In the next phase of our discussion about whether nuclear nonproliferation is a code word for colonialism, Anonymous says,
“Your logic would say, ‘They can’t be for a black government and not be for black pilots.’”
“You had me there for a minute, Bob. That was brilliant. Upon further reflection, however, I find you haven’t yet convinced me that I need to retract.”
“Basically, you’re saying that I trust my brain more than I trust my eyes. You’re saying that if something doesn’t make sense, I’ll refuse to admit it exists, even when the proof is sitting right in front of my nose.”
“It’s true that my brain isn’t wired very well for understanding politics. You’re helping me to get over that handicap. But although doublethink is hard for me to understand, I don’t deny it exists. So when I’m charged with being the kind of person who prefers a logical theory over the evidence of his own eyes, I must of course dissent.”
“You and I disagree on a matter of fact, that’s all. Perhaps I’m missing something big, but it’s not at all obvious to me that “nonproliferation” is directed at keeping the Bomb out of non-white former colonies. China, Pakistan, and India already have it, and Brazil is very close. But nobody’s demanding that they be referred to the UN Security Council. I don’t think they developed that technology all by themselves, either. Do you?”
“To me, it’s a lot more plausible that what “terrorists and tyrants” have in common isn’t brown skin, but “anti-Western” nationalism. That’s why most of the “regime change” in the last five years has been going on in the former Soviet republics, including the white ones. Both Putin and Musharraf have the Bomb, but the white guy’s in a lot more trouble than the brown guy right now. ”
As it was very improtant for me to say to Sheri that I do NOT want her to be backed down by my credentials, it is very important for me to say that it is very important to me for you to realize that I am NOT trying to make you recant.
Both of these statements give you an idea of what is wrong with what now passes for leadership. Today a “leader” is someone who imposes his ideas on others. If he does it by charisma instead of force it is called democratic.
But let’s strip this idea naked: the fact is that today a leader is someone who forces you to think like him. To repeat, if he does it by cowing you it is democracy. If you he uses prisons, it’s not democratic.
To me, that is a ridiculous and fatal disctinction.
I don’t want to reduce the world into a bunch of mental Bob Whitaker clones.
If I want to talk to Bob Whitaker, I don’t need a blog to do it.
This is NOT a quibble. This is a whole different world-view.
Recent Comments