had all the opportunities to be convinced and conquered by any philosophy.
But then, he was exposed to the next philosopher's ideas of how and why the previous philosophy was considered "wrong" by him.

This process continued relentlessly. The student grew accustomed to building up (a firm faith in one philosophy and being de-programmed and converted to another one by simple exposure to the "more convincing" subsequent ideas, time after time.

This sequence recurred so many times that the fledgling philosopher developed a solid inquisitive sophistication the "believers" of opinionated societies could not easily approach.

The latter were easiest pray of brainwashing, because their reasoning was not trained to survive intellectual struggle.
If they were not re-programmed, the most they could become was "sophisticated" primitives, like today's Marxist-liberals.

=========================================================================================================================

THE DISCONCERTING INTELLECTUAL

Many intelligent and cultural people I know are not intellectual.
Most intellectuals I know are intelligent.
Many of them are cultural to various degrees.
High intelligence and culture are extremely useful to an intellectual, but they are neither sufficient, nor absolutely necessary.
Intellect is a sort of metaphysical intelligence.
Many animals can be intelligent, to a still undefined degree, but only man can be intellectual, as far as we know.
Intelligence is a skill for satisfactory solutions to stated problems.
Intellect questions and elaborates the values of solutions, as it seeks awareness and proper definition of problems.
Intelligence tends to be satisfied with practical results. Intellect is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth, regardless of whether they are within or without the realm or recognized practicality.
The intellectual knows, consciously or not, that the ultimate truth may never be reached.
Yet he/she feels compelled to move in its direction beyond contemporary knowledge and beliefs, no matter how comfortable these appear to his fellow men.
Therefore, he cannot depend on success or approval by the general public.
He knows that his endeavors are relevant especially when he is the one who sees first.
Thus, the initial opposition of the conformists to his ideas, as unpleasant as it might be, is a sort of proof of his own relevance.
This is the reason why the true intellectual can be suspicious of excessive (or even normal) popularity.
Intentionally or not, the nature of his endeavors gives the intellectual a sort of elitistic style and expectation.
This could be an unforgivable sin in America.

We accept the various elites of sport heroes, movie and TV stars, political, military, business, society and other figures, but not an intellectual elite.
Yet, America started under the sought leadership of two typically intellectual elites: the Puritan ideologists and the Founding Fathers.

In the 18th century, the American religious Great Awakening, which became outspokenly anti intellectual, and the expansion to the West, which had to disregard all refinements, including literacy, laid the foundation of the peculiar American anti intellectual egalitarianism.

The Revivalists of the "Awakening" rebelled against the Puritan Establishment as the radicals of the 1960's against the business Establishment and evangelized the Egalitarianism of the Common Man.

In so doing, however, they created a new Establishment which was seized and exploited by the new dominant classes, who took it over completely.
As usual, the new Establishment grabbed and rationalized ideologies carefully culled and adapted from the Puritan, Christian, Founding Fathers' and other popular traditions.

The new Establishment, like any previous establishment, found no better solution than evaluating the common man and his rights on the basis of his material productivity.
That brought back, in its virulence, the old conflict between material and "human" values.

This conflict was focused on, and exacerbated, by the intellectuals, who stubbornly pursued the truth.
Unfortunately, the intellectual found an uncomfortable following among the crowds of rebels who were inspired by him but motivated by their own failures, their inability to be accepted by the Establishment and unwillingness to make the efforts necessary for success.

These rebels ended up winning. They have taken over the Establishment now. They also take over the intellectual trappings...
And the few surviving true intellectuals will have to fight them too...

INTELLECTUAL MUTATIONS

The modern liberal observation that "the conservatives have no outstanding intellectual in their ranks" exposes the liberal pretension that the intellectual style can only be liberal.
Nowadays, the liberal style is understood to be a position in favor of help to the needy and weak, fair redistribution of wealth, and right of the poor to shelter, food, clothing and as much as possible to satisfy their wishes.

It is difficult to argue with those ideals, as long as wealth, food, shelter etc. are sufficiently available, and as long as the means to make them available are not a task for the intellectuals.
But this is also the position of the most unproductive and parasitic members of our society.
Also, interestingly enough, of the unsuccessful -or incarcerated- criminals.
One could say that those misfits are the victims of our society.
It is easy for them to see the creators of wealth, food, shelter and technology on the "guilty" or "exploiting" side..., as long as they are somebody else...
Another very interesting fact is that, today, the mental, educational and emotional discipline necessary to become an entrepreneur, administrator, engineer, financier or scientist is far greater than what is required for becoming an intellectual of the traditional or new "humanistic" kind.

Then, who is an "intellectual"?
Conventionally, this term is ascribed to specialists of literature, philosophy, history and similar disciplines grouped under "humanities".
Not cybernetists, physicists, other scientists, economists, not the builders, the doers, the entrepreneurs, the organizers and administrators.

This second category is most likely to be on the conservative side.
They are reluctant to freely give away to unproven "social engineering" what they have produced with hard work.

I became an "intellectual" long ago.
Plenty of formal education in philosophy, ancient and modern history, liberal arts, 8 ancient and modern languages...
But I also became a chemical researcher and an entrepreneur.

My experience is that, as an intellectual, I can say or write anything that sounds convincing, on the basis of what I learned and of some tolerably clever observations.

If published, my opinions may feed only me.
The readers or listeners may find them interesting or inspiring, but that is all one can surmise. Regardless of whether my opinions are great or nonsense.
Regardless of whether I produce anything.
My ideas, if heeded, may make an insignificant ripple, or do unpredictable good or evil, cause love or hatred, depending on who uses them how.

As a technical man and entrepreneur, the going is rougher: nothing is produced and rewarded if it is not accepted and purchased by my fellow human.

My ego, my pride, my convictions are nearly worthless if other people don't find my products useful enough to pay for them.
In other words, I must produce for the needs of others, or I am a failure.
Those for whom I produce are the judges, not I; or at least more than I.

If they don't approve of me, I conventionally become a liberal, for I like to feel I am entitled to what they don't give me.
If they approve of me, I conventionally am a conservative, for I am reluctant to be deprived of what I have achieved.

One interesting phenomenon of the present is the low brow "intellectualism" expressed through today's hostile fads of ultra-feminism, racial integration, pacifism, anti nuclear movements, and welfare state.
They are worthy causes, but have also become the cult of the incompetent, lazy, naive, haters and losers.

Typical of all of them is a position like:
"I tell you how it should be, I don't know how it is done, you find a way to do it, and you get it done to my satisfaction".

If they realize that they don't know the solutions, they demand money (made by those who know how to find solutions) to finance committees to find solutions, who discover that money is needed for other committees and commissions to create solutions and/or jobs that demand that the "rich pay their fair share" (the typical leftist mantra) for programs that create more expensive problems....
Until all, rich and poor, lose everything mental and material we could use for mere survival.

These modern cultists demand that everything other than their own dogmas and actions be subject to questioning.
Whatever attributes they wish for their fads are not to be argued, regardless of the negative effects they may have on the people they are supposed to help.

For instance, it is not amusing to witness the tragedy caused to the American Indians by those who purported to help them by embalming their culture in protective measures that have contrived to preserve what makes the Indians unable to coexist with the Western culture.
Then, those same do-gooders who caused it point the accusing finger at the whites who don't accept the Indians.

It is also not amusing to think that, if the same whites changed their tastes and life philosophies to what would make the Indians acceptable, they would no longer be able to produce the taxable incomes and benefits that make the good will toward the Indians possible.

The same, in more complicated ways, is being perpetrated against the blacks by the new "intellectuals", politicians and their groupies.

History has provided us with an answer that is the least offensive or most beneficial: evolutionary absorption of lower achieving cultures and life styles into more vigorous ones.
We are all the products of that evolutionary process since the beginning of time.

Our social engineers, however, want to freeze every evolutionary step in ethnic and "cultural" zoos, which will then be embalmed with some sort of "civil rights" taxidermy.
That is the ultimate consequence of their "Multiculturalism", for it is made of insignificant elements that marginalize the ethnic groups into incompatibility with the dominant society.

To remedy the consequences, we must lower our standards to the level of those who (presumably) cannot make it.
We are giving up on our language, to accommodate those who don't want to learn good grammar, and those who don't want to speak our language.

The leftist "intellectuals" are in favor of it. That makes it easier for them to be "intellectuals", and it makes them popular with the numerous low brow crowds which lack the ability and will to progress on their own.

GENIUS

Genius is very exposed to misinterpretation, simply because it is not easy for the common people to judge the exceptional.
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) observed: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him".
Typically, common people attribute qualities (no matter how frivolous) to genius that are simply their wishful and limited thinking.
Many are convinced that humility is a necessary attribute of genius.
One of them, a fashionable psychologist, got furious at me when I countered that Caesar, Napoleon, Beethoven, Michelangelo, Genghis Khan, and numerous other geniuses had no more humility than a billiard ball has hair.
Many geniuses are never even noticed because they are more interested in their own pursuits than in recognition.
Other geniuses use their talent to manipulate people for the highest degree of recognition obtainable.
Very often, the genius we know is a hero (or nerd) of dedication or a one-dimensional human being.
The recognizable results of such personalities may have the quality of genius from intensity of effort, like the inventions as defined by T. A. Edison: "99% perspiration and 1% inspiration".
The tales of great thinkers rewriting each page of their masterpieces 20 or 30 times are probably not exaggerated in many cases.
Could I, then, write a masterpiece if I rewrote each of these pages so many times?
But then, I wouldn't have the time to run my business, do chemical research, travel, sail, play piano, tennis... and share life with my family.
Therefore, I suspect that some popularly recognized geniuses are too lopsided for lack of possibility of, or interest in, developing some aspects of their personality.
Finally, if geniuses understand what other people cannot, how can common people recognize geniuses and declare them such?
I have a strong conviction that the unrecognized and unknown geniuses may be as numerous as -or more numerous than- those we recognize and
===================================================================================

REWARDED INCOMPETENCE

When a business is inefficient or incompetent, it fails and disappears.
The opposite happens with a government agency and many public service organizations: they thrive on inefficiency, incompetence and waste.
The most obvious are the agencies organized to resolve a problem:
When the problem is resolved, the agency is expected to be dissolved and the employees dismissed or transferred.
When the problem persists or grows worse, the agency hires more people, grows, and obtains a larger budget.
If the agency starts with an assigned budget, its members know that the next year their budged and personnel are going to be reduced if they do their task more efficiently than forecast, that is, with less money and/or personnel than assigned.

Beside government, many activities work on the same principle.
Schools, as mentioned before, receive more money, tax allocation and payroll if their activity fails or becomes more inefficient, and they can argue that insufficient funding was the cause of failure.
Teacher unions, bureaucrats, connected politicians and contractors are well trained to doing it.
Most labor unions are heavy contributors to larger problems and expenses.
Initially, they were needed to correct social injustice.
However, they got into the habit of fomenting trouble in order to survive and prosper.
Then they went beyond survival and learned to profit from trouble.
From here to crime and racketeering, the step is well known.
They have also changed the employer/employee relationship, by instituting a permanent hostility between employee and employer.
I remember the first shock I experienced about unions, shortly after I immigrated into USA.
When I asked a friend a steward of a union who had just started a strike why he was accusing his employer of non existent faults, he answered:
"I am up for re election, and I have an opponent who accused me of being too soft on the boss. I must make some trouble with the boss, to prove my opponent wrong. I have no choice, if I want to prevent the election of a steward who would cause more trouble yet for everybody"...
I read of a presumably old Chinese custom regarding physicians: they were paid by their patients as long as the patients were healthy. Any patient who became sick stopped paying the doctor for as long as the sickness persisted.
At first, it looks like a splendid solution, but, sooner or later, too many patients would find it very profitable to have or fake any kind of sickness. And many doctors would declare a sick patient healthy, in order to be paid.
Some way should be found so that the government and all assistance agencies are rewarded when things are proven to go well, rather than in the present manner, which rewards the helpers with more funds when their "clients" are still in trouble.
This, some bureaucrats say, could induce the responsible officials to falsely declare problems solved and to cover up or overlook other problems...
In part, this happens somehow also when we pay for insurance, social security and similar preventive plans. Those who administer the programs thrive on our payments, not on our well being.
Those apparently tp johj c;aom payments are used as a proof that the insurer is entitled to a government permission to raise the insurer's premiums.
When we fall back into the counter-producing method of increasing our payments, we reward the worsening of the situation.
In cases of government prescribed compensations based on proportional fees paid by the insured, sometime insurance companies show an abnormal willingness to pay the claims.
They even contrive to ignore complaints that a claim may be fraudulent and scurry to pay the claim before anyone can stop the process.
After obtaining government permission to raise the premiums, the insurer restricts its compensations to the next insured and regains many times what it had invested in overpayments/
Once the goal has been achieved, the insurer becomes again very selective in claim payments, and the profits are remarkably increased.
At the expense of the paying public.
The opposite excess, of course, is to let the poor, needy and sick die.
With this picture, it seems that the present system offers a bleak outlook.
The solution offered by socialism may look more promising, but it is worse.
In fact, the above described reward for incompetence and inefficiency are inspired by socialistic delusions.

=======================================================================================================

FACING THE SNAKE

Some decide fast out of intelligence; others out of stupidity, indifference or recklessness.
Similarly, some think slow out of sluggish intelligence, others out of an intelligent need for deeper analysis.
That is: In many circumstances, the same decision correct or not may be taken out of intelligence or stupidity, courage or cowardice, honesty or dishonesty, competence or ignorance. For instance, when in front of a snake, one may:
1. be afraid out of cowardice;
2. be afraid because he knows the snake is poisonous;
3. be afraid for incorrectly believing that the snake is poisonous;
4. be afraid for not knowing whether the snake is poisonous;
5. remain indifferent out of stupidity;
6. remain indifferent for knowing the snake is harmless;
7. remain indifferent for incorrectly believing the snake is harmless;
8. remain indifferent for not caring about life or death;
9. remain indifferent for knowing the snake will not attack.
10. remain indifferent out of absentmindedness.
Being "out of touch" with reality may indicate unawareness or low intelligence. But it could also denote the opposite; or aloofness.
One may have a habit of jumping to conclusions. Therefore he would mistakenly "know" why someone does something.
It may be illogical, but the result could be correct. It would succeed for the wrong reason and without any merit.
An intelligent person would be smart enough to have doubts. That could fail to find a solution. For the right reason.
Already as a child, I always wondered how smart some people were who could immediately explain reasons why something happened.
I didn't see any or enough evidence to conclude one way or another. Yet, they went on explaining what was what.
They were believed and got things done: the wrong things for the wrong reason, wrong reasons
================================================================================================.

BENEFICIAL HYPOCRISY

THE KNIGHT AND DAMSEL SYNDROME

When I was a child, I was perturbed by the recurring image of a Middle Ages knight preparing, training, equipping himself and going out in search of damsels in distress to be saved... and finding none.
What was he to do after months or years of futile search?
Find a damsel and beg her to, please, be attacked at least by a scared cock?
Better yet, as distress or frustration refines imagination, some knight was bound to hit on the idea of finding an unhappy lonely damsel and convince her that someone was responsible for her unhappiness.
As these unhappy people have a habit of becoming a nuisance to those who have more interesting things to do, it is no problem for the damsel to blame any one who hurt her feelings by having no time for her.
Now, can you imagine how happy the knight is to have finally found his dragon? After so many years of futile search for something worthwhile to do?
Who would have the heart to spoil the hard won fun by insinuating that the dragon is no dragon, let alone the disturbing hypothesis that the knight may have induced the damsel to be a troublemaker?
No, the knight has made up his mind and is not going to be confused by the facts...
Many of today's do-gooders, the modern knights, have gone beyond the frustrating experience of lonely knighthood and organized themselves into armies of vigilantes.
This time, however, they are dangerous because of the powerful communication media at their command.
Many are malevolent losers who want to get even with those who represent the success that eluded them.
Many are usurers of gratitude.
Whoever is the target of their help must pay back with much more, in gratitude and obligations, than the help received, regardless of how unneeded or unsuccessful the help was.
If the actions of a do-gooder talked, they would often say:
"YOU must do this because I believe and need it. There is nothing else I can think or do beyond forlorn boredom. I state the problem and my wishes, and YOU find a way to get things done MY way, with YOUR talent and means."
Do-gooders are often an idle breed of pompous asses.
When they obtain any form of power, they can destroy our world with incompetent regulations that choke productivity, creativity and tranquility. They persecute the very people and talents that created the very America they claim to protect.
As they have no talent or merit, they have animosity against the talented people they cannot master.
They originated the disparaging of qualities that used to be highly admired, like calling "workaholic" a dedicated worker, "domestic animal" a devoted family person, "exploiter" a job and wealth creator, and so on.
They hide their incompetence in their rights, their arrogance in the claim that calling them to their duties is an act of totalitarian oppression.
They are the self appointed standard bearers and manipulators of rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The more incompetent they are, the more impatient and malevolent they become.
The more they are rejected by public or private employers, the more time they have to pollute society with their venom as bureaucrats or legislators.
A clear example of their virulence is their attack on the chemical industry, of which I bear witness.
The chemical industry has always been one of the most creative elements of progress.
Its contribution to our health, medicine, food, industry, safety, construction, navigation, comfort, cosmetics, maintenance, national defense, electronics, and so on, are second to none.

Without the chemical industry, we could have no sanitation, health control, medicines, life saving substances, reliable food, fuels for energy..., and so many other benefits nowadays so common that we don't notice them any more.
Hardly any facet of human activity deserves more recognition and praise.
Yet, no industry is now so handicapped by so many frivolous and arrogant regulations which, ironically, the chemical industry itself has invented for its own use and taught our society to implement.
Do-gooders can be found everywhere, picketing and clamoring against alleged polluters and dangers to public safety.
I own a chemical business producing "high tech" resins, coatings and other compounds for high tech industry and general public. These products are needed, they meet high requirements and are practically harmless for the users and environment (anything can be harmful, even water, since people are know to have drowned in it).
I am qualified to state it because I am the founder (1959) of the company and formulator of its products, which are successfully sold nationwide and abroad.
They need continuous reformulating, as dictated by the changing requirements of industrial and other customers.
We lose our customers to the competitors (especially from other countries) if we cannot produce changes as often and as fast as demanded. This pattern requires incessant research and development, a continuous flow of new samples to and from customers and suppliers...
Paradoxically, the chemical industry and its research reveals to the country and government which chemicals are dangerous and why, but then it is the government who issues rules against the use of those chemicals, as if it were teaching and guiding the chemical industry.
Chemical polluters don't represent the chemical industry at large any more than criminals the average citizens.

Nothing of the expensive research and control process is financed by the government.
Indeed, government Regulations are now choking this process under an incredible amount of unnecessary paperwork: new sample of every new material can no longer be produced or procured without a safety data sheet to the customer, another to the government, other documents and reports to such a confusing number of agencies that progress menaces coming to a halt.
This hampers and can stop all developments and deliver us to foreign competition.

The experts know how little is needed to insure a satisfactory degree of safety.
But how many votes can the experts deliver?
The modern knights, their groupies and the manipulated crowds are where the votes are.
Suppose that an electronic manufacturer wants us to change the dielectric constant of one of our encapsulation resins from 3.5 to 2.8. We could change the amount and type of some ingredients in the formulation, without necessarily changing them, and give the modified product to the customer.
The customer is not going to put it in his sandwiches, or spread it on his skin, eyes or lungs. But the law may require that we tell him what happens when the product is force fed to, say, albino rats (what is wrong with gray or black rats?) or grafted on their skin. Moreover, these rules change without our input and knowledge, in a way that causes us to be caught off guard when we suspect it the least. Then, it is our fault, and we get fines...
What is sufficient is not enough for the new laws.
Think that the prescribed way is to force feed rats and rabbits with the modified product until they die, and inform the user about the precise lethal quantity, and to find out whether they develop cancer or other damage with the product on their skin and eyes, and record the manner and quantities.
It takes months or years of exorbitant and sadistically superfluous testing for a simple change that is needed within hours or days...
The bureaucrats are starting to understand and scurry to remedies; but the remedies are worse troubles...
For centuries, users of chemicals have known that safe general precautions against all products are less dangerous than paralyzing complicated measures to be learned about each single property of each single product.
That would need efforts and expenses beyond anyone means and beyond the present knowledge.
Still now, e keep being surprised by new discoveries of other effects of Aspirin (merely acetyl salicylic acid) on the human body.
I hope that this is no longer true when this is published. Many things imposed today will be eliminated when you read this; but the bureaucrats cannot resist imposing new surprises...
If the controls imposed on the chemical industry had to be translated into the equivalent for the general public, no one could undertake a trip without sending first a report about itinerary, personal histories and ideologies of the travelers, reasons for the trip and vehicle specifications to the police for approval; no one could dispose of any garbage without first writing a report certified by experts, and obtaining approval, for every item to be discarded.;
the police could enter any house any time for any inspection they please, without search warrant; police could stop any one and frisk them any time any place; anyone could bring anyone else to court by demanding any investigation of any kind on anything, without any proof: everyone would be guilty until proven innocent...
People must be educated from the earliest childhood to fit in this system. They probably do.
But what about a big wave of new immigrants from primitive environments? The multiply incredibly fast, and their offspring is unfit for at least one generation...
What the chemical industry produces is what the public consumes; what the chemical industry discards in larger amounts in smaller areas is mostly less than the general public discards in proportionately larger areas.
The stereotype of dangerous chemicals is a smaller percentage of the chemical industry than the high rise dangerous jobs in construction. Certainly, there are areas that have been damaged by chemicals, but chemicals are used mostly by non chemical industry, which buys them from the chemical industry without following proper precautions.
In other words, they don't work professionally.
As to the irresponsible chemical manufacturers, they are as guilty as any other law breaker, but attributing their guilt to the whole chemical industry is counter producing: only chemical experts, not blood thirsty bureaucrats, can correct chemical problems.
No one can produce as much damage or poisoning as a volcanic eruption, an ocean plague or an oil field.
Yet, there are no stuffy bureaucrats, hippies or do-gooders swarming to a volcano, ocean or oil field and serving them with subpoenas...
I myself was incredulous when I saw in my shipping dept. 5-gallon pails with a big warning printed on them that children would drown if they immersed their head in a pail with liquid. We pay enormous fines if we use a pail without that warning...
Can anyone imagine how insane it would be to be consistent and place billions and billions (or trillions) of sufficiently visible of those warnings (obviously with light in the night, because also who walk in the dark must be protected) around ponds, creeks, rivers, lakes, seas, oceans?
Reluctance to come up with new products used to be a proof of inability to compete. Now, with all these inquisitors, it is a sign of prudence and responsible management.
Which also means, however, that a new door is now open to foreign competitors who are not suffocated by meddling do-gooders.
Another "contribution" of the do-gooders (primarily to get votes) is the interminable series of rules, laws and ordinances to... protect the employees against the employers.
Employers are being ordered by local and federal authorities today's Inquisition to affix one notice after another, in their own plants and offices, to instruct the employees how to demand countless things from their employers, and how to denounce the employers in case they don't satisfy the requests, no matter how frivolous.
Come to any manufacturing plant (mine included) and see them.
2002 a. d.
How would we react if we saw those suborning notices exhibited in military barracks for the soldiers against their superiors, in schools for the students against their teachers, in public buildings for the employees against the government, or for patients against doctors, clients against lawyers, court litigants against the judges, tax payers against the IRS, car drivers against traffic police, etc.?

Normally, the law was supposed to be respected as a matter of fact.
Both the employer and employee were assumed to be informed and law-abiding, until proven otherwise.
This new attitude has reinforced a bellicose suspicion that used to be considered a malefic deterioration caused by troublemaking unions.
Now, the cooperation and mutual confidence, so necessary in any kind of work, is being further damaged by the do-gooders who openly suborn the employees against those who create their jobs and employ them.
Of course, one can guess that such legislation protects those who compose the voting majority: the poor against the rich, the incompetent rather than the competent, the poorly educated rather than the best educated, the mediocre against the brilliant... Obviously, the ignorant produce more votes than the knowledgeable, the poor more than the rich, the employed more than the employers, the mediocre more than the brilliant, etc.
It is hard to believe that there was a time in which the job-creator was considered a benefactor with enough common sense to care for the welfare of his employees, without considering himself a hero or saint.
Even if I don't love an employee to know that he is going to be the more loyal and productive the more benefits and satisfaction I offer him.
The number of employees suborned by the government in creating troubles for petty and fraudulent reasons has increased to alarming proportions. If any employee starts a fraudulent claim or grievance against an employer, there is no easy way for the employer to avoid wasting days or even months, years and enormous legal fees for hearings, arbitrations, appeals, and other losses of time, money and productivity.
What about the rule that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?
It is now open season against employers.
Nothing is done to discourage false claims.
A public official I asked about penalties against workers for fraudulent claims, answered: "They are indeed punished insofar as they don't get the compensation or satisfaction they seek".
This reasoning system would encourage even murder, because the punishment of the murderer would be to miss the full target.
Punishment for bank robbery would be failure to find or get the money.
Solution: try again to murder and to rob.
Stupidity's logic marries and mongrelizes behavioral reality.
The employer is guilty until he proves his innocence any time anyone frivolously accuses him of any labor, safety or other "crimes" invented by predatory legislators and dawdling do-gooders.
The employer pays enormous court and process expenses, lawyer fees, and the fraudulent accusing employee, if unmasked, pays nothing.
The general public has no idea that the employers who are sufficiently wealthy to incur such expenses are a minute minority.
Consequently, laws force us to accept that fraud is not a crime if perpetrated by a dishonest employee.
The judges have to choose between charging taxpayers with court and all other legal costs, or finding the "rich" employer guilty.
The "rich" employer ends up being not the large company, but the small surviving business which prefers to save by admitting guilt rather than incur the ruinous expenses of lengthy processes and hostile liberal judges.

Many public officials have become public enemies.
Even a dictatorship offers better conditions, because it purports to regulate everybody, not just one class (they are even worse from another perspective. But this is another story

==============================================================================================

ADVERSARY STALEMATE

The advantage of our "Adversary System" is often negative: it may hinder ("check") actions which the decision makers need to take to produce and succeed.
Disputes, competing parties or philosophies prove that the adversary system may offer nothing more than the prevailing of power or talent, not truth or justice.
Neither of the disputing parties changes its mind in the process, even after a decision has been reached by voting, or in court.
In other words, in most cases, neither party has the capability of enlightening or understanding the other.
One would deduce that converting a reasoning is something other than a logical process.
It may be peers' pressure, desire to "belong", any emotional process, but not the extolled reason of "Homo Sapiens".
We are still searching for the knowledge and talent that allow us to behave in a manner that does not conflict with our peers.
We try to reach solutions and harmony through the relentless conflicts of the adversary process.
To wit: Competition, unions, elections, political activities, courts, contests, sports, games.
The adversary system has been driven to poison the atmosphere between employers and employees to the point that employees who cooperate with the employers are often considered traitors to the worker's cause.
In this atmosphere, the employer or the employee would be a fool to offer anything to his "opponent" unless the offer is reserved as a bargaining tool for the next strike or negotiation skirmish...How long can a nation's productivity survive world competition when it is plagued by this cancer?
This attitude is progressively infecting larger sectors of our society.
Man/woman relationship, for instance, is now ncreasingly hostile.
Divorces and bitter fights are being encouraged by our legal system because it profits from them.
Organizations have spawned the social sickness that set man and woman against each other in any way imagination can suggest.
Ultra-feminists, lawyers and civilrightniks drink that blood.
In an effort to find justice, laws are promulgated that give more reasons to attack, fight and damage one other, until simmering suspicion and hostility become the new coexistence.
Human maggots feed on that plague.
No longer devotion, dedication, self sacrifice.
"Ich bin Dein; Du bist mein. Was koennte schoener sein?" ("I am yours; you are mine. What could be more beautiful?") is now just a beautiful feeling that inspired romantic longing in me long, long time ago...
These traditional virtues are said to cause submission and injustice in some cases.
Therefore, let's all be always hostile and armed for incessant fights...
Feed the maggots and the vultures.
In the past, this situation was countered with a structured society that offered security and devotion as a rule, and restraint to those who would end up fighting anyhow without it.
As we found unhappiness or injustice in some individuals "oppressed" by the rules, we instituted unhappiness open season for all.
In the process, we are destroying the family.
That is not funny, for our society is based on the family and "love thy neighbor"...

=============================================================================================

SAVING ENDANGERED SURPLUS

Saving an endangered species may cause more complications than we can imagine.

Saving a species from superfluous human activities, like luxury fur trapping, whale or baby seal slaughter, is understandable.
But saving the elephant, giraffe, gorilla or some rare goat or bird will most likely change them into forms of life that cannot exist outside of zoos or museums.

If the habitat required by one species is in conflict with the dominant species, the former is inevitably condemned because it interferes with normal evolution.
Science says that over 99% of the forms of life in the existence of our planet have been extinct in the normal evolution process.

If we do what our environmental do-gooders want, we will transform all of our a living form of natural environment into an artificially protected zoo.
Which invites a living form of extinction.

Saving some insects or birds necessary for the multiplication or survival of plants, trees etc, is of obvious value; but finding "humane", or technological ways to substitute for their functions (pollination, controlling or feeding other forms of life) may be more popular than countering the inexorable march of evolution, but also disastrously incompetent.

Our knowledge of natural cycles is insufficient to decide whom and what to save or not.
We don't know whether it is desirable to exterminate the mosquito, or even the malaria mosquito.
Fighting the mosquitoes, which are food for many birds, may have caused imbalances in the environmental biosphere worse than malaria.
Would we, then, place the menaced mosquito on the endangered species list?
***
What about the millions of people who are already dying now of malaria every year in order to save the malaria mosquitoes and the birds who eat them?
We had virtually eliminated the malaria when the unscientific Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" reversed the situation to a yearly multiple (malaria) Holocaust to save the mosquitoes and some birds.

If we cannot compare preservation of mosquitoes or cockroaches with that of elephants or gorillas, then we are victims of a frivolous preference for the simpler and more pleasant to understand against the dislike and insufficient knowledge we have of insects.

We have no hesitation to save the elephant or zebra. We give ourselves "scientific" reasons.
But isn't it true that we just like them as much as we dislike insects? A recent analysis showed that our success in saving elephants in one African area became disastrous for local acacias, which, in turn, proved disastrous for countless species of other animals and plants: so many that it escapes our comprehension.
We cannot compete competently with nature's choices.
Ecologists say that man destroys nature by intervening.
That also means that the ecologists themselves, being "man", blunder with their corrective measures.
We want to impose on nature what we believe, as if what we believe were the ultimate truth.
For instance, just because we like peace, we believe that nature likes it too.
But nature seems to like and need strife, mating contests, hunting and killing, hurricanes, earthquakes, cataclysms..
Much of what we think we are doing to protect our environment is an arrogant interference against nature itself.
We are products of nature, not of bureaucratic do-gooder dreams.
Cultures are also subject to the evolutionary process.
We manage to interfere with that process too, when we afflict a culture with a right to survive which conflicts with its tendency to survive, evolve or being absorbed.
When the decaying culture (be it a race, a language, economy, technology) cannot manage to survive against a competing culture, the latter is made responsible for the failings of the former.
The winning culture is then burdened with the unrewarding task of finding a solution which is likely to conflict with the natural outcome.

=================================================================================

THE HATE LEGIONS

Hatred is a freak of nature.
Like some others, I don't know how and why to hate. As I have written elsewhere, those who "deserve" hatred don't intend to do the "evil" as such, nor do they say or intend to be evil. They assert strongly that the object of their hatred wants to be evil or do evil as such
Some divorce lawyer who foment intra-marital hatred (to make more money) are not aware of the immense evil they nurture. Do I hate them? No: they are victims of rationalizations They a.so have custom-made "love" religions
Psychotherapy may be the best hope, but t those who thrive on hatred have castrated the legal status of psychologists.
There are bellicose and hostile people also among the "do-gooders" who have dedicated themselves entirely to the causes of love, peace, social justice and environment. Especially
when they are misunder-stood or unappreciated
Their actions may reveal they are the opposite of what they fight for.
They are like the emotionally twisted who become psychologists by default.
They compound the problem by just focusing on it.
Most loveniks, peaceniks, civilrightniks are afflicted by crypto-hatred, internal conflicts, work and social unfitness.
They are afflicted by their inability to solve their own dilemmas and demand that society solve them for them. Well, it's human...
They are united and in peace among themselves only if they have a common hatred against others, with the excuse of fighting in others the evils they would otherwise find among themselves.

SOCIALISM FOR THE BARNACLES

When government sets to help the poor, it ends up helping those who can manipulate help at the expense of the poor.
Insurance companies get permission to raise premiums if they can prove they are paying many and big claims.
For this reason, they are often willing to pay patently unjustified claims to be used as evidence for raising premiums, as long as they can not be accused of fraud.

Government welfare agencies need as many poor people as possible to increase their own budget and power.
When the number of the poor diminishes, the welfare providers raise the poverty level parameters, so that more people can be declared poor.
That justifies exacting more taxes.
Politicians dare not object, lest they would be called racist, callous, unfeeling or simply politically incorrect.
Health care, transportation, communication media, public utilities and other services learn to use the government controls in their own favor.
They contrive to create situations in which the expenses go up, so that they are granted more money or permission to charge more.
After this, they work on trimming their own costs.
The higher the charges, the easier it is to hide questionable profits in them.
The leftist Inquisition helps to preserve and increase their own power, and the gullible citizens pay to give the government more power to oppress them.
Lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats have a vested interest in prolonging and worsening the above troubles, plus poverty, divorces, all kinds of litigations and conflicts, from which they derive their incomes, power and survival.
Without them, the hidden parasitic character of the leftist liberals would be evident to all, and American society would be striving for loftier goals far higher than racial integration, equal rights, and ultra-feminism, homosexual-pandering. Loftier goals should be consequences of a higher and more educational process, not the focus that diverts us from higher progress.

=============================================================================

ONE WORLD

"ONE WORLD" is a menace for some people and a hope for others.
"One world" may mean a conspiracy to submerge all that is dear to us under a world wide leveling downward, which suffocates freedom and morality.
On the other hand, it could be relatively beneficial for disadvantaged nations who want to raise their standards.
For others, it means the mythical end of all hostilities, wars, exploitation, famine, oppression.
Concentrating on the latter approach should be obvious, but it should be without the possibility of one nation dominating the global scene and imposing its own interpretation of right and wrong.

Is it really possible nowadays?

I'm afraid mankind has not yet evolved so far.
It would be in the interest of our survival to resume individual and international competition, cost what it may.
AS LONG AS IT IS EVOLUTIONARY

=================================================================================

DESPISE THY KIND

"I wouldn't want to become a member of a club that would accept me" is a famous quip by comedian Groucho Marx, but it can also depict an attitude some people have consciously or not on the basis of their self-esteem.

Many have such a low opinion of themselves that they despise or ridicule others in whom they discover similarities with themselves.

A common symptom is the spiteful disappointment one feels about those who do or know something the same way as he.
He has contempt for them because they are or act no better than he...
Too many of us are like him.

CYBERNETIC MUTATION

When the hominid evolved language, he only knew that words were better than grunts in order to ask, warn, or command.
He had no awareness of his ongoing mutation into "homo sapiens". Nothing urged him into it...
The same blissful unawareness of their importance and consequences accompanied other milestones of our evolution: tool-making, writing, power engines, electricity...
All these factors unfolded in controllable "explosive" patterns, insofar as their human agents disseminated them at will from any original nucleus.
Cultural factors, for instance, expanded as far as their bearers could travel and as much as they were accepted.
Now, what could amount to an evolutionary mutation let's say, from "homo sapiens" to "homo novus" of science fiction is uncontrollably imploding on us.
We have entered the cybernetic age.
Literally, Cybernetics is the science of directing communication.
It studies human and general communication, control functions and their replacement through more efficient devices.
Cybernetists remained relatively unnoticed by the public, until they invented the computer and discovered its virtually unlimited possibilities as an analog to some functions of the human brain.
"Programming", "Input", "Output", "Feedback", etc., could be considered as analogues of, respectively, education or training, (sensory) perception, brain reaction to perception, (guiding) reaction to a reaction, etc.
As these parameters are functionally analogous to "mental" processes, methods of logic and a language had to be devised which would obviate the dangers of human unreliability and unpredictability.
Thus, our daily Aristotelian (dualistic) logic was confronted with the Boolean binary system and similar schemes.
Our familiar Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics were channeled into multidimensional continuums, relativity, statistical and quantum physics.
J.W. Jibbs, an American physicist dead in 1903, was brought back to overshadow even Einstein... (unfortunately, he didn't and doesn't have the help of public relations specialists).
After general semantics exposed the inconsistencies of our thought /word processes, computers gave proof that our language habits were too primitive.

This revolution premised the evolutionary watershed that is prevailing on us with a warning of "mutation or oblivion".
For millennia, mankind has improved only technically.
Now, with the transference of many of our mental functions into devices which should never fail (unless we introduce the errors or their premises), rationalizations, prejudices (clannish, religious, wishful, chauvinistic, etc.) and other human inadequacies face the first impartial diagnosis in history (if we have the courage to allow it).
The prognosis is that mankind must operate on its own humanity; if we can dare it at all...
If this leads us to "thinking computers" (unlikely in the foreseeable future), we confess the same guilt of those who fear their own conscience, for we have created them ourselves, put our best in them, and then we refuse to be coherent with it all...
["Incomprehensible" to some? Then this writing is for the others
But almost anyone can reread and understand]
Nuclear and space technology, national defense, government, education, industry, communications... everything is inextricably intertwined with cybernetics and computers.
There is no turning back.
It is virtually impossible to slow down their growth.
Fortunately or unfortunately?
It depends.
The public is hardly aware of the irresistible changes from cybernetic interaction between individuals and nations, beyond cultural, religious and other set patterns.
Satellites that transmit TV signals are already common around the Earth.
The implications are unlimited and unpredictable. Soon, every nation will do the same. Local censorship, sponsored TV, advertising policies, local codes and controls..., virtually everything now valid in TV will be changed into a "one world for all" system.
How dictatorships, censorship, government thought control, local chauvinistic fetishes can survive this implosion is hard to imagine.
If it is assumed that things were worse in the past, our increasing discontent is a proof of the expanded awareness pervading us.
Cybernetics is interconnecting our lives and systems in an integrated whole like an organism; as if mankind were a human body whose parts used to be separate: the body is now coming together.
Whatever part of the body is afflicted, the rest of the body will ultimately come to its rescue interactively and unconditionally, regardless of cost and prejudices, or else the whole body will suffer.
It will not attack and punish any more, if it doesn't malfunction
This analogy was probably made before, but it is now that cybernetics is webbing mankind with the ubiquitous nervous (but digital) system that transmits pain, suffering, needs, wants, without national, religious, political and other distortions.
That is: if "homo sapiens" is willing to become "homo novus" of science fiction.
If we need an international police force to implement the "one world miracle", it will become the "one world hell".
Yin/Yang? Yin without Yang? or Yang without Yin?
070905

===========================================================================================

FORMED OR INFORMED

We are always told that wars, oppression, prejudices are the worst world problems.
Yet, they are only symptoms of an original crime: the relentless, parvasive indoctrination of children into convictions and "virtues" demanding blind partiality, dubbed as "love", "patriotism", to one's group and simultaneous hatred of "the others".
It is like moral and intellectual contamination on national scale.
Communism used to grip the minds of those born in Russia and China, capitalism in USA, Catholicism in Spain, Islam in Iran, Arabia etc., Buddhism in Ceylon, Judaism in Israel...
When these and other fundamental differences are observed with the levity of diplomatic and Chamber-of-Commerce motivations, they are seen as "beauty in diversity".
When they are taken seriously, wars, genocides, murderous crusades, and other gruesome consequences ensue.
History shows that the most dangerous nations are those who take their beliefs most seriously.
They are mostly called "fundamentalists".
The trouble lies in confusing formation with information, indoctrination with knowledge.
A member of a certain belief explains that he knows the truth through unbiased information, whereas "the others" have been "indoctrinated".
This is what the Americans and Iranians, Muslims and Chinese, rightists and leftists assert against each other.
Not only with passion, but often with indisputable honesty (and ignorance).
With the same passion and honesty of the pious New England minister who thanked God for having allowed him to help slaughter an entire tribe of 500 "heathen" American "Indians".
If communication were used to INFORM rather than FORM, we would be given KNOWLEDGE instead of BELIEFS, scientifically defined facts and concepts instead of convictions loaded with love/hatred symbiosis.
We would evolve beyond blind dualisms such as right/wrong, pro/against, true/false... and integrate them in a continuum of relative values.
We would reject the assumption of one meaning for one concept, but then deny reality by expecting virtually unlimited perspectives for each meaning .
A nation with an impartially informative style of communication (including education) would refrain from the paranoid withdrawal of "dangerous" information and from the slanting of communication "to prevent wrong interpretation", and would present a kaleidoscopic reproduction of the world wide human diversity.
Unfortunately, this idea attracts those militants who understand it the least.
Within its territory, this nation would allow virtually as many religions, philosophies, parties and other differences as there are in the world.
The closest example we have of this diversity is ancient Rome (anti-Roms chauvinism, notwithstanding), whose empire was the greatesand relatively largest t in history, as long as all races, religions, and ideas Rome absorbed were progressively embraced into Roman citizenship.
The decline came when Rome surrendered to an Oriental faith (attributed to Jesus Christ but compiled by Paul of Tarsus and other successors), which stopped progress with an "eternal truth", promised heaven (conveniently after death) to its believers, and, in the "Dark Ages", cast hatred and damnation to the unbelievers and to life itself.
The Islamists are doing it now.
A millennium of Dark Ages confirmed the curse of an ambivalence based on a westernization of the Zoroastrian dualism, which the Orientals had rejected in favor of a Yin/Yang-type (continuous coexisting and interacting bad/good, female/male, dark/light, etc.) existentialism (not exactly, but this substitutes for a cumbersome lecture fairly well).
In spite of the awakening of the Renaissance, we are still in the straitjacket of the old dualism, and glory ourselves of an insidiously oversimplified "knowledge of right and wrong".
This closes all relevant communications between "us" and "them".
The leaders and educators of each nation, furthermore, persist in "forming good citizens" within their own parochial fetishes, even in the "Free World", and mankind remains torn by the right/wrong, love/hatred dance macabre.
The new "deconstructionists" profess a "liberating" nihilistic relativism, but they are not less dogmatic and ruthless than the Spanish Inquisition.
A "citizen" is an artificial entity created to satisfy some abstract social requirements by molding human beings into it.
But this is a process of human deformation.
Its effects disgrace even its best goals, because even its purists are insidiously contaminated.
Indeed, the more American, Chinese, and Muslim citizens draw from their respective local doctrines, the more they hate each other to the point of "heroically" killing and being killed.
This may be proper for "citizens" or "believers", but not for balanced human beings.
A human being is simply a phenomenon of conscious existence, a complete entity with indisputable validity beyond knowledge and definition.
It can remain such only with free growth from within and interaction with the world, not dogmatic formation from without.
Leaving alone the ideal coincidence that "a good citizen and a good human being can be one and the same", it remains that, at least inspirationally, the two concepts are radically different.
Our traditional confusion of the "formation" and "information" concepts
stems in the area in which they overlap.
We could say that we cannot avoid "forming" a child into a responsible adult, or (trans )"forming" a deranged person into a healthy one; and this may harmonize with one particular meaning of the word "forming".
But, when we analyze the meaning of the meaning, we find a gulf of implications between "forming by indoctrination" and "forming by information".
The subtleties and precious relevance of these distinctions render the task of the educator far more important and difficult than other social functions.
But today's educators are neutered by both their unions and "political correct" pattern.
Even the highest "virtues" obtained by indoctrination tend to be useless or dangerous, for indoctrinated minds tend to condemn rather than comprehend "deviations", and are the most susceptible to propaganda and brainwashing, which are compatible with indoctrination.
The ultimate consequence can be seen in the enhanced curiosity (to say the least) for the forbidden in puritanical society.
A remarkable proof of this is the underground success of pornography in puritanical societies, and the limited interest it causes in free environments.
The information problem is, perhaps, the most important human issue and communication function, on all levels, whether individual, local or worldwide.
One limiting reality should be irresistibly motivating: none of us was ever given a choice of whether, where and from whom to be born, and whether and by whom to be indoctrinated into what...
A human being without the freedom to choose his/her own convictions (or by others for him/her), independently of when, where and from whom to be born is not the epitome of freedom and dignity.
How do we explain this to our children without breaking traditional idols?

============================================================================================

THE MEDIA GAME

Americans are probably the most "informed" people in the world, thanks to the free press and electronic media, but much of the information they get is biased, unreliable and truth-distorting.
The result can reach manipulation or brainwashing.
The media know well how to lie by presenting real images or real events in a biased context.
Showing a photograph or an event from a certain perspective can radically distort reality without lying.

We believe that we know an event, a person, a political candidate, or a subject of any kind, whereas all we know is the image the media gave us.
What we see and read is not necessarily a lie, and yet often the very opposite of the truth.
In totalitarian countries, this distortion is planned, whether for good or evil, by experts dedicated to a dictated goal, without challenge from a different perspective.
In USA, the freedom of the press, radio and TV often results in either unplanned or intentional truth distortions, even if the prescription is to honor the truth or support a desired virtue.
The media confess that they are doing it, with the simple justification that no one can be absolutely impartial.
This is sufficient evidence to suspect that we are being manipulated, while the media assure us that they have no such intention.
The very fact that we are shown "what makes news", rather than the truth in unbiased perspective, is suspicious evidence per se.
The truth may be boring, unpleasant, frustrating.
In that case, what network or newspaper chain would care to show it impartially?
They are interested in selling. Besides, most people prefer to buy and support what pleases them.
We could conclude that totalitarian societies are led to believe what pleases the ruling classes, while "free" societies tend to believe what pleases the masses and the media.
Which is ultimately better?
Reality and truth often remain submerged under wishful thinking.

======================================================================================================

THROW THE MASK

The case against universal telepathy states that we would end up hating each other if our thoughts and feelings were as visible as our faces.
Prima facie evidence seems to corroborate it.
We think that many feelings must remain unexpressed, even if they are well meaning and harmless.
In many cases, someone's behavior or appearance may cause a reaction of annoyance, hostility or ridicule, which we must hide in order to avoid unpleasant consequences.
It would seem that the resultant of these experiences is a mask worn by every human being, to hide his feelings and thoughts.
This mask may be "social grace", "good manners" "tact", or "hypocrisy", "treachery", or anything fitting a particular personality.
But also lower species of living things wear masks of deception for survival, defense and attack.
They are masks against truthful communication.
The predatory animal must hide its purpose from its prospective victim.
The potential victim must hide from the hunter.
The fighter has no intention of revealing where he is going to strike next.
We could say that, in the beginning, our mask was a natural trait necessary for survival and competitive overpowering.
Thus, reason adapted to this mask rather than created it.
Yet, the more "Sapiens" "Homo" became, the more the mask interfered with the transparent communication needed by reason to further human evolution.
What was good for the competitive individual animal became an impediment for the cooperative societal man.
The shield needed for primitive survival became the barrier against the unfolding need for cooperation and understanding.
Moreover, the mask tended to distort reason in unnoticed self deception.
Freud's historical breakthrough with psychoanalysis not only revealed the subconscious and the id/ego/superego interactions, but gave us the means to postulate that, without the above described mask, we would hardly have any complexes, psychosis, or even a subconscious.

This is the case for telepathy or anything equivalent to instantaneous, unrestrained and unmasked communication of thoughts and feelings.

If we were fully telepathic (or anything equivalent), it would be impossible to lie, deceive, betray.
Feelings and attitudes as diverse as hypocrisy, envy, jealousy, shame, treason, hate, etc. could not even find a beginning to develop from.

The thoughts we could not express now for fear of misunderstanding could not be misunderstood.
Behaviors and feelings which now cause unexpressed negative reactions would lose their offensiveness in spontaneous sincerity.
They would be recognized as understandable and human in their transparency, and would thus elicit more empathy than hostility or condemnation.
The natural need and fulfillment of sharing would render any wish of privacy a sort of masochistic deviation.
Competition would be considered a bestial attribute, as well as the selfish accumulation of power or any property, since the synergistic cooperation from sharing would presumably offer more.

Throwing away our mask of deception and self deceit, therefore, would solve so many radical problems so simultaneously, that the resulting evolutionary progress could be properly called a mutation.
It is true that we don't know yet how to free ourselves. But the reason is that we have not yet focused on and defined the problem to the extent of gaining the public awareness that would inspire the solutions.
(The alternative would be a jungle behavior).
Focusing on a problem to define it properly is the most important phase toward a solution.
After this focusing and definition, the very thrust of conscious evolution can do the rest; as we hope.

It is not enough to say: "If you don't have a solution, don't bother talking about the problem".
This is a "no nonsense" approach that has compounded most of the problems it has faced.
Another human handicap is that man has remained so far back, a Neolithic "tool making" animal.
Still now, our civilization is technological rather than "humanistic".
We have advanced millennia from Zoroaster's, Buddha's, Plato's, and Christ's ages technology.
But they would remain unimpressed by our morals, politics, philosophy and goals...
An intriguing example of the "no nonsense" approach is the socialist communist solution.
As far as we are allowed to know, the above described... de masking problem was not defined as such by the communists.
They rather dogmatized the imperatives of brotherhood, public property, selflessness, cooperation rather than competition, unqualified individual equality, sharing, etc.
Unless we have an opposite dogmatism, these goals are undeniably worth pursuing. But they are nothing more than a utopia if "human nature" is not first freed of that mask of deceit which injects hypocrisy, treachery and hostility into almost anything we pursue.
Therefore, the communist "paradise" started and ended in brutality and oppression.
Capitalism doesn't stop at the reasonable conclusion that the socialistic solution is utopian.
Capitalism goes beyond this conclusion by documenting that the results of that utopia are evil, and those evils are even elevated to virtues as long as the utopia is not transformed into an obtainable goal.
Unlike socialism, capitalism uses a hidden Machiavellian approach based on "what works", rather than on sacrificing human to Marxist values.
There is a good hope in the present cybernetic revolution, which is unwittingly helping human reason by means of an explosive and implosive development of an endless number of communication systems.

To the "biosphere", a "noosphere" (a sphere of thought and knowledge) is being added, which has a life and laws of its own.
This is the last evolutionary development in man, so far. A sphere of thoughts and feelings which require open, immediate, truthful communication.
Either it will destroy the mask, or the mask will destroy it.
There may be a Hegelian "synthesis" of those "thesis" and "antithesis" variations, but we don't see it yet.
As we take sides (still to be defined) in this struggle, we will determine evolution or decay.

==============================================================================================

THE GENETIC COOKBOOK

The ability we have developed to perform genetic engineering is more promising and menacing than nuclear energy.
The problem is that we know far too little about the consequences of changing the genes.
It is easy to say that it would be wonderful to eliminate a particular disease or introduce an evolutionary change.
But we don't know whether these advances can create consequences and side effects that could be more harmful than the diseases we want to cure.
We may think it would be a good idea to create a new species of human beings that is much stronger, larger or smaller and long lived.
What is the consequence of more strength and longer life?
Will people be more dangerous and the population too large?
Has anyone ever wondered whether it would be better or worse to be larger?
I could advocate to change the size of human beings to no taller than 1 or 3 feet. Probably even smaller.
Who could definitely prove what the best size would be for humans? Why not 1 2 inches, or 9 feet?
The ultimate consequences could be splendid or horrible. Who knows?
Would it be better to choose the "best possible" race and mutate the other races [with their permission, of course...] accordingly?
Which one? Or would it be dangerous?
Could we operate on genes so that the new humans could get nourishment from eating grass and wood, or, say, rocks? What would we pay for that?
Frankly, we don't even know whether the mutators or mutatees would know better.
So far, the geneticists say that they would not tamper with those parameters
Oh yea?

=======================================================================================

EVEN THE SMITHSONIAN

From The Wall Street Journ al. July 8, 1994:1991. At the Smithsonian National Museum of American Art, the exhibit called "The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier" described the Westward expansion in USA as a capitalistic crime.
The Pilgrims, the settlers, the explorers were all considered as malefic invaders intent to "conquer and exploit land rather than nurture its productive capacity."
1994. The Smithsonian event "Treehouse People, Cannibal Justice", conducted by Dr. Paul Taylor, curator of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, describes the houses and the cannibalism of the Korowai tribe, in New Guinea, as examples of great cultural distinction: the tree houses as "a major architectural achievement for any place in the world", and their cannibalism as a "well functioning example of how reasonable method of how a complete criminal justice system works", which may seem barbaric, until seen from within the Coroway cultural system.
It works like this:
Whereas men are punished otherwise, also for the most serious crimes, women are killed and eaten "for crimes like stealing bananas or other crops". "The victim is first tied by the elbows, then brought to a river, encircled and pierced by tribesmen shooting arrows.
The body is carefully cut up into six pieces while those appointed to do the cutting have, we further learn, 'a good time and sing'... When the body is cooked and eaten down by the riverside, there is... nothing left over; everything is eaten."
In another place, Dr. Taylor mentions that women receive the same pay as men in building the tree houses, which "feminists in any country in the world would very much agree with."
He adds that we are the last generation "who could learn from people like this."
"He, he, ho, ho... Western culture's got to go..." (by Jesse Jackson).

======================================================================================

THE QWANZAA THING

In 1966, Maulana Karenga, student at the Long Beach California State University, used the Swahili word Kwanza (from "Mutunda ya qwanza" = first fruits) to create the "African-American Cultural Celebration" word "KWANZAA", in which the last "a" was added to have seven letters to represent the seven principles, in Swahili: umoja (unity), kujichagulia (self determination), ujima (collective work and responsibility), ujamaa (cooperative economics), nia (purpose), kuumba (creativity) imani (faith).
This celebration was supposed to last 7 days until Dec. 31, as an African American Christmas, to take the place of the Christian Christmas.
A believer explained: "It is important for me to raise my children to know their heritage and to feel good about it.
So Quanzaa for us is about celebrating our culture - about who we are as African-Americans and honoring the seven principles."
[Couldn't they choose a date of their own, instead of pirating the Christian patterns?]
But it would be a lie not to tell the children that their "Quanzaa" "African" heritage was a Californian hoax in a language none of their forefathers ever spoke.
A "multicultural consultant" (an improvised profession) comments: "If you connect with those principles during Qwanzaa time, it serves as a reminder of what you should be doing all year around"
QWANZAA, unfortunately, won't serve the black goals any more than the history fallacies that: Egypt and Cleopatra were black, Aristotle stole his philosophy from the Alexandria library, Timbuktu was an international book center, ancient black Africans could fly and Europeans took it away from them...
First, Swahili is no more the heritage language of the African Americans than Hungarian is of the Mexicans.
Most, if not all, original "African Americans" came from West-coast Africa, where languages like Wolof, Fulani, Bambara, Malinke, Mende, Mossi, Ga, Yoruba, Igbo, Akan are spoken, whereas Swahili is an East-coast Africa modified Bantu (with some Arabian) language, primarily spoken in an area from Kenya to Tanzania by approximately one million people. East and West Coast Africans had no notion of each other or any kind of mutual contact or communication in those times: one look at the Africa map would show it.
Then, the "seven principles" seem to have been picked from a Mickey Mouse Maoist catechism, certainly not from black American or West African traditions.
After closer scrutiny, most African Americans would reject the discredited socio/political slant.
The Qwanza at Christmas is as appropriate as motor oil in coffee.

=================================================================================================

SCRAMBLED THOUGHTS

The new American leftist academic is closed from the world by the way he is opening to it.
Time ago, he used to study and learn from China, Germany, Italy and other cultures.
Now, with the present "multicultural" American inspiration, he is going out to help and meddle in the "developing" world, not to learn, but to spawn the American Way of Multi-
culturalism.
This syndrome is especially malevolent in those "post Marxist" academics who go abroad to... teach the foreigners about how the Americans want to learn from them. [It makes no sense, but it is what they want to do].
Often, we close our minds to learning when we think we know, in the same way as some concentration on teaching may deprive us of the ability to acquire knowledge.
We know calculus, we can philosophize and go to the Moon, but we cannot make a tomato the way a seed can, nor can we reproduce any better than dogs, insects or plants.
The primordial motif of this observation seems to be epitomized in man's idea of a god: a being that possesses the ultimate attributes man can imagine.
The fact that some cultures imagine god making man out of clay and then blowing the breath of life into it, shows man's expectation regarding his ultimate evolution.
Today's man may substitute clay with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, silica, calcium etc., but the progress would be from the first inch to the second inch in a path of thousands of miles...
Probably, at the end of the path, the culmination point is even unimaginably higher than the capability of creating life: yes, beyond God, or any gods, for any of our gods is only as high as the limited reach of our present imagination.
We only need to think of the billions of galaxies, each one containing billions of stars as large or larger tan our sun, each star with or without planets, satellites and.... what else?..
Those dimensions beyond our comprehension are not less mind boggling than the path we would have to journey in order to evolve beyond our vision of gods who can only create life out of clay or pure thought.
Along this path, we are still at a stage probably as far back as a primordial cell relative to our idea of a superman.
***************************

The most stupid ideas are often represented with lofty and intelligent words.
-The simple minded and the anti intellectual are unable to tolerate the articulation of reasoning.
They call it a "lecture", because the official equality worship considers the attempt to enlighten someone as an absurd pretension that the speaker knows his subject more than the listener does.
- In our society, a friend, a coworker, a spouse or team mate should never act like a "lecturing teacher".
Another clue to this posture is the resentful contention: "you want to change my life" (is that a sin or crime?) to the same attempts to explain a new or unknown reasoning.
The cult of individualism and equality invades and distorts fields they don't belong to.
Some of these fields are: competence, knowledge, wisdom, responsibility, duties.

Some people are ignorant, irresponsible, even dangerous; but the "a priory" sacredness of their individuality, equality and authority forces us to defend and often lionize their incompetence, ignorance and irresponsibility.

Any ass can say now: "Give me liberty or give me death" and become immortal, even if he is planning destruction.

Today's (2002 a. d.) Statue of Liberty says: "Give me the criminal human garbage of the worst America-hating countries and we will welcome and protect them against the Americans, American law and culture..."

The cultural erosion they cause in our midst is allowed to cause progressive social decay, until the general level is so low that we will be submerged by other cultures.
This is not mere alarmism: it has happened countless times in history.
America is not immune to it.
The extinction of cultures has been often preceded by self righteous attitudes similar to our dogmas about the right to be what we claim to be and the downward unchangeable equality of all.

American Nobel prizes are construed as recognition of American cultural superiority.

No matter how provincial we love to be, most of our cultural attributes are multicultural and European, as well as American, because that is what our culture is made of.
Besides, some of those laureates were educated abroad, created their achievements in their original countries and came to USA because they found in the American System the financial and social opportunities to implement what they had created.
The same "nderstanding" rages about the "liberty" motivation of the immigrants.
The truth is that liberty was not so hot an issue with most immigrants in their original country.
What they sought was an opportunity to produce more prosperity for themselves and their families.
It just happens that they are delighted to state that they were motivated by the liberty ideals because it costs them nothing to tell the harmless story the interviewers are so eager to believe and so reluctant to verify.
Some peoples and cultures are initially or permanently parasitic.
They live off other cultures, and the cultures who host them are thus improved or contaminated.
The "revolution" of the 60s was not a revolution for humanistic values by humanists, but a revolution caused by awareness of the need for humanistic values by individuals who had neither humanistic competence nor ability to develop it.
Similarly, the attraction to science leads scientifically incompetent people toward gadgetry, rather than toward mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry etc.
Humanisticly uneducated people motivated by humanistic wishful thinking are attracted to easy psychology, sociology and welfare rather than to philosophy, history and economics.
The effects this phenomenon can produce are evident in the lobotomizing of history and geography by submerging them in "social studies".
- - A young generation, race or nation takes over from the old or "decadent". It happens as a historical development, as an invasion of "barbarians", as a conquest...
- Often, the "decadence" is a sophistication that discovered that the vital values it has previously relied upon are no longer valid, or beyond the present cultural grasp.
- Increased knowledge may suggest that what is true today is disproved tomorrow, and almost nothing we know is certain or worth dying for...
The value of life itself is doubted...
When a sophisticated culture has reached this level, it becomes helpless against the onslaught of primitive barbarians with strong simplistic beliefs they are willing to die for, like the Muslims.

- When the barbarians have conquered, they pursue the same course of sophistication, no matter on which path.
Then, they become similarly vulnerable to the new barbarians with stronger beliefs...
And the process goes on: what we call decay could actually be a sophisticated entropic progress.
- In the balance, the continuous victory of barbarians against refined people is a victory of the "negative" primitive, which can be seen as a positive "life" force.
- Who knows how many cycles are necessary until the last drop dissolves into the ocean...
When we observe a natural phenomenon, we do not try to see justice or injustice in it: only reality and laws of nature, outside of good and evil.
- We would never think of starting an "Upward Gravity Rights" movement, in spite of our legal right to demand an "upward gravity" force.
- Good and evil are man's creation.
- Only in human matters we see right and wrong, good and evil.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's (1844-1900) claim that 3/4 of the German intellectuals were Protestant ministers' or teachers' sons should also have applied to the Americans in general.
In fact, in both scenarios the intellectual is more an observer than a doer in his own culture.
- This subtly alienates the intellectual element from a vital participation in our culture.
The consequences are insidiously deep: from our money polluted educational system (the best funded in the world, but one of the worst) to our disastrous bungling in race, sex and rights problems.
Nowadays (1990s and later), the ridiculously politically correct "he or she", instead of the generic "he", the blacks question, the gender-feminists, the oxymoronic homosexual genes (coming, presumably, from fertilization of feces by sperms)... are incessantly in the way of higher issues, such as needed for our cultural progress.
- We cannot exercise our awareness, development, unfolding, and assimilation of culture, ideas and feelings because we are numbed, limited by obtuse concentration on women's and black equality, which can derive from, not conduce to, cultural evolution.
- When those issues are at their most important, they are only side effects of the primary factors that end up removed from our awareness, to show women and "minorities" in functions and positions that can only be reached if the ignored factors were focused on instead.
And the pundits demand to be on top of the mountain without climbing.
The cruder a culture is, the more it needs a faith, a religion.
- Devotion to a credo is much more comfortable and practical than examining a reality. The believer's intolerance is much easier than the thinker's tolerance.
- The "high" of temporary happiness coming from a belief is easier to achieve than the inner harmony from reasoning.
- But political correctness has begun to corrode the American ability to reason.
- The present replacement of religion with political correctness shows that, instead of finding an evolutionary substitute for the present hollowed religion, we are sinking in a sinister anti-religion obscurantism.
- The present prohibition of religious expression in public events is a Freudian slip revealing the leftist legislator's panic that they have noting to offer as good as (let alone better than) religion.
A typical declared enemy of our culture is the Protestant minister rev. Jesse Jackson, who publicly demonstrated against the Western culture (which educated him).
- He was the political activist who ran for president of the USA, the inventor of the monochrome rainbow (his "Rainbow Coalition" was a black racist political movement he claimed was multiracial), who reportedly smeared his shirt with red stains to falsely claim that Martin Luther King Jr. died in his arms when he was shot...
- Other enemies of the Western culture:
- male and family-hating gender feminists ("femiranhas" or "feminazis") who seethe with rage against the endless "sexist" writings and ideas by white males in Western literature, politics, etc.;
- disgruntled liberal "scholars" who have irreversibly built their reputations, tenures and clout on defunct and discredited Marxist theories;
- "African American" black activists and politicians who thrive on blaming the whites for any social problem; - male and female omosexuals at war with the Christian/Jewish/Moslem and cultural condemnation of homosexuality;
- rock, movie, sport, popular music performers and rock millionaires with inferiority resentment against classic music, theater, literature, culture...
- These and other vested interests surely build a mediocrity majority who feel that anti culture postures are much easier than learned culture.
Free commerce, as an equalizer and competition stimulant, creates culture insofar as it doesn't intend to create it.
- If culture created culture as a goal, it would cripple it with bureaucratic prescriptions.
- Rousseau's statement, two centuries ago, that "man was born free but everywhere he is in chains", was inspired by the belief that freedom and human ideals are real in nature but corrupted by society.
But the freedom from want, starvation and fear that we aim to enjoy in society is absent in a natural environment, where survival reduces freedom, equality, rights, justice, "entitlements" to inane twaddle. Besides,
man is the one who chained man.
- Survival is totally unconcerned with the ideals of our culture.
- For the natural man, "give me liberty or give me death" is a droll statement. Liberty, rights, justice acquire significance only after the vital needs have been satisfied and secured.
- Like other species, man needs first life, security, nutrition, protection from hunger, pain, and other natural adversities.
If slavery is necessary to secure them, then he would rather have slavery, no matter how unpleasant.
- r ideals and convictions are ephemeral when we ignore other conditions, concepts and knowledge we should have mastered first.
The most immediately important thing in life is not LIBERTY; it is BREATHING. It may be corny, but valid.
- We only have words to describe what we perceive, and words only represent other perceptions we were able to reach before describing the new perception.
- Using words is somewhat similar to the use of the mask (called "persona") ancient Roman actors wore to represent characters invented by the playwright.
A word is not the object it represents, but the interpretation we have invented of the subject we choose to represent with that word.
- The 3 basic "personae" on the human stage are: man, woman and child.
Each of them, in turn, wears any of many masks, and becomes it temporarily, at some stage. But the 3 most basic masks are hidden or ignored by conventional knowledge:
===(1): Man,
propelled by sex and power, the same way as a predatory animal who marks his exclusive territory, and fights to mate with a female exclusively of other males. What he understands is immaterial. He performs his function instinctively. Whenever he tries to understand or improve on it, he risks muddling and distorting it.
The ideals and values above survival, from justice to science, have been mostly sublimed from the primordial struggles and instincts.
They are still in a primitive male interpretation (heavily nurtured by woman) which was instinctively adopted by both men and women.
- Our present attempts to sophisticate it still bears the primitive "adversary" male-female or winner-loser negativism.
===- (2): Woman, who lives for reproduction. Her body is the undisputable proof of it. Even the most rabid ultra-feminists cannot avoid menstruation, menopause, female hormones and reproductive organs.
She cannot change the cause, course and consequences of sacred pregnancy and motherhood.
Normally, her sex urge is not driven just by pleasure, as in man, but primarily by the privilege to reproduce in the selective pattern dictated by nature: men fight for her (various forms of courtship), and she accepts the winner, regardless of anything else, and receives his insemination.
- Human supreme reality sublimes this truth into poetic and sacred concepts which glorify their source.

=== (3): Child(ren),
both male and female, as the beginning stage of human development: he depends helplessly on the adult's nurturing, until he/she can take the latter's place.
No adult or child can change that.
If they attempt to do it, childhood and adult life are thwarted.
- Family, tribe, society, religion, culture, civilizations and nations are nothing but sublimed consequences of the above sacred family realities, even if they ignore them in the process.
- They decay and perish if they develop patterns that conflict with the three basic sacred roles above described.

The validity of what we say is doubtful, if we can only communicate through words.
"Nature", for instance, is just a word that represents only what we understand of what we perceive as a scenario or base of life and existence.
Then, when we have created a word, everything we designate with it is tainted with that word.
When we say "reality", we give arbitrary definitions of this word and squeeze whatever we fancy into it, to the point of calling "reality" something unreal that we believe to be real, or we wish it were.
No matter how many definitions we give to it, and how much they may contradict each other, we glibly give the attribute of "reality" to many things. We call things "real" or "unreal", not because of a proven reality or unreality, but because of how we interpret it.
-Take the basic concepts of life and death, which we have been trying to define for millennia.
We are still trying to define many subjects in terms of life and death; yet, reality is indifferent to any aspect of life and death.
One could say that I am alive, whether in the past, present or future, whether I am present or absent.

- First, we are prisoners of these words, even if our definitions are changeable and vague.
They preclude our view of what is hidden behind and beyond them.
It is this kind of aberration that allows us to create concepts like God, which induce us into absurdities like genocides, or worshipping by jerking our heads like slow motion woodpeckers in front of a presumed holy object.
- Beings from another world would look at us practicing our religions, wars, politics, the way we look at a colony of ants passing by, without the faintest notion of what they think they are doing.
The results of many ambitious projects are often the opposite of the intended goals because the knowledge of the involved parameters was either false or incomplete.
Therefore we hear that the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
- Many individual and national disasters are classical examples, such as:
- welfare, communism, marriages based on love only, equalitarian education, many court decisions, political treaties and choices based on false assumptions, religious judgments, business plans and strategies, battle plans, forced cultural or racial integration, incompetent implementation of good projects, zealotry, intransigence, dogmatism, endemic bureaucratic methods, fashionable human rights...
- Many of the worst problems could be avoided if we were able to appreciate what happened in the past.
- Our feeling that past interpretations were inferior to our present competence is one of our worst traps.
There are subjects like truthfulness, moral and ethical integrity, dependability, friendliness, hostility, deception, loyalty, hypocrisy, and countless more, that were the same thousands of years ago as now.

- Other subjects are not so obvious, because we delude ourselves that what we know today can dismiss what we knew yesterday.
This is particularly true with subjects which did not find satisfactory solutions in the past.
However, today's interpretation may produce worse problems than yesterday's failures.
- Many problems would not exist if we took seriously yesterday's results and interpretations.
We don't have to accept them, but we should at least make a serious analysis of the reasons why we are unable to accept them as less valid than our present experiences.
- We could learn that much of what we dismiss as "old" may compare favorably with today's understanding.
- Those who disparage the past are normally those with the least knowledge.
Reality, like nature, is unconcerned about being noticed or comprehended by us.
- A prerequisite of our existence is not to know or understand nature, but to comply with it.
- The notion that we are the "lords of creation", as some religions would have it, is a narcissistic delusion.
We are not even a "chosen" form of life.
- The Jews, for instance, are biblically declared the superior culture by a semantic twist
Their being the "chosen people" originated in a polytheistic conceived world, as the Bible shows:
God was just one of many gods.
Unlike other gods (also mentioned in the Bible), He was a god without people who would worship Him.
The Jews, unlike other people (who were chosen by other gods), were looking for a god.
They became not the only people chosen by the only god, but the available people that particular god without worshipers could choose (that is the meaning of "god of the Jews").
There goes the idea of the Jewish superior race.
But they are the "superior race" because they eagerly changed their initial polytheistic interpretation to the assumption that they were the race THEIRT ONLY GOD preferred above all other races.
- Man is one of the many factors of an evolutionary nature which has no predilection for man or other forms of life.
We can be most dangerous when we believe we understand and can help nature.
In fact, we may damage our world, life and mankind itself when we try to help them according to mistaken interpretations.
We are already damaging entire communities and nations with a welfare approach that makes them as viciously dependent on help as drug addicts on heroin.

Nature's ruthless reaction to our meddling with our environment and other beings is the ultimate justice: with our blunders, we may finally cause our own extinction.
The course of evolution seems to be more a curve, like a relativistic shortest distance, rather than a straight course.
First, we start moving away from "primitive" nature, because it is easier to think that we improve by changing away, than by understanding.
Changing is easier, because we fit whatever we don't comprehend into what we understand.

Understanding gives us no choice but the truth, which is too often more than we can handle.
By so doing, however, we move on a circle, and at the end of our path we reach the point we started from.
If we have learned our lesson, we discover that, rather than moving away, or "beyond" nature, we must penetrate into it and understand it.
"Understanding" nature, however is still an anthropomorphic requirement.
Therefore, it should be only the beginning of our final harmonizing with nature.
We must harmonize, as other life forms do, without the necessity to comprehend, judge and choose truth, right and wrong.
Civilization started when father's role was discovered and respected.
- American gender feminism and black racism are unwittingly conspiring in the most asinine attack against history, culture, democracy, patriarchy and the white male.
(1) History.
Incredibly distorted and incompetent notions have been written and declared to assert blatant falsehoods about the history of race and gender.
Too many teachers and students are unaware of the present historical distortions, because they only know of a hollow history that, like geography, has been homogenized into the insignificance of "social studies".
(2) Culture.
Cultural values jave been so dishonestly negated to Western civilization, and attributed, through plagiarism and falsifications, to black Africans and hapless women who never dreamed of claiming what the "femiranhas" (or "feminazis") assert.
(3) Democracy.
Blacks, women, homosexuals and other "victims" are now political classes rather than individuals, to the weird delight of the Marxist militants.
As they are maneuvered into voting as blocks, what politically-correct blacks or women would dare to be conservative, or pro Western, or not anti white, or not anti white -male?
Many universities have now Inquisitions that relentlessly persecute, without appeal, anyone who deviates lightly from the prescribed "think- talk, do and feel".
Politicians comply with gutless servility with the Inquisition demands and parade cowardly attacks against Western culture and the white male, because they think that blacks and women vote in monolithic blocks in favor of anyone who campaigns against the white male and Western culture.
(4) White male. Well, white male only has to wait for sanity to return from beyond Alice's Wonderland.
The anti white male fanatics are "Freudian slipping" from incompetence: they are preparing the best rebirth of white male "supremacy" brand by making him synonymous with Western culture, while focusing on the hostility of ephemeral groups like the "African Americans", ultra-feminists, homosexual militants and deconstructionist liberals against it.
When reality will have restored Western culture back in its commanding position, the white male (= any human who accepts what is positive and attributed to the white male) will be unwittingly vindicated by simple inseparable association.
Then, like before, he will have to debunk the superhuman qualities he is attributed by the new cultists (=Trojan horses of against progress).
And, like before, white males, Western culture etc. will be blamed for everything.
Then, again.... you know the story by now.
Please, let's restore history and geography out of "social studies" into their rightful prominence.
Those who fail to learn them will have to face simple, evolutionary, intransigent flunking.

Some of the most cruelly intransigent people are among the zealots for human and animal welfare, crusaders for equality and wealth distribution, protectors of endangered species, ecology radicals, race missionaries, feminism freaks, passionate cultists of love, religion and other subjects characterized more by wishful conviction than knowledge.
They are often more dangerous than the evils they want to fight, because they are blinded by the inflexibility of righteousness, and by the deceiving foundations of what they are devoted to.
They show the typically alarmed over reaction of those who feel menaced by any disagreement.
If we imagine an evolutionary path from the single molecule, through cells, organism, bodies, senses, instincts, perception, intelligence and inherited traits, and from these toward learning, knowledge and the highest human sophistication, we can safely say that 99.99% of the path goes from the cell to the uneducated human baby.
This could indicate that the human developments unfolding from childhood to the highest possible accumulated knowledge are insignificant, compared to what nature has already done for us.
The importance we give to human cultural developments may be therefore greatly exaggerated.
With this awareness, we must restore the guidelines of nature to their dominant position, rather than try to distort nature to make it fit our interpretations.
We must have the intelligence and courage to re-examine all our ideals and beliefs, and change them to fit the guidance nature gives us in its human realities.
Daunting?

*********************************************

WHERETO .. FROM HERE?

The frontiers between nations are (or should be) fading in favor of cultural and/or religious groupings, such as an ideally unified. === Western Culture, comprising North, Central and South America, Europe, including Russia, plus Australia and New Zeeland, Israel and emerging countries on one side.
=== China and related cultures come next as the second grouping.
===The Islamic countries as a third block.
=== India and other countries or ethnic groups which may want to join the Western Culture or whatever.
=== Most of the African countries are sill in a Limbo.
=== Some countries still in doubt, like Japan, have not chosen yet.
Is possibility? Is the U.S.A. the new Rome?
Not likely when the prominent American politicians competing f0r the the leadership the world -publcally dispute the right of those who campaign about equal rights of those who conjugate their sperm with the excrement in the rectum of their peers, with those who conjugated sperm with ovum, or how to conduct an war by deciding h0w t0 recall fighting soldiers back and abandon other soldiers and unarmed civilians to die and surrender to bloodthirsty terrorists and retreat...
- Rremember the "Sack of Rome" (1527, ONLY 10 YEARS AFTER Martin Luther protest that did not even request separation from Catholicism)as one of the most heinous event in human history, when a monstrous uncounted number of fanatic German murderers, rapists, cannibals, torturers and other unmentionable monsters invaded the unsuspecting Rome by surprise and ravaged it for countless days and nights...,
This Hell on Earth was carefully ignored and hidden by most historians in Protestant environments, and its memory is still now avoided even by Catholics, because its mention alone can cause irrational reprisals of all kinds.... Is it possible that a guilt complex can cripple our history?
John J.P. Caporaso

Please click here to send a comment or suggestion
in English, German, French, Spanish, or Italian.

Return to main page

020807