from Verse Eighty-SevenTo let concerns produce concerns, and then take concern to stop concerns, is like brandishing fire and trying not to burn anything. To let knowledge produce troubles, and then use knowledge to prepare against them, is like stirring water in hopes of making it clear.~ Wen-tzu: Understanding the Mysteries ~
The United States has the highest murder rate amongst the nations in the western industrialized world. We also seem to suffer from the most gun-related violence. On top of this, we have the highest prison population.
We're also one of the few so-called civilized nations which still employs the death penalty. The ostensible reason for the death penalty is to hold down the crime rate because, when people consider committing heinous crimes, they supposedly should think twice, knowing they could be put to death.
But, viz-a-viz Lao Tzu's logic stated above, using violence to quell violence makes no sense and our high murder rate seems to prove this point out.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
We're also one of the few so-called civilized nations which still employs the death penalty. The ostensible reason for the death penalty is to hold down the crime rate because, when people consider committing heinous crimes, they supposedly should think twice, knowing they could be put to death.
But, viz-a-viz Lao Tzu's logic stated above, using violence to quell violence makes no sense and our high murder rate seems to prove this point out.
This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.
Why not let concerns produce concerns, and then be concerned about these concerns?
ReplyDeleteOne day, Tony Blair exclaimed:
"I have a great idea!
Let us introduce millions of barbarians into England!"
There was no particular reason, or need, for him to proclaim this.
"Then", he went on, "let us crimilalize any manifestation of english culture in case these barbarians are offended!
Then let us employ as many of these non-english-speaking barbarians as possible in positions of authority over the english!
And then let us crimilalize any englishman who notices!"
He wore a permanent smile, while saying these things, so any onlooker could be certain that he was a "nice" person, as he handed out seven-year jail terms to anyone appearing to be too interested in being english.
And desiring to be "nice" themselves, most of the englishmen went along with it all. Not that anybody ever asked them what their views were.
I am sure it all seemed like a terribly good idea at the time.
But ask any of the millions of englishmen who have now permanently fled their homeland...
There are a good many folks, from all over the place, who woke up - a little late - to realize that pretty words, and high-sounding ideals, can soon turn out to be a disaster for all. Even for the barbarians.
Soon? In only fifteen years, the entire racial and cultural identity of the english, resulting from a thousand years of progressing towards being civilized, was eliminated.
In a nutshell, that is why I may seem a little biased against the notion of "leftism".
That said: "rightism" seems not that much better.
If one really needs to be an extremist, then I advocate the extreme center.
I'm really puzzled by your litany here because Blair was a crony of George W. Bush and Bush is about as far away from being a leftist as humanly possible. So, the man you say destroyed England, was a right winger, not a left winger. Yet, you're biased more so against the left wing position! I'm sorry, but it doesn't compute.
ReplyDeleteHehe.
ReplyDeleteI am happy that you are puzzled.
If I were you, I probably would be puzzled too.
Blair is an ex-card-carrying communist. As are many members of his "Nu-Labour Party". A marxist, posing as a harmless socialist.
Hence the permanent smile.
As to the details of just why he would be the first leader in history to deliberately set out to destroy his own people, is a bit beyond me, and I have become something of an expert on this.
But if you think Blair was a rightist, you might want to research it a little more. Leftists often think that Hitler was a rightist, too. But again: he was a socialist: that's where the term nazi comes from.
National Socialism.
But no matter: the litany was a parable to illuminate the words of the non-existent Lao Tzu.
Oh - while we speak of being puzzled - please do explain what on earth you meant by Lao Tzu probably never existing, and the tao te ching not being written by him. For all I know, you may be right, but I would be interested to hear your views on this.
Too often we accept things as fact without ever investigating them.
This can make real fools out of us later on.
I used to be as guilty as anyone of this.
I am far more careful now.
I contend that maybe 1% of leftists are truly evil. The Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, the Maos the Blairs...
The other 99% are careless idealist dupes that failed to read the fine print.
Again: I may be wrong.
Examine and discover.
Actually, I think you need to do more research. Hitler was not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. What the Nazis did is what the radical right is doing in this country today -- misappropriating words to confuse the public.
ReplyDeleteYou see, socialism was gaining ground in Germany, so the Nazis appropriated the word to fool the masses. Their ideology was not socialist but fascist. By the time most people figured out they had been hoodwinked, it was far too late.
To show his disdain for bona fide socialists, he rounded them all up and sent them to the gas chambers.
Hitler was not a socialist. However, he was also nothing like the radical right in this country today (I assume by "radical right" you mean the right-wing of the Republican Party, not Pat Buchanan and David Duke).
ReplyDeleteThe radical right of the Republican Party is bent on waging wars in favour of spreading democracy and of free market capitalism that requires an ongoing influx of immigrants. In general, they are not really committed to immigration reform. They are also committed to the ideals of 1776, which alone makes them far removed from Hitler.
Hitler was economically a corporatist, which is generally the economic ideal of fascists. Mussolini and Peron were also corporatists. Corporatism tries to resolve the worker-owner class struggle by organising society around vertical trade unions, within each of which workers and owners have a say. Production is also no longer supposed to be profit-driven. However, there is still private ownership of property, which makes this system un-socialist and un-capitalist.
Hitler was an anti-humanist and anti-internationalist, which alone makes him quite different from Marxism-Leninism (although how genuinely socialist Stalin was is questionable).
One can see how corporatism can be construed as being similar to socialism, since they are both anti-free-market. In fact, Peron and Fidel Castro were close friends, and Fidel Castro openly mourned Peron's death--notwithstanding that Peron once said something to the effect that Mussolini was the greatest statesman of the twentieth century.
that should read, "un-socialist as well as un-capitalist".
ReplyDeleteMy first thought when I read this particular passage, the Wen Tzu, not RT's commentary, was that it was about all these recent posts.
ReplyDeleteI think I will return to reading my current book, a post-Cultural Revolution memoir.