Heidegger

> > At least Munchausen did not have a political agenda.
>
> as very clearly do you. your believability, then?

Well, ok, let’s consider it demonstrated that I have a political agenda. I
would consider below my dignity to tell a lie in order to promote such
agenda. My commitment to truth is greater than my interest of advancing a
political opinion. I would choose truth over power anytime, supposing that
the two could be so easily separated from each other.

> > In her short political career in the Netherlands (she made up to the
> > status
> > of “elected by the people”, i.e. in the second chamber of the
> Parliament),
> > she succeeded to polarize the discussion in terms of
> > enlightened-progressive
> > Westerners vs. awkward-retrograde Muslims (thinking in dualist “either
> > black or white” categories, which says something about her intellect),
>
> sorta like, democracy = farcical rule by low IQ imbeciles? your intellect,
> then?

Well, I was very nuanced that the fact that a mass cumulates never
intelligence but in the best case it cumulates mediocrity, that is a
scientific evidence (pertaining to mass psychology).

There are many aspects of democracy which makes it a farce, but I recognized
on this list that it has many aspects which can be admired. E.g., offering a
superior living standard than East Block or tyrannical countries. Or,
maintaining a level of respect for human rights, at least in certain
European democracies. Or ensuring peace for at least part of the world, for
the last half century.

What I admire most is that the democratic elite did try to enlighten the
masses (through universal education) and make them refrain from gregarious
democracy (mob rule). So, it is precisely the hypocrisy about being
democratic which is to be admired: we have democracy, but human rights and
the rule of law are more important than having an electoral majority. The
idea that human rights are above dispute, above the passions of the masses,
that is admirable.

> > and she
> > totally ignored the unwritten but very demanding Dutch political
> customs,
> > which require from the politician to show always respect for opponents,
> > and keep the discussion as dispassionate and objective as possible.
>
> as do you?

Now, if you refer to my critique of Mrs. Ali, I was just stating obvious
facts. Besides, I am not a politician, I am not member of a political party
and I do not seek to change the opinions of the masses through propaganda. I
may want to contribute to forming an opinion in some internet communities,
but internet communities are not “the masses”.

> > She did a terrible disservice to her party, VVD (right centre
> > libertarians),
> > party which she joined after years of working for a leftist party
> (PvdA),
> > she joined it after being offered an easy Parliament seat. She provoked
> a
> > political crisis in the Netherlands, having as consequence the demission
> > of the second Balkenende cabinet.
> >
> > To draw the balance, if she did any service to the Netherlands, it was
> > because she could not do harm only (it would have been far too suspect)
> in
> > her career as political agitator. All she could think of was bashing the
> > Dutch Muslim men for real or alleged mishandling of women, and insulting
> > their religious sensibilities in every possible way (which is a criminal
> > offence in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch Book of Criminal Law,
> > art. 147 and 147a).
>
> “insulting religious sensibilities” = against the law … exactly George
> Will’s point:
>
> “Holland evidently tolerates everything except skepticism about the
> sacramental nature of multiculturalism. One million of the country’s 16
> million residents are Muslims, and the political left has appropriated the
> European right’s traditional celebration of identity grounded in racial
> and
> ethnic traditions and culture. But the recoil of many Dutch people from
> Hirsi Ali suggests that the tolerance about which Holland preens is a
> compound of intellectual sloth and moral timidity. She was more trouble
> than
> the Dutch evidently think free speech is worth.”

There are many Dutch people who believe these words to be true. However, the
holy cow of multiculturalism became an object of public despise (except for
supporters of leftist parties) after the murders on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van
Gogh. The majority opinion in the Netherlands is, I think, that
multiculturalism is a thing of the past, something that was tried, but did
not work, and it became a burden to be removed.

Now, I was not happy with multiculturalism either, but I see that it was not
replaced with something better.

> > She got offered a position in an extreme-right (for European
> > sensibilities)
> > neo-conservative institute, the American Enterprise Institute for Public
> > Policy Research. As the rumor goes, if that is true, she was later
> turned
> > down by that institution.
> >
> > She was not only a troublemaker, but she showed in general little
> respect
> > for the requirements of having a civilized debate. I think she was
> unable
> > to
> > comprehend the idea that people could disagree with her without having
> to
> > be in bad faith in order to maintain such stances.
>
> sorta like, democracy = farcical rule by low IQ imbeciles? your level of
> comprehension, then?

Now, those who “farcically” rule over the low IQ imbeciles, they (those
rulers) do not have a low IQ themselves. It takes some degree of
intelligence to understand how a mass should be controlled, and give it the
illusion that it is the people who rule the country.

So, the real thing to be afraid about democracy it is when people really
come to rule, i.e. fear those moments of mass hysteria wherein the opinion
of the masses has a real say on political issues.

As long as democratic manipulation remains civilized and pays respect to the
cause of humanity, democracy is to be preferred to other regimes. Alas, this
situation is somewhat unstable (otherwise no such thing as neoconservative
“commerce” in anxiety would be possible), and if the masses make their own
mind and decide to no longer listen to the ideals of civilized behavior,
then no amount of propaganda will hold the mass-version of the blonde beast
chained.

Since democracy shows signs that it has become unstable, and
neoconservatives attack it anyway by redefining liberal democracy that it no
longer means anything, it is time to seek a replacement for democracy, and
this without taking the side of inhumanity or being against human rights,
but because one is genuinely concerned with the fact that the situation has
become untenable, and if aware people don’t do nothing, the society will go
to hell in a hand basket. (Book of Daniel chapter 2 suggests that there is
where society is going towards, anyway, before an Apocalyptic final, but he
considers a period of many thousands of years.)

Greetings,

Tudor

Posted on Saturday, September 23rd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback