BlackHat's Journal: Leading the blind while I stared out the steel in your eyes

As I move into the last few quotes for this sequence 'Italy and Moor' I could reuse the 'So-and-Sos invented the modern world' and mad prop in the middle period Islamic thinkers. If you try it yourself you will likely find it works quite well. But today I will start off by mentioning this beach. That's Calcutta to the north and the Bay of Bengal before us.

It's 1386 right now, here, and if we just wait for this wave to crest up I'll snag some of it in this teacup. I brought it just for this purpose. And there you are, one sea in a glass. [and] If I told you that, if one looks into that tiny portion of water, there that cup, and spoke of it supporting whales you would think me mad [or +'der']. It is, however, an apt illustration of the problems one faces when speaking of the growth of Islam.

I picked this beach as a spot to both commemorate and bewail the death of it [Islam]. It's dying over there to the west as I speak. It did not go unnoticed. A young man will walk here, in this very year, and write of it's passing. By the end of this period [roughly 1420's] it [islam] will have passed any hope of recovery.

It would be nice to place all the blame on Tamer the Lame. His part in the deed is not small. But there were others equally ready to carve up the dream. I'll touch on that before the end here. In it all, total war as we know it today was born, and the Rum [soon to be Turks] made sure the lesson was preserved, refined and passed on repeatedly.

It is one of those delightful irony things that Egypt also plays no small part in this, both as inspiration for the old world [Greece + Rome], and key-log the new one. Yes, our world today was created from the collision and collusion of the; Tuscans, Genoise, Persians, and Arabs. The mongols, rum, and host of others just added flavour [and a lot of blood].

We don't have to have tall towers in every town to hear/declaim the word or to witness the dream. One just has to look out the window into *any* city in *any* country today. Many, if not most, of the parts that actually work are traceable to their origins in the Islamic world of 800-1300. And I'll catalog some of that, for the Geek'ier of you, add some more about the political aspects, for the Nerdy, all in the next couple of JEs.

Today tho', another slight digression. I thought this might fit as a post VP debate thinking point. Moor later, until then.

Quote:
Although the term "Jacobin mentality" does not really belong to any true classification, I employ it here because it sums up a clearly defined combination which constitutes a veritable psychological species.

This mentality dominates the men of the French Revolution, but is not peculiar to them, as it still represents one of the most active elements in our politics.

The mystic mentality which we have already considered is an essential factor of the Jacobin mind, but it is not in itself enough to constitute that mind. Other elements, which we shall now examine, must be added.

The Jacobins do not in the least suspect their mysticism. On the contrary, they profess to be guided solely by pure reason. During the Revolution they invoked reason incessantly, and considered it as their only guide to conduct.

The majority of historians have adopted this rationalist conception of the Jacobin mind, and Taine fell into the same error. It is in the abuse of rationalism that he seeks the origin of a great proportion of the acts of the Jacobins. The pages in which he has dealt with the subject contain many truths, however, and as they are in other ways very remarkable, I reproduce the most important passages here:--

"Neither exaggerated self-love nor dogmatic reasoning is rare in the human species. In all countries these two roots of the Jacobin spirit subsist, secret and indestructible. . . . At twenty years of age, when a young man is entering into the world, his reason is stimulated simultaneously with his pride. In the first place, whatever society he may move in, it is contemptible to pure reason, for it has not been constructed by a philosophic legislator according to a principle, but successive generations have arranged it according to their multiple and ever-changing needs. It is not the work of logic, but of history, and the young reasoner shrugs his shoulders at the sight of this old building, whose site is arbitrary, whose architecture is incoherent, and whose inconveniences are obvious. . . . The majority of young people, above all those who have their way to make, are more or less Jacobin on leaving college. . . . Jacobinism is born of social decomposition just as mushrooms are born of a fermenting soil. Consider the authentic monuments of its thought--the speeches of Robespierre and Saint-Just, the debates of the Legislative Assembly and the Convention, the harangues, addresses, and reports of Girondists and Montagnards. Never did men speak so much to say so little; the empty verbiage and swollen emphasis swamp any truth there may be beneath their monotony and their turgidity. The Jacobin is full of respect for the phantoms of his reasoning brain; in his eyes they are more real than living men, and their suffrage is the only suffrage he recognises--he will march onward in all sincerity at the head of a procession of imaginary followers. The millions of metaphysical wills which he has created in the image of his own will sustain him by their unanimous assent, and he will project outwards, like a chorus of triumph and acclamation, the inward echo of his own voice."

While admiring Taine's description, I think he has not exactly grasped the psychology of the Jacobin.

The mind of the true Jacobin, at the time of the Revolution as now, was composed of elements which we must analyse if we are to understand its function.

This analysis will show in the first place that the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped in rationalism he employs it very little in his thoughts and his conduct.

A Jacobin who reasoned as much as he is accused of reasoning would be sometimes accessible to the voice of reason. Now, observation proves, from the time of the Revolution to our own days, that the Jacobin is never influenced by reasoning, however just, and it is precisely here that his strength resides.

And why is he not accessible to reason? Simply because his vision of things, always extremely limited, does not permit of his resisting the powerful and passionate impulses which guide him.

These two elements, feeble reason and strong passions, would not of themselves constitute the Jacobin mind. There is another.

Passion supports convictions, but hardly ever creates them. Now, the true Jacobin has forcible convictions. What is to sustain them? Here the mystic elements whose action we have already studied come into play. The Jacobin is a mystic who has replaced the old divinities by new gods. Imbued with the power of words and formulae, he attributes to these a mysterious power. To serve these exigent divinities he does not shrink from the most violent measures. The laws voted by our modern Jacobins furnish a proof of this fact.

The Jacobin mentality is found especially in narrow and passionate characters. It implies, in fact, a narrow and rigid mind, inaccessible to all criticism and to all considerations but those of faith.

The mystic and affective elements which dominate the mind of the Jacobin condemn him to an extreme simplicity. Grasping only the superficial relations of things, nothing prevents him from taking for realities the chimerical images which are born of his imagination. The sequence of phenomena and their results escape him. He never raises his eyes from his dream.

As we may see, it is not by the development of his logical reason that the Jacobin exceeds. He possesses very little logic of this kind, and therefore he often becomes dangerous. Where a superior man would hesitate or halt the Jacobin, who has placed his feeble reason at the service of his impulses, goes forward with certainty.

So that although the Jacobin is a great reasoner, this does not mean that he is in the least guided by reason. When he imagines he is being led by reason it is really his passions and his mysticism that lead him. Like all those who are convinced and hemmed in by the walls of faith, he can never escape therefrom.

A true aggressive theologian, he is astonishingly like the disciples of Calvin described in a previous chapter. Hypnotised by their faith, nothing could deter them from their object. All those who contradicted their articles of faith were considered worthy of death. They too seemed to be powerful reasoners. Ignorant, like the Jacobins, of the secret forces that led them, they believed that reason was their sole guide, while in reality they were the slaves of mysticism and passion.

The truly rationalistic Jacobin would be incomprehensible, and would merely make reason despair. The passionate and mystical Jacobin is, on the contrary, easily intelligible.

With these three elements--a very weak reasoning power, very strong passions, and an intense mysticism--we have the true psychological components of the mind of the Jacobin. --Gustave le Bon

Ok, it may be true that I am far too much of an old school secularist to take Prayer Breakfasts sitting down. None the less, you [indeed anyone has] got to wonder where they get off yanking the people's chain like that.

News with a double shot of false Piety:
Lieutenant Chris Saunders, Cpt Morgans or boiled-tea. "The early indications of the situation on board Chicoutimi is that the problem is nothing to do with any technical aspect, the design or build." Kiss me Finney! Canadian's like a little romance when we're being fucked over.

Hair dressers too? Turkish politicians have welcomed the recommendation by EU officials that Ankara begin talks on entry to the EU. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul described the decision as historic and said that Turkey was walking on the EU path. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the same criteria should apply for Turkey as for other member states. The European Commission's recommendations are dependent on continued improvements in the country's human rights record. The right to be 'paid off' more like.

Hong Kong finding out that Populists-Democracy is very different than Chinese-Communism or Asian-Oligarchies. In last month's elections, 25 of the 60 seats went to pro-democracy candidates - more than ever before. The new members are likely to create problems for Hong Kong's leader Tung Chee-hwa and his pro-China government. One of the newly-elected legislators, Leung Kwok-hung, has already caused controversy by adding a number of pro-democracy slogans to his official oath. "Long live the people! Power to the people!" he shouted, punching the air. Don't get a hair cut and show up for your votes, punk! [/;-)

Howie tries to invent a new buzzword-- Green cutting. That's where you cut the trees down and point the other way while yelling 'The Darkies want your daughters'.

An age old problem; Don't pay the troops and get fragg'ed. The chief of Guinea-Bissau's army is killed by rebel soldiers in what is described as a "revolt" over unpaid wages. And no doubt this is being played out elsewhere today.

Ereli is still batting. Let's see how he does today.
QUESTION: The Vice President last night in the debate said that the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq made Iraq a threat. This report when it comes out, according to all -- according to people who have seen it, or people who have been briefed on it, says that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and, in fact, the programs that you have often cited as reasons for the action were idle.

Do you believe that this nexus of terrorism and the potential for -- and weapons of mass destruction -- do you now believe that that was the case?

MR. ERELI: There is nothing in this report I think to call into question the conclusion that Saddam Hussein, based on his previous actions and his -- his previous actions, his declared intentions and his demonstrated capabilities in the post-9/11 world represented an intolerable threat to the United States and the rest of the world that we had every justification to act upon and that we successfully did by putting together an international coalition.

QUESTION: So let me just state it. There is nothing in this report to call into question that Saddam represented an untolerable threat to the United States?

MR. ERELI: Our conclusion is that Saddam Hussein, by his demonstrated capability and his intent, represented a threat to the United States that we needed to act upon.

QUESTION: And you know that how? Sorry -- that there's nothing in this report that would call that into question, since you, yourself, said you haven't seen it?

MR. ERELI: Based on what I have been briefed.

Fly ball. Oh and one.

QUESTION: And, by contrast, are you encouraged by the Government of Brazil for an open invitation to the IAEA and others to view their --

MR. ERELI: You know, I would caution against speaking of lumping all these topics together because they're very different in their scope, they're very different in their details. Brazil has a good record of cooperation with the IAEA. Their program is, in almost every -- in every respect, different than North Korea's and Iran's, and I think the Secretary has spoken to this on his visit to Brazil. There is good movement between the IAEA and Brazil. It's just a completely different kind of relationship.

Strike one! Swinging before the pitcher even let go of the ball. One and One.

QUESTION: New subject, the Middle East. What is your understanding of the Sharon government's position towards the roadmap and whether it is the basis for the creation of a Palestinian state or the basis for Israel to freeze any movement or to -- for any -- for there to be a freeze in any movement toward the Palestinian -- toward a Palestinian state?

MR. ERELI: Our understanding is that Israel is committed to the roadmap and to the President's two-state vision. I would note that Prime Minister Sharon, the office of Prime Minister Sharon, issued a statement to that effect today. So we see, based on that statement and based on Israel's declared policy, we see no cause to doubt it.

For our part, we certainly remain committed to the roadmap as the means to realize the President's vision of two states. It was most recently -- it was codified in the letter that he exchanged with Prime Minister Sharon on April 14th. Both we and Israel continue to see -- continue to look at the Gaza disengagement plan as a real opportunity to make progress in the quest for Middle East peace and an opportunity to return to a political process.

QUESTION: Did the comments that Mr. Weisglass made give you any pause or give you any reason to ask for some kind of a clarification from Prime Minister Sharon or others in the government?

MR. ERELI: I would refer you to the Israeli Government for comments on the Weisglass -- what Mr. Weisglass is being reported to --

QUESTION: Well, did you ask about them?

MR. ERELI: We certainly made it clear that it didn't coincide with what we thought the position of the Government of Israel was.

QUESTION: So there was some conversation in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Because who, the Amb --

MR. ERELI: Through our Embassy, our Embassy officials.

QUESTION: And who, Sharon's office?

MR. ERELI: I don't know exactly who we spoke with.

Two and one.

QUESTION: No, can I -- I just want to stay on this, just on Israel for a second.

Yesterday, at the UN, you vetoed the resolution, the Algerian resolution, and in a briefing here before that vote happened you had suggested that you were going -- you had said that Ambassador Danforth, I guess, and others were going to be discussing the Algerian draft and trying -- and expressing your concerns about the language and about omissions in the -- or to address the unbalanced, one-sided nature.

Did the United States make any attempt to secure changes to the draft that would have allowed it to vote in favor, or perhaps abstain?

MR. ERELI: We worked with our other partners on the Council to change the text. I think Senator Danforth made clear the United States, in his explanation of vote, the United States objections to the resolution as it was presented, those objections being that it was unbalanced and did not serve the interest or serve the interests of reaching a settlement, a political settlement, or advancing the cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

We shared our concerns with other members of the Council. Those other members of the Council worked to get the Palestinians to create a more balanced text. Unfortunately, those efforts were not successful and the text that was finally put to a vote was unacceptable, and for that reason we vetoed it.

QUESTION: Did they work with the Algerians? I mean, they're the ones that --

MR. ERELI: They worked with the Algerians and the Palestinians. I think probably the Palestinians and the Algerians worked together on the text.

QUESTION: But they would not move?

MR. ERELI: But there was not -- there were not -- there were not changes, I think, made that sufficiently addressed our concerns, and for that reason we took the vote that we did.

QUESTION: Can you say briefly what those changes were?

MR. ERELI: I don't have all those details, no.
And he never will. Strike three! Oh, don't look so glum Adam. 'I'll see if I can get you something' to cheer you up.

How about a steaming cup of MEAT!!!
MR. PANNELL: And if I could talk about the progress that's been made in the country, of course, there are many positive things -- schools opening, girls going into --

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I thought you'd get around to that.

MR. PANNELL: Girls going to schools. The people are allowed to do many things that they were forbidden from doing under the Taliban. And yet, one of the major concerns on the international horizon, and domestically as well, is the increase in opium production.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Absolutely.

MR. PANNELL: Afghanistan is now responsible for three-quarters of the world opium production. There's a suggestion from the French Foreign Minister that maybe there's time to institute some kind of international force to deal with the drug situation. What are your feelings about that?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: First of all, yesterday I saw Minister Bill Rammell. We talked about this matter. Of course, the UK is the lead country on this. We are supporting the efforts of the UK. We're both putting a lot of money and energy into it. And I completely agree that if we don't get a handle, along with the Government of Afghanistan, on the narcotic problem, and then we'll have a very successful operation, or the patient would have died.

So I have said to other people who have asked about this French idea I'd be more than happy to talk about this. But it's quite clear to me that we're going to have to have buy-in from the government, the government of the day after 9 October, before we do anything. They have to be part of the solution. Solution?-- Herd them all into pens until they reach age 35 and promise to vote Tory. [Cue the Marching Hammers]

52.02 This is Not Related in any way. So stop saying that.

OYAITJ:
48293 : Paine, Phones, GMOs, and a few bits more.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of a barrel of oil with an overlayed speech bubble in which it sings;
"Over mountains, across seas/
Who knows what will be waiting for me?/
I could sail forever to strange sounding names/
Faces of people and places don't change/
All I have to do is just close my eyes/
To see the seagulls wheeling on those far distant skies/
All I want to tell you/
All I want to say is count me in on the journey/
Don't expect me to stay/"