hypocrisy

No one likes reality

When I was reading  Robert Greene‘s “The 48 Laws of Power”, I found the following sentence shocking but hitting the truth.

“The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment. Life is so harsh distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert. Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasy of the masses”

I immediately associate with three types of powerful theses that could well match this description: hardcore leftism who deem democracy and universal egalitarianism as the divine code; inveterate right-wing nationalism who wholeheartedly believe the supremacy of one race or one country; and the third type, the fanatic martyrdom who would do anything to ensure their religious thoughts are dominating.

The rest of people, mostly being ordinary emotional not so intelligent mortals, appeal to those three thoughts as means to avoid the insurmountably harsh reality. A leftist hates to see there are always big power trampling weak “victims”; nationalist hate to see leftists are victimizing and empowering the inferior groups that they see as unwanted and disposable residues; a martyr hates to see there are actually other competing doctrines and infidels existing in the world. However, those denial thoughts stride by addressing the mass emotional defiance to the reality instead of enlightening people of what it is really going on in the end. A realist would not be the most popular kid in the block.

But does all this matter when an individual being one would never have the power to turn the tide. Who could get rid of all those gay leftist ideologies? Who would achieve absolute equity and fully functional democracy? Not to mention the possibility to make one’s  religion surpassing everyone else. Certainly some goals probably appear easier than others. But there is still virtually insignificant amount of chance to make it actual happen. Hit the bottom, don’t hate me, hate the reality.

Then what’s the point of not holding some sort of silly stubbornness and hoping for the mirage to actually become an oasis, which makes our life “meaningful”? First it is stupidity to believe it something out of one’s wishful thinking and it serves no meanings to one’s actual living conditions. Second, there’s plenty of other things that are worth digging I would say. This is when pragmatism kicks in: since the world is pretty messed up as it is, we might as well just play the role to get the best out of it. Money, women, family, kids, land, food, diamonds, gold, security, fame, power, whatever this is intrinsically attractive to you and also attainable based on your personal strength, don’t hesitate to pursue it. Sure if you plan to go against the legal system you are under much higher risk of failure, but it’s worth trying if you want it so badly.

My understanding is, reality is something one could only keep to himself and know how to react accordingly to optimize his utility. If you have the openness to stop believing what you emotionally attach to, start questioning about the real point of keeping those “principles”. As far as I could see, this world is NOT running because of some principles and moral codes.

No one likes reality, but we could perhaps start to be optimistic by appreciating reality and adjusting our own behaviors.

Updates for the ritual slaughter ban in Holland

In my previous block I have acclaimed the Dutch move of ritual slaughter ban targeting halal and kosher slaughtering as a brilliant move to use the dismay of one leftist group (animal rights group) as an excuse, or at least the most visible rationale to tame the growing trouble-making Islamic influence in the Netherlands.

I found this quite interesting and funny, especially the fact that Dutch legislation picks up animal rights, a common leftist ideology associated with affluence and excessive feminine sympathy , as a new sharp sword and shell to confront the most controversial social issue in Europe (that is… grrr. Immigration, Islam etc.). Though the Dutch move is not as sophisticated and convincing as it seems, it still counts as a big leap forward from simply denying the existence of those problems with wishful thinking of a peaceful neighborhood where gay couples neighbor a Wahhabi clan and say hi to each other with smile.

Gotta give credit to this action for that. However, there’s the follow-up of this ban which I found even more entertaining and amusing than the original story: the annoyance of the Jew in the Netherlands

What’s with the Jews? Well, the modern Europe is simply too intimidating to do anything that looks even slightly anti-Jewish (I avoid the term antisemitism, as their Muslims counterparts are the same breed – Semites, except for the Turks and Hausa). And there is really no reason to disdain the Jews in Holland anyway. Sure they may not believe in Jesus Christ and pretty much dominated the capitalistic financial world and help created ideology monsters like Communism and leftism, but they coexist pretty nicely with the other people nowadays and have produced loads of smart fellas that propel the voyage of modern human civilization. Looks like Jews are clean from European’s bash on Muslims, but why are they bitching about ritual slaughter ban?

Well, to answer this question, it is important to clarify that some Jews (though most of Jews in Europe and America got emancipated from strict religious belief) are still practicing their ancient rituals, which pretty much share a lot in common with their Muslim/Arab relatives. For example, Jews don’t eat pork, just like the Muslims. In this case Jews also perform a ancient ritual slaughtering called Kosher that is almost like the Jewish version of Halal in Islam, or the other way around (whatever makes you feel better). Evidently when the pretentious Dutch politicians were desperately looking for a way to curb the Muslims implosion in the country while still claiming to be much of a believer in universal equality and freedom that would attract enough votes to be popular, they could not single out the Muslims and deal with the issues publicly (though I think it would be much more effective to deal with the situation alone) due to their paradoxical “political morals”. Thus they have to bring down the whole clumps of “ritual slaughter” into the muddy water; and that act unfortunately also targets Kosher slaughtering as inhumane and banned as a result. This is basically how the Jews get spotted into the collateral damage (like the French ban on religious symbols at school, you think the French don’t like the cross-necklace wearing Catholic or Jews with Star of David?). So at the end of day, in this story, Jews get served, Kosher slaughter banned. Even though it is so obvious that Jews are not the target and Kosher is not Halal,their interests have to be sacrificed for the sake of aiming at Muslims. Even though Rabbis openly protest for the innocence of Kosher slaughtering, clarifying them not being the target but the Muslims (and they are absolutely correct), the hypocrisy of European politics matches on. Pity the Jews, just inconvenient timing when leftism deters any effective actions without hypocrisy and contingent  collateral damages. To me, it is such a relish to look at the contrasting stances and arguments of different claimants in this case.