Trump could win, Hillary is vulnerable. Why? Because Trump is much taller, and a male. The sheep prefer this sort of leader to bleat behind. This is our world, or, at least, that of the leading country. Not all countries are this way: several countries, even some Muslim countries, elected short women (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritius, etc.)
Nobody said that being good was easy. It is actually very hard to think so correctly that one can act for the best. And it’s getting harder, because the world is quickly getting more complex and dynamics. Yet, as with nearly all things, one can train for goodness, and the superior logic it needs. And the trainer, paradoxically, is called anger. Thus the refugee crisis in Europe makes Europe angry, and, thus, more reflective. Anger insures that solutions, hopefully not final, will be found.
Two books just out relate that the Vatican bathes in corruption (in spite of the present Pope’s crackdown). Apparently the Pope’s angry denunciations of the “15 maladies” Cardinals are affected by, what not enough. The Pope needs to get… angrier. Obviously calm and determination have not been enough, the Pope needs to do like Jesus, and use violence. Love, without a big, hard stick, and the will to smack it, is just a wet noodle. Even Jesus’ followers advertised this tough reality.
A mystery related to the problem of goodness: why is The Guardian censoring me?
Superficially, The Guardian, just like the New York Times, or your humble servant, want to relate real reality, with an eye to justice. I understand the hostility of the NYT: after all I was stridently opposed to its will to invade Iraq, and the lying propaganda (straight from Bush’s White House) it used to achieve that hysteria. The truth, though, is simpler: immense wealth controls the Main Stream Media.
A funny example of Internet manipulations which should be illegal: Scientific American published several raving descriptions and interviews with Lisa Randall, a publicity hungry physicist who just published a book claiming Dark Matter extinguished the dinosaurs. It should sell beautifully, as it is really a wacky idea (Dark Matter would have disturbed a comet: boom!). Scientific American’s publisher also publishes that book. Thus most critical comments were removed. That makes Scientific American identical to the Daily Mail.
Some comments appeared, like mine, and then were removed. Of course, “it’s their right”, in the present (plutocratic) legal system, to do so. Just as it is the right of plutocratic “Bohemian Club“, north of San Francisco, to forbid women to attend. It was also a right, at some point, to own people, at least in the USA.
Such laws ought to be changed. Web sites ought to be allowed to remove comments for no good reason, only when it’s justified.
Goodness can be a trap for those who want to be really good, not just persuading themselves that they are good: look at Obama, who wants to look good, even relative to
himself. So he had a completely ineffective presidency (yes even Obamacare does not seem to be working, even while just looking at the latest graphs from the New York Times).
Once the Guardian ran an article on the dark side of Islam, but they forgot (!) to quote the Qur’an. I sent a handful of famous verses, complete with exact reference (the numbers of the sura and verse) the sort which recommend to “fight, ambush and kill” so-called “unbelievers”. That was obviously racist on my part, I forgot the arcane reasoning of the sheep. To the baboon, sheep logic can be impenetrable. Great stupidity, like great intelligence, is hard to fathom.
What is going on here, in Islamophilia land? Some “””intellectuals”””” decided, a while back that “Islamophobia is racism”. But that’s not the only things they decided. The same pseudo-intellectuals also IMPLICITLY decided that Islam was Salafism and Wahhabism (the former was subject to the death penalty in 1200 CE Egypt, by the way). These are just two (roughly identical) variants of Islam, the really hard core ones, 2 out of 100.
Then, of course there was a problem for those who love to exhibit manifest kindness: the Qur’an is full of what, interpreted literally, normally emotionally endowed people would have to admit are pretty vicious verses. So the pseudo-intellectuals, having started with the principle that anything which puts what they call Islam in a bad light is racist, then conclude that any quoting of Islam’s sacred texts is… vicious and racist.
As the Qur’an itself recognizes, No war, no heroes. It could be a war against Mars (Kepler dixit), or hatred, or one for orphaned children. But it will be hard & grim always. (Thus Jihad is a good concept, no wonder it is so attractive; I am the first to admit lots of Jihad, in the secular sense, is needed today.)
Methinks that moral integrity means that our higher principles have to be coherent with how we occupy our brains.
But then, of course, it’s not enough. People have to be able to think right, and to think right, under pressure.
How to achieve this? One has to train. Thinking right while angry is paramount for this training. By the way, I may be the first to write this black on white. However, many philosophers before embraced implicitly this modus operandi. Socrates was assassinated legally, because he had enraged most of the Athenian population. Yet, his critiques would have made Athens much stronger, if they had been solved the way Rome, and then the European Middle Ages, addressed them. One needs strong emotions to melt obsolete neural networks. Thus the passions are allies of deep thinking. The fiercest emotions cannot just be tamed, they are indispensable allies. Such is the connection between philosophy and violence, blatant, as it is, throughout history.
As Lao Tzu put it: “Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding.”