Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: What are you reading?

  1. #31
    Account not Activated
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,594
    Rep Power
    0
    I just finished an interesting book: 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed by Eric Cline.

    It's about the Late Bronze Age Collapse and recent archaeological findings that shed light on the international trade system that had developed in the centuries leading up to it.

    The most interesting thing is the connection to legendary events: Both the fall of Troy from the Iliad and the exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible are estimated to have originated in events from this era, but there are, of course, issues.

    Regarding Troy, the problem is that the ancient Greeks didn't even exist at this point; the Minoans and Mycenaeans lived in that area, and the archaeological evidence argues against a smooth transition to the later Dorians or Danae. The city of Troy was found, and the destruction from warfare is well attested, but the Iliad was quite obviously a partial fabrication reconstructed centuries later and absorbed into the Greek cultural narrative.

    The exodus is even worse; given Egyptian records from the time (and the centuries before, back to ~1500 B.C.), a large influx of refugees from a famine would have been noted, as would the death and destruction that allegedly accompanied their departure. Instead, we find an active incursion into Egypt by the same groups that destroyed Troy, who were then defeated, captured, and sent to serve as frontier soldiers..... in Canaan (modern day Palestine/Israel/Beirut).

    Worse, from the point of view of biblical literalists, that area was extremely busy in previous centuries. From ~1500-1200, international trade between Egypt, Mycenae, the Hittites, Assyria and others traveled across Canaan, which was predominantly claimed by Egypt, although they had fought the Hittites half a dozen times in that area. No mention of Israelites, Hebrews or anything else that could possibly connect the Bible to reality has been found prior to the Late Bronze Age Collapse.


    Of course, this makes perfect sense; if your ancestors had been members of a marauding horde who were defeated and exiled, you might make up a story that sounds better, too

  2. #32
    Another thing which speaks against the exodus: Egyptian and Hebrew don't have so much as a single word in common. If they truly were living in the same area for such a prolonged period, then surely there would be SOME cross pollination in their languages, yes? And now for my current reading list (recently finished)...

    Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff Sommers. Despite its small size (only 275 pages plus notes and index), this one took me about a month and a half to read because of all the stupid contained within... not from Christina, of course, but the people that she's criticising. If Milo truly believes that feminism was a sane and rational movement up until about 10-15 years ago, he seriously owes it to himself to read this book as well as Bax's The Legal Subjection of Men. This book definitely ended on a downer for me as 22 years after it was published, her closing wish still has yet to come true.

    Freedom Feminism (also CHS): Christina's latest book, it explores the history of feminism starting from the summit at Seneca Falls in 1848 in an attempt to clear feminism's good name. Instead, she ends up doing the opposite and showing that even back then, feminism was completely out of touch with reality and hasn't been IN touch with it at any point in its history. At only 100 pages give or take with pages about a third smaller than your average paperback, I'd only suggest buying this one if you're trying to collect the whole set.

    Next up: The Most Hated Man by our very own JP Tate.
    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  3. #33
    The Most hated Man
    by JP Tate

    This review is WAY later than I wanted it to be. When I posted my last message, I was reading through the book and then had a catastrophic computer crash. By the time I could afford to buy a new one, it was months later and I'd forgotten most of what I'd read, but I finally got back to it and just recently finished it again.

    The book starts off with the end result of a grisly murder, the fifth in what appears to be a serial killer with a description of the body which, IMHO, goes into way too much information. My first thought was "wow, I hope the rest of the book isn't as ploddingly descriptive as this". Thankfully, I needn't have worried on that front. We're quickly introduced to the detectives in charge of investigating the murders, all of the victims being child users a near 100% fatal drug called "snuff", as well as a man living on the outside looking in who we only know for most of the book as "The Oppressed". He's watching everything from the prison of his home while being constantly tormented by the neighbourhood children who know that they can get away with their treatment of him BECAUSE they're children. I can't help but wonder if Mr. Tate was himself in some branch of law enforcement at some time given some of his commentary about, for example, the speech about how "this must not be allowed to happen again" and how "the speech will be dusted off the NEXT time 'this must never be allowed to happen again'" as well as little behind the scenes details about how popular a certain interview/meeting room was that day based on the number of empty coffee cups the cops/detectives left scattered about the table.

    Chapter 2 felt like it was written specifically for me given various comments that I made to him about his book "All God Worshippers Are Mad" regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict until I checked the publication dates and discovered that this one was published 6 months BEFORE the other. A lot has happened in the world between my first reading and my second and my views on this have changed considerably, but that's a topic for another thread.

    Interspersed with the snuff deaths is another series of murders of what at first appears to be kidnapped politicians that were killed by dehydration. Naturally, as more and more kidnappings of seemingly unrelated people go on, including a judge and a news commentator, the more the pampered, entitled elite start to panic wondering who will be next and screaming that "something must be done!"

    Throughout the book, readers are introduced to various topics including left wing fascism, Muslim immigration/stealth jihad, feminism/misandry, multiculturalism, Islaamophilia, identity politics and intersectionality (I may have missed a few). Each of these topics is given to us by at least one of our three teachers; The Oppressed, the snuff killer and the kidnapper/dehydrator (KD), each in their own style. The Oppressed merely observes the world and comes up with his own interpretation of it based on his own life experiences. The snuff killer uses pithy comments that are direct and to the point, directed at his sidekick with whom he has a sort of Holmes/Watson relationship going on, until they don't. To find out what I mean by that, you'll need to read the book. Sorry. The KD teaches through lectures given to his victims over the course of several days while his victims are chained to a metal chair and a ball gag stuck in their mouths. Each of the victims had had too much time to talk in the past; now it's their time to listen.

    People who have read Atlas Shrugged will recognise each of these teaching styles. Unlike Atlas Shrugged, however, where the question turned from "Who is John Galt?" to "When is John Galt going to shut the fuck up?" in chapter 28, the KD is saved from this fate because 1) instead of being a massive core dump all at once, it's spread over multiple chapters with other things going on in between, and 2) sprinkled throughout the KD's speeches, we get inside the victims' heads to get their reaction throughout. As an added bonus (?), we also get the victims' take on what's happening to their bodies as they shut down for good. By the end of the book it appears that the stories of all three of our teachers were wrapped up quite nicely, but right at the very end there's an "Oh, crap!" moment which definitely leaves room for a possible sequel.

    My impressions on this book have changed somewhat between the first and second readings. The first time I read the book, I thought the author was incredibly prophetic regarding how the country would change due to Islaamic immigration. 11 months and plenty of research later, I feel that it's more due to the author paying more attention to what's been going on in the world than I had. This makes perfect sense given that he's in the UK and I'm in Canada. While this isn't the "portable tactical nuke" that is "Feminism Is Sexism", it's becoming more and more relevant with every passing day and is definitely worth reading. It could also be more of a stealth introduction to friends/family to start them on their path to SJW deprogramming. Just don't let them read the back cover first.
    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  4. #34
    Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook
    by Mark Bray

    I came across this one in the library about a month ago but only started reading it recently. As soon as I saw the blurb on the back I figured it was going to be a puff piece... "You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don't have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don't have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don't have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don't have to fight them with tanks." - "Murray" from Baltimore.

    That sounds an awful lot like a martial arts philosophy a former friend told me about decades ago... "Dodge rather than block. Block rather than hit. Hit rather than strike. Strike rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill." Ie. do ONLY what's necessary to resolve the situation and no more. If only Antifa actually worked that way, but anyone can see just by looking around that they're the exact opposite of Murray's claim.

    At first the book seemed interesting enough by giving a history of various revolutionary movements to tyrannical governments, but not really caring about military history I have no idea if the author's claims are accurate or not. I decided to stop reading the book early on (about page 35, if memory serves) when the author claimed that Hitler was "extreme right wing". Uh... no. He was extreme LEFT wing. It's right there in the name... National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party. Say what you like about him, but from his perspective, he was all about defending the little guy and was a believer in social programs and gender equality, so no, no more reading for you.

    I was about to return the book to the library when I remembered that I had a receipt in the book which just happened to bookmark the summary of Milo's attempt to speak at Berkeley. I include it here for you in full without any edits so that you can see just how bad this book really is and avoid it at all costs. Blatant lies will be highlighted in bold.

    ---

    Undocumented students at the University of California at Berkeley were afraid to go outside on the evening of February 1, 2017. But it wasn't the swirling rumors in northern California that month that had them frightened--that is, that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were patrolling the campus looking for people without the "proper" papers to incarcerate. No, the anti-immigrant violence they feared that evening did not come from the government, it came from former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who had been invited to speak on campus by the Berkeley Republicans.
    Yiannopoulos had emerge from relative obscurity through his championing of "Gamergate"--the online harassment of feminist and nonwhite game developers, media critics, and actors for challenging the patriarchy and white supremacy of "the geek domain". Soon after, Twitter had banned Yiannopoulos for leading the relentlessly racist and misogynistic online harassment of Leslie Jones, largely because she had the gall to "desecrate" the allegedly white, male, geek classic movie Ghostbusters.
    By early 2017, Yiannopoulos had become perhaps the biggest celebrity of the so-called "alt-right" by using his identity as a gay immigrant to mitigate his racism, misogyny ("feminism is a mean, vindictive, spiteful, nasty, man-hating philosophy"), Islamophobia ("Muslims rape everyone"), transphobia (he "makes no apologies for protecting women and children from men who are confused about their sexual identity"), and promotion of rape culture (one of his headlines read "'Slut's Remorse" is Why Rape Suspects Should be Anonymized").
    Enough to alarm sensible students about his appearance on campus, but when Berkeley officials announced that Yiannopoulos planned to "publicly name undocumented students," much like his public targeting of a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Juan Prieto and other undocumented students felt like "the safety of our community was at stake."
    As Prieto recounted, in the days leading up to the event, students had met with the chancellor, written op-eds, amassed a petition with many student and faculty signatures, and encouraged alumni to call the university in protest... all to no avail. The "university made it clear that no peaceful methods were going to stop him from speaking," Prieto explained, and so the talk "needed to be stopped by any means necessary."
    On the night of Yiannopoulos's speech, shortly before it was scheduled to begin, black-clad anti-fascists arrived at the larger ongoing demonstration and started pulling down police barricades, launch fireworks, smash windows, and spray-paint grafitti, causing what was later estimated to be $100,000 worth of damage. And what weeks of advocacy, argumentation, and public dialogue could not accomplish was instead achieved in about fifteen minutes, and the police quickly announced cancellation of the event, citing security concerns.
    Although outlets like CNN referred to the anti-fascists as "outside agitators" without any evidence, as they are wont to do, some of them were in fact Berkeley students. And certainly, some of the anti-Yiannopoulos protestors opposed the antifa tactics. But the triumphant cheering and spontaneous dance party that erupted after the cancellation attests to the fact that many students were happy with the results of those tactics--a fact largely unreported by the media. Ultimately, Prieto observes, "students' lives might have been saves that night."
    Protests, or the fear of protests, had already managed to shut down Yiannopoulos speeches at NYU, Iowa State, and UC Davis (where a trans student named Barbara was so terrified she fled campus for the day), but the creative and/or destructive spectacle of the Berkeley protest triggered a sudden media interest in the notorious "antifa."

    ---

    There's a lot in there that deserves to be highlighted which isn't because of the author's/interviewee's use of the Islaamic doctrine of kitman, ie. half-truths and lies of omission. For example, there's no mention of Leslie Jones ACTUALLY leading a harassment campaign against Twitter users and yet still having her account to this day (as far as I know... Twitter and Leslie Jones aren't really high up on the interest scale for me). There's also no mention of the fact that Berkeley ADMINISTRATORS were part of the instigators, nor that they and Berkeley's mayor told the police to stand down and just let the riot happen, nor that the only people who were endangering students' lives were the rioters themselves.

    Final rating for this book: 0 stars. Avoid this one at all costs.
    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,661
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosh67 View Post
    I decided to stop reading the book early on (about page 35, if memory serves) when the author claimed that Hitler was "extreme right wing". Uh... no. He was extreme LEFT wing.
    The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.

    It's right there in the name...
    (Snicker ...) So I guess you believe that North Korea really is a Democratic People's Republic, then ...?
    Say, do you need a bridge?

    Say what you like about him, but from his perspective, he was all about defending the little guy and was a believer in social programs and gender equality
    Defending "the little guy"? No, he sent millions of "little guys" to their death defending Nazism.
    His social programs were a funnel that led all to the same end point: a uniform.
    The Nazis advocated excluding women from political involvement and confining them to the spheres of "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" (Children, Kitchen, Church), and basically used them as soldier breeding units.

    Pity you stop reading books after 35 pages.

    M

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Defending "the little guy"? No, he sent millions of "little guys" to their death defending Nazism.
    In Hitler's mind, the "little guy" was your average hard working German citizen who got royally screwed over thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. In his mind, he was defending them from the Evil Jewish Conspiracy[TM], which makes about as much sense as feminists for the past century plus defending poor, poor pitiful women from The Evil Patriarchy[TM]. Fun fact: up until he was about 20 or so, Hitler actually SUPPORTED the Jewish people. It wasn't until then that he got his first look at anti-Jewish propaganda. Like so many others at the time (including auto magnate Henry Ford), he got sucked in by "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and either didn't get the memo that the Times of London conclusively proved that it was a fraud in 1921 or simply didn't care by that point in his life.

    Pity you stop reading books after 35 pages.
    Really? Have you read my other reviews here? It's an extreme rarity that I don't read a book cover to cover. Take a look at my other reviews on here just as a quick example. I noticed that you didn't comment on anything after my comments about Hitler and the Nazis. If I were to use your "logic", I could make some dumbass quip like "Too bad you stop reading messages after the first 20 lines or so", but obviously that makes as much sense as your comment to me, so I won't.
    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,661
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosh67 View Post
    In Hitler's mind
    I doubt you have access to that.

    the "little guy" was your average hard working German citizen
    AH didn't give a fork about anybody, big or little. He just wanted power.

    who got royally screwed over thanks to the Treaty of Versailles.
    The ToF didn't screw over any little guy. Germany lost colonies and territories, some war ships and a lot of battalions; little guys hardly noticed.
    What screwed over the little guy was the usual suspects creating hyperinflation by fiddling with the currency to avoid paying reparations.


    (Evil Jewish Conspiracy) [TM]
    Too late ...

    Fun fact: up until he was about 20 or so, Hitler actually SUPPORTED the Jewish people. It wasn't until then that he got his first look at anti-Jewish propaganda.
    Coming from you, that's probably wrong, too; but so what?

    Really? Have you read my other reviews here?
    Yes.

    I noticed that you didn't comment on anything after my comments about Hitler and the Nazis. If I were to use your "logic", I could make some dumbass quip like "Too bad you stop reading messages after the first 20 lines or so", but obviously that makes as much sense as your comment to me, so I won't.
    I don't do "me too" posting; we have people for that.
    I commented where needed, correcting an error.

    I notice, btw., that you didn't comment on anything except "the little guy".


    Glass house much?



    M
    Last edited by Manalysis; 11-14-2017 at 12:11 AM.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosh67
    Fun fact: up until he was about 20 or so, Hitler actually SUPPORTED the Jewish people. It wasn't until then that he got his first look at anti-Jewish propaganda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Coming from you, that's probably wrong, too; but so what?
    You'd think so given how ridiculous the claim looks on the face of it, but my source in this matter is completely unimpeachable, being Adolf Hitler himself, in his book Mein Kampf. I've been meaning to get back to reading it for a long time as well as 2 other books which can be considered to make up a "Trilogy of Evil", the other two being "The Camp of the Saints" by Jean Raspail and "The Holy Qur'an" by Muhammad. My reasons for reading these are to try to answer several questions.

    Mein Kampf: It's been said that Hitler laid out his plans for Germany and the world as a whole in these 2 books. Is this really true? If it is, given how widely available it was, why didn't anyone pay any attention to it until it was too late?
    Camp of the Saints: I heard of this one because a left leaning reporter was trying to paint Steve Bannon as evil incarnate by claiming that this was Steve's favourite book. What is it about this book that makes it so evil, and why should we care if Steve Bannon likes it or not? Now that Steve's no longer part of the Trump team, these questions are probably irrelevant now, but I still find them interesting nonetheless.
    The Holy Qur'an: Muslims claim that theirs is a religion of peace and claim that Islaam actually MEANS "peace" when translated into English. Detractors claim that it's a religion of evil and point to all the Islaamic terrorism going on around the world as proof. Apologists claim that they're not following the TRUE teachings of The Great Prophet[TM] and are taking everything out of context with plenty of Qur'anic verses to back up their claim (eg. the first two thirds of Sura 5:32). Detractors claim that the terrorists are following the teachings of Muhammad to the letter, claim that the book is actually a war manual and that only about 24% of it is about how to be a good Muslim and the other 76% is how to treat outsiders (always poorly) and give plenty of verses to back up THEIR claims (eg. the last third of Sura 5:32 and Sura 5:33). Which side of this debate is correct? Are either of them? Both? Neither? Others find it too confusing to understand at all, especially since apart from the first Sura, all of the others are sorted according to length instead of being chronological. If it's too confusing to understand, will the Hadiith help to explain it, and if so, which author? Sahih Bukhari? Sahih Muslim? Someone else, and if so, who?
    When it comes right down to it, are any of these books truly "evil"? If so, which one is the MOST evil? If any of them ARE evil, what should we do with them? Should we have a good old fashioned book burning to get rid of every copy in existence as various censorship groups would have us do, or instead, should we follow Milo's advice that the best way to combat such evil is to shine the full light of the sun on it to expose these works for what they truly are?

    I notice, btw., that you didn't comment on anything except "the little guy".

    Glass house much?
    Fair point.
    When a woman says to a man 'IF you really love me you would (INSERT VERB HERE)... 'IF you really love me you should buy/give/take/do X, Y, Z'... That's using...that's testing. And my answer to that is always; 'IF you loved me you wouldn't have asked that fucking question, now pack your shit and get the fuck out of my house.' - Maxx


    Asking a feminist about men's rights is like asking a cattle rancher about veganism.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,661
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosh67 View Post
    You'd think so given how ridiculous the claim looks on the face of it,
    but my source in this matter is completely unimpeachable, being Adolf Hitler himself, in his book Mein Kampf.
    It's been said that Hitler laid out his plans for Germany and the world as a whole in these 2 books. Is this really true?
    If it is, given how widely available it was, why didn't anyone pay any attention to it until it was too late?
    (Pardon me for rearranging; just to keep comments together.)

    I chewed my way through it, once, many years ago. I remember it as rather dull.
    I suspect people didn't take it seriously because it is, in its way, over the top; and on the other hand, the level of the surrounding landscape, viz., antisemittism, was pretty much nearing the top as well, so it didn't appear so over the top that is was crazy ... which is a bad image, but I hope you'll see what I mean.

    Also, Hitler presented a lot of faces.
    He was pro-military among generals, pro-industry among industrialists, pro-banking among timid bourgeois pension-plan-savers, and pro anti-militarism, anti-elitism and anti-capitalism when facing the man in the street.
    The men in the street, btw, were not all village idiots: e.g. 40 % of SA members had a university degree; they just couldn't get a job with it, and so became taxi drivers. Anyway, people probably did not connect the Hitler on paper with the Hitler they knew, or thought they knew, from real life.
    As a general caveat, though, one should probably bear in mind that MK is written primarily as propaganda, and it is therefore to be read with a good deal of sceptical criticism and a shovel or two of salt.

    "The Camp of the Saints" by Jean Raspail.
    Camp of the Saints: I heard of this one because a left leaning reporter was trying to paint Steve Bannon as evil incarnate by claiming that this was Steve's favourite book. What is it about this book that makes it so evil, and why should we care if Steve Bannon likes it or not? Now that Steve's no longer part of the Trump team, these questions are probably irrelevant now, but I still find them interesting nonetheless.
    Raspail ... the flautist eaten by Hannibal ... Hmmm ...
    I had to look up this one, thx for bringing it to attention.
    I haven't read it, so ... but from what I can find in the net it's no wonder if the multiculturals hate it, and hate those who love it.
    Sci-fi and utopian litterature ... a long chapter, going back to the Apocalypse, if not longer ...
    And Raspail is another such enfant terrible as Houllebecq; there's some life in the old corpse still ...
    A counter-position - and perhaps even root cause - might be Celine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journe...d_of_the_Night
    (and for an in-betweener, there's always https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_with_the_Newts; Capek is interesting in many ways, btw.)

    The German wiki page on JR mentions french critics praising him for exposing a "hunger to destroy one's own culture".
    To go deeper into that, I think one could profitably read up on Nietzsche and what he wrote on nihilism and the loss of will; this seems similar.

    Some say that history isn't linear, but cyclic; and if this is true, we're now entering a new Migration Age- even the label fits.
    Turbulent and violent the first time around; it'll be interesting times again.

    "The Holy Qur'an" by Muhammad.
    No debate from me.
    We've spent 2000 years under the dogmatism of one 'holy book' from the Middle East; we don't need another.
    The first one wasn't all that good, the second won't be any better.

    When it comes right down to it, are any of these books truly "evil"? If so, which one is the MOST evil? If any of them ARE evil, what should we do with them? Should we have a good old fashioned book burning to get rid of every copy in existence as various censorship groups would have us do, or instead, should we follow Milo's advice that the best way to combat such evil is to shine the full light of the sun on it to expose these works for what they truly are?
    Ha ... What is evil, and by what metric do we measure it?
    There's lots of evils, and they are not all captured by love/hate, good/bad, useful/useless, creative/destructive, etc.
    To love the wrong things can be bad ... to be reasonably inoffensive, all the while giving a rat's ass about what happens to others, even as a consequence of one's own actions ... i.e. indifference can be worse than hate ... and then hate itself ... but one can hate evil; then what?
    It's hard to get past empty, formal wordplay.

    I fear the "evil" is too metaphysical. I do think it is connected to doing something wilfully; though "Inadvertent evil" has a certain ring to it.
    No, wrt. politics, ordinary, material, hands-on profit and loss, utility or damage is eminently sufficient to observe, analyse, judge and act.
    I think almost all of this, all of what we need, is already laid out in the works of thinkers from Locke and onwards,
    but for a long time there hasn't been anyone recapitulating the basics for this new milennium.

    AFAICS the disease is zealotry, fanatism; and the only vaccine I know for that is education and enlightenment.
    More teachers. Better schools.

    M

Posting Permissions

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