One of the more interesting and, in my opinion, innovative FPS being developed at this moment is a FPS video game known as “Hatred“. The overall story-line of this game can be best summarized as..
In Hatred, a shooter video game presented in isometric perspective, the player-character is a mass-killer who hates humanity and begins a “genocide crusade” to kill civilians and police officers. He can also use these individuals as human shields.
By now, most readers must have correctly guessed that development of this game has been more than a bit controversial. Media reactions to its development and imminent release have been rather.. diverse. Some presstitutes claim that this game showcases all that is wrong with the gaming industry. Other presstitutes claim that it has crossed a “moral boundary”. Yet others want to see it banned, something they nearly succeeded at before failing miserably.
But why are so many presstitutes getting their proverbial panties in a knot about a video game that is in many ways identical to other FPS games. I mean.. games where you can kill (usually shoot) other people have been one of the most popular and financially successful category of video games. So what makes a game like “Hatred” different from a game in the Wolfenstein, Doom, Half-Life, Call of Duty or Far Cry series? Nor is the trope of an amoral killer something new. The “Hitman” game series is centered around an amoral assassin killing people for money AND you can kill any character in that game series as long as your character can survive the consequences of his actions.
So why are all these presstitutes hating on “Hatred”? Also, more curiously, why do so many gamers find the central premise of this game somewhat disturbing?
As I will show you in the rest of this post, the public reactions to that game exposes one of the central cognitive dissonances characterizing human “civilization”. So let us start our analysis of public reactions to this game with a simple question. Why does this particular game elicit such a strong negative reaction from so many tools.. I mean.. people?
As I have mentioned before, many of later titles in the “Hitman” series are not that different from “Hatred”- in overall concept and style of gameplay. While titles in the “Hitman” series have been controversial in the past- they have never elicited the large-scale public reaction that “Hatred” has managed to elicit. But why? or to be more precise- why not?
What makes an open-ended game where an emotionally stunted guy kills for money significantly less controversial than one in which a guy kills for his own personal beliefs and views on humanity?
In a previous series of posts about what I really think about human beings as a species, I had made a number of points relevant to the current post. Two points especially relevant to this post goes something like this..
Human beings seem to be actively driven a unscratchable itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others even if they stand to gain very little from it.
All religions and popular ideologies are about rationalizing and sanctifying the abuse, robbery, murder and coercion of those labelled as “others”.
Put together, they provide the first reasonable explanation as to why “Hatred” elicits so much more negative social reaction than something like “Hitman: Blood Money“. Endless acquisition of money and performing a job irrespective of the consequences of your actions are important sacraments of the secular religion of capitalism. Therefore killing other people for the sole purpose of making money, regardless of the rationale behind doing so, is perfectly acceptable to a believer in the secular religion of capitalism- especially its american variant.
A game like “Hatred” on the other hand has a protagonist who kills because he personally hates what those whom he kills represent. He is not doing it for money, love, fame, honor, fame, religion or any other stupid bullshit that most people want to believe in to justify their actions. Also, he is not taking orders from anyone else nor is he working to further the career or financial aspirations of somebody else.
His actions are an overt and obvious repudiation of the central sacraments and tenets of the dominant secular religion of our era, aka modern nation-state supported corporate capitalism.
But it gets better.. or worse, depending on how you look at it. By not invoking socially acceptable reasons for killing innocent people, such as nationalism or contrived explanations based around self-defense, the character of the protagonist exposes the emptiness of those beliefs and explanations. Take nationalism as an example. What kind of moron would go and kill people on the other side of the world when he has never met them in real life or has directly suffered because of their actions. But then again.. look at human history.
Almost every single war in history was fought by people who did not have personal enmities with those they fought against to benefit those who facilitated that confrontation. Yet, human “civilization” spends a lot of time trying to glorify the sacrifices of tools who die or get crippled to further enrich a few. Now, such glorifications and exhalations rarely include worthwhile financial compensation- but that is another story.
My point is, human “civilization” is totally OK with people killing other people in the name of personally useless concepts such religion, nation or race. It is also OK with committing genocide as long as it based on taking orders from others. It is also OK with slavery and mass incarceration of certain racial groups as long it is profitable for a few. But it is not OK with a person killing others just because he personally hates them.
So what does all of this say about the true nature of human “civilization”, “culture” or any of the other pretenses most human beings cling to? Think about it.. I have, and it is not flattering- to put it mildly. Such an analysis also exposes the complete moral relativism underlying belief systems that pretend (and advertise themselves) to be based in real or absolute truths.
What do you think? Comments?
One of my more important insights into systemic large-scale human stupidity is about what people are willing to believe in or, to be more precise, their persistence in belief about stuff that clearly do not exist. The vast majority of suffering throughout history (and the present) can almost always be traced back to belief in their own bullshit- whether it is about gods, prophets, religions, morals, social mores, authority, ideologies etc. One of the contemporary examples of this stupidity concerns people continuing to believe in the existence of nation-states that clearly do not exist. As I will show you, this particular thread of self-delusion is unusually dangerous not only to those affected by belief in it, but also those who act on that belief.
But before we go further, let us try to quickly define what a modern nation-state is and is not. A modern nation-state, such as those that came into being after the industrial revolution (especially after the late 1800s) are entities unlike any that preceded them. Their uniqueness is not a consequence of people being stupider in earlier eras, but rather a consequence of socio-economic and technological changes subsequent to industrialization. Modern nation-states are defined by the protean reach of the state machinery (or bureaucracy) into the day-to-day lives of their ordinary citizens or subjects. To put it another way, “sovereign” governments that cannot support an almost all-pervasive and moderately functional bureaucracy cannot function as modern nation-states.
But why is this definition important? Well.. it comes down to what socio-economic systems they can support and the consequences thereof. For example, the existence of capitalism in any form requires that most people are engaged in wage work. This is not possible unless an invasive and functional bureaucracy can systemically control, pauperize and immiserate the majority of the population. The same is true for state communism and is the reason why nation states such as the USSR were not fundamentally different from the USA. But this feature of the modern nation-state comes at a peculiar cost. People who rule and govern modern nation-states start believing in their own bullshit, especially the part about it being the “only way”. They so desperately want to see everyone else in the world doing things the “same way” that they often make, and act on, decisions that have no link to reality. As you will see in the rest of this post, such willful ignorance and stupidity comes at a huge human cost and is ultimately as dangerous to the believers as those initially screwed over by their stupidity.
Consider the following examples of modern nation states that do not really exist even though the rest of the world, especially the west, act as if they do.
Iraq: What can I say.. It began as a country carved out of post-WW1 ottoman concessions to the then victorious allies and suffered multiple rounds of uprisings and low-intensity civil wars even before WW2 started. After WW2, the broken european nations had to relinquish indirect control to local leaders sparking, you guessed it, another round of uprisings and coups which led to Saddam Hussein who was able to keep the lid on things for a couple of decades. After that we had the USA-initiated Gulf War 1 , then a Gulf War 2 which was followed by a decade-long and still running civil war. This part of the world has not experienced anything remotely approaching a semi-functional nation-state since 1991 and YET the most of the world pretends that this nation-state actually exists. They do so even when the “official” elected government has no authority even 30 km north of their capital city, Baghdad. The northern part of this supposedly modern nation-state has been an almost autonomous Kurdish proto-state for over a decade. Then there is the now hard-to-ignore fact that most of the middle of that country is run by an semi-centralized entity that calls itself ISIL or Da‘ish. Given that there is little possibility of this situation changing substantially in the near future, shouldn’t we just stop believing that Iraq exists. I mean.. what harm can come from acknowledging what has been obvious for the last three decades or more. Perhaps it will be easier to deal with three entities that have some control over the territory they claim than one entity that has no authority over most of the country?
Afghanistan: Seriously.. how can this place be even considered to be a nation-state? For starters- it was carved out by the British and other western powers in the 19th century out of parts of central Asia that were too hard to colonize. It also does not help that most of this place has, since time immemorial, been occupied by numerous related but largely independent tribes engaged in continuous low-intensity conflicts with each other. Sure.. there have had kings and even emperors- but those individuals had little real authority beyond their capital city. To put it another way, most of the people in that region have never experienced anything close to living under a nation-state. I would hasten to add that the boundaries of this nation-state are hard to define because they are arbitrary and often passes through inhospitable terrain. Then there is the issue of Pakistan, its eastern neighbor, who has a lot of socio-economic and military influence in the eastern part of this country. To make matters even more complicated, most of this influence is based on transient and often fragile working arrangements with local tribal leaders. So how is a “country” whose government’s writ does not run beyond its own capital city and whose borders are poorly defined and uncontrolled considered a nation-state? Iraq had two decades of despotic centralized rule under Saddam Hussein. I don’t believe the nation-state known as Afghanistan had even that..
Yemen: Yet another example of a place that has seen human occupation and civilizations for thousands of years, but which is not a nation-state. Sure.. it, like Iraq and Afghanistan, has nominally been the part of many old empires. But its peculiar geographical characteristics have made it hard to define and has also resulted in a history filled with many small and localized kingdoms and fiefdoms. It does not help that this place has always been politically highly decentralized and geographically rather vague. A look at satellite views of its official borders with neighboring countries is helpful for understanding the later part of the previous sentence. Then there is the whole issue of who has been ruling, or not ruling, that country since WW2. While it started as a nominal arab-style tribal monarchy in the 1920s after a complicated civil war, things went to hell by the 1960s resulting in another much larger civil war and re-partitioning of the country, followed by a reunification which led to a rekindling of the low-intensity civil war which led to another country where the governments writ does not run beyond the capital city. Yet this place is considered by the west to be a nation-state.
In the next part of this short series, I will try to write about similar “nation-states” such as Ukraine and Libya.
What do you think? Comments?
Have a look at this YouTube clip which pretty much summarizes what I, and many other, believe will be the future of work.. or the lack thereof.
What do you think? Comments?
One of the major beliefs necessary for the “normal” functioning of modern nation states (capitalist or otherwise) is that there is a direct linkage between a person’s pay and the important of their occupation. That is how, for example, people justify paying a surgeon more than a person who cleans sewers- though the later saves more lives than the former. Now some of you might say that it easier to clean and maintain sewers than perform neurosurgery, and that is partially true.
But not all hard to learn skills are paid well. For example, somebody who can juggle 6 knives or fart a musical tune (something that very few can do) will almost never make anywhere near the amount of money made by your average mid-level executive drone. Faced by the necessity to explain this problem, most people will quickly turn to a secondary explanation.
Most people want to believe that pay is correlated to the difficulty of an occupation AND its social necessity.
While this explanation might satisfy most people, it is also demonstrably false. Consider any number of recent cases where the CEOs or board members of large corporations receiving extremely generous severance packages while the majority of employees got pretty close to nothing. Or what about highly paid celebrities and entertainers? Are they really that much better than their peers who did not were less lucky? I could give you many more examples, but that will detract from the next point.
At the start of this post, I used the term “modern nation states”. Did you wonder why I used that term instead of others like “societies” or “countries”? Well.. that term is important because of the role played by that type of entity in this justification of income inequality. In previous eras income inequality was justified through the commission, or threat of, theft or murder.
The feudal knights, lords, vassals and kings of previous eras were not rich because they were “good”, “moral” or competent. They were rich because they could gather an entourage of followers large enough to terrorize and steal from people who could not do so. Sure.. some pretended that were of “noble birth” and “superior morals”- but collection of rents, taxes and tributes was always reliant on the threat of lethal force rather than their “noble birth” or “superior morals”.
The birth and evolution of the modern nation-state has certainly changed some of that. With a few exceptions, countries are no longer run by people who claim a special divine right to rule. Moreover, modern states do at least try to provide some basic level of legally guaranteed benefits and services to their general population. Yet in other respects, these entities are not that different from their pre-modern counterparts. Revenue collection is still done by the threat of force, torture or death and sovereignty is still defined by a monopoly on violence.
Then there is the issue of dressing older patterns of functioning in new explanations. As I mentioned previously, pre-modern societies were quite open about the fact that being rich (or well paid) was about being more lucky, violent or crooked than your peers. However this plain but depressing explanation is not compatible with societies of the complexity we live in today. Just think about how long modern societies would last if most people understood that the amount of money they received was proportional to their luck, ability to be violent or crookedness.
The necessity to cover up and justify income inequality has given rise to a new mythology- the lie of “meritocracy”. According to this new lie, the amount of money and power a person possess has a strong connection with their “IQ”, “competence” and “ability”. In other words, it claims that those with money are smart, competent and deserving and those without it are not. Of course there are obvious exceptions to this “rational” model of the world, but they are explained away as exceptions that prove the rule.
While this rational-sounding explanation might satisfy enough commoners, especially during times of economic growth, it carries within itself the seeds of its own demise. To understand what I am going to say next, you have to understand that not all lies are equally dangerous to the liar. For example- lies told to others are, usually, not especially harmful to the liar. In contrast to that, lies that people tell themselves can be extremely dangerous because people frequently believe their own lies.
In the next part of this series, I will use a few examples of illustrate why the “meritocracy” lie prevalent in modern nation states is significantly more dangerous than the pre-modern lies it replaced.
What do you think? Comments?
In the last few days, many of you might have heard or read about multiple controversies surrounding a movie called ‘American Sniper‘. Some have raised questions about its authenticity and accuracy, while other have criticized the simple-mindedness and USA-centric bias of the film. While I was tempted to dissect the movie for this post, doing so would have shifted attention to the far bigger issue raised by this film.
The big question that almost nobody seems, or dares to, ask is: How would you rationally classify the real-life and now deceased protagonist of this film?
Some of you might say that he was just some soldier doing his job- and that is technically correct. However that conventional and stock answer obscures a lot of things- such as why he was in Iraq in the first place. So let us start by answering that question first. Available literature suggests that Chris Kyle voluntarily joined the U.S. Navy in 1999 and served in a special warfare unit, mostly famously as a sniper, until he was honorably discharged in 2009. His tenure in the U.S armed forces coincided with the U.S.-led military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And this brings us to the reason behind his fame or infamy. Why are we talking about him, rather than some other guy who served parallel tenures in the U.S armed forces? We.. he is supposedly the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history, accumulating 160 confirmed kills out of 255 probable kills. Now it is certainly not unusual for snipers to be presented as national heroes. Many of you have probably heard about the Russian sniper, Vasily Zaytsev, who killed over 400 germans , including many during the battle of Stalingrad, in WW2 and there were many others like him.
There is however a common thread that runs through the life stories of all highly regarded snipers. Pretty much every respected sniper in history was fighting in a war imposed upon his country by another nation. There is a reason why men like Simo Häyhä, Ivan Sidorenko, Mikhail Surkov, Vasily Zaytsev are seen as heroes while other high scoring snipers such as Matthäus Hetzenauer and Billy Sing are mere footnotes in history. A person fighting for his nation on its own soil against an external aggressor is always seen as fighting the good fight. In contrast to that, a person fighting for the aggressor nation in a war it started is technically a mercenary.
As we all know, U.S.A was the aggressor nation in the Iraq War which started in 2003. It is also common knowledge that the public rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 was largely based on made-up intelligence reports and wishful thinking. In any case, the Iraq war was merely the continuation of a post-WW2 trend under which waging war against small or poor nations has become a standard part of the foreign, domestic and industrial policy of U.S.A. The fact that such actions often leads to defeats for the U.S.A, such as those experienced in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, has not done much to dissuade it from entering new ones.
But back the main topic of this post- What was Chris Kyle doing in Iraq during the 2003-2009 time period? and why?
Well.. according to his own book he was busy killing Iraqi “insurgents”. But why? and how exactly do you define “insurgents” if you are on the side that invades a country. Was Iraq under Saddam ever a credible threat to the U.S.A? If it was not, as was plainly obvious both before and after the 2003 invasion- wasn’t the local population justified in resisting and killing the invaders? I mean, would you not do (or at least wish for) something similar in that situation? Then there is the question of whether you classify somebody as insurgent before they are killed or after they are killed. Given the easy availability of guns in post-2003 Iraq and the unstable domestic situation after the invasion, pretty much every guy who could get a gun had one (or more). This is not a trivial point, as sophistic arguments centered on possession (or use) of guns could be used to classify every Iraqi adult or child as an insurgent- especially if they were killed by american military personal.
So his claim of killing between 160-255 Iraqi “insurgents” is best seen as a claim of killing 160-255 Iraqis. I should add that none of those who he killed posed a threat to the U.S.A (as defined by the area contained in the official boundaries of the country, its overseas territories or other officially known territorial possessions). To put it another way, he killed 160-255 Iraqis because he was told to, wanted to or likely a combination of both. And this brings us to the question..
How exactly was Chris Kyle different from a Hitman for a large organized ‘crime’ syndicate?
If you think about rationally, what he did was identical to the job function of a Hitman for an organized ‘crime’ syndicate. Some of you might say “but.. but, the U.S.A is not an organized crime syndicate. To which I would say- actions, not words, tell you what people and organisations really are. In any case, isn’t size the only real difference between modern nation states and organized ‘crime’ syndicates?
What do you think? Comments?
My less-than-optimistic views about humans, as well as my thought experiments, are well-known to regular readers of this blog. So, in that vein, here is another post (or perhaps series). Important: The following is a thought experiment, hence the simplification of numbers and ratios.
Imagine that you live in a social system containing a million more people. The level of technology, institutions etc of this ‘million+1′ system are pretty much identical to those found in contemporary materially affluent and developed nation states. So far, so good..
Now, let me set up the question. Imagine that the entirety of your life experiences strongly suggest that you (the individual) are routinely and continually being abused, discriminated against, marginalized and relatively impoverished. After enduring this state of affairs for 2-3 decades, your range of options to responding to this generally hostile society suddenly change due to the accidental acquisition of a ‘deus ex machina’ device.
This alien device has a switch and a dial with the following settings:
(1) Cause death of the device user.
(2) Cause death of the most abusive, discriminating and powerful 10% of the population.
(3) Cause death of the another 80% of the population (the not-so abusive and discriminating).
(4) Cause death of 100% of the population (even the non-abusive, non-discriminating).
Here is my question- Which setting would you use, if you choose to use such a ‘deus ex machina’ device?
Though the first option might seem quaint, it is actually the only way to actually remove yourself from the outcome of choosing the other three options. A few may choose it, most wont. So let us talk about the second option. Causing the death of the worst 10% might seem like the most just option- at least by conventional ideas of morality. But is it a solution? What about the role of the 80% who just followed orders? Surely, people who follow orders without thinking through their implications or consequences are as responsible for a dystopia as those who lead and profit from it. Also, what is the guarantee that those not-so-bad 80% won’t find a new and equally bad group of leaders? So option 3 would actually a more just option than option 2.
But what about option 4? Superficially it looks like the most inhumane and unjust option. Many would question the ethics and morality of causing the death of the nicer 10% of that society. Surely, they are not part of the problem.. or are they? A complex system is best understood by how it behaves in real life, rather than how it is supposed to behave in theory. To put it another way- if the supposed kindness, good will and altruism of the 10% was real, you would never even consider using the device- let alone choose an option for the dial.
The very fact that you would are actively weighing the pros and cons of the ‘right’ setting for the device implies that the society in question has failed you. Furthermore, the fact that it has not actually gotten sufficiently better over 2-3 decades to make you hopeful about the future suggests that it will not become substantially better. The worse 10% mediocre 80% and outwardly kind 10% are just a continuum rather than distinct groups. Reducing the size of such a system to favor one part of the continuum will eventually replicate the previous dystopia. Basically, you have nothing to lose by choosing option 4 since it alone can solve the problem forever.
What do you think? Comments?
The last few days have seen almost continuous mass-media and internet coverage of a series of terrorist attacks in Paris which started with the Charlie Hebdo shooting and ended with the Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. As many of you know, incidents of this type have become a somewhat regular feature of the global news cycle. While the locations, details, casualties and scale of such incidents vary – they all seem to share a common storyline.
They are perpetrated by devout muslim men within a specific age range and almost always living in a country where muslims are the minority. While the exact reason given by the perpetrators changes from incident to incident, it almost always involves some perceived insult or injustice to their professed religion.
So, what is going on? Why are such incidents almost always perpetrated by the followers of one particular religion? What makes them so sensitive to real or perceived slights to their invisible friend or his long dead supposed human mouthpiece? Why are they so interested in making others accommodate their religious belief system? Well.. I will save my answers to those questions for another post. Instead, I will focus on a most peculiar phenomena seen in western countries in response to such incidents.
One of the most consistent public ritual seen in western countries after such an incident are the almost unanimous statements by political leaders, public intellectuals and mass media personalities which loudly proclaim that the incident in question had nothing to do with religion (specifically Islam). They then go on to claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that the perpetrators were not “real” Muslims.
Many readers might have noticed that these public rituals and proclamations have become more predictable than the terrorist incidents that necessitate them. But why are the official governmental responses of western countries to Islam-inspired terrorism so oddly similar? Also, why don’t such incidents have any worthwhile effect on relevant governmental policies such as immigration or integration?
Now, there are some who believe that such a peculiar set of official responses and oversight are deliberate and part of a nefarious conspiracy to “islamize” western countries. Others see this state of affairs as a result of the “west” losing its way, will, vital force or mojo. Some think that the west has become too soft and decadent or is racked by post-imperialist guilt. I believe that the answer lies elsewhere and involves far less conspiracy, organization or even thinking. But before we go there, let us quickly examine a few popular theories on why westerns countries are being unusually accommodating to militant Islam. For sake of simplicity, I will divide existing popular theories on this subject into two camps.
The first camp consists of theories centered on the idea that the peculiar response of western governments to islam-inspired terrorism is part of some great conspiracy. These theories require us to believe that western politicians and public intellectuals are very smart, highly organised extremely greedy and working according to some master scheme to somehow gain more power or retain it in the future. While the mental image of very smart, organised, greedy politicians and public intellectuals scheming to create a world that would make them richer or stronger is appealing and would make a great book or movie- it is simply not true. The vast majority of political leaders and public intellectuals end up their positions because of some combination of luck, accident of birth and internal intrigue. To put it another way- they are not especially intelligent, competent or farsighted.
Theories from the second camp, in contrast to those from the first, are centered around a different myth. This particular myth is rooted in the idea that whites (especially those in western countries) are intrinsically superior to others in all respects- but especially in matters of public and private morality. Of course, this myth totally ignores actual historical facts such as genocides of indigenous people on multiple continents, slavery and its relationship with capitalism, multiple revolutions, myriad wars and both world wars. Anyway, proponents of theories in the second camp see the “west” as having become too soft, decadent, unwilling to effectively confront external enemies etc. But is that really the case? The USA had no problems going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan or conducting warfare and drone strikes in countries like Pakistan or Yemen. Furthermore countries like UK, Australia, France and Canada have joint participants in one or more of such military operations.
It is therefore clear that both camps of popular theories are inadequate to explain the most peculiar response of western political leaders and public intellectuals to islam-inspired terrorism. But what if there is another explanation for such behavior- one that does not require you to invoke complex machinations or unrealistic beliefs.
Over the last couple of months, I had written a few articles about SJWs- especially Why SJWs Want to Censor Games While Studiously Avoiding Rap Music and The Priorities of SJW Activism Expose their Real Motivations. In the later, I said the following:
Pseudo-activists or SJWs have no interest in solving problems other than increasing their public status, power and income. They are just parasites exploiting existing niches for their lifestyle created by pre-existing system dysfunction. Also, SJWs do not actually believe in the ideologies they profess at every public occasion. Their publicly stated beliefs and ideologies are simply covers for their real motivations, namely- becoming rich and famous by screwing over other people.
So what does this have to do with the way western political leaders and public intellectuals respond to islam-inspired terrorism. Well.. a lot! To understand what I am going to say next, you have first look at the social contract (or the lack thereof) in pre-WW2 western countries. As many of you know, the pre-WW2 west had tons of poverty, deprivation, coercion and lacked anything approaching a functional social safety net. This widespread misery in the midst of technological progress and selective prosperity resulted in many social pathologies such as extreme nationalism, both world wars, many right-wing and left-wing totalitarian governments etc. It also gave rise to the modern socialist liberal movement.
In the aftermath of WW2, many older ideologies and socio-economic compacts were discarded because they were either useless or dangerous. In the west, socialist liberalism was pretty much the only ideology left standing. Moreover, its implementation delivered a very rapid and widespread increase in the material living standards of countries that adopted it. Even today, all developed country (including the USA) are pretty close to the original socialist liberal path. And this brings us to another question.
Why has the general adoption of socialist liberal policies not eliminated poverty and unnecessary material deprivation in developed countries?
This is far from a trivial question. As many of you know, the ability and resources to ensure that everybody living in developed countries enjoys a stable middle-class lifestyle has existed for the last few decades- but somehow it has never translated into the elimination of obvious poverty or materiel deprivation. Sure.. most people in developed countries still enjoy a decent, if somewhat unstable, lifestyle. But why has the acquisition and maintenance of a decent and stable lifestyle become progressively harder in developed countries in the last two decades?
The short answer is that it comes down to human nature. People like to abuse, steal from, impoverish and kill other people- even if they have enough. Consequently, all stable hierarchical societies will end up progressively impoverishing the majority of people in that society. This occurs whether the society is a pre-industrial kingdom or a post-industrial liberal socialist society. Furthermore all human hierarchies promote and are ultimately lead by the most short-sighted, deceptive, greedy and cruel individuals in that society.
That is why mainstream political leaders, public intellectuals and mass-media talking heads throughout the “west” now seldom seriously contemplate, discuss or propose effective action against issues like endemic poverty, progressive impoverishment or economic inequality. However they are also unable to redefine themselves as anything other than socialist liberals. Infact, it is pretty much impossible to govern as anything other than a socialist liberal in this day and age.
Consequently, they overcompensate by promoting nebulous and hard-to-oppose ideas such as “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “tolerance”, “increased immigration” etc.
The problem of islam-inspired terrorism is therefore just an “unexpected” side-effect of modern official socialistic liberal overcompensation. Of course, nobody in power (especially sociopathic courtiers) want to admit that they were wrong and therefore fallible and not totally in control. So they make excuses and try to divert attention away from them. In any case, the political leaders, public intellectuals and media people in most western countries do not see their fates as being tied to the countries they live in. Therefore they have little interest in the ultimate outcome of their policies and decisions.
What do you think? Comments?