Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Questioning Critiques and Philosophic fads

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Questioning Critiques and Philosophic fads

    If you are certain that there is progress in matters philosophique or spiritual
    If you are wise and never succumb to the emotional romantique not rational
    If you truly care to impress the hoi polloi or just a boy
    Then you read the latest Post or Times reviews for fun
    But I propose not to really ever quite truly succumb
    More like a kid with his or her favorite toy

    "Becoming Conrad Aiken

    Edward Butscher

    August 17, 1989 Issue

    In response to:

    The Poet in Limbo from the December 22, 1988 issue

    To the Editors:

    I would like to comment on Professor Donoghue’s fireside chat about my tastefully designed, handsomely jacketed Conrad Aiken: Poet of White Horse Vale, University of Georgia Press, $34.95, illustrated [NYR, December 22, 1988].

    There is much to praise in his critique, especially its length. Poor Aiken! Professor Donoghue’s level-headed sermon makes clear that his main sin lay in choosing to become Conrad Aiken. A further blot, aside from heeding Freud and Jung, was the method he selected for “not being modern,” abjuring the “better” ways “suggested by the work of A.E. Housman, Frost, E.A. Robinson, Wilfred Owen, and Edward Thomas,” although it probably mattered little in the long run since he, like Kafka, had nothing to write about except himself, “a central concern of Romanticism.”

    What Professor Donoghue, an Enlightenment philosophe at heart, apparently cannot countenance is the fact that literature, unlike his review, remains an emotional enterprise, an act of passion, however over-determined or overtly rational its modalities. It was Eliot who preached the importance of poets seeking “whatever subject matter allows us the most powerful and the most secret release.”1 Which helps explain why Professor Donoghue’s not unsympathetic New Critical reading of my book and Aiken’s poetic evolution rendered a disservice to both.

    Richard Ellmann predicted that literary biographies would “continue to be archival, but the best ones will offer speculations, conjectures, hypotheses.”2 In other words, under the pressure of increasing knowledge, they will have to take more chances, echoing modernist tactics in that sense, with a similar threat of lost audiences. For me, this meant reliance on a well-established body of psychoanalytic insights that obviously caused Professor Donoghue some uneasiness, an uneasiness I share to a certain degree, at least anent the potential for sacrificing experience to theory.

    The result was a critical biography that strives, for instance, to demonstrate how Aiken could achieve the mastery evident throughout Preludes for Memnon without resolving the neurotic compulsions stunting his growth as a human being. I will not attempt here to defend the validity of my conclusions, but it is crucial to the understanding of any artist’s maturation drama that the complicated process behind aesthetic decision-making not be reduced to a set of luxury car options.

    Aiken, who always wrote too much verse too readily and had a terrible struggle to elude the noose of friend Eliot’s contempt and precocious accomplishments, retarded his own poetic development by aping the successes of admired contemporaries, including Eliot, John Masefield, John Gould Fletcher, and Edgar Lee Masters. Why he did so relates to the profound insecurity—fears of an absent self—trembling beneath his flippant, skeptical, often pugnacious surface. And, yes, the insecurity and a concomitant misogyny, reinforced by a host of cultural and educational factors, can be traced back to childhood abuse and the loss of both parents at puberty’s threshold.

    Consequently, when he located, at last, the voice and content that would permit him to produce the major poetry he was capable of producing, it was a convoluted psychological and literary event. Whitman and Tennyson, not Stevens, supplied pivotal models, though Professor Donoghue is right to stress the latter’s continuing impact. The symbolic lyric sequence, a series of reflexive allegories, marking Aiken’s emergence as a powerful American modernist came in the spring of 1924, while he was in the grip of a serious depression. It is a measure of Professor Donoghue’s antipathy toward depth psychology that he wastes space poking fun at my analysis of “Changing Mind” (1925), which I had conceded was “more fun to interpret than to read or experience,” but completely ignores this extraordinary group of poems.

    As for the historic and noetic circumstances abetting Aiken’s artistic progress (or lack of same), their complexity resists a brief summary. It might be noted in passing, however, that Nietzsche’s effort to shift Western philosophy’s focus from inferential reasoning to impressionistic existentialism, from logic to psychology, complemented his faith in psychoanalytic paradigms. Freud and Nietzsche were undeniable American obsessions in the early decades of this century, and Aiken’s tenacious Romantic introspection reflected a 1920’s intellectual climate."

    What a masterful bitch-slapping effort of guile and intellect!

    Historical speculation, philosophical argument, literary criticism, case histories, biography, semantic and semiotic analysis, ethnography - all these and more ought to be admissible as ways of telling our stories, and the less concern about method, the better. One becomes fastidious about method only when one has no story to tell.

    ...The alternative is to remain a shrivelled pseudo-science, useless for everything
    except the assembly line production of PH.D.s.

    Neil Postman.[/
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-09-2016 at 05:56 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    In my mind's eye we have techniques or tools which when applied bring forth new approaches depending on the strength of reason and integration across boundaries made by previous thinkers. Some of the tools are not even related to reason and that further exacerbates any differentiation worthy of being considered a school of Philosophy. I will overlook the fact that Greek thinkers originated very little if anything at all. Their hegemony or governing entities sought to destroy and Hellenize or make philosophy a form of Hell which had not previously been considered any more real than the gods people knew were representations in idealized forms. I have to overlook this because we are left with little more than Hecateus's "all in one" - ness and Pythagoras's vectors of energy intertwining the cosmic cum harmonic earth frame resonance which people will always call Plato's Metaphysics even though he was probably only a little better than other students of Socrates. Then on the other side of the Philosophic continuum we have a dialectic questioning in depth which starts by a true interrogation using any and all points of reference - employed by Socrates who gets no credit for having generated the Scientific Method of Observe - then Theorize - Proof - then Conclude; before starting anew to enjoy what was applicable in all areas the idea can be applied to.

    Clearly de-constructing ideas was part of the Socratian Dialectic, so how anyone can call this a school of Philosophy is beyond me. I am glad the tool was highlighted recently by Jacques Derrida, I enjoy it's usefulness in Literary Theory and critique. However, I think all the naming of re-hashed nomenclatures and hackneyed phraseology is just rationalization for new chairs and endowments in social exercises for effete elites who are not conversant with wisdom schools in the first place. Was it Snagglepuss who said "Methinks therefore I Yam (YHVH).!" I cant give Kant credit for much more than no mind repetition and it is hard to grasp how absurdity does much more than confront an existential medium of social intercourse, at least in the hands of Harold Pinter and Camus. Maybe I can't get it - any of it - at all!

    I have enjoyed dancing circles around Cognitive Analytical ideologues with tests they do not design. I can demonstrate the flaws in the tests and explain each of the question's origin in modality or cliché. The epistemic teleological ontology is just obfuscation in the main. Yes, if you are to employ yourself in the fields of schooling and brainwashing you must make it appear you understand what the latest re-hashing says is different. Self-esteem is not as important as Purpose or Logotherapy in my jaundiced opinion. Socrates sought a muse much deeper than mere back-slapping Sophistry. With integrity like that of a man who drank Hemlock when confronted by the Hegemony who tired of him questioning their authority or laws against equality what can I say - he will always stand above the mendacity of mortal men who engage in pocketbook power-thinking over wisdom.

    I have reason to enjoy what comes naturally to me, in a logical linear process or learning style which I have accentuated through application of the opposite approach which is spatial creative or meta (wholeness) physical. So in the end I am a rather eccentric sort of autodidactic dilettante with no discipline due to my deranged desire for truth and Right Thought with complete wholes or no belief at all. You can call it Bairdism - which it was, before Pythagoras was initiated into Druidry or Bairdism. In colloquial terms it was known as Thoth/Hermes (Rome) or Imhotep/Asklepios (Greece) in the Hermetic continuum of changing alphabets and languages just a millennium before he came dancing with Abaris the Hyperborean onto the stage of Old World structuralism. No matter what you think about what any Professor of Philosophy or his analysis of knowledge acquisition - if he cannot tell you who knows god or how to gain access to such knowledge just remember he too is no more than a fool. If he acknowledges the Fool on the Tarot cards is a teacher for us all then you should pay heed, but if he reacts in anger or disdain - like the proverbial guru seeking students or fool-owers - shoot him. I am of course, speaking in a metaphorical sense.

    Plato in the eyes of Derrida saw writing as a drug. He also knew it was not disciplined knowledge transmission and a way to avoid real understanding in depth. We can all quote from his ilk and say whatever we want after we study them long enough.

    Wikipedia has a rather complete thread on just the Trial of Socrates which had been a play by Voltaire during the revival of reason and enlightenment. I am quite open to a less corrupt form of government and even if it gets called Anarchy by those in power. If that means questioning all people and encouraging real thinking as Socrates did - you can also call me a supporter of meritocracy. In fact I have inspected every word used to describe a person's political bent or acts and I find so much overpaid chicanery inside the various parties as well as in the critical commentaries that none of the words mean much to me. I guess you could say I regard gossip and uninformed opinion with distaste approaching disgust. I feel that is pretty much how Socrates acted in his trial for which he is justifiably famous. We need more like him! So it is no surprise that I see Wikipedia having discourse about gossip and uninformed reactions during his era and afterwards.

    "Moreover, according to the portraits left by some of Socrates' followers, Socrates himself seems to have openly espoused certain anti-democratic views, most prominent perhaps being the view that it is not majority opinion that yields correct policy but rather genuine knowledge and professional competence, which is possessed by only a few.[13] Plato also portrays him as being severely critical of some of the most prominent and well-respected leaders of the Athenian democracy;[14] and even has him claim that the officials selected by the Athenian system of governance cannot credibly be regarded as benefactors, since it is not any group of many that benefits, but only "some one person or very few".[15] Finally, Socrates was known as often praising the laws of the undemocratic regimes of Sparta and Crete.[16]

    Apart from his views on politics, Socrates held unusual views on religion. He made several references to his personal spirit, or daimonion, although he explicitly claimed that it never urged him on, but only warned him against various prospective actions. Many of his contemporaries were suspicious of Socrates's daimonion as a rejection of the state religion."

    A perceptive and well read intellectual would say my idol (from reading just these words) is Samuel Johnson but I am just as influenced by a more modern Johnson who writes about Literary Theory as a means to limit growth and new ideas. I am not in the closet with Thomas Kuhn either, he has thrown out the baby or soul in his bathwater or paradigm shifting evaluations. But do take the time to read about Samuel and his pursuit of reason and truth.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-01-2016 at 04:05 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I have certainly supported aspects of questioning authority for all of my life, but I do not think most people can endure the extreme form in vogue amongst those who have a little knowledge they like to beat others over the head with. I do it when attacked, to reflect the mirror from Gestalt and I am willing to let it go when the person indicates their intent is honest even if lame. But as you read the following I think you will see it has gone further than we should desire or at least we should give people enough tools to say something like this.

    'Yes, you are an amazing fool in the good sense. We all can learn to be a better Fool - do you know Tarot? But in the present situation I seek to see if you are able to give me some insight of value. Do you remember the Robert De Niro character in Awakenings? When he spoke after coming out of a 30 year absence people thought was non-sentient; he made more sense than the doctors who thought they knew what was up. I dare say we all can learn from each other if we actually try to repeat what the other person says and get agreement on that before discussing what might take us further. Yes, you can learn this in books, like Seven Steps.';wap2

    The obtuse and involuted intellectualism of structuralism and Literary or Critical Theory may interest Deluze and Discordians who (Like Robert Anton Wilson) play at Illuminati games - but simple sense dictates more integration at the beginning of deliberations until the lexicon is truly able to capture the fullness of human experience and metaphysical reality. Meta or 'all' is everything we must sense at the end of each discourse as it pertains to whatever was discussed or else the effort was just ego bashing or back-slapping lies called Narrative Theory in clinical circles like Freudians still attempt to befuddle people with. But everyone should expose themselves to the process if only in order to know better what dangers exist in convolutions followed with interiorizing needs to be accepted rather than the wisdom of knowing what J. Krishnamurti called The Only Revolution.

    Perhaps you have some time to do this.

    Or maybe you want the math to prove the existence of god, by a first year computer whiz in the northern US as recommended by other logicians.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-02-2016 at 01:22 AM. Reason: add content

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I can recall handwriting analysis machines at carnivals and expositions. I liked taking them and showing people I could think a specific way or thought, tell them what the machine would say about me, and then do it a few times. What this means is a matter of interpretation. I could have known that a strong hand with very accurate words or penmanship would result in a specific judgement and so on. Maybe I sensed the method employed, maybe I am a gifted psychic or all the things it would tell me.

    The same thing goes for arguments about God or other personality tests such as the two links which follow - enjoy the process!

    Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological ...

    William Hordern - 2002 - ‎Religion
    Since this is a problem arising from the definition of “philosophy,” we can leave the debate to philosophers. ... The second critique likewise may be dismissed. ... by theologians that we can ignore analytical philosophy because it is only a “fad.

    Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won't Die - Huffington Post

    Sep 18, 2013 - Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won't Die ... One researcher even called it an “act of irresponsible armchair philosophy. ... Martinko write in a comprehensive review, “Few consistent relationships between type and managerial ...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The Queen and the Nobel Prize people clearly do not check out the moral standards of the people they find worthy of great awards. V. S. Naipaul is a very sad abused victim of youthful abuse who acts out on weaker people and seems almost brazenly open and possibly proud about it. But, the Brahmin caste has a sense of superiority which is almost ugly to the extent that no truth can usher forth from their actions. Maybe he is lying about being a Brahmin I cannot say, nor do I care to critique him any more. You should read what those who know him say and he admits to being true.

    In what way do men think it is OK for them to screw around and then get perturbed when women enjoy themselves? Is it part of a man's basic insecurity or is there really a god given right? People of all genders do what they do and those who marry others who do something they do not like must learn to support or get over it. This book displays uncommon ignorance.

    Lucius Seneca has some dots to offer in a history no witness can aver or testify about. You can call it pumpkinification is there is truly such a word.

    "One must be born either a Pharaoh or a fool. If I choose to answer, I will say whatever trips off my tongue. Who has ever made the historian produce witness to swear for him? But if an authority must be produced, ask of the man who saw Drusilla translated to heaven: the same man will aver he saw Claudius on the road, dot and carry one. [Sidenote: Virg. Aen. ii, 724] Will he nill he, all that happens in heaven he needs must see. He is the custodian of the Appian Way; by that route, you know, both Tiberius and Augustus went up to the gods. Question him, he will tell you the tale when you are alone; before company he is dumb. You see he swore in the Senate that he beheld Drusilla mounting heavenwards, and all he got for his good news was that everybody gave him the lie: since when he solemnly swears he will never bear witness again to what he has seen, not even if he had seen a man murdered in open market. What he told me I report plain and clear, as I hope for his health and happiness."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 12:43 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The more extensive analyses of models and behavior in philosophy get past the fad and jargon rhetoric. The book which follows addresses Rousseau and the natural order or the Age of Reason as a fundamental era upon which much of our present world is built.


    When I went to copy some of it for you - I could not find it anymore. I wanted to present it's viewpoint on Paine so I looked some more and found this book which addresses Jeffersonian agrarian virtuosity as a dream shared by the likes of Montesquieu. I think Seneca inspired these Roman ideals in Jefferson, and also Seneca's Cynic philosophy shows in the Jefferson Bible. The critics would say Jesus and Seneca were Cynics but I think Yeshua and both of the Senecas studied more than one intellectual system just as Pythagoras (Essenes derived from him) before him.

    If a rich man like Seneca was enamoured by Cynic philosophy you can be sure he was a great thinker rather than a dogma lapping dog which Cynics used to make fun of reality. It is a system of thinking which reveres nature over the deceit of man, as I see it. It became a large part of Rousseau's 'Naturel Ordre' and abused by Physiocrats because of it's simple clichés - but it is not anything like what the Physiocrats portrayed in my opinion. When you see the phrase New World Order you are seeing what Paine and Jefferson created but it was not new and unfortunately it still has not achieved the needed confluence desired by Jefferson or Paine.

    "Cynicism was conceived as a mode of living that purposefully refused to adhere to social conventions or political correctness; instead, one was to live one's life "according to nature." Founded by Diogenes of Sinope over 300 years before Christ, the philosophy concluded that nature is the opposite of all we consider conventional in society. The posturing and preening at social events so as to climb the social ladder would be viewed by the Cynics as shallow and absurd—something nature would never require of us.

    In contrast, a good life for the Cynic is one based on self-sufficiency and living unfettered by the expectations and presumptions of society.

    Was Jesus following the philosophy of Cynicism when he tells us, Blessed be ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God? And how dare he overturn the tables of the moneychangers?

    Cynics were noted for their bold speech and ‘shameless' behavior. Supposedly, some of Diogenes' successors were even earthier than Diogenes, defecating and urinating in public to demonstrate the hollowness of convention.

    But let us not forget the modern definition of cynicism: "An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." This is what most of us think of when we refer to someone as a cynic. We do not automatically think of the forthright rebels of Diogenes' day. Instead we picture the debating candidate saying one thing for this audience and another for that audience—as he knows that's what the electorate wants: a man for all seasons who does not want to burden us with facts.

    This season of Jesus' birth reminds me of the Jaded Jesus, whose perspicacity exceeded simple distrust of the integrity of man, and resulted in a complete understanding of—with concomitant resignation to—the lack of integrity in those subjects who comprised his kingdom, and his inner circle.

    In "The Fall" Albert Camus captures the wonderful humor of the Savior we should all appreciate this wondrous time of year: "He simply wanted to be loved, nothing more. Of course, there are those who love him, even among Christians. But they are not numerous. He had foreseen that too; he had a sense of humor. Peter, you know, the coward, Peter denied him: ‘I know not the man...I know not what thou sayest...etc." Really, he went too far! And my friend makes a play on words: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.' Irony could go no further, don't you think?"

    What is that you say, Tiny Tim? Oh yes, "God bless us, every one!"

    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 10:08 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The Essence of Malfeasance:

    When mankind appoints a person to be in control of any aspect of any part of their lives and it's governance you might expect a sense of accomplishment would come with it. The appointment to be the President of the United States is a major opportunity we are lead to believe. But is it as good an opportunity as being a king or a pope? Would it make a great deal of difference if you knew one of every three American Presidents was targeted for assassination or replacement while in office and another third never got to make any real input to the governing of the nation? I suspect most top people in corporations would hesitate to take such a job if they knew what faced them included no affect on spending for the first four years in office was likely, given the commitments already made, and passed as law. Of course, there are people who would think they can circumvent the legal process and make slush fund allocations which will counter the stranglehold or inertia inside the Beltway. But as a business you would probably agree it really is not the kind of job where you can expect to get things done, that will really show up on a bottom line. Authority is elusive in such an environment, but what about responsibility? If you are going to be called a failure without any chance of success you had better be a politician or liar of some sort and continue running for historical acceptability or a legacy your ego can handle. Your critics cannot as easily be silenced as once was possible. Nixon helped immensely in this regard, by trying to abuse the power of the President.

    Thus I say the game is rigged, even without giving examples or discussing how the vetting process and shadow government ensure they get the result they want and make doubly sure with contingencies up to and including assassinations.

    "The U.S.A. is not run by its would-be 'democratic' government. All the latter can do is try to adjust to the initiatives already taken by [the] great corporations. Nothing can be more pathetic than the role that has been played by the President of the United States, whose power is approximately zero. Nevertheless, the news media and most over-thirty-years-of-age U.S.A. citizens carry on as if the president had supreme power." - Bucky Fuller

    How Does a Good President Win the Game?

    Just getting past the vetting process before the primaries used to almost assure the person that they would be the candidate for their party. In most cases that candidate was assured of wealth and status even if he lost. So you can easily see why people like U. S. Grant were 'up for the job', given their financial circumstances. Others under Tammany Hall control or the likes of Harding are akin to puppets in a Banana Republic so they won by getting more than they could get elsewhere. Harding was into young girls and though JFK had great resources he really liked his ladies most of all. Truth be known JFK was the second choice of his corrupt and cruel father, and his wife was the highest paid courtesan this world has ever known. Yes, Camelot had other skeletons to hide and you really do not want to hear them all, starting with the sister who was lobotomized who was going to expose the grand old man who had fleeced Americans in the Crash and somehow got to be the head of the Securities Exchange Commission. His support for Hitler or Fascism went no further than many other great scions who tried to oust FDR, with an armed coup that General Smedley Butler exposed.

    Ask yourself why the Kennedy Clan accepted the Warren Commission whitewash followed by another son getting offed? Then ask if JFK Jr. was de-commissioned because he had started to expose the skeletons in his publication called George? Media controls and publicity contests are what dumbocracy has become, and media is not just the printed word or pulpits and blackboards anymore. It includes new and invasive technologies which some day will wirelessly implant thoughts, if not already in process.

    “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

    As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
    - President Abraham Lincoln, 1865

    If You Want Change?

    Will a third political party offer some real change if the elected person can get the supermajority needed to overcome the Electoral College and subsequent bureaucratic melange of top advisors and assistants or department heads who are in cahoots? Jimmy Carter was a good man who discovered how little he could do. Thomas Jefferson understood what was happening from the very beginning so I must quote this great man who abused his slave Sally Hemmings and other things you don't want to hear, which are not on the official Presidential site.

    Who are you to argue with Jefferson?

    "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

    Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Lafayette in 1823 that went as follows:

    "I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes, that fourteen of fifteen men are rogue. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is to strong for the higher orders... These set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves."

    His words about the priesthood are decidedly more aggressive in pointing to the lies and deceits they employ. I personally do not think a person who has not studied and lived the life of Yeshua Bar Joseph or others in his family (David, Solomon etc.) can really believe they are Christian and they are (If they quote the Gospels) actually maintaining the effort of Rome to quash Jesus and create an Empire over all people. Luther called it Popery and most scholars have names like Romanism or Pauline Christianity for it.

    ""Most men indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error."


    The Meme or the Machine:

    The implanting of memes to form the direction of the mass mind is not new nor is the critiquing and commentary upon it. Globalizing forces have reached out towards a truly Global Village as McLuhan called it. His biographer noted he knew that shadowy and secretive forces were behind a lot of what actually decides our direction as he said if he had fifteen years in control of the media he would rule the world. His publisher decided not to rattle the snakes and decided to pursue more Benjamins or greenbacks with the occult symbology. By not telling the whole truth just as Adam Smith did in his economic treatise called The Wealth of Nations when he avoided discourse on the Physiocrats, our watchdogs or critics have left us a void or to use the current buzzword - we lack transparency. It is not the fault of Benjamin Barber who wrote a masterpiece of analysis which made a real difference for a few weeks ( just as Bill Joy's warning about Robotics, Genetics and Nanotechnological Progress which would make us redundant by 2035. Joy's article in Mar/April 2001 of Wired Magazine also got swallowed up in the burgeoning Twitterverse which seems to have more memes than thinking.

    Throughout time there have been access to information issues such as - do people actually read or care to learn after having the joy of learning drummed out of them by churches or parents who know so little about things themselves. Here is Bertrand Russell talking about Mass Psychology which includes religious seers pontificating and being listened to by the great unwashed.

    “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions are generated.”

    You may think the nuts who believe in Anunnaki Aliens, Armageddon, Jihad, Elohim, a Hollow Earth or Flat Earth have no impact but they constitute the majority of voters. That does not mean their fears expressed about the Powers That Be have no validity whatsoever. But as a world getting less manageable with no true Nation States answerable to people with a transparent plan (See the critique of Barber's Jihad v. McWorld in the above link.) I do think we need more than a Tea Party response, and what I see in the USA is concerning me, but it can't be any worse than the Shrub, you might think. However, the stakes have been raised and we are more interdependent than ever. I am all for a Global Brotherhood of Man but the ethic required seems far away from our real world of the present day.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 09:24 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts