Re: CHAT: Multi-Lingos

>From: Fabian <fabian@...>
>Subject: Re: CHAT: Re: Multi-Lingos
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:02:12 +0100
>Oskar, what you have written below is one of teh best articles in defence
>of
>free thought that I have ever read. Bravo!
>
>From: "Thomas R. Wier" <artabanos@...>
>Subject: Re: CHAT: Re: Multi-Lingos
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:08:07 -0500
>Well, here's one that shares your view.  You set forth your argument very
>well
>and very lucidly.  Give yourself more credit! :)
Thank you both for the encouragement :):)

This discussion is much easier to maintain in text than in speech, so I'd
like to continue it a bit.

I'm twenty now, and I've read the newspaper daily since I don't remember
when. The most important part of the newspaper is "Foreign News". But the
past year or so, I've started losing interest in it. It's always the same.
The key words are "peace process", "democratic reform movement", "the
international community <condemns...>", "sanctions", etc. I used to believe
in these things. I saw the world as a constantly improving place, a
once-hashed up world which was now being transformed by the benevolent
leadership of the democratic, right-seeing, West. After reading this story
for about 8 years, I'm starting to realize it's just a rather pathetic
illusion.

The same threads go on and on, N-Ireland, the Middle East, the Koreas,
Tibet, India vs Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Africa, S-America; Western
politicians, media, and people in general, convince themselves every day
that they're actually doing something about the whole mess.

What's my point?

It's not one of those "the world is a dark, miserable, hopeless place".

My point is _not_ that nothing actually _can_ be done.

It's that nothing is being done, and Westerners should snap out of the mind
control that they, their own media and politicians keep on themselves. The
conviction goes "I'm helping, and I love the hungry kid in Africa, the
homeless in Brazil, the oppressed Tibetans, the whales, the rainforests, etc
etc." (which is why I eat like a pig, donate $1 per year to foreign aid, and
vote for the guy with the high military budget).
  It's this pervading naivity, mass denial, over-simplification, repression
of human thought potential - it's all of those that I perceive as the
world's greatest threat. Not Saddam Hussein, international terrorism,
Chinese imperialism, Indian nukes, or whatever they come up with. It's
things like Americans breaking down stability by building missile defences
against completely ridiculous, imagined threats (nuclear missiles from Iran
and N-Korea? Give me a break!). - A dangerous case of naivety (of American
voters, that is, who seem to like the feeling of security; I can't believe
Clinton is actually _that_ delirious).

I want to tell you an example story. I once participated in a simulated UN
conference, don't remember what it's called; where students, public
speakers, from schools gather to simulate a real UN conference, representing
the countries of the security council, debating hot matters. It was in Hong
Kong 1999. I was a delegate of Israel, and the debate was on East Timor.
Many of the students had never heard of the place. I was somewhat familiar
with what had been going on there. One of those stupid cases where the West
goes for the naive approach, defending silly principles (minority vs
majority, self-determination, democracy) at whatever the cost. As Israel
would realistically have no specific interest in this matter, I was free to
express my real, personal, position on it.
  After a bunch of countries had held speeches telling their views (most of
which were predictable and unoriginal), I held my speech. Most of the
Western leaders had been advocating the independence of East-Timor,
withdrawal of Indonesian forces, etc, as they all do in the real world. I
put forward my view that this was naive and ill-thought-through (not quite
so bluntly though). I pointed to other restless parts of Indonesia, asking
if the delegates had considered the consequences of Timoran independence;
very possibly, those other parts of Indonesia would demand their rights, the
federation would break apart, and stability would be lost in the entire
region. Chaos, bloodshed, and misery would ensue.
  It was like I had dropped a bomb. I only barely held my position, under
attack by multiple delegations, who refused to see what a load of crap
they'd been saying all along. The Russians clumsily criticized my view,
which I answered by reminding them of the Chechnyan situation, in which
Russia has the role of Indonesia.

But I'd be naive to believe that it's simply a case of stupid politicians.
The politicians aren't that stupid, they just don't care that much about the
world. 'Cause if they would, they wouldn't be in office. To become a
president, they've got to give the people what they want. That's how it
continues. Clinton wouldn't build missile defences if the people didn't want
them. He doesn't condemn the bad guys or sweet-talk about liberty and human
rights because he sincerely means to do something about it. Saying it
pleases the people. But doing something means spending tax money, risking
American lives, equipment, etc, which will displease the people, the voters,
unless something is achieved. And there's no need to do something about
Africa or whatever because the voters already think something's being done
about it (and many of them hardly even know where it is).

Though I've taken the US as an example here, they're in no way the sole
guilty party here. Don't take offence :)

So, in a way, it's our system of democracy which creates many of these
problems. This is the dilemma. Democracy, being sacred, cannot be
criticized. Also, none of the other options in governments are any better.

And that's where the problem gets beyond my intelligence.

Oskar
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com