Man of the Year

Well, at least he was according to the wisdom of Time magazine in 1938. The article that accompanied that magazine cover is utterly priceless as a source document that offers insight into the pre-war mindset and realizations made too late. If you have never read this, I entreat you to do so now:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,760539,00.html

So then, why can't Time be honest and post Ahmadinejad today?

By the way, yesterday Ahmadinejad stated that Iran is ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighboring countries.

Media response? A yawn.

Some related thoughts: It is true that an inquiry is more about forming the right question than putting forth anything resembling a solution. I state the obvious but you have to have an accurate grasp of what you’re dealing with before you can formulate a proper response. This goes for understanding historical movements and actors as well as for inter-personal relations. Importantly, this included knowing who your friends and enemies are.

One of the fundamental problems right now is the inability of a great many people –in many cases a willful inability-- to recognize the existential question before us all: the Middle-East represents the crucible for western civilization; what is to be the extent of our role, if any at all? In an age of nuclear proliferation we do not have the luxury of reverting to a two-ocean isolationism. The worst, barbaric elements of the world will be coming for us whether we retreat to our shores voting Democrat all the way or not. I fear the understanding that the world has fundamentally changed hasn’t sufficiently sunk in yet, and I’ve already written on what I think it will take to open the eyes of the head-in-the-sand crowd. I'm not sure they would even recognize such a thing as barbarism as existing in the world among humanity; such a belief like that isn't what the multicultural contingent considers acceptable thought.

I have an unfortunate disdain –I say unfortunate because ideally I would rather be in a position not to disdain anything or anyone—for those that hold utopian views and goals but possess no realistic understanding of what it would take to achieve these goals. Maybe a lack of respect is a more apt posture. Why? Because being a good observer of the world around you and having a realistic assessment of what people are generally like are good first steps in any critical theory. Thomas Sowell says it best when he states that the underlying moral and social challenge is to make the best of possibilities given the constraints of reality, human nature, and knowledge.

For example: Marxism and Communism are berated as failed evil systems of oppression and rightfully so in my opinion given the CONSEQUENCES of these systems. But given that, these were still systems devised to bring into reality some very noble, human goals. Who doesn’t feel the romantic appeal behind the notion of a classless society with no government necessary and where all are equal and free from want, need, and conflict? I think it would be inhuman not feel some tug towards such a vision of peace and harmony on earth.

History, however, has produced examples of figures and inspired groups that felt that tug strong enough to sacrifice the lives of tens of millions at the alter of these unsustainable utopian goals. The controlling methods necessary in Marxism's attempt to bring revolution in consciousness and societal evolution are in themselves brutal, oppressive, and anti-democratic in the end. Marx did not take human nature into consideration when he created his historical theory.

Having a realistic view of the possible requires being informed by history, the record of human thought in action; therefore the study of history provides a long vista of the heights of human greatness and depths of depravity. Any policy prescriptions –on either the individual or state level-- made without a knowledge of these things is both naïve and dangerous and would relate in a way to a definition of insanity. How would one otherwise have the ability to gage what has worked and what has not?

Yet, utopian idealists who cling to the mantra of peace, love, and understanding usually lack this understanding and hold themselves morally superior to anyone that confronts reality with an idealism that’s tempered with a pragmatic approach. As if they have the right to wash their hands of the great moral issues of our times by claiming neutrality founded in a non-judgementalism?

This fake, enlightened consciousness is the height of intellectual arrogance and actually has more to do with the egotism of the proprietor than anything related with a genuine concern for a noble cause or alleviation of suffering. The elevation of non-violence as the highest virtue over other virtues and rights is perhaps the very things which will cause this civilization to wither. I would argue that it is doubtful whether now or in the near future we have the ability to make a moral defense of our values and way of life with a view towards its preservation.

And that is one of the reasons that people who should know better are willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran headed by a holocaust denying religious fanatic that calls for the wiping off the map of other democratic countries and believes in contributing to the coming apocalypse as defined by the Cult of the Hidden 12th Imam.

"Why shouldn't Iran have nukes, we do? Who are we to say who should and shouldn’t have them? You're fascist."

Our fate as a civilization rests on the resolution of conflict and reform of the middle-east. I see the potential for the erosion of the West physically (fanatical terror attacks w/ mass casualties) and spiritually (nihilism from loss of founding values). It’s hard news to take. Somebody should bring in the clowns and the eggnog please.