What an interesting article! You spread a lot of ground and in its essence its all about our customs and our origins (our cultures, for "survival"). We learn from our parents who are nested in a schema, and that is how we evolved. So the British and the manners is how they have a higher quality of life and that standard was initially set in a time where that might have meant being socially ostracized to the point of starving. So yes, trust is rarely what is on the table. I don't know as much as you politically, but I do believe you're correct and once again, thoughtful. ☺️
Sometimes realisation comes from another source and, upon reflection, you realise it's right, because it fits a lot of other models that you know. What I know about politics - you're very kind - is that it is contrary, inconsistent, malleable, and dishonest. For instance, the US's politics is predicated on "American interests". Well, isn't everybody's? By that I don't mean everybody's politics is predicated on everybody's individual interests. Increasingly, everybody's politics is predicated on America's interests. Do you think that's right? There, some reflection for us all.
I had long since realised that respect - while vaunted high in the banner of every institution - is ultimately a weapon. That's daft. I respect you, Eve, and you respect me. And I, at least, do so - and I'm pretty sure you do too - because I have no reason not to respect you. Respect is a default position. So a lack of respect may stem from an extraneous source (a bad-mannered upbringing) or it may stem from an insult or bad treatment that you had shown me in the past. When you show a lack of respect in a corporation, it is ALWAYS the first of those that is the reason: you are bad. But the idea that the corporation did something to annoy you is impossible.
Would you like some evidence? There are the measures being taken across the globe against protest: people don't protest because they're badly brought up. They protest because government has done something to offend them. But the quashing of dissent clearly shows that government just doesn't accept that it did anything to provoke the protest. Or Palestine: every time Hamas attacks Israel, it is unprovoked. Every time Israel attacks Palestine, it is entirely justified. The one can provoke the other, but the other cannot provoke the one. You might like to consider whether the CIA-led coup d'état against Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, and the implantation of the western-looking shah, Reza Pahlavi, were factors in the 1979 revolution in Iran. And whether the 1958 coup d'état in Iraq, in which King Faisal II was brutally machine-gunned with his family in the grounds of his Baghdad palace, might have played any part in the Iranian rejection of the West.
So, where did my ideas crystallise? They crystallised when reading a book, which is not an easy read, but which changes some perspectives. It is called "Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution". It was written about ten or so years ago, but it was not written by an Iranian. It was written by a diplomat who spent much of his professional life trying to broker peace in the Middle East, and succeeding, by small increments. And he only succeeded by trying to understand his counterparts. So, he understood them and he wrote his understanding in that book. He is British and his name is Alastair Crooke.
I quote from page 6 of his introduction, in which he quotes an Iranian scholar:
"Over the past decades we have witnessed many manifestations of western resort to power: culture, ethics and morality - all have been used as instruments of power, a means of domination by the West. We have to try to relinquish this attachment to power, and to revert to what is human. On the one hand, we need to reinvest culture with its rationality; and on the other hand, to humanise politics; to make politics humane. Only in this way can we limit abuse of power, and prevent the domination of man over man, and man over humanity."
One obvious aspect of the cultural divide is how Islamic countries treat women: in fact, they place them on a pedestal. The Qur'an, like the Bible, cites women as some of its most supreme examples. Women are a source of tenderness and unity within the family. If you meet an Arab, the first thing you must do is ask about the health and welfare of his mother, wife and then family. You will stand high in his esteem. So, why can women not drive cars in Saudi? Well, I don't really know, but I know another group that doesn't drive cars: billionaires. So, if a queen can be driven around, why can't a Saudi woman? But maybe someone will enlighten me further. It's just a guess. Why can Arab women not wear western clothes? I wear western clothes, but I'm in my 60s. I don't really care what I look like, as long as I don't get arrested and I argue that, if people are offended by my bulge, they shouldn't be bloody looking. Would you approve if a queen wore hot pants or a deep cleavage. No, it's below their dignity, because girls and boys like to look sexy, and sexiness can get in the way of other thoughts. I think that that's why women are punished for trying to be sexy. I don't think it's right to kill them or beat them. Again, anyone who can inform me, most welcome.
Regardless of what you personally think about whether or not Iran wants to possess a nuclear weapon, the thought patterns between the US and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran on the other are more or less as follows:
- the US and Israel wonder whether Iran is developing a weapon and want to stop it because they reason that, if they were Iran, they would develop it. They know how dangerous they are with nuclear weapons, the threats they can make and the concessions they can extract, and they don't want Iran to do that;
- Iran thinks it might want a nuclear weapon to prevent anyone else from invading them, like BP oil did once. But it knows that the US and Israel won't like that. So, it stops short of the trip wire. It knows that if it crosses the trip wire, it's in trouble. Problem is that Israel sees even approaching the trip wire as dangerous, and that has now upped the ante. Iran would never deploy a nuclear weapon - for its own safety - and now it's seen that its own safety is in danger even if it doesn't. So, what would you do?
Suppose you were thinking of getting a gun, and your neighbours all gathered round and shot up your house to prevent you going to get a gun. Would you then just abandon the idea, or would you go and get two guns?
The core difference between the US and Iran is not how they think. It's how they think about thinking. Because ultimately the Iranians - despite their sometimes odd ways of demonstrating it - have the welfare of humanity well in sight. And America "merely" has its interests in sight.
Thank you, and of course I respect you but we are curious people who like people.
I think we as a society underestimate how many people don't like people.
I think that sadly, that no country is not aggressive but that some countries are more sophisticated which lowers the statistical likelihood they would use nukes.
This has more to do with the collective reasoning capacity (which is contingent on mental health and the absence of malicious personality disorders). I think we all underestimate the simplicity of animals, survival and evolution.
It is not evolutionarily advantageous for the human species to continue archaic interpretations of their historical truths and myths. Monotheistic religions subjugate females as "women" which is a role in society set in the year zed. this is the game. generational wealth (the king class), and the taxes and charity are a carrot stick situation. Our systems nudge behaviors. we need to abolish dynastic wealth for the sake of the species but most groups are playing the game of - last name legacy.
Genetic dominance. That is all of everything. It really is that simple. It's reductionist but it's true. We punish the babies of people we don't like by the system itself.
If you asked someone in one group that has a beef with another group, we find these arguments are old, sometimes by centuries. People are fighting other people for their behavior that was inspired by grievances from the previous generation.
Nobody appears to be able to see above this in order to say, lets go from where we are now and let go of all of that. let's take what we know now and move forward but instead we get sneaky democrats who didn’t want to dismantle institutional power, just inherit and reshape it. And even if I find that to be the preferable alternative - the language of liberation gets folded back into the system to legitimize itself while preserving power hierarchies which I may now not be apart of.
People on the left want to lower the socio-economic circumstances of one group to raise the floor for another group, all while being a puppet master, contributing nothing but the coordination - which is control. There are no adults here.
I used to say I'm not a political person and I think that still stands because to be a political person (not educated on politics and a thinking person which is what you are), a person who "fights" for a political party or cause is blind to the underlying shared structure of various groups, despite surface difference. Shared humanity (the universal truths). We are in a psychological awakening which is of course a challenge when so many people are in desperate need of therapy. :P
What an interesting article! You spread a lot of ground and in its essence its all about our customs and our origins (our cultures, for "survival"). We learn from our parents who are nested in a schema, and that is how we evolved. So the British and the manners is how they have a higher quality of life and that standard was initially set in a time where that might have meant being socially ostracized to the point of starving. So yes, trust is rarely what is on the table. I don't know as much as you politically, but I do believe you're correct and once again, thoughtful. ☺️
Sometimes realisation comes from another source and, upon reflection, you realise it's right, because it fits a lot of other models that you know. What I know about politics - you're very kind - is that it is contrary, inconsistent, malleable, and dishonest. For instance, the US's politics is predicated on "American interests". Well, isn't everybody's? By that I don't mean everybody's politics is predicated on everybody's individual interests. Increasingly, everybody's politics is predicated on America's interests. Do you think that's right? There, some reflection for us all.
I had long since realised that respect - while vaunted high in the banner of every institution - is ultimately a weapon. That's daft. I respect you, Eve, and you respect me. And I, at least, do so - and I'm pretty sure you do too - because I have no reason not to respect you. Respect is a default position. So a lack of respect may stem from an extraneous source (a bad-mannered upbringing) or it may stem from an insult or bad treatment that you had shown me in the past. When you show a lack of respect in a corporation, it is ALWAYS the first of those that is the reason: you are bad. But the idea that the corporation did something to annoy you is impossible.
Would you like some evidence? There are the measures being taken across the globe against protest: people don't protest because they're badly brought up. They protest because government has done something to offend them. But the quashing of dissent clearly shows that government just doesn't accept that it did anything to provoke the protest. Or Palestine: every time Hamas attacks Israel, it is unprovoked. Every time Israel attacks Palestine, it is entirely justified. The one can provoke the other, but the other cannot provoke the one. You might like to consider whether the CIA-led coup d'état against Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953, and the implantation of the western-looking shah, Reza Pahlavi, were factors in the 1979 revolution in Iran. And whether the 1958 coup d'état in Iraq, in which King Faisal II was brutally machine-gunned with his family in the grounds of his Baghdad palace, might have played any part in the Iranian rejection of the West.
So, where did my ideas crystallise? They crystallised when reading a book, which is not an easy read, but which changes some perspectives. It is called "Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution". It was written about ten or so years ago, but it was not written by an Iranian. It was written by a diplomat who spent much of his professional life trying to broker peace in the Middle East, and succeeding, by small increments. And he only succeeded by trying to understand his counterparts. So, he understood them and he wrote his understanding in that book. He is British and his name is Alastair Crooke.
I quote from page 6 of his introduction, in which he quotes an Iranian scholar:
"Over the past decades we have witnessed many manifestations of western resort to power: culture, ethics and morality - all have been used as instruments of power, a means of domination by the West. We have to try to relinquish this attachment to power, and to revert to what is human. On the one hand, we need to reinvest culture with its rationality; and on the other hand, to humanise politics; to make politics humane. Only in this way can we limit abuse of power, and prevent the domination of man over man, and man over humanity."
One obvious aspect of the cultural divide is how Islamic countries treat women: in fact, they place them on a pedestal. The Qur'an, like the Bible, cites women as some of its most supreme examples. Women are a source of tenderness and unity within the family. If you meet an Arab, the first thing you must do is ask about the health and welfare of his mother, wife and then family. You will stand high in his esteem. So, why can women not drive cars in Saudi? Well, I don't really know, but I know another group that doesn't drive cars: billionaires. So, if a queen can be driven around, why can't a Saudi woman? But maybe someone will enlighten me further. It's just a guess. Why can Arab women not wear western clothes? I wear western clothes, but I'm in my 60s. I don't really care what I look like, as long as I don't get arrested and I argue that, if people are offended by my bulge, they shouldn't be bloody looking. Would you approve if a queen wore hot pants or a deep cleavage. No, it's below their dignity, because girls and boys like to look sexy, and sexiness can get in the way of other thoughts. I think that that's why women are punished for trying to be sexy. I don't think it's right to kill them or beat them. Again, anyone who can inform me, most welcome.
Regardless of what you personally think about whether or not Iran wants to possess a nuclear weapon, the thought patterns between the US and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran on the other are more or less as follows:
- the US and Israel wonder whether Iran is developing a weapon and want to stop it because they reason that, if they were Iran, they would develop it. They know how dangerous they are with nuclear weapons, the threats they can make and the concessions they can extract, and they don't want Iran to do that;
- Iran thinks it might want a nuclear weapon to prevent anyone else from invading them, like BP oil did once. But it knows that the US and Israel won't like that. So, it stops short of the trip wire. It knows that if it crosses the trip wire, it's in trouble. Problem is that Israel sees even approaching the trip wire as dangerous, and that has now upped the ante. Iran would never deploy a nuclear weapon - for its own safety - and now it's seen that its own safety is in danger even if it doesn't. So, what would you do?
Suppose you were thinking of getting a gun, and your neighbours all gathered round and shot up your house to prevent you going to get a gun. Would you then just abandon the idea, or would you go and get two guns?
The core difference between the US and Iran is not how they think. It's how they think about thinking. Because ultimately the Iranians - despite their sometimes odd ways of demonstrating it - have the welfare of humanity well in sight. And America "merely" has its interests in sight.
Thanks for engaging.
Thank you, and of course I respect you but we are curious people who like people.
I think we as a society underestimate how many people don't like people.
I think that sadly, that no country is not aggressive but that some countries are more sophisticated which lowers the statistical likelihood they would use nukes.
This has more to do with the collective reasoning capacity (which is contingent on mental health and the absence of malicious personality disorders). I think we all underestimate the simplicity of animals, survival and evolution.
It is not evolutionarily advantageous for the human species to continue archaic interpretations of their historical truths and myths. Monotheistic religions subjugate females as "women" which is a role in society set in the year zed. this is the game. generational wealth (the king class), and the taxes and charity are a carrot stick situation. Our systems nudge behaviors. we need to abolish dynastic wealth for the sake of the species but most groups are playing the game of - last name legacy.
Genetic dominance. That is all of everything. It really is that simple. It's reductionist but it's true. We punish the babies of people we don't like by the system itself.
If you asked someone in one group that has a beef with another group, we find these arguments are old, sometimes by centuries. People are fighting other people for their behavior that was inspired by grievances from the previous generation.
Nobody appears to be able to see above this in order to say, lets go from where we are now and let go of all of that. let's take what we know now and move forward but instead we get sneaky democrats who didn’t want to dismantle institutional power, just inherit and reshape it. And even if I find that to be the preferable alternative - the language of liberation gets folded back into the system to legitimize itself while preserving power hierarchies which I may now not be apart of.
People on the left want to lower the socio-economic circumstances of one group to raise the floor for another group, all while being a puppet master, contributing nothing but the coordination - which is control. There are no adults here.
I used to say I'm not a political person and I think that still stands because to be a political person (not educated on politics and a thinking person which is what you are), a person who "fights" for a political party or cause is blind to the underlying shared structure of various groups, despite surface difference. Shared humanity (the universal truths). We are in a psychological awakening which is of course a challenge when so many people are in desperate need of therapy. :P