Well, it's been a damned long time since I've posted anything on this bloody blog. I blame the infamous Mr Cheng for my absence. He's an idiot. Everybody knows that but himself. So much for a to-and-fro format of blogging with the bastard. He gave up after a single blog (although I must admit, some of his failure to blog again can be attributed to my less than encouraging remarks about his first post). Some people have, in the past, pressured me to continue with whatever it is that I seem to be doing on this blog, however insignificant I feel it to be. But now, that pressure is off, and what better time to post a blog when nobody could care less about what I'm going to write! Apparently, my previous posts have had an 'unnatural' air about them, as "intensely personal" and "political commentary" are two foreign areas for my writing. But alas, dear friends, I couldn't give a damn about what you think! According to one person in particular who is dead set upon proving to me that Halo 3 is infinitely better than Halo: Reach (which it most definitely is not!), I am quite the whinger. And so, allow me to waste your days reading my nonsensical ramblings and whinges about whatever political, ethical or simply whimsical matter that comes to my mind!
Firstly, I'd just like to address one of the most outrageous claims I have ever heard from one unintelligible simian pervert. He has some foolish idea that Australia's people can collectively be represented by an iceberg: 10% of her people rise above the dark depths of the ocean, able to freely comprehend the world as it is in all its corrupt glory, while 90% remain below the water line, drifting without sight or knowledge of anything around them. Upon being accused of elitism, this incorrigible young man accepts the title of "elitist" and "chauvinist" with some misplaced pride, and constantly attempts to persuade his fellows that they too are elitist in nature! I mean, beyond the fact that he has no proof whatsoever of his superiority to his fellow man (although he constantly espouses the most extraordinary and entertaining stories in an attempt to prove his superiority over his fellow woman! To that, I have but one response, "Lauren beat you to your Ps"), this young man is as naive, if not more naive than any young adult of his age whom I have met, myself included. People like Bobo and Travis seem to agree with him, and in doing so, have truly joined him in his kin (of buffoons!) Your favourite marine mammal and I have tried, without much effort, to resist his claims that we too, are "like, the biggest elitists", members of the "intelligentsia" as he would have it. As much as I have been accused of being an elitist, as my mannerisms and turn of phrase might suggest, I'll never give up my ideals of egalitarianism to his overtly egocentric beliefs. In fact, I'd even say that he, with all of his formidable and great qualities (of which I am a great admirer, as unbelievable as that may seem) is a member of the "unintelligentsia", the unthinking masses who are sated by the desensitising opiate of American culture.
Enough of bitching (yes, bitching!) about that guy. I feel a headache coming along, due to the return of his many, many sophisms to my mind. Back to political philosophising/commentary! A relatively new friend of mine asked me a thought-provoking question recently: "Do you think the West is obsessed with democracy?" Excuse the paraphrasing, but yes. To me, the West has taken a turn for the worst. Yes, Europe was the cradle of democracy, and from the days of Lycurgus and Romulus, it has led the world in developing the liberal ideals which have challenged the supreme authority of autocrats everywhere. But, up until recently, democracy was merely a notion which the nations of the West prided themselves upon. It was not the focus of the West, nor did it possess or obsess the governments of its respective nations. However, in our lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our parents, we have seen a dramatic shift in the policies of Western democracies. For hundreds of years, they contented themselves with presiding over "civilised" societies, while pointing and laughing at (and often exploiting) the masses that squandered their lives, fettered by the chains of autocracy and totalitarianism.
But recently, they have seen their moral and political authority threatened by the rise of a number of totalitarian "undemocratic" nations, most notably the People's Republic of China, and of course, Putin's great "democratic" Russian Federation, and the USSR which preceded it. And in response to such threats, we have seen the instigation of numerous conflicts, as democracies everywhere have taken up the offensive, to export their ideals and systems to all the troubled nations of the world, as a "quick fix" to all their problems. And, at the forefront of this struggle by the West, we have the United States of America, the darling of all democracies, worldwide. It has attempted, with some success, to export its virulent and poisonous system of democracy, whereby (similar to the UK's) the separation of powers is polluted, to other nations which it considers inferior to itself. We have seen this in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, and the list goes on.
But the USA does not hold all the blame. Europe too has taken its toll upon the world, as the great empires of old have left their own insidious mark upon their ex-colonies, having drawn together peoples of different, often antagonistic, races, and forced them to submit to democratic governments which still hold on to prejudices of old. We see this in the calamities which have befallen the Congo, the Sudan, and most of the Africas. And even now, the EU constantly pressures Eastern European states which have long been under the influence of the Red "Fatherland", bribing them with promises of monetary aid and membership of their illustrious democratic union! Although I must say, what the EU is doing in Eastern Europe isn't all that bad, and the USA has some merit in their "interventions" (although vastly outweighed by the negative consequences which arise from their doing so) the fact of the matter is that the West has become obsessed with democracy, or rather, obsessed with the forced exportation of their democracy to the "fettered" peoples of the world as a means of preserving their own waning power and pacifying troublesome states (much like the opium wars, no?)
I have always been a proponent of democracy and have held a deep-seated resentment of monarchy and totalitarianism ever since my parents told me stories of the evils of British monarchs and the Chinese Communist Party. However, this world has yet to see a 'true' democracy, as it was first imagined by the political philosophers of old, and I fear that our world shall never see one come to fruition. And so, we will have to live with our current champion of democracy, as corrosive and monotonous as her ideals may be (and as obnoxious and insolent as the champions of her ideals may be, refer to aforementioned elitist). However, I should hope that those peoples who are currently chained by autocracy and totalitarianism will achieve their own form of democracy or popular aristocracy (as the case may be), independent of America's favourite export. Although, they should heed Rousseau's warning, lest they fall prey prematurely to the West's attempts to democratise the world:
"If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men."
If you've gotten this far, good on you. As our last holidays of (some) relaxation come nearer to their end, I find myself running out of time more and more. Too many damned books to read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Gaffinidis for your insight into my beliefs, and dedicating your time, effort and space in your wonderful blog to invectives against me.
ReplyDeleteAs i have some of your attention, as you have mine, i shall finally explain to you by my usage of the world 'elitist' and also, if my concentration permits, also why you are one.
By 'elitist' i simply mean that you are elite or more dominant in once facet of life. Every time i mention thus, i refer to intelligence. Surely enough, it is extremely difficult to compare two intelligences and so it is left to sterotyping and generalising, not because it is unfair, but because it is easier. As so, you would able to generalise that Andrew Gaffney, is more elite in intelligence than somebody who has not been given equally opportunity in education simply because there is such a deficiency in the fundamental equality in terms of schooling to begin with. Long story short, Andrew Gaffney is more elite in intelligence than one who, for example, lives out in the west of Sydney, and goes to a public school. In a general sense, one would envision an image of Western Sydney as rather run-down and perhaps a dangerous place at night, and teenagers in such a region would be considered less of class, and in general terms, much less academically successful than one who perhaps lives in the demographically richer eastern region of Sydney or one who perhaps goes to a Selective School. Indeed, i'm not necessarily saying that it would be right to think you are better, nor should you even consider anybody better than anybody else in terms of intelligence. I am simply saying, due to generalisation, and your previlaged socioeconomic status, and opportunity to selective schooling, you have a greater assumed intelligence therefore being more elite in terms of intelligence.
Andrew Gaffney could be one who is better at intelligence than the Western Sydney student, but may be less sexually successful (by this i mean encounters with the opposite sex) just as Andrew Gaffney might be better at Halo than the Western Sydney student but worse at Rugby or Soccer. By saying Andrew is "elitist" i do not mean he is by any means better than anyone else in general terms, simply as a general statement of his intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAs for defending myself, indeed i do not think i am better than my "fellow woman" in all facets of life either. It is already been proven they have generally longer life-spans, and have higher intelligence given equal schooling opportunity. I simply share a simple concept that is indeed not to be proud of, but near impossible to rid of (at least in my mind), that male is better than female. Of course, it may be due to years filled with female oppression that is the cause and/or the result of such an ideal. Also, it must be noted that your favourite aquatic mammal friend shares the same ideal. Of course, i know male is not and should not be superior to female in any way, but the ideal remains. Such is the contradiction of mankind. As well, insurance companies by way of insurance premiums has proven that in fact women are more safe drivers but this does not change the general impression that woman drivers are generally worse than their male counterparts. Part of the reason could be the lack of equal opportunity in driving to begin with, considering that in most cases, there are more male drivers on the roads than there are females. As well, women sport is quite simply a joke. Indeed, at most times, you can't help but feel bad for female sportsmen. They might put the same, if not more effort into training but receive much less attention with the exception of a very limited array of female-dominated sports such as Netball, Diving and Gymnastics. I'm not saying that women are worse at sport than men, it's just that because of the lack of opportunity, most people would say men are better at sport.
In lamen terms, the above can be translated to a few short sentences. Andrew Gaffney is an "elite" in intelligence. He talks and writes most of the time like a pompous snob. However, this is not to think lowly of him for such values are appreciated in what i consider to be his optimal occupation as a lawyer. Now, it's definitely wrong to say a lawyer is better than say, a garbage collector, or homeless person. However you could say that the lawyer is elite in the facets of life that unfortunately, the world we now live in consider of importance.
ReplyDelete*layman's terms
ReplyDeleteAnd why'd you delete your first comment? I wanted to read it!
my first comment was a failed attempt at posting my long comment because the blogspot sucks balls:
ReplyDelete"sorry we suck so ur comment is simply too long for our system to comprehend"
It seems to me that you have confused the word "elitist" with the word "elite". Very different words there, buddy, they're not interchangeable. If you had called me an "elite" in the past, I just would've said that you are inclined to your own beliefs, etc, etc. So, in conclusion, I was mislead by your incorrect use of the word, "elitist".
ReplyDeleteSorry about that.
(But I do remember you saying something along the lines of "You know you think you're better than those guys." Prove me wrong, I guess?)
Also: I never said that I wanted to be a lawyer, per se, I just want a law degree because it seems as though a prestigious humanities degree like that could get me places. I'm actually leaning more towards economics nowadays. Oh well, I guess I'll work it out later.
P.S. No defence against my attacks upon your dear America? How sad. The point of this whole thing was more to trash American democracy than to insult you personally, but obviously that whole personal attack failed thanks to the... uniqueness of your "word bank". Regardless, I welcome your comments. Very entertaining! Although you should stop verbally bashing Westies. The "unintelligentsia" is not limited to Western Sydney.
lol huge replay at 504 am? wtf
ReplyDelete