The End Of The Illusions

“The success of totalitarian movements among the masses meant the end of two illusions of democratically ruled countries in general and of European nation states and their party systems in particular. The first was at the people in it’s majority had taken an active part in the government and that each individual was in sympathy with one’s own or somebody else’s party. On the contrary, the movement showed that the politically neutral and the indifferent masses could easily be the majority in a democratically ruled country, that therefore a democracy could function according to rules which are actively recognized by only a minority. The second democratic illusion exploded by the totalitarian movements was that these politically and different masses did not matter, that they were truly neutral and constituted no more than the inarticulate backward setting for the political life of the nation. Now they made apparent what no other organ of public opinion had ever been able to show, namely, that democratic government had rested as much on the silent approbation and tolerance of the indifferent and in inarticulate sections of the people as on the articulate and visible institutions and organizations of the country. Thus when totalitarian movements invaded Parliament with their contempt for parliamentary government, they merely appeared inconsistent: actually, they succeeded in convincing the people at large that parliamentary majorities were spurious and did not necessarily correspond to the realities of the country, thereby undermining the self-respect and the confidence of governments which also believed in majority rule rather than in their constitutions.”

Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, A Classless Society (bold text from worstwriter)

Rant on.

-T

Burke Before Paine?

Having a hard time reading Hanna Arendt. Reason? It’s not that I don’t or can’t understand her. She is most certainly NOT a difficult read. It’s just that…In my confused and un-trained reading-mind, I realize how little I know about so much of the history she is constantly referencing. For example, the quote above. It’s about Burke. For. Don’t you know. Thomas Paine heavily disputed everything Burke. So my confusion is about whether or not Arendt also disputes Paine. At this point I think she…? I’m confused. Then again, the quote above does say a thing or three about the stuff going on in #Americant since, obviously, former prez pee-pee-hair stole the $hit-show from the willingly STUPID.

Am I wrong.

Rant on.

-T

The Word Mob Or How Worst-Writer Learn Bout Bad-Bad

A quick search in the #Interwebnets provided a kickstart to this worst-post, dear worst-reader. It was originally supposed to be just another quick quote-post as I was so tickled how Hannah Arendt uses the word mob. Putting all my worst-silliness aside, though, I eventually came around to thinking about all the ways the word mob can/should be used. To my worst-surprise, it’s quite a versatile word. First, there’s its use in behaviourism. As in. You know. One can use the word mob when a group of stupid people get together to do stupid things. That’s pretty nifty considering how the riff-raff of my beloved & missed #Americant raid Walmarts on sale-days and/or try to over-throw democracy after an election. (Seriously. Is there a difference?)

Then there’s the word mobbing. As in. What people have to deal with if/when they subject themselves to corporatist employment, i.e. modern, consume-to-survive, careerist subjugation. For. Don’t you know. As a corporatist your greatest achievement is having survived all the mobbing. Am I wrong!

Which brings me to its use as an acronym. Or did you not know that MOB is the fun-name of the Swiss Railway? But even more important than all that, I want to address the use of the word mob in the context of a society hellbent on systemic political dysfunction–you know, #Americant. But before we go there, just one more worst-thought?

Did you know that mafia and mob are NOT interchangeable? That is, they are not synonymous. Or are they? I, for one, have always been kinda confused when thinking about whether or not there’s a difference between mafia and mob. Could that be due to having been raised on films like Godfather or all those TV police shows? You know, Dragnet, Hawaii Five-O, etc. No? No. For, don’t you know, dear worst-reader, films and TV have raised a nation. As in. My beloved & missed #Americant is a nation-state of big-screen dunce minds all hellbent on law, order and big boobs. Hence. Once Reagan’s bat$hittery took over the $hitshow that is the new & improved real-politik, and has since lost its fail-upward way, what’s left? That’s right. All that’s left are the ingredients of a mob: hate, spite, bigotry, etc. And so. The whole idear of questioning whether or not you’re a criminal (mafia) or just a bunch of morons (mob) is kinda mute. Or is it?

Let’s be clear. In worst-writer’s world there’s a huuuuuuuge difference between mob and mafia. Simply put, Mafia is Italian and is inherently connected to that whole Italian mother-obsessed il-duce thing. Indeed. Where would the Godfather/Mafia be without the Roman Catholic Church and a bunch of sexually repressed mother-lovers lust-driven to the hilt of confusion?

Mob, on the other hand, is #Americant through and through and requires much less history than, say, Italy. Maybe that’s the reason so many TV shows and movies don’t use the word mob and thereby misuse the word mafia. Sopranos anyone? Also. The word mob is kind of a perfect fit for such a young nation-state. So much less mystical and religious history than Italy. Then again. Unlike the Italians, where would #Americant be if it weren’t allowed to fcuk its mother, hence the land of motherfcukers. Or am I the only one to worst-assume #Americant invented that (word)?

What really perturbs me as I’m trying to worst-(re)define things is when #Americant media stretches truth a bit too much. Like labelling former president piss-hair as a mafia boss when, in fact, he’s really more of a mob boss. But. Wait a sec. Let’s not shoot our load too fast here. I don’t mean in anyway to give credit where it’s most certainly not due. #Trump is not smart enough to even be a mob boss. And you certainly can forget about applying the whole Italian mafia thing his way. I mean. Seriously. A mob boss with that hair-do? Really? Also. Considering how/when he was able to become the 45th president–and I mean considering everything, especially Hillary & Co.–and then looking at what he did with such a privilege/opportunity…. Wow.

The man is truly a fcuking moron galore.

Or is there such a thing as a mob boss moron? But on that note I should die-gress because, well, we want to get back to the differences when labelling the perpetrators of not only worldly crime but also worldly stupidity.

My worst-point in this worst-post is this. Not only is there a huuuuuuge difference between mob and mafia but there’s a whole lot more history to one over the other. Hence the Italian mother worshipping thing combined with church idolatry–yeah, it’s a recipe of mega (#MAGA?) stupid. Or? That worst-said. This also brings me to even more worst-confusion. Namely, could there be a huuuuuuuge difference between a Mob and the mob? Have I stretched things enough for ya, dear worst-reader? With that in mind, let’s purge a bit and move on. Ok?

Puff! (It’s all gone.)

Having just finished Part One, amply titled Antisemitism of Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, I can’t help but give a worst-thought or three about the word Mob. Of course, it is probably below Arendt to spend any time on such a trivial word. Instead, she thoroughly and concisely details the history of post enlightenment #Eurowasteland by explaining how and where and with whom hate derives. You know. As in. Europe has done a pretty good job of establishing the parameters of hate and bigotry and spite since (insert your century of choice here, but I’ll go with) the seventeenth century. And so. Almost like an epiphany, I couldn’t stop the thought of how relevant Arendt is today–especially when I’m so preoccupied with how my beloved & missed #Americant can get to a place that has #Trump as president. Or. Let me rephrase that.

Hannah Arendt wrote the book of #Trumpism and the GOP and the Mob that is the 74m people that voted last November, 2020–for the grand wizard of idiocy–even though he lost his re-election bid. And she did it long before the likes of Limbaugh & Co got his fangs in the neck of all the fun-wheeling STUPID that is the privilege of white-man country obsessed with holy water splattered all over ovulating bimbos in t-shirts that love dancing on tip-toes as they sing their sweet songs of fcuk-me-motherfcuker, fcuk-me-motherfcuker.

Or maybe not.

Here’s a a bit of text from Arendt’s Antisemitism that threw me for a loop and got me (re)thinking about the word mob. Considering that she wrote this in the 1950s as a way of comprehending the likes of Hitler and Stalin should also make one think WHY she’s not required reading today. Oh wait. Could you imagine a #MAGA hater reading this stuff? Na. Me either.

Friedrich Engels once remarked that the protagonists of the antisemitic moment of his time were noblemen, and its chorus the howling mob of the petty bourgeoisie. This is true not only for Germany, but also for Austria’s Christian Socialism and France’s Anti-Dreyfusards. In all these cases, the aristocracy, in a desperate last struggle, tried to ally itself with the conservative forces of the churches–the Catholic Church in Austria and France, the Protestant Church in Germany–under the pretext of fighting liberalism with the weapons of Christianity. The mob was only a means to strengthen their position, to give their voices a greater resonance. Obviously they neither could nor wanted to organise the mob, and would dismiss it once their aim was achieved. But they discovered that antisemitic slogans were highly effective in mobilising large strata of the population.

Of course, from the text above, one can easily replace petty bourgeoisie, all mention of religion and all mention of anti-semitism with pretty much everything modern day #Americant has done from a Republican/GOP POV, including its amateurish but well unorganised Putsch attempt on Jan. 6, 2021. And so goes the culmination of #Trumpism. Or?

Throwing worst-writer for a loop doesn’t stop there, though. Here’s more:

Where discrimination is not tied up with the Jewish issue only, it can become a crystallisation point for a political movement that wants to solve all the natural difficulties and conflicts of a multinational country by violence, mob rule, and the sheer vulgarity of race concepts. It is one of the most promising and dangerous paradoxes of the American Republic that it dared to realise equality on the basis of the most unequal population in the world, physically and historically. In the United States, social antisemitism may one day become the very dangerous nucleus for a political movement(*). In Europe, however, it had little influence on the rise of political antisemitism.

Here’s the footnote (*) that belongs to the above text and really, really, really threw me for double loop on account, well, WTF! Was Hannah Arendt clairvoyant–along with being so friggin’ über-smart?

Although Jews stood out more than other groups in the homogeneous populations of European countries, it does not follow that they are more threatened by discrimination than other groups in America. In fact, up to now, not the Jews but the Negroes–by nature and history the most unequal among the peoples of America–have borne the burden of social and economic discrimination. § That could change, however, if a political movement ever grew out of this merely social discrimination. Then Jews might very suddenly become the principal objects of hatred for the simple reason that they, alone among all other groups, have themselves, within their history and their religion, expressed a well-known principle of separation. This is not true of the Negroes or the Chinese, who are therefore less endangered politically, even though they may differ more from the majority of Jews.

Source for all text quoted here from: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism; bold text is from worst-writer.

What goes around comes around, eh, dear worst-reader? What was—will be again. And so. Maybe there should be a bit more room in this worst-life of consume-to-survive that allows people to study-up on history–and how it can so easily be repeated and/or fulfilled as though it were a premonition.

Or maybe not.

Rant on.

-T

On Human Wickedness And Such

Human wickedness, if accepted by society, is changed from an act of will into an inherent, psychological quality which man cannot choose or reject but which is imposed upon him from without, and which rules him as compulsively as the drug rules the addict.

-The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt

I’m about three hundred and fifty pages into The Origins of Totalitarianism, dear worst-reader. It’s one of them books that kicks me in the arse for not having read it already. Boy is it good. More quotes to come.

Rant on.

-T

Error Of Past Goes On And On And On And

“The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day.”

Source: Thomas Paine. Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 2 (1779-1792): The Rights of Man

Celebrating Winning

As VE Day was being celebrated in Western enclaves here and there yesterday, worst-writer was thinking of George Carlin:

“When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts. Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend.”

Good luck suckers.

Rant on.

-T

Links: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52574748

Sympathy, Maybe Not

The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of a Man

The Snake

Trump loves to be caught and not be punished. Throughout the 2016 campaign, he recited the poem “The Snake,” a story of treachery that mocks the victims: “You knew damn well I was a snake before you let me in.” It is not enough for Trump to commit a crime. He needs to let you know that he got away with it. Others in his camp, like Roger Stone, share the same predilection. The thrill is in the flaunting, the in-jokes, the admissions so blunt that, perversely, few take them seriously. That’s also where the tell is, if you are working for law enforcement, but these days, federal law enforcement works for Trump.

Hiding In Plain Sight, Sarah Kendzior

Empirical Observation Of The Masses

This uncritical embrace of authority for its own sake is similar to the excuses given for the refusal of officials to address the attacks on the 2016 election in depth. (The Russians want us to distrust the integrity of the US election process, the pundit explains, therefore we must never, ever question what the Russians did to the election process!) The trustworthiness of a process or person was to be dictated from above by “history’s actors,” not decreed from below by the empirical observations of the masses. What (Karl) Rove did in that interview—and what Trump does now—was take the ruse one step further, and admit to manipulation openly, not even giving the public the illusion of an honest broker.

Hiding In Plain Sight, Sarah Kendzior

Good luck suckers.

Rant on.

-T

End Times Hiding In Plain Sight

In the 1990s, history ended with the specter of the wealthiest men in the world raping teenage girls provided by a mafia-affiliated blackmailer. History ended in a sealed file, history ended in a silent scream, history ended with the last man warning you that if you tell anyone, you’d end too.

Hiding In Plain Sight, Sarah Kendzior

Rant on.

-T

Hick Fascism Dog Whistle

As suggested earlier, the rise and institutionalisation of the Ronald Reagan political clique, first in California as governor, 1967-1975, and then as U.S. President, 1981-1989, was a major green light for the development of white supremacist groups, from marginal and obscure to mainstream, by the dawn of the twenty-first century. Reagan and his cronies and political descendants were masters of the device that came be known as a “dog whistle,” using certain tropes and symbolic actions that telegraphed toxic white supremacy and anti-black racism. As Reagan’s “free market” economic and anti-union policies, accompanied by rapid de-industrialisation and job shrinkage, produced homelessness and insecurity of the most vulnerable, they also increasingly affected white workers, making them easy prey to the white nationalist and politicised evangelical groups that had their own narrative about the causes–big government (including mysterious black helicopters), secularisation, banks (always implicating jews), poverty programs (always identified with African Americans even though the majority of recipients were in fact white), and Mexican migrants and women taking their jobs.

-from Loaded by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Chapter 8, White Nationalism

Note: “Hick Fascism” is from Mark Ames: http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/newtown

Rant on.

-T

Sleep of Reason

sleep of reason
Source: Wiki

Thinking too much about my beloved & missed #Americant this morn, dear worst-reader. Thinking about what could lead to the likes of President Stupid and his pee-pee-hair? I mean, is there an essence to it all? Is it that so many compatriots are as stupid as the leaders they elect? That must be the magic-sauce, eh? Yet Barry-O wasn’t stupid. I mean, even if you disagree with his corporate Democrat politics, he simply doesn’t look as ridiculous as #Trump. Plus, even though so many believers still believe that #Trump is a wrench in the machine, when he has, in fact, done nothing more than double-down on Republican politics that began (in earnest) with Reagan, they still love him. How is it that so many voters couldn’t/can’t see through what republicans have done and thereby think the man with pee-pee-hair is the solution? Which begs the question, how much more stupid is #Americant capable of? Yeah, that electoral college thing worked well for the few. Indeed. How far has democracy come–while the masses sleep in the bliss of their ignorance. And so. In the back of my mind was a phrase that I hadn’t heard in a while and it took me a few moments while drinking massive amounts of espresso a few hours ago to recall it. I was able to localise the phrase to Christopher Hitchens (see vid link below). I’m not sure exactly where the phrase comes from, but after a quick search I’m now wondering if it comes out of just a friggin painting. Or? Nomatter. 

Rant on.

-T

Links that motivated this post:

Jabberwhorl Cronstadt

There’s no such thing as the present. There’s a word called Time, but nobody is able to define it. There’s a past and there’s a future, and Time runs through it like an electric current. The present is an imaginary condition, a dream state… an oxymoron.

-Henry Miller, Black Spring, chapter: Jabberwhorl Cronstadt,

Party Here, Faction There

Van Buren will be nominated and he will defeat Clay or any other National Republican–no, no, Whig, I must get used to calling them that. How topsy-turvy it is! Those of us who were for the Revolution were Whigs. Those for Britain were Tories. Then there was the fight over the federal Constitution. In our state Governor Clinton wanted a weak federal government. So some of the Whigs became anti-Federalist, and some like Hamilton became Federalist. Then the Tory-Federalists became Republican. Now Tory-Federalist-Republicans call themselves Whig though they are anti-Whig while the anti-federalist Republicans are now Jacksonian Democrats. Oh, names are magic here!
-From Burr – A Novel, by Gore Vidal, Part 1834, Chapter Four

More on Burr here.

Rant on.

-T

Does The Razor Cut Through It

It was actually Ockham who prepared our minds for this unwelcome (to him) conclusion. He devised a “principle of economy,” popularly known as “Ockham’s Razor,” which relied for its effect on disposing of unnecessary assumptions and accepting the first sufficient explanation or cause. “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” This principle extends itself. “Everything which is explained through positing something different from the act of understanding,” he wrote, “can be explained without positing such a distinct thing.” He was not afraid to follow his own logic wherever it might take him, and anticipated the coming of true science when he agreed that it was possible to know the nature of “created” things without any reference to their “creator.” Indeed, Ockham stated that it cannot be strictly proved that god, if defined as a being who possesses the qualities of supremacy, perfection, uniqueness, and infinity, exists at all. However, if one intends to identify a first cause of the existence of the world, one may choose to call that “god” even if one does not know the precise nature of the first cause. -Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great, Chapter Five, The Metaphysical Claims Of Religion

Rant on.

-T

Futility Of Discourse

“He had encouraged him to talk to him, although he had always wondered at a certain incoherence, or rather restlessness in his mind, and could not understand what it was that so continually and insistently worked upon the brain of “the contemplative.” They discussed philosophical questions and even how there could have been light on the first day when the sun, moon, and stars were only created on the fourth day, and how that was to be understood.”

-Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Pros and Cons, Chapter 6, For Awhile A Very Obscure One

Rant on.

-T

Oh Yeah, Daniel Boone…

What Daniel Boone, like George Washington, was up to was intruding upon sovereign Native land so as to covertly survey it and sell it to white settlers, who would then form themselves into militias to murder the families who had been living there for generations. Some were successful and grew rich and powerful, such as George Washington, while others, like Boone, never attained wealth, his land speculations resulting in bankruptcy. Regarding Boone’s hunting career, it was purely commercial; he killed animals not for food, but to sell their pelts for profit. Boone made a modest living as a market hunter. Annually, trekking alone or in small groups of other market hunters, he would go on “long hunts”–months-long expedition into unceded Indian hunting grounds. Collecting hundreds of buck deer skins in the autumn, he would then trap beaver and otter for the valuable pelts over the winter. In the Spring, market hunters returned to sell their bounty to commercial traders. In this business, buckskins came to be known as “bucks,” originating the slang term for “dollar.” But the legend and lore that mushroomed around Daniel Boone advanced notions of the hero explorer and adventurous hunter, and were written over the fact that he was a merchant, a trader, a land speculator, and a failed businessman. -from “Loaded,” Chapter Five – Myth of the Hunter, by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

If you’re interested, more on this book here.

Rant (and quote) on.

-T

Whose Freedom Is It To Give Anywho?

While re-reading The Grand Inquisitor this morning after or almost at the same time ingesting another day of newz from my beloved & missed #Americant where THE FREEDOM TO BE STUPID rules all, this quote got to me.

“For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not believe that it’s over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wrote with me. But let me tell thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that has been our doing. Was this what Thou didst? Was this Thy freedom?”

“I don’t understand again,” Alyosha broke in. “Is he ironical, is he jesting?”

“Not a bit of it! He claims it as merit for himself and his Church that at last they have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy.”

-Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamozov, Book: Pro and Contra – Chapter 5 – The Grand Inquisitor

Rant on.

-T

Too Much Fun With Stephen Fry

Below is one of Stephen Fry’s shortest chapters in his book Mythos. Even though I’m reading them out of order, his sequel to this book really motivated me. So far this book has not been a disappointment. I hope I’m not breaking any rules by posting the whole, short chapter here. But I got as much fun out of typing it as I did reading it. Indeed. This text really took me for a loop. Even though it may or may not be just another retelling of a story told many times, Fry’s writing is fantastic.

From the book Mythos, chapter Apollo Reads The Signs, by Stephen Fry:

“Hermes may or may not have known it, but on his first night on earth he had travelled quite a distance. All the way from his birthplace on Mount Cyllene north through the fields of Thessaly and as far as Pieria, where he had found and rustled the cattle. And back again. In baby steps that is quite a distance. §What Hermes certainly could not have known was that the white cattle belonged to Apollo, who prized them highly. When news reached the god of their disappearance he set off in a fury to Pieria in order to follow what he assumed was a vicious gang of thieves to the their lair. Wild dryads or fauns gone to the bad, he imagined. They would regret taking property from the god of arrows. §He lay down in the cattle’s field to examine the ground with all the thoroughness of an experienced tracker. To his astonishment the brigands had left no useful traces at all. All he could see were random brush marks, meaningless whorls and swirls and–unless he was going mad–one tiny infant footprint. Any impressions that might have been formed by the cow’s hoofs seemed to be heading, not away from the field, but towards it! §Whoever had stolen the cattle was mocking Apollo. They were practised and expert thieves, that much was clear. His sister Artemis was the most skilled hunter hew new: would she dare? Perhaps she had devised some cunning way to conceal her tracks. Ares didn’t have the wit. Poseidon wouldn’t be interested. Hephaestus? Unlikely. Who then? §He noticed a thrush preening on a branch not far away in one smooth action drew his bow and brought the creature down. Slitting open the crop the god of oracles and augury peered forward to read the entrails. §From the colouration in the lower intestine, the kink in the right kidney and the unusual disposition of the thymus gland it was clear at once that the cattle were somewhere in the Arcadia, not far from Corinth. And what was that clot of blood on the liver saying to him? Mount Cyllene. And what else? So! It had been a baby’s footprint after all. §Apollo’s usually smooth brow was drawn into a frown, his blue eyes blazed and his rose-red lips compressed themselves into a grim line. §Revenge would be his.”

Rant on.

-T

Egypt Of The…

“This was indeed the Egypt of the Confederacy,–the rich granary whence potatoes and corn and cotton poured out of the famished and ragged Confederate troops as they battled for a cause lost long before 1861. Sheltered and secure, it became the place of refuge for the families, wealth, and slaves. Yet even then the hard ruthless rape of the land began to tell. The red-clay sub-soil already had begun to peer above the loam. The harder the slaves were driven the more careless and fatal was their farming. Then came the revolution of war and Emancipation, the bewilderment of Reconstruction,–and now, what is the Egypt of the Confederacy, and what meaning has it for the nation’s weal or woe?”

-WEB Dubois – The Souls of Black Folk

Rant on.

-T

Still Trying To Learn The French Revolution. Because.

One of the best of the few too many books I’ve read on the subject. Had no idear this was gonna be so good–on account worstwriter learn something galore. 

It’s also kinda funny-sad how some of the rhetoric from yore is no different than today–even though we’re supposed to have progressed. Progressed to where? Note on the pic: my highlighting is a bit sporadic. Pretty much the whole text on both pages is relevant–especially when considering some of the things said, insinuated since the pervasion/vomit of #Trump  replaced all the other über-bad from Reagan on. 

Rant on.

-T

Links also relevant:

Willful Ignorance

liberal tears

(noun) The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs. This practice is most commonly found in the political or religious ideologies of “conservative” Americans. Many times it is practiced due to laziness–people not wanting to have to do the work to rethink their opinions, the fear of the unknown, the fear of being wrong, or sometimes simply close-mindedness. -Urban Dictionary

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” -MLK

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge.” -Isaac Asimov

“Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason. For the sake of humanity, we must be that cure.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson

Free is not free anymore. It’s now just free to be stupid. -worstwriter

-Rant on

T

Missing The Hitch

“Given this overwhelming tendency to stupidity and selfishness in myself and among our species, it is somewhat surprising to find the light of reason penetrating at all. The brilliant Schiller was wrong in his “Joan of Arc” when he said that “against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.” It is actually by means of the gods that we make our stupidity and gullibility into something ineffable.” -God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens

-Rant on

T

Battle of Communications

“The battle for the survival of man as a responsible being in the Communications Era is not to be won where the communication originates, but where it arrives.” -Umberto Eco, Travels in Hyperreality, Towards a Semiological Guerrilla Warfare

But seriously. If/when the communication arrives at the #Americant in the comfort of his credit card, never-paid-for lazy-boy, how should then the battle be waged?

Just askin’.

-Rant on

T