10-08-2002, 08:57 PM
|
|
|
Nice Kitty
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pleasurepays
I would like to take a moment to renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Saddam Hussein's rantings. First and foremost, Saddam's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Saddam is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. He is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when abominable sideshow barkers use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. And fear of fatuitous psychics like Saddam who incite racial hatred. Incidentally, his ideologies are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're entirely warped, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, his vaporings rub me the wrong way. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is against everything and for nothing. That's self-evident, and even Saddam would probably agree with me on that. Even so, such conduct as Saddam's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. But the problems with Saddam's put-downs don't end there.
What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Saddam's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Saddam offers two reasons as to why public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. He argues that (1) the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points, and (2) the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, he says that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that he has a "special" perspective on jingoism which carries with it a "special" right to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. It has been said that feelings of inferiority are characteristic of violent, perfidious radicals. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unquestionably implies that I disagree both with his point and with the way he makes it. To cap that off, he can't fool me. I've met irritating rubes before, so I know that Saddam doesn't want us to teach sick knuckle-draggers about tolerance. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of sesquipedalianism.
We must face the fact that Saddam's anecdotes are complete and total offal. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. This has been documented repeatedly. The same might be said of vile swindlers. Sorry for babbling so much, but Saddam Hussein is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications.
|
More interesting intellectualizing but I ask you the same question. How do you really feel? A go, or no go? |
|
|