“If Mitt Romney is vanilla, Chris Christie is three hefty scoops of Rocky Road topped with whipped cream, Red Bull, and gravel.” — Ron Fournier
Not so long ago, there were peasants, and there were knights. The knights were the minor nobility who, in exchange for their land and their peasants, served the king militarily when they were called up. The peasants worked the fields. They gave some of their crop to the nobility in exchange for the right to farm. This was called feudalism. It was brute, spare, and simple. Fast forward a few hundred years and the light bulbs are switched on, the computers are humming with speed like digital rockets and all the secrets of the universe can be discovered somewhere on the internet.
The capacity for doing mischief has exploded. When Osama bin Laden wanted to strike a blow against the United States, he came up with the idea of training his suicide pilots at flight schools in the U.S. — them not caring about how to land the suckers — and getting them to coordinate their plane hijackings so that two planes went for New York, one plane went for the Pentagon, and a fourth plane went to an undisclosed location … brave passengers challenged the hijackers for supremacy and the plane nosed into the ground. But it was a good example of the mischief that powerful knowledge, cheaply gotten, can get you into.
The Unabomber is another example. Here’s a college-educated man, sending out bombs to select addresses around the country because he fears technology is running amok. His manifesto clearly spells that out. And yet it is he who is running amok, with the aid of technology. He learned to build bombs — it was not his natural, chosen field. The technology was easy to acquire, but the learning was a little harder. But this was before the explosion of the internet in the late Nineties. Information flooded into the receptacles of the net, and has been filling up ever since.
Think about drones. Sooner or later they’re going to start assassinating common people, at dirt cheap rates. For now it is the purview of governments. But that situation can’t last. Eventually — inevitably — a cell phone will link to a drone and it’ll carry a small but powerful bomb and it’ll go kaBOOM on a podium on a stage. The days of outdoor rallies in the world are as doomed as the days of riding around in open-air cars like Hitler or Kennedy did. (If Hitler had been unlucky, a sniper’s bullet could have taken him out.)
What defense is there against knowledge? Only in counter-knowledge can you find a way out. Knowledge is like a Jack of Spades, and better knowledge is an Ace of Hearts. Build enough knowledge and you can stack a deck with aces, your own personal army.
Stupid people are at a grave disadvantage in this world. Lawyers, accountants, and dentists are at a great disadvantage in this world. The STEM men have it made in the shade. Even a humble mathematician, like the Unabomber was, can wreak great harm in the world.
Perhaps it’s all for the best that the internet was invented.
Perhaps, in the long run, the enforced premature wisdom will translate into some real wisdom, some information nuggets that cannot easily be replicated but rely on the heart and mind working in concert.
Perhaps.
Long ago, there were peasants and knights. And the king couldn’t be blown up by a drone. And the blight in the potato fields wasn’t an artificial biological weapon. And anthrax was nowhere to be seen. But there was smallpox, and there were military atrocities, and the Church stood silent on questions beyond the use of the crossbow … But these conditions birthed our conditions, and worlds revolve around each other in cycles …
Dark Sport 
Interesting insight, nice to see you back.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’m still working on an idea for today’s article.
LikeLike
The knights of old were nothing more than mercenaries on a quest for whatever they could get. Maybe that is fair play as to go on such a quest a knight would have to pay his way rather than be paid so a knight would have to have some wealth. Ultimately, it was robbing in the name of… or enforving an opion on others. Nothing ever chnages there, I guess
Acquiring knowledge has always been far easier than acquiring the wisdom of how to use it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it is not easy to gain wisdom. But life experience usually provides a measure of it, unless you’re a fool, and even fools have a certain insight … In the light of day, all problems become clearer, so it is incumbent upon us to banish shadows and gloom from our thought …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or embrace them and use them creatively. I honestly believe the natural balance of life means we have both good and bad, dark and light.
LikeLike
This got lost in my spam folder. I just resurrected it. I’m running out of time so I can’t comment on it the way it deserves. Let me just say my feeling is the UN seems some purpose, at the very least for what it MAY become …
LikeLike
Does Israel view Hamas & the PA as legitimate political parties which won their 1994 & 2006 general elections?
As of 2024, Israel has diplomatic ties with 165 of the 192 member states of the United Nations. As of 2022, 28 of the 193 UN member states do not recognise Israeli sovereignty. UN condemnations together with the overreach of international courts who have no jurisdiction over Israel – Chapter VII UN condemnations of Israel, absolutely perceived as a direct threat to Israeli sovereignty and security. Such actions interpreted by Jerusalem as legitimising international intervention or sanctions.
The following 11 countries do not recognise Hamas as a Palestinian government: Israel, Australia, Japan, the US, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, New Zealand, and Britain. It’s important to note that while these countries share a similar stance on the illegitimacy of Hamas and the PA, the exact reasons and the depth of their agreement might vary.
Arab racist nationalism emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advocating for the independence and unity of Arab peoples, and highly influenced by the 1930s rise of German Nazism hatred against the post WWI Versailles Allied dictated treaty imposed upon defeated Germany.
This ideology often viewed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine as a threat to Arab identity and territorial claims. Many Arab leaders and intellectuals perceived the Zionist movement as a form of Western colonialism. They argued that Jewish immigration and statehood were imposed by external powers (like Britain and later the United States) at the expense of the indigenous Arab population.
The influx of Jewish immigrants to Palestine raised fears among Arab populations about losing demographic and political control. Arabs in the region worried that a Jewish state would marginalize their rights and status. The 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, was rejected by Arab leaders. They argued that it was unjust to allocate land to a Jewish state, particularly given the demographic majority of Arabs in the area at the time.
Arab nationalism also emphasized solidarity with Palestinians, viewing the struggle against Zionism as part of a broader Arab struggle against colonialism and for Arab self-determination.
The Arab States absolute refusal to recognize and respect Israeli self-determination has caused Israel in its own right to reject and denounce Gazan, and area A of the PA, based upon the defunct Oslo Accords – to likewise reject the Palestinian right to self-determination. That as of June 2024, 146 of the 193 member states of the UN unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state serves as conclusive proof that these countries oppose direct face to face negotiations between Israel and Arab refugee populations which currently have no country of their own; that these countries seek some international dictate which treats Israel as a protectorate mandate territory.
That Israel has no authority to determine its own international borders. That foreign nations, some of which do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel possess the right and authority to dictate peace terms and borders upon the Jewish people. As if Jews maintain the status of exiles who had to endure the Middle Ages feudalism slanders: the Jews poisoned the wells, killed Christian babies to make matza for Passover, and their ensuing pogroms which culminated in the Shoah – the systematic murder of 75% of European Jewry in less than 3 years.
Israel consequently does not view Hamas or the PA in Samaria as a legitimate political party. The 2006 Palestinian general elections in Gaza and the PA election in Samaria prove nothing. Neither Gaza or the PA in Samaria have held any election thereafter.
Both Hamas and the PA did win a plurality of seats in their respective one-time elections, Israel, along with many other countries, considers both Hamas and the PA as a terrorist organization. This designation stems from Hamas & PA stated goals, which include the destruction of Israel, using “From the River to the Sea” propaganda, as proof of the continued PLO commitment to armed struggle to destroy all Jews.
Therefore, Israel’s refusal to recognize Hamas & PA electoral victories, based on the assessment that Hamas and the PA maintain the original PLO covenant – fundamentally opposed to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fictional legitimacy of the election results that established both Hamas and the PA as Palestinian “governments”, simply secondary to Israel’s security concerns and its assessment of both Hamas & PA maintenance of the original PLO ideology and actions.
Israel’s stance – heavily influenced by security considerations. Both Hamas and the PA – viewed through the lens of their commitments to armed struggle and hostility toward Israel, seen as direct threats to Israeli self-determination and security. The original PLO covenant, which included objectives against the existence of Israel, continues to shape Israeli perceptions of both Hamas and the PA. Israel argues that these organizations maintain ideologies that are fundamentally opposed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Specifically, which countries agree with Israel that Hamas and the PA together both exist as illegitimate political actors, rooted in the Arab 1948 ideology which absolutely and fundamentally rejects the idea that dhimmi Jews share equal rights to self-determination?
The U.S. designates Hamas as a terrorist organization and has expressed skepticism about the PA’s governance, particularly regarding its effectiveness and commitment to peace. Egypt also views Hamas with suspicion due to its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, which poses a threat to the Egyptian government. Egypt often mediates between Israel and Hamas but does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate actor.
The UAE has taken a more pragmatic approach, normalizing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords. It views both Hamas and the PA as impediments to peace and stability in the region. While Jordan has a significant Palestinian population and supports Palestinian rights, it is cautious about Hamas due to its radical ideology and the potential for instability it brings to the region. Similar to the UAE, Bahrain and other Gulf states have shown a willingness to engage with Israel and have expressed concerns about the governance and actions of both Hamas and the PA.
Germany, as an EU member state, could potentially break with France over a call for an arms embargo against Israel. Germany and France have different foreign policy priorities and approaches when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Germany has generally maintained a close relationship with Israel, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation.
Germany could choose not to support a French-led call for an arms embargo against Israel, especially if it perceives such a move as detrimental to Israel’s security or damaging to the relationship between the two countries.
Israel has told António Guterres that he is persona non grata in Israel. Does this preclude the Israeli breakage of all diplomatic relations with the UN and the expulsion of the UN from Lebanon, Gaza, Samaria and Israel?
This status specifically targets Guterres as an individual, meaning, he emphatically – unwelcome in Israel. It does not, as yet extend to the whole of the UN as an organization. However the disgrace and corruption of both UNWRA and UNIFIL does strongly indicate that Israeli distust of the UN has reached a critical breaking point.
The growing frustration with the UN’s effectiveness and its agencies’ actions could indicate that Israel approaches a critical break-point in its tolerance for what it views as inadequate support for its security and sovereignty. While the current measures focus on Guterres, ongoing dissatisfaction could lead to calls for more drastic actions against UN operations in the region. However, such decisions would be complex and could have significant diplomatic repercussions.
Israel’s positioning reflects deep-seated frustrations with the UN and its agencies, particularly in the context of the latest UNGA Chapter VII ultimatum against Israel. Israel often views UNGA resolutions as biased against it, particularly those that criticize its policies in the UN 242 propaganda declaration “occupied territories”. Jordan invaded Israel in the June 1967 war and not the reverse! Resolutions invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which can authorize action to maintain or impose international peace and security – particularly concerning to Jerusalem.
The UNGA most recent issue of a Chapter VII ultimatum which threatens to take actions under Chapter VII, Israel perceives as a direct threat to its sovereignty and security. Such actions interpreted as legitimizing international intervention or sanctions. Israel’s national security simply a paramount concern, and any perceived attack on its legitimacy or actions directly leads to heightened tensions. The Israeli government will respond strongly to what it sees as hostile actions by & from the UN.
Israel’s responses to UN actions can impact its relationships with other nations, especially those that support or oppose UN initiatives. This dynamic may influence diplomatic strategies and alliances in the region. Israel’s complex relationship with Hamas, the PA, and international entities like the UN, driven by deep-seated security concerns and historical grievances which date back to slanders made throughout the Middle Ages. The perspectives of various countries reflect a mix of geopolitical interests, historical ties, and security assessments, leading to a nuanced international landscape regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
LikeLike
(I wrote a lengthy reply to this that I accidentally included in the bulk of the comments section. Go to:
{Politics} Article: Mischief In The World – Dark Sport
and scroll down to read.
I would like to add that the Palestinian rebels against the Israeli orders are fighting a losing battle. They lack the technology and the business acumen to successfully fight against their Zionist masters. The U.S. revolution succeeded because the rebels were rich and driven, perhaps even wealthier per capita than their British masters. The Arabs fighting for autonomy are poor peasants, refugees living in disastrous, desultory camps and dirty apartment buildings — untethered to a First World reality which is bringing down the fist on them …
LikeLike
No. The Arabs have fought against the Jews when the scales of wealth enriched their pockets before the 1948 Israeli Independence War.
LikeLike
The Arabs were fools to reject the early proposal of a partition into Arab and Jewish spheres of influence. Instead of getting part of something, they lost it all.
The Arabs have always struck me as petulant children, cruising on emotions as if they were women. They are not very good fighters — or at least they haven’t been since the earliest explosion of Islam a thousand and a half years ago. The modern Arab can’t drive a tank, can’t fly a plane, and runs scared from the battlefield when opposed by determined forces. It’s no wonder Israel is secure in its situation: it wins all the wars. If the Jews, who have never been great fighters, can beat the Arabs, that says volumes about the low caliber of Arab manhood.
You say the Israeli government “will respond strongly to what it sees as hostile actions” emanating from the UN, and this is undoubtedly true. Israel will only use the UN to the extent that it legitimizes its actions and its existence, and the UN is filled with bad cookies who are dead set against Israeli desires whatever they may be. If Israel put a man on the moon, they would say it was a hoax. They are deniers of everything.
The UN needs a firm hand in charge to corral the interests of the majority into sensible grounds. Without a steel fist, it’s like herding cats: the nations of the world are too chaotic to agree on anything other than “nuclear war bad.” Even climate change gets denied by the right wing of the United States, and that’s basic science. When it comes to political opinions, the majority acts like its plumb downright crazy.
LikeLike