26 Mar 06
1 edit
"Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope and therefore accept the fact that wealth, power, status and other resources favor an affluent few while traditional autocrats maintain the masses in misery. So therefore our lack of concern is quite proper; indeed, quite decent and moral because the lower orders feel no pain."
(My emphasis)
Does this variation on the theme of "How to boil a frog" disturb anyone here, or was Kirkpatrick merely honestly stating the facts about the way beggar democracies operationally function?
01 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteI think it was in the 80's that the medical field began to use anesthetics on infants, using the same reasoning.
"Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope and therefore accept the fact that wealth, power, status and other resources favor an affluent few while traditional autocrats maintain the masses in misery. So therefore our lack of concern is quite proper; indeed, q k merely honestly stating the facts about the way beggar democracies operationally function?
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBrutal, isn't it?
I think it was in the 80's that the medical field began to use anesthetics on infants, using the same reasoning.
I think I was incorrect on a substantive point, though - I think this is an excerpt from one of her articles rather than a speech. It's allegedly from Commentary, November 1979, under the title "Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics", and also in her Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics. Moral quandary now - do I actually pay the damned woman just to hunt down her inflammatory quote?
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteBrutal, yes. Honest, refreshingly. The truth of the matter is, she merely articulates the unspoken rules of those in power. In a world of haves and have-nots, the blues got the world by the balls.
Brutal, isn't it?
I think I was incorrect on a substantive point, though - I think this is an excerpt from one of her articles rather than a speech. It's allegedly from Commentary, November 1979, under the title "Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and Reason in Politics", and also in her Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rational ...[text shortened]... ndary now - do I actually pay the damned woman just to hunt down her inflammatory quote?