• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Hardcore intellectualizing for Monday morning

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
I think this room has been missing some serious debate for a while - since everything in Iraq and America has been going pretty well...(as I had been saying ;) )

Well here, TAKE THIS!

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D90C.htm

28 May 2002

All cultures are not equal

by Kenan Malik

'I denounce European colonialism', wrote CLR James. 'But I respect the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation.' (1)

James was one of the great radicals of the twentieth century, an anti-imperialist, a superb historian of black struggles, a Marxist who remained one even when it was no longer fashionable to be so. But today, James' defence of 'Western civilisation' would probably be dismissed as Eurocentric, even racist.

To be radical today is to display disenchantment with all that is 'Western' - by which most mean modernism and the ideas of the Enlightenment - in the name of 'diversity' and 'difference'. The modernist project of pursuing a rational, scientific understanding of the natural and social world - a project that James unashamedly championed - is now widely regarded as a dangerous fantasy, even as oppressive.

'Subjugation', according to the philosopher David Goldberg, 'defines the order of the Enlightenment: subjugation of nature by human intellect, colonial control through physical and cultural domination, and economic superiority through mastery of the laws of the market' (2). The mastery of nature and the rational organisation of society, which were once seen as the basis of human emancipation, have now become the sources of human enslavement.

Enlightenment universalism, such critics argue, is racist because it seeks to impose Euro-American ideas of rationality and objectivity on other peoples. 'The universalising discourses of modern Europe and the United States', argues Edward Said, 'assume the silence, willing or otherwise, of the non-European world.' (3)

Not just for radicals, but for many mainstream liberals too, the road that began in the Enlightenment ends in savagery, even genocide. As the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues: 'Every ingredient of the Holocaust... was normal... in the sense of being fully in keeping with everything we know about our civilisation, its guiding spirits, its priorities, its immanent vision of the world - and of the proper ways to pursue human happiness together with a perfect society.' (4)

The aim of anti-imperialism was not to reject Western ideas, but to reclaim them for all of humanity

This belief that modernism lies at the root of all evil is so pervasive that only right-wing reactionaries, like Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher or the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, it sometimes seems, are willing unreservedly to defend James' belief in the superiority of 'the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation'.

So the real question to ask in the wake of 11 September 11 is not, as many have suggested, 'Why do they hate us?', but rather 'Why do we seem to hate ourselves?'. Why is it that Western liberals and radicals have become so disenchanted with modern civilisation that some even welcomed the attack on the Twin Towers as an anti-imperialist act?

CLR James, like most anti-imperialists in the past, recognised that all progressive politics were rooted in the 'Western tradition', and in particular in the ideas of reason, progress, humanism and universalism that emerged out of the Enlightenment. The scientific method, democratic politics, the concept of universal values - these are palpably better concepts than those that existed previously, or those that exist now in other political and cultural traditions. Not because Europeans are a superior people, but because out of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution flowed superior ideas.

The Western tradition is not Western in any essential sense, but only through an accident of geography and history. Indeed, Islamic learning provided an important resource for both the Renaissance and the development of science. The ideas we call 'Western' are in fact universal, laying the basis for greater human flourishing. That is why for much of the past century radicals, especially third world radicals, recognised that the problem of imperialism was not that it was a Western ideology, but that it was an obstacle to the pursuit of the progressive ideals that arose out of the Enlightenment.

As Frantz Fanon, the Martinique-born Algerian nationalist, put it: 'All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.' (5) For thinkers like Fanon and James, the aim of anti-imperialism was not to reject Western ideas but to reclaim them for all of humanity.

Indeed, Western liberals were often shocked by the extent to which anti-colonial movements adopted what they considered to be tainted notions. The Enlightenment concepts of universalism and social progress, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed, found 'unexpected support from peoples who desire nothing more than to share in the benefits of industrialisation; peoples who prefer to look upon themselves as temporarily backward rather than permanently different'. Elsewhere he noted that the doctrine of cultural relativism 'was challenged by the very people for whose moral benefit the anthropologists had established it in the first place' (6).

Making judgements about beliefs and cultures is viewed as politically uncouth

How things have changed. 'Permanently different' is exactly how we tend to see different, groups, societies and cultures today. Why? Largely because contemporary society has lost faith in social transformation, in the possibility of progress, in the beliefs that animated anti-imperialists like James and Fanon.

To regard people as 'temporarily backward' rather than 'permanently different' is to accept that while people are potentially equal, cultures definitely are not; it is to accept the idea of social and moral progress; that it would be far better if everybody had the chance to live in the type of society or culture that best promoted human advancement.

But it's just these ideas - and the very act of making judgements about beliefs, values, lifestyles, and cultures - that are now viewed as politically uncouth. In place of the progressive universalism of James and Fanon, contemporary Western societies have embraced a form of nihilistic multiculturalism. We've come to see the world as divided into cultures and groups defined largely by their difference with each other. And every group has come to see itself as composed not of active agents attempting to overcome disadvantages by striving for equality and progress, but of passive victims with irresolvable grievances. For if differences are permanent, how can grievances ever be resolved?

The corollary of turning the whole world into a network of victims is to transform the West, and in particular the USA, into an all-powerful malign force - the Great Satan - against which all must rage. In Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, one of the central characters, Saladin, finds himself incarcerated in a detention centre for illegal immigrants. Saladin discovers that his fellow inmates have been transformed into beasts - water buffaloes, snakes, manticores. He himself has become a hairy goat.

How do they do it, Saladin asks a fellow prisoner? 'They describe us', comes the reply, 'that's all. They have the power of description and we succumb to the pictures they construct'. There is a similar sense of fatalism in the way that many contemporary radicals view the USA. The Great Satan describes the world, and the world succumbs to those descriptions.

In this fatalism lies a common thread that binds contemporary Western radicalism and fundamentalist Islam. On the surface the two seem poles apart: fundamentalists loathe Western decadence, Western radicals fear Islamic presumptions of certainty. But what unites the two is that both are rooted in contemporary nihilistic multiculturalism; both express, at best, ambivalence about, at worst outright rejection of, the ideas of modernity, universality, and progress. And both see no real alternative to Western power.

If differences are permanent, how can grievances ever be resolved?

Most importantly, both conflate the gains of modernism and the iniquities of capitalism. In this way the positive aspects of capitalist society - its invocation of reason, its technological advancements, its ideological commitment to equality and universalism - are denigrated, while its negative aspects - the inability to overcome social divisions, the contrast between technological advance and moral turpitude, the tendencies towards barbarism - are seen as inevitable or natural.

According to this worldview, all one can hope for, in the words of Edward Said, is 'the possibility of a more generous and pluralistic vision of the world, in which imperialism courses on, as it were, belatedly, in different forms (the North-South polarity of our time is one), and the relationship of domination continues, but the opportunities for liberation are open.' (7) But what can liberation mean if nothing is to change and 'imperialism courses on'? Is it not more likely that such a view will give rise, not to a 'generous and pluralistic vision of the world', but to a darkly dystopian and misanthropic one, where all that is left is nihilistic rage - the kind of rage that led to the events of 11 September?

The fury that drove the planes into Twin Towers was nurtured as much by the nihilism and fatalism that now grips much of Western society as by the struggle in Palestine or anywhere else in the third world. There was nothing remotely anti-imperialist or progressive about the attack; nor is there about the visceral anti-Americanism that today animates Islamic fundamentalists and Western radicals alike. There is much to deplore about American society and American foreign policy. But little of it is embodied in the anti-Americanism either of Islamic fundamentalism or of contemporary Western radicalism. Rather, they are both the products of the failure of anti-imperialism, and of a disaffection with the modern world. The irony of such estrangement from modernism is that it is as rooted in the 'Western tradition' as modernism itself - but only in its more reactionary and backward-looking strands.

'Today, we are present at the stasis of Europe', Frantz Fanon wrote. Europe 'has shaken off all guidance and all reason, and she is running headlong into the abyss; we would do well to avoid it with all speed.' (8) Forty years ago, Fanon was issuing a clarion call against imperialism. Today he could be equally well warning us about the consequences of what passes for anti-imperialism.


Kenan Malik is the author of Man, Beast and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us About Human Nature, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2000 (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)); and The Meaning of Race: Race, History, and Culture in Western Society, New York University Press, 1996

1) CLR James, 'The Making of the Caribbean People', in Spheres of Existence: Selected Writings (London: Alison and Busby, 1980), p179

(2) David Theo Goldberg, Racist Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p29

(3) Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (London: Chatto & Windus, 1993), p58

(4) Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p8

(5) Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967 [first pub 1961]), p253

(6) Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, vol2 (Harmondworth: Penguin, 1978 [first pub 1973]), p53; idem, The View from Afar (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987 [first pub 1983]), p28

(7) Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism, pp277-278

(8) Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, pp253, 252
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Anyone want to take a stab at why there's 0 responses to this thread?

(hint, poster + thread title).


haha.
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
Interesting read however:

I tire of these discussions because they don't offer any 'material' solutions to our current state. So although most of these posts are great mental stimuli, at the end of the day, I still have the feeling that tomorrow will be pretty much the same as today, article or no article.

My thoughts currently drift to questions such as:

What if we gave everyone a minimum living standard for as long as they lived.?
Home, food, clothing, whatever medicines they need, access to whatever infomation they required, (ie. books, music, moives, entertainment really)
How we'd do this would be a great venture but I'll leave that to the smarter people to figure out.
No one would have to 'work' to attain these things, they would simply have to exist.


What would our world become if these basic needs were met?
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
anarchy:b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Two versions, which one are we talking about?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Neo-Marxist

TRIBE Member
I've read quite a bit of Keenan Malik's work. His writing centres around the post-modern ethic of fragmentation and cultural relativism. But he also argues against essentializing cultures. Indeed, he is one of the leading post-colonial theorists. If anyone has read his stuff, which Deep_Groove clearly has not, one would understand where Malik is coming from.
 

Neo-Marxist

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
I think this room has been missing some serious debate for a while - since everything in Iraq and America has been going pretty well...(as I had been saying ;) )


Well, at least Deep_Groove enjoys the brown acid.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
your fucked if you do your fucked if you don't but at least if you don't you can make fun of those who do and fuck up



fuck em if they can't take a joke
 

sarafina

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by oddmyth
Overpopulated ... pure and simple.

odbx

uhh..i think it already is...
as for the article...there are several points i definitely disagree with...but i guess i'm one of those anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist radicals...

Sarah
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by oddmyth
Overpopulated ... pure and simple.

odbx

I don't know about this.
I mean, we've seen that as wealth increases birth rates drop.
So i'm not sure this would be the outcome.

But let us say this was our most pressing problem.
Wouldn't this be infinitely less complex to deal with than the myriad of problems we have today?
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Neo-Marxist
I've read quite a bit of Keenan Malik's work. His writing centres around the post-modern ethic of fragmentation and cultural relativism. But he also argues against essentializing cultures

Well, it "centres around it" to the extent that it criticizes it and argues for a universal humanism (see: e.g. The Meaning of Race) to counter the idea of "essentializing" cultures.

Indeed, he is one of the leading post-colonial theorists.

Buh? I think he might disagree with you on that one... What exactly would you consider he has written that falls in the "post-colonial theory" camp? I consider his writing on the history and philosophy of evolutionary approaches to human nature to be the most important stuff, and that has nothing to do with post-colonial theory.

If anyone has read his stuff, which Deep_Groove clearly has not, one would understand where Malik is coming from.

So you assume I simply haven't read the work if I happen to disagree with it? What small-mindedness....

As it happens, in the case of this article, I agree with most of it. What would make you think I did not?

- Deep_Groove

P.S. here's his website for anyone who's interested:

www.kenanmalik.com
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by exheres
Interesting read however:

I tire of these discussions because they don't offer any 'material' solutions to our current state. So although most of these posts are great mental stimuli, at the end of the day, I still have the feeling that tomorrow will be pretty much the same as today, article or no article.

My thoughts currently drift to questions such as:

What if we gave everyone a minimum living standard for as long as they lived.?
Home, food, clothing, whatever medicines they need, access to whatever infomation they required, (ie. books, music, moives, entertainment really)
How we'd do this would be a great venture but I'll leave that to the smarter people to figure out.
No one would have to 'work' to attain these things, they would simply have to exist.

What would our world become if these basic needs were met?

Answer: The definition of injustice and poverty.

Why? In order to provide 6 billion people wit a minimum standard of living for as long as they lived (aside from the tricky question of how to define "minimum standard") you would have to come up with amounts of goods and services the likes of which the world has never seen before. Ask yourself: Where would these come from? They can't be pulled out of thin air - they have to come from somehwere.

If something like this was ever attempted, the likely source of these goods and services would be from the private property of the citizens of the first world - you and me.

We could only do this by stealing from the rightful producers and owners of these goods and services. Hence - injustice.

The poverty part comes in because of that old saying: "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Your proposal would likely fall in the former category, and thus creating widespread poverty both here and in the third world.

The key to improving our world is to "teach the world to fish" as it were. Not simply giving them handouts.

- Deep_Groove
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove

If something like this was ever attempted, the likely source of these goods and services would be from the private property of the citizens of the first world - you and me.

We could only do this by stealing from the rightful producers and owners of these goods and services. Hence - injustice.

- Deep_Groove


The Sickness is everywhere. It is in you, Deep_Groove. You are nothing but an hominid dressed appropriately in the standard-issue uniform of a sheep.

You cannot pretend to understand what I'm telling you. You are dominated by it, much as a machine is dominated by its mechanics. Consciousness, the kind we have been gifted with, would logically contradict your understanding of injustice. You are what we all yearn to leave behind. You are what feeds the Sickness. You are the fear from which so many of us wish to escape.
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
Answer: The definition of injustice and poverty.

.

The poverty part comes in because of that old saying: "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Your proposal would likely fall in the former category, and thus creating widespread poverty both here and in the third world.

The key to improving our world is to "teach the world to fish" as it were. Not simply giving them handouts.

- Deep_Groove

A spirited response but I think you have misjudged what I'm getting at here.

I think we would all agree that computers are headed towards the day when they can replace most of what we term 'work' within society.
This makes this idea of 'teach a man to fish' obsolete. If we create a machines that fish with greater efficiency than any human could achieve, then you are going to have to find something for these fisher folk to do. Or perhaps we could just let them do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Watch movies, read books, sleep, fuck, study music, study the cosmos, solve Fermat's theorem, even though it's been solved, hang out with their kids all day, just because it felt good, you know all the things we wish we could do but 'WORK' prevents us from doing.

What I'm trying to say is that instead of following this idea that we work to achieve meaning in life and find discipline and all that other stuff that we all know doesn't mean a damn thing to us when we were running around in diapers; we could work towards eliminating the structures in our lives that bring us brings little satisfaction and reason to get up in the morning.

If you disagree ask yourself some of these questions:

Why is retirement such a celebration?
Would you define doing something you enjoy as 'work'?
If someone gave you a credit card tomorrow that did not require you to make payments, would you decline it?
I could go on and on but I have to get back to 'work'.

We have been working for centuries with the notions that you put forward in your post concerning property and economy and the all the rest of it and these discussions always leave me sleepy and bored. No hope for a better tomorrow and no end to the foolish little game that we call 'civilization'.

Call me silly but there has got to be more to life than our western notions of economy and ownership of huge amounts of property?
 

derek

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
Answer: The definition of injustice and poverty.

Why? In order to provide 6 billion people wit a minimum standard of living for as long as they lived (aside from the tricky question of how to define "minimum standard") you would have to come up with amounts of goods and services the likes of which the world has never seen before. Ask yourself: Where would these come from? They can't be pulled out of thin air - they have to come from somehwere.

If something like this was ever attempted, the likely source of these goods and services would be from the private property of the citizens of the first world - you and me.

We could only do this by stealing from the rightful producers and owners of these goods and services. Hence - injustice.

The poverty part comes in because of that old saying: "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." Your proposal would likely fall in the former category, and thus creating widespread poverty both here and in the third world.

The key to improving our world is to "teach the world to fish" as it were. Not simply giving them handouts.

- Deep_Groove

how about a better distribution of wealth from say the 10% of the people that control about 80% of the wealth. that's a start, and supports universality which at the current stage in human evolution we do not.

universalitly will never fly with the current distrbution of power. the us entitles itself to carry out whatever programs it deems necessary without universality in mind. if they are to accept universality then they would have to accept the consequences. mainly if they are entitled to intervine if other countries affair by force on presuppositions then the same would be true likewise. by rights nicaruaga would have been allowed to attack the us in retalitation for us aggression against them. of couse this concept is ridiculous and unthinkable.

the reason the world is in the state it is today if because the 'haves' don't want to give any ground to the 'have-nots'.

peace,

derek
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
wealth97pie.gif
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

sarafina

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
Answer: The definition of injustice and poverty.

Why? In order to provide 6 billion people with a minimum standard of living for as long as they lived (aside from the tricky question of how to define "minimum standard") you would have to come up with amounts of goods and services the likes of which the world has never seen before. Ask yourself: Where would these come from? They can't be pulled out of thin air - they have to come from somehwere.

If something like this was ever attempted, the likely source of these goods and services would be from the private property of the citizens of the first world - you and me.

We could only do this by stealing from the rightful producers and owners of these goods and services. Hence - injustice.

- Deep_Groove

i agree with derek on this...i think that many people in the "first world" have more than enough, there is definitley enough food in the world to feed everyone, it's just distributed extremely unevenly (this is the INJUSTICE)
as for these goods being the property of those in the first world, i also have to disagree. They are only our "property" now thanks to our ancestors plundering everywhere and claiming anything with economic value for themselves. I would also call this injustice.
what really needs to happen (in my opinion) is a complete overhaul of what we (in the first world especially, but increasingly in other places as they become more and more linked with our media and brainwashing..i mean..advertising) think is necessary, what we define as "quality of life"..

i do agree with you in that we need to teach people how to fish rather than giving them fish, however they probably knew how to fish and provide for themselves until our ancestors went and destroyed their means of self-sufficiency

Sarah
 

Neo-Marxist

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deep_Groove
So you assume I simply haven't read the work if I happen to disagree with it? What small-mindedness....

As it happens, in the case of this article, I agree with most of it. What would make you think I did not?

- Deep_Groove

I never said you disagreed with it. You just pick and choose arguments that suit your ideas and then twist them around. By the way, Malik is a post-colonial theorist. He just doesn't take the position of Said, Spivak, Bhaba, and others like them.

NM
 

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
The Sickness is everywhere. It is in you, Deep_Groove. You are nothing but an hominid dressed appropriately in the standard-issue uniform of a sheep.

You cannot pretend to understand what I'm telling you. You are dominated by it, much as a machine is dominated by its mechanics. Consciousness, the kind we have been gifted with, would logically contradict your understanding of injustice. You are what we all yearn to leave behind. You are what feeds the Sickness. You are the fear from which so many of us wish to escape.

Looks like 4:20 came a little early for ~atp~ today :D

Originally posted by exheres
I think we would all agree that computers are headed towards the day when they can replace most of what we term 'work' within society.
This makes this idea of 'teach a man to fish' obsolete. If we create a machines that fish with greater efficiency than any human could achieve, then you are going to have to find something for these fisher folk to do.

No, I think you're misunderstanding things here. There will always be many jobs in which human beings are essential. Our economy has been shifting towards the service industries over the last several decades; it will continue to do so. And people will always need to work because contributing to the production of some good or service is the only way to consume, and is thus the only way to live. That's life. Ten thousand years ago with our ancestors, their work was hunting and gathering enough food to make it through the day. Work will always be with us. The only difference is that we've become so much more efficient that a day of our work produces exponentially more than a day of theirs.

But I think, deep down, these economic arguments are irrelevant to you. This is what you were really getting at:

Call me silly but there has got to be more to life than our western notions of economy and ownership of huge amounts of property?

Sure there is...it's up to you to discover it for yourself. That's what individuality means. But you'll always have to eat.

Originally posted by derek
how about a better distribution of wealth from say the 10% of the people that control about 80% of the wealth.

Those people control that wealth because they created it. Think about it. Without those entrepreneurs and inventors, THAT WEALTH WOULD NOT EXIST TO COUNT.

Originally posted by sarafina
I think that many people in the "first world" have more than enough, there is definitley enough food in the world to feed everyone, it's just distributed extremely unevenly (this is the INJUSTICE)


Are you going to volunteer to give up half the things you own so someone in Zimbabwe can live for an extra week? And like I said, we have most of the wealth because we know how to set up political systems that allow us to produce it efficiently. As I said, that wealth wouldn't exist without KNOWLEDGE.

As for these goods being the property of those in the first world, i also have to disagree. They are only our "property" now thanks to our ancestors plundering everywhere and claiming anything with economic value for themselves. I would also call this injustice.

No. Historically speakng, you're wrong. European imperialism existed for a couple of centuries, and granted, it was morally despicable - at least the aspects of slavery and plunder. But that wasn't all of it - there was also trade and commercial relations. And imperialism as a whole played only a small role in giving us the prosperity we enjoy today. The European nations were able to conquer and rule other people because they ALREADY were evolving toward political and economic systems that allowed them to produce the necessary technology, goods and services to do it.

If it hadn't happened, it might have taken us a bit longer to reach the point we are at, but the historical trend was unmistakable.

Check out David Landes' book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" to learn more about this subject.

Now, if you want to talk about the extinction of the North American natives, that' s another thing. But of all the people "imperialized", they had the LEAST, materially speaking TO PLUNDER. Their deaths were an inevitable result of Europeans deciding to live in the "New World". Smallpox killed more of them than war. Would you say that people don't have the right to move to live where they choose?

At least the surviving natives have the option of more secure, more prosperous lives.

Originally posted by Neo-Marxist
By the way, Malik is a post-colonial theorist. He just doesn't take the position of Said, Spivak, Bhaba, and others like them.

OK, if you say so dude. I thought post-colonial theory WAS Said et. al (as in: defined by that approach). Semantics I guess. You learn something new every day....

- Deep_Groove
 
Last edited:

exheres

TRIBE Member
Mr. Groove, please tell me that you don't believe that in the near future (50-100 years) we will be able to create some type of computer be it organic, photonic or silicon based that will have the information processing capacity of the most intelligent human mind.

In the event of this occurring, even our most celebrated minds, you know those entrepreneurs that create all this wealth, will become in a word, OB-SOL-LETE.

I have a problem with this notion that you hold to that
"...people will always need to work because contributing to the production of some good or service is the only way to consume, and is thus the only way to live."
Simply due to the reality that you don't have to look to critically at our western society to come to the conclusion that the most affluent members, which sometimes are the most intelligent or crafty, don't really work, but rather organize the distribution of wealth.

I've been down this road of getting out there and being the best little employee I can be but somehow, I can't stomach the reality that my efforts go towards creating division between those who are intelligent or crafty and those who are not as.

If I could say that I was solely responsible for the manner in which my cells function, perhaps I could embrace this notion that we each have an equal and fair chance of creating wealth and prosperity. I can not however, and as such I for the life of me cannot bring myself to the godlike belief that I am permitted to do whatever my mind can dream up.
 

exheres

TRIBE Member
You know the real flaw in your arguement Groove is this:

If you are saying that intelligence should dictate who lives and who dies, then why the foolish pretence of laws and such.

Why not simply aim to create a world in which only the most, intelligent, beautiful and useful human beings exist?

The 'final solution' may not be such a bad thing after all when you word it like that.

But it's strange how some of the greatest advances in human knowledge came from people who most would have thought of as, not too worthy of life.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top