as easy categorising people as it may seem, it is not an easy job. but it is easy to have a number of categories based on let say political views and say some people belong to this and that, then say there people who belong to neither. probably a very safe approach, or not.
anyways, the reason for nonsense above is my encounters with different opinions in the wake of recent unrest in Egypt and Tunisia and the rest of the Arab World. i wondered how to categorise people from a political perspective and i came to the conclusion that the following categories exist:
1- the first category are those who don't really give a rat ass about whatever happens around them - they are the people who always somehow bully others no matter if they are pro or against a political system. in their view others are wasting their time.
2- those who believe in theory of conspiracy - they are the ones who believe there is a wicked hand behind whatever happens in world. for instance, west needs new dictators in power in middle east.
3- agnostics - they believe whatever happens is for worse and there's no hope for future. so if someone asks, whether the wave of protests started in middle east would hit Iran or not? they would answer, it has hit Iran 30 years ago!
4- optimists who try to be realistic - they believe there are always hope but realistically there's no time for it. i may fit in here. they try not to predict and we always say, i don't know we have to wait and see. a "But" may come after that!
5- overly optimists - they think they can change the world. i can most of the time fit in here. they are defiant and never accept the status quo. they say: let's hope the wave of change comes to Iran!
6- they are the ones who does not belong to any of above!
thinking about the above, if i am not 4 or 5, i would definitely want to fit in number 2, but be of the ones who actually decide about what happens and where it happens!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
where the war against Al-Qaeda failed
"Decision Points" is the name of the Bush's memoirs that had recently been published. i can only imagine how happy John Stewart and Mr. Colbert are!but this article is not about the book. the book and Bush's recent interviews had triggered this article.
so recently I had the chance to have a glance at the past. the time that i was in shock watching the twin towers collapse. the day that i happily watched the fall of Saddam and his empire, when people brought down his statue in Baghdad, thinking what a great day for people and democracy! few years on, i am not sure about the extent of my naivety.
it all got me to think about War on Terror, the militant and actually a review of my own first hand experience of Iran-Iraq war and the extremism.
i believe that US and Allies, leading by Bush Administration, failed right at the start! maybe even before that. have in mind that i am talking about failure in winning the war rather than losing it!
it is said the first step to rehab is admitting. it's a known fact that USA had helped Afghan Militants through Pakistani Government of Zia Ul-Hagh to fight back then USSR invasion (see Operation Cyclone). it's also argued that USA (CIA) had helped Osama Bin-Laden during Russian invasion of Afghnistan (CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy), which seems to hold no waters as two parties plus Osama's right hand man Aymen Zawahiri deny the allegations. yet the fact remains that most of the tactics currently used by militants in Afghanistan and Iraq, like car bombs and road side bombs had been taught to Afghan Militants back then by CIA operatives.
so, by not admitting the truth, they failed to face the truth and the enemy. they got involved in a war in the wrong place. it's like fighting the plant of the Jack and the Beanstalk from the very top! it only grows and grows. where, if one wants to take the stake down, logic says to cut the root!
then US & Allies continued to fail when they branded the hostilities the "Islamic Militancy" or "Islamic Extremism"! branding it Islamic, they were no longer fighting with a group of militant. they expanded the war to a global scale where not only the armed forces had been involved in, but also normal people got involved. muslim communities, whether as migrants in other countries or within muslim countries start feeling the intensity of the social tensions and increased discrimination.
what US & Allies failed to understand (or if they did understand they failed to influence their plan with the understanding accordingly) was that they were not fighting a group of individuals but an ideology. an ideology that is not specific to Islam, but is a bahvioural attribute of human characteristics. the attribute, which is applied to a group or a person rather than a self-assigned label.
Such groups as Al Qaeda that have the perception of the Ultimate Truth. a concept that some will die for. those "Some" that are now being killed in the lines of fire. they die not to ever realise the ones who convinced them about the "Ultimate Truth" and the necessity of sacrifice for the "Ultimate Truth" are now sitting somewhere and having a dinner, whether a fancy fine dine or as simple as bread and dates.
Oscar Wilde once said: “A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.”
no argue that fighting Taliban and Al-Qaeda or removing Saddam from thrown was necessary. but losing time and declaring victory immediately was neither wise nor it is now justifiable. the war had to be continued at the schools and the economic institutions to provide people with a better life. the basic rights, like potable water and electricity, a minimum wage. in today's world, whether we like it or not, freedom without money isn't worth much. as a result, what happens is the youth who are hopeless with no prospect of a better future would easily be absorbed to a world of promises of Gardens of Eden. with a bit of cash, who cares if there would be an Eden? well, what do they have to lose? they have nothing anyways! a fantasy might serve them better!
this is where US and in general the super powers who had an interest in the whole affair, failed. in their lackluster efforts and plans, people like Osama Bin Ladan and many others saw an opportunity and they cleverly seized the opportunity to promote their agenda.
the extremism is not and Islam specific phenomenon. anyone from any belief or back ground can be an extremist. what if instead of "War against Islamic Militancy" it was labeled "War against extremism" of any kind? Buddhism extremism, Islamic extremism, Christian extremism, Jewish extremism, Racial extremism, Atheist extremism, etc.
obviously, those who imagined they had plotted a master plan, lacked vision and simply failed to manage the situation. it is likely that they also had an "Ultimate Truth", which they see far superior to the ones of Osama Bin Laden! the "Ultimate Truth" for which they will torture, kidnap and kill. above all, ignore the Law and bend the rules.
let's hope this would be a lesson learned for those, who are in a position that make decision and hope that those who get to those position are more sane than their predecessors.
George Orwell once wrote: "at the time of the universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(this article might be editted in future)
so recently I had the chance to have a glance at the past. the time that i was in shock watching the twin towers collapse. the day that i happily watched the fall of Saddam and his empire, when people brought down his statue in Baghdad, thinking what a great day for people and democracy! few years on, i am not sure about the extent of my naivety.
it all got me to think about War on Terror, the militant and actually a review of my own first hand experience of Iran-Iraq war and the extremism.
i believe that US and Allies, leading by Bush Administration, failed right at the start! maybe even before that. have in mind that i am talking about failure in winning the war rather than losing it!
it is said the first step to rehab is admitting. it's a known fact that USA had helped Afghan Militants through Pakistani Government of Zia Ul-Hagh to fight back then USSR invasion (see Operation Cyclone). it's also argued that USA (CIA) had helped Osama Bin-Laden during Russian invasion of Afghnistan (CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy), which seems to hold no waters as two parties plus Osama's right hand man Aymen Zawahiri deny the allegations. yet the fact remains that most of the tactics currently used by militants in Afghanistan and Iraq, like car bombs and road side bombs had been taught to Afghan Militants back then by CIA operatives.
so, by not admitting the truth, they failed to face the truth and the enemy. they got involved in a war in the wrong place. it's like fighting the plant of the Jack and the Beanstalk from the very top! it only grows and grows. where, if one wants to take the stake down, logic says to cut the root!
then US & Allies continued to fail when they branded the hostilities the "Islamic Militancy" or "Islamic Extremism"! branding it Islamic, they were no longer fighting with a group of militant. they expanded the war to a global scale where not only the armed forces had been involved in, but also normal people got involved. muslim communities, whether as migrants in other countries or within muslim countries start feeling the intensity of the social tensions and increased discrimination.
what US & Allies failed to understand (or if they did understand they failed to influence their plan with the understanding accordingly) was that they were not fighting a group of individuals but an ideology. an ideology that is not specific to Islam, but is a bahvioural attribute of human characteristics. the attribute, which is applied to a group or a person rather than a self-assigned label.
Such groups as Al Qaeda that have the perception of the Ultimate Truth. a concept that some will die for. those "Some" that are now being killed in the lines of fire. they die not to ever realise the ones who convinced them about the "Ultimate Truth" and the necessity of sacrifice for the "Ultimate Truth" are now sitting somewhere and having a dinner, whether a fancy fine dine or as simple as bread and dates.
Oscar Wilde once said: “A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.”
no argue that fighting Taliban and Al-Qaeda or removing Saddam from thrown was necessary. but losing time and declaring victory immediately was neither wise nor it is now justifiable. the war had to be continued at the schools and the economic institutions to provide people with a better life. the basic rights, like potable water and electricity, a minimum wage. in today's world, whether we like it or not, freedom without money isn't worth much. as a result, what happens is the youth who are hopeless with no prospect of a better future would easily be absorbed to a world of promises of Gardens of Eden. with a bit of cash, who cares if there would be an Eden? well, what do they have to lose? they have nothing anyways! a fantasy might serve them better!
this is where US and in general the super powers who had an interest in the whole affair, failed. in their lackluster efforts and plans, people like Osama Bin Ladan and many others saw an opportunity and they cleverly seized the opportunity to promote their agenda.
the extremism is not and Islam specific phenomenon. anyone from any belief or back ground can be an extremist. what if instead of "War against Islamic Militancy" it was labeled "War against extremism" of any kind? Buddhism extremism, Islamic extremism, Christian extremism, Jewish extremism, Racial extremism, Atheist extremism, etc.
obviously, those who imagined they had plotted a master plan, lacked vision and simply failed to manage the situation. it is likely that they also had an "Ultimate Truth", which they see far superior to the ones of Osama Bin Laden! the "Ultimate Truth" for which they will torture, kidnap and kill. above all, ignore the Law and bend the rules.
let's hope this would be a lesson learned for those, who are in a position that make decision and hope that those who get to those position are more sane than their predecessors.
George Orwell once wrote: "at the time of the universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(this article might be editted in future)
Monday, July 19, 2010
rebuilding despair
the more i think about it , the more i get scared. what? the time and effort that it takes to rebuild this country. this land that despite my desires to go away and not to look back, just drew me back here. the attraction of this environment, the city set up, the heritage, it all are so strong in me that i could never convince myself to migrate from Iran. i went away and worked for few years. in Dubai, Spain and Libya, but when it comes down for me to decide between Iran and living outside, i chose Iran. one of the reasons was the hope that it will change for better. well, it has changed but for worse, at least for now. and we are yet to see if it will take a twist for better in future and how soon a future?
the desire in me to live in Iran and be Iranian was sop strong in me that i was totally caught by surprise. i never knew i would have that much love for this country.
rebuilding, is what i constantly think about. the task that seems a mission impossible in most of the days. where do we start? people need to change their attitude. attitude is what i believe we mostly misunderstand as culture.
mostly the incumbent government and for a large part of it (not larger tan the incumbent) previous governments are responsible for where we are today. insisting on commitment of the officials and decision makers rather than their knowledge and competencies, their skills; had led to massive and expanded fraud. it's just (to a large extent) hopeless.
yet, we have no option but be patient and strong with one thing in mind. to redeem our country and make it from the scratch. total overhaul of the country in every level, education, Oil & Gas and other industries, police and security forces (i still have hard time figuring out how can a police live on his wages), government, parliament. we need to establish democracy and transparency. we need to get rid of false beliefs and fictions.
long way we have in front of us. so many tears are to be shed. that would be the expense, the cost we have to pay for the moment of peace and pride.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie (Part II)
DOCTORS ARE NO DOUBT CORRECT in warning us not to touch incurable wounds; and I am presumably taking chances in preaching as I do to a people which has long lost all sensitivity and, no longer conscious of its infirmity, is plainly suffering from mortal illness. Let us therefore understand by logic, if we can, how it happens that this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the very love of liberty now seems no longer natural.
In the first place, all would agree that, if we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her, we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody. Concerning the obedience given instinctively to one's father and mother, we are in agreement, each one admitting himself to be a model. As to whether reason is born with us or not, that is a question loudly discussed by academicians and treated by all schools of philosophers. For the present I think I do not err in stating that there is in our souls some native seed of reason, which, if nourished by good counsel and training, flowers into virtue, but which, on the other hand, if unable to resist the vices surrounding it, is stifled and blighted. Yet surely if there is anything in this world clear and obvious, to which one cannot close one's eyes, it is the fact that nature, handmaiden of God, governess of men, has cast us all in the same mold in order that we may behold in one another companions, or rather brothers. If in distributing her gifts nature has favored some more than others with respect to body or spirit, she has nevertheless not planned to place us within this world as if it were a field of battle, and has not endowed the stronger or the cleverer in order that they may act like armed brigands in a forest and attack the weaker. One should rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and smaller shares to others, nature has intended to give occasion for brotherly love to become manifest, some of us having the strength to give help to others who are in need of it. Hence, since this kind mother has given us the whole world as a dwelling place, has lodged us in the same house, has fashioned us according to the same model so that in beholding one another we might almost recognize ourselves; since she has bestowed upon us all the great gift of voice and speech for fraternal relationship, thus achieving by the common and mutual statement of our thoughts a communion of our wills; and since she has tried in every way to narrow and tighten the bond of our union and kinship; since she has revealed in every possible manner her intention, not so much to associate us as to make us one organic whole, there can be no further doubt that we are all naturally free, inasmuch as we are all comrades. Accordingly it should not enter the mind of anyone that nature has placed some of us in slavery, since she has actually created us all in one likeness.
Therefore it is fruitless to argue whether or not liberty is natural, since none can be held in slavery without being wronged, and in a world governed by a nature, which is reasonable, there is nothing so contrary as an injustice. Since freedom is our natural state, we are not only in possession of it but have the urge to defend it. Now, if perchance some cast a doubt on this conclusion and are so corrupted that they are not able to recognize their rights and inborn tendencies, I shall have to do them the honor that is properly theirs and place, so to speak, brute beasts in the pulpit to throw light on their nature and condition, The very beasts, God help me! if men are not too deaf, cry out to them, "Long live Liberty!" Many among them die as soon as captured: just as the fish loses life as soon as he leaves the water, so do these creatures close their eyes upon the light and have no desire to survive the loss of their natural freedom. If the animals were to constitute their kingdom by rank, their nobility would be chosen from this type. Others, from the largest to the smallest, when captured put up such a strong resistance by means of claws, horns, beak, and paws, that they show clearly enough how they cling to what they are losing; afterwards in captivity they manifest by so many evident signs their awareness of their misfortune, that it is easy to see they are languishing rather than living, and continue their existence---more in lamentation of their lost freedom than in enjoyment of their servitude. What else can explain the behavior of the elephant who, after defending himself to the last ounce of his strength and knowing himself on the point of being taken, dashes his jaws against the trees and breaks his tusks, thus manifesting his longing to remain free as he has been and proving his wit and ability to buy off the huntsmen in the hope that through the sacrifice of his tusks he will be permitted to offer his ivory as a ransom for his liberty? We feed the horse from birth in order to train him to do our bidding. Yet he is tamed with such difficulty that when we begin to break him in he bites the bit, he rears at the touch of the spur, as if to reveal his instinct and show by his actions that, if he obeys, he does so not of his own free will but under constraint. What more can we say?
Even the oxen under the weight of the yoke complain,
And the birds in their cage lament,
as I expressed it some time ago, toying with our French poesy. For I shall not hesitate in writing to you, O Longa, to introduce some of my verses, which I never read to you because of your obvious encouragement which is quite likely to make me conceited. And now, since all beings, because they feel, suffer misery in subjection and long for liberty; since the very beasts, although made for the service of man, cannot become accustomed to control without protest, what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?
There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance. Those who have acquired power by means of war act in such wise that it is evident they rule over a conquered country. Those who are born to kingship are scarcely any better, because they are nourished on the breast of tyranny, suck in with their milk the instincts of the tyrant, and consider the people under them as their inherited serfs; and according to their individual disposition, miserly or prodigal, they treat their kingdom as their property. He who has received the state from the people, however, ought to be, it seems to me, more bearable and would be so, I think, were it not for the fact that as soon as he sees himself higher than the others, flattered by that quality which we call grandeur, he plans never to relinquish his position. Such a man usually determines to pass on to his children the authority that the people have conferred upon him; and once his heirs have taken this attitude, strange it is how far they surpass other tyrants in all sorts of vices, and especially in cruelty, because they find no other means to impose this new tyranny than by tightening control and removing their subjects so far from any notion of liberty that even if the memory of it is fresh it will soon be eradicated. Yet, to speak accurately, I do perceive that there is some difference among these three types of tyranny, but as for stating a preference, I cannot grant there is any. For although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of ruling is practically the same; those who are elected act as if they were breaking in bullocks; those who are conquerors make the people their prey; those who are heirs plan to treat them as if they were their natural slaves.
In connection with this, let us imagine some newborn individuals, neither acquainted with slavery nor desirous of liberty, ignorant indeed of the very words. If they were permitted to choose between being slaves and free men, to which would they give their vote? There can be no doubt that they would much prefer to be guided by reason itself than to be ordered about by the whims of a single man. The only possible exception might be the Israelites who, without any compulsion or need, appointed a tyrant.7 I can never read their history without becoming angered and even inhuman enough to find satisfaction in the many evils that befell them on this account. But certainly all men, as long as they remain men, before letting themselves become enslaved must either be driven by force or led into it by deception; conquered by foreign armies, as were Sparta and Athens by the forces of Alexander8 or by political factions, as when at an earlier period the control of Athens had passed into the hands of Pisistrates.9 When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves. This was the case with the people of Syracuse, chief city of Sicily when, in the throes of war and heedlessly planning only for the present danger, they promoted Denis,10 their first tyrant, by entrusting to him the command of the army, without realizing that they had given him such power that on his victorious return this worthy man would behave as if he had vanquished not his enemies but his compatriots, transforming himself from captain to king, and then from king to tyrant.11
It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born. There is, however, no heir so spendthrift or indifferent that he does not sometimes scan the account books of his father in order to see if he is enjoying all the privileges of his legacy or whether, perchance, his rights and those of his predecessor have not been encroached upon. Nevertheless it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection. It is said that Mithridates12 trained himself to drink poison. Like him we learn to swallow, and not to find bitter, the venom of servitude. It cannot be denied that nature is influential in shaping us to her will and making us reveal our rich or meager endowment; yet it must be admitted that she has less power over us than custom, for the reason that native endowment, no matter how good, is dissipated unless encouraged, whereas environment always shapes us in its own way, whatever that may be, in spite of nature's gifts. The good seed that nature plants in us is so slight and so slippery that it cannot withstand the least harm from wrong nourishment; it flourishes less easily, becomes spoiled, withers, and comes to nothing. Fruit trees retain their own particular quality if permitted to grow undisturbed, but lose it promptly and bear strange fruit not their own when ingrafted. Every herb has its peculiar characteristics, its virtues and properties; yet frost, weather, soil, or the gardener's hand increase or diminish its strength; the plant seen one spot cannot be recognized in another.
Whoever could have observed the early Venetians, a handful of people living so freely that the most wicked among them would not wish to be king over them, so born and trained that they would not vie with one another except as to which one could give the best counsel and nurture their liberty most carefully, so instructed and developed from their cradles that they would not exchange for all the other delights of the world an iota of their freedom; who, I say, familiar with the original nature of such a people, could visit today the territories of the man known as the Great Doge,13 and there contemplate with composure a people unwilling to live except to serve him, and maintaining his power at the cost of their lives? Who would believe that these two groups of people had an identical origin? Would one not rather conclude that upon leaving a city of men he had chanced upon a menagerie of beasts? Lycurgus,14 the lawgiver of Sparta, is reported to have reared two dogs of the same litter by fattening one in the kitchen and training the other in the fields to the sound of the bugle and the horn, thereby to demonstrate to the Lacedaemonians that men, too, develop according to their early habits. He set the two dogs in the open market place, and between them he placed a bowl of soup and a hare. One ran to the bowl of soup, the other to the hare; yet they were, as he maintained, born brothers of the same parents. In such manner did this leader, by his laws and customs, shape and instruct the Spartans so well that any one of them would sooner have died than acknowledge any sovereign other than law and reason.
It gives me pleasure to recall a conversation of the olden time between one of the favorites of Xerxes, the great king of Persia, and two Lacedaemonians. When Xerxes equipped his great army to conquer Greece, he sent his ambassadors into the Greek cities to ask for water and earth. That was the procedure the Persians adopted in summoning the cities to surrender. Neither to Athens nor to Sparta, however, did he dispatch such messengers, because those who had been sent there by Darius his father had been thrown, by the Athenians and Spartans, some into ditches and others into wells, with the invitation to help themselves freely there to water and soil to take back to their prince. Those Greeks could not permit even the slightest suggestion of encroachment upon their liberty. The Spartans suspected, nevertheless, that they had incurred the wrath of the gods by their action, and especially the wrath of Talthybios, the god of the heralds; in order to appease him they decided to send Xerxes two of their citizens in atonement for the cruel death inflicted upon the ambassadors of his father. Two Spartans, one named Sperte and the other Bulis, volunteered to offer themselves as a sacrifice. So they departed, and on the way they came to the palace of the Persian named Hydarnes, lieutenant of the king in all the Asiatic cities situated on the sea coasts. He received them with great honor, feasted them, and then, speaking of one thing and another, he asked them why they refused so obdurately his king's friendship. "Consider well, O Spartans," said he, "and realize by my example that the king knows how to honor those who are worthy, and believe that if you were his men he would do the same for you; if you belonged to him and he had known you, there is not one among you who might not be the lord of some Greek city."
"By such words, Hydarnes, you give us no good counsel," replied the Lacedaemonians, "because you have experienced merely the advantage of which you speak; you do not know the privilege we enjoy. You have the honor of the king's favor; but you know nothing about liberty, what relish it has and how sweet it is. For if you had any knowledge of it, you yourself would advise us to defend it, not with lance and shield, but with our very teeth and nails."
Only Spartans could give such an answer, and surely both of them spoke as they had been trained. It was impossible for the Persian to regret liberty, not having known it, nor for the Lacedaemonians to find subjection acceptable after having enjoyed freedom.
Cato the Utican, while still a child under the rod, could come and go in the house of Sylla the despot. Because of the place and family of his origin and because he and Sylla were close relatives, the door was never closed to him. He always had his teacher with him when he went there, as was the custom for children of noble birth. He noticed that in the house of Sylla, in the dictator's presence or at his command, some men were imprisoned and others sentenced; one was banished, another was strangled; one demanded the goods of another citizen, another his head; in short, all went there, not as to the house of a city magistrate but as to the people's tyrant, and this was therefore not a court of justice, but rather a resort of tyranny. Whereupon the young lad said to his teacher, "Why don't you give me a dagger? I will hide it under my robe. I often go into Sylla's room before he is risen, and my arm is strong enough to rid the city of him." There is a speech truly characteristic of Cato; it was a true beginning of this hero so worthy of his end. And should one not mention his name or his country, but state merely the fact as it is, the episode itself would speak eloquently, and anyone would divine that he was a Roman born in Rome at the time when she was free.
And why all this? Certainly not because I believe that the land or the region has anything to do with it, for in any place and in any climate subjection is bitter and to be free is pleasant; but merely because I am of the opinion that one should pity those who, at birth, arrive with the yoke upon their necks. We should exonerate and forgive them, since they have not seen even the shadow of liberty, and, being quite unaware of it, cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery. If there were actually a country like that of the Cimmerians mentioned by Homer,15 where the sun shines otherwise than on our own, shedding its radiance steadily for six successive months and then leaving humanity to drowse in obscurity until it returns at the end of another half-year, should we be surprised to learn that those born during this long night do grow so accustomed to their native darkness that unless they were told about the sun they would have no desire to see the light? One never pines for what he has never known; longing comes only after enjoyment and constitutes, amidst the experience of sorrow, the memory of past joy. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.
Let us therefore admit that all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to him which he receives with his primitive, untrained individuality. Thus custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings. Similarly men will grow accustomed to the idea that they have always been in subjection, that their fathers lived in the same way; they will think they are obliged to suffer this evil, and will persuade themselves by example and imitation of others, finally investing those who order them around with proprietary rights, based on the idea that it has always been that way.
There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.
The Grand Turk16 was well aware that books and teaching more than anything else give men the sense to comprehend their own nature and to detest tyranny. I understand that in his territory there are few educated people, for he does not want many. On account of this restriction, men of strong zeal and devotion, who in spite of the passing of time have preserved their love of freedom, still remain ineffective because, however numerous they may be, they are not known to one another; under the tyrant they have lost freedom of action, of speech, and almost of thought; they are alone in their aspiration. Indeed Momus, god of mockery, was not merely joking when he found this to criticize in the man fashioned by Vulcan, namely, that the maker had not set a little window in his creature's heart to render his thoughts visible. It is reported that Brutus, Cassius, and Casca, on undertaking to free Rome, and for that matter the whole world, refused to include in their band Cicero, that great enthusiast for the public welfare if ever there was one, because they considered his heart too timid for such a lofty deed; they trusted his willingness but they were none too sure of his courage. Yet whoever studies the deeds of earlier days and the annals of antiquity will find practically no instance of heroes who failed to deliver their country from evil hands when they set about their task with a firm, whole-hearted, and sincere intention. Liberty, as if to reveal her nature, seems to have given them new strength. Harmodios and Aristogiton, Thrasybulus, Brutus the Elder, Valerianus, and Dion achieved successfully what they planned virtuously: for hardly ever does good fortune fail a strong will. Brutus the Younger and Cassius were successful in eliminating servitude, and although they perished in their attempt to restore liberty, they did not die miserably (what blasphemy it would be to say there was anything miserable about these men, either in their death or in their living!).17 Their loss worked great harm, everlasting misfortune, and complete destruction of the Republic, which appears to have been buried with them. Other and later undertakings against the Roman emperors were merely plottings of ambitious people, who deserve no pity for the misfortunes that overtook them, for it is evident that they sought not to destroy, but merely to usurp the crown, scheming to drive away the tyrant, but to retain tyranny. For myself, I could not wish such men to propser and I am glad they have shown by their example that the sacred name of Liberty must never be used to cover a false enterprise.
But to come back to the thread of our discourse, which I have practically lost: the essential reason why men take orders willingly is that they are born serfs and are reared as such. From this cause there follows another result, namely that people easily become cowardly and submissive under tyrants. For this observation I am deeply grateful to Hippocrates, the renowned father of medicine, who noted and reported it in a treatise of his entitled Concerning Diseases. This famous man was certainly endowed with a great heart and proved it clearly by his reply to the Great King, who wanted to attach him to his person by means of special privileges and large gifts. Hippocrates answered frankly that it would be a weight on his conscience to make use of his science for the cure of barbarians who wished to slay his fellow Greeks, or to serve faithfully by his skill anyone who undertook to enslave Greece. The letter he sent the king can still be read among his other works and will forever testify to his great heart and noble character.
By this time it should be evident that liberty once lost, valor also perishes. A subject people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in combat: its men march sullenly to danger almost as if in bonds, and stultified; they do not feel throbbing within them that eagerness for liberty which engenders scorn of peril and imparts readiness to acquire honor and glory by a brave death amidst one's comrades. Among free men there is competition as to who will do most, each for the common good, each by himself, all expecting to share in the misfortunes of defeat, or in the benefits of victory; but an enslaved people loses in addition to this warlike courage, all signs of enthusiasm, for their hearts are degraded, submissive, and incapable of any great deed. Tyrants are well aware of this, and, in order to degrade their subjects further, encourage them to assume this attitude and make it instinctive.
Xenophon, grave historian of first rank among the Greeks, wrote a book in which he makes Simonides speak with Hieron, Tyrant of Syracuse, concerning the anxieties of the tyrant. This book is full of fine and serious remonstrances, which in my opinion are as persuasive as words can be. Would to God that all despots who have ever lived might have kept it before their eyes and used it as a mirror! I cannot believe they would have failed to recognize their warts and to have conceived some shame for their blotches. In this treatise is explained the torment in which tyrants find themselves when obliged to fear everyone because they do evil unto every man. Among other things we find the statement that bad kings employ foreigners in their wars and pay them, not daring to entrust weapons in the hands of their own people, whom they have wronged. (There have been good kings who have used mercenaries from foreign nations, even among the French, although more so formerly than today, but with the quite different purpose of preserving their own people, considering as nothing the loss of money in the effort to spare French lives. That is, I believe, what Scipio the great African meant when he said he would rather save one citizen than defeat a hundred enemies.) For it is plainly evident that the dictator does not consider his power firmly established until he has reached the point where there is no man under him who is of any worth. Therefore there may be justly applied to him the reproach to the master of the elephants made by Thrason and reported by Terence:
Are you indeed so proud
Because you command wild beasts?
This method tyrants use of stultifying their subjects cannot be more clearly observed than in what Cyrus did with the Lydians after he had taken Sardis, their chief city, and had at his mercy the captured Croesus, their fabulously rich king. When news was brought to him that the people of Sardis had rebelled, it would have been easy for him to reduce them by force; but being unwilling either to sack such a fine city or to maintain an army there to police it, he thought of an unusual expedient for reducing it. He established in it brothels, taverns, and public games, and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to enjoy them. He found this type of garrison so effective that he never again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. These wretched people enjoyed themselves inventing all kinds of games, so that the Latins have derived the word from them, and what we call pastimes they call ludi, as if they meant to say Lydi. Not all tyrants have manifested so clearly their intention to effeminize their victims; but in fact, what the aforementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into effect, most of the others have pursued secretly as an end. It is indeed the nature of the populace, whose density is always greater in the cities, to be suspicious toward one who has their welfare at heart, and gullible toward one who fools them. Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths. Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books. Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way---eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured. Nowadays I do not meet anyone who, on hearing mention of Nero, does not shudder at the very name of that hideous monster, that disgusting and vile pestilence. Yet when he died---when this incendiary, this executioner, this savage beast, died as vilely as he had lived---the noble Roman people, mindful of his games and his festivals, were saddened to the point of wearing mourning for him. Thus wrote Cornelius Tacitus, a competent and serious author, and one of the most reliable. This will not be considered peculiar in view of what this same people had previously done at the death of Julius Caesar, who had swept away their laws and their liberty, in whose character, it seems to me, there was nothing worth while, for his very liberality, which is so highly praised, was more baneful than the cruelest tyrant who ever existed, because it was actually this poisonous amiability of his that sweetened servitude for the Roman people. After his death, that people, still preserving on their palates the flavor of his banquets and in their minds the memory of his prodigality, vied with one another to pay him homage. They piled up the seats of the Forum for the great fire that reduced his body to ashes, and later raised a column to him as to "The Father of His People." (Such was the inscription on the capital.) They did him more honor, dead as he was, than they had any right to confer upon any man in the world, except perhaps on those who had killed him.
They didn't even neglect, these Roman emperors, to assume generally the title of Tribune of the People, partly because this office was held sacred and inviolable and also because it had been founded for the defense and protection of the people and enjoyed the favor of the state. By this means they made sure that the populace would trust them completely, as if they merely used the title and did not abuse it. Today there are some who do not behave very differently; they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good. You well know, O Longa, this formula which they use quite cleverly in certain places; although for the most part, to be sure, there cannot be cleverness where there is so much impudence. The kings of the Assyrians and even after them those of the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man, and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination for those things which they cannot judge by sight. Thus a great many nations who for a long time dwelt under the control of the Assyrians became accustomed, with all this mystery, to their own subjection, and submitted the more readily for not knowing what sort of master they had, or scarcely even if they had one, all of them fearing by report someone they had never seen. The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.
What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money? They believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases of the spleen; they even enhanced the tale further with the legend that this toe, after the corpse had been burned, was found among the ashes, untouched by the fire. In this wise a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them. Many men have recounted such things, but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were pieced together from idle gossip of the city and silly reports from the rabble. When Vespasian, returning from Assyria, passes through Alexandria on his way to Rome to take possession of the empire, he performs wonders: he makes the crippled straight, restores sight to the blind, and does many other fine things, concerning which the credulous and undiscriminating were, in my opinion, more blind than those cured. Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of divinity to bolster up their evil ways. If we are to believe the Sybil of Virgil, Salmoneus, in torment for having paraded as Jupiter in order to deceive the populace, now atones in nethermost Hell:
He suffered endless torment for having dared to
imitate
The thunderbolts of heaven and the flames of
Jupiter.
Upon a chariot drawn by four chargers he went,
unsteadily
Riding aloft, in his fist a great shining torch.
Among the Greeks and into the market-place
In the heart of the city of Elis he had ridden
boldly:
And displaying thus his vainglory he assumed
An honor which undeniably belongs to the gods
alone.
This fool who imitated storm and the inimitable
thunderbolt
By clash of brass and with his dizzying charge
On horn-hoofed steeds, the all-powerful Father
beheld,
Hurled not a torch, nor the feeble light
From a waxen taper with its smoky fumes,
But by the furious blast of thunder and lightning
He brought him low, his heels above his head.
If such a one, who in his time acted merely through the folly of insolence, is so well received in Hell, I think that those who have used religion as a cloak to hide their vileness will be even more deservedly lodged in the same place.
Our own leaders have employed in France certain similar devices, such as toads, fleurs-de-lys, sacred vessels, and standards with flames of gold. However that may be, I do not wish, for my part, to be incredulous, since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion up to now for skepticism. Our kings have always been so generous in times of peace and so valiant in time of war, that from birth they seem not to have been created by nature like many others, but even before birth to have been designated by Almighty God for the government and preservation of this kingdom. Even if this were not so, yet should I not enter the tilting ground to call in question the truth of our traditions, or to examine them so strictly as to take away their fine conceits. Here is such a field for our French poetry, now not merely honored but, it seems to me, reborn through our Rosnard, our Baif, our Bellay. These poets are defending our language so well that I dare to believe that very soon neither the Greeks nor the Latins will in this respect have any advantage over us except possibly that of seniority. And I should assuredly do wrong to our poesy---I like to use that word despite the fact that several have rhymed mechanically, for I still discern a number of men today capable of ennobling poetry and restoring it to its first lustre---but, as I say, I should do the Muse great injury if I deprived her now of those fine tales about. King Clovis, amongst which it seems to me I can already see how agreeably and how happily the inspiration of our Ronsard in his Frunciade will play. I appreciate his loftiness, I am aware of his keen spirit, and I know the charm of the man: he will appropriate the oriflamme to his use much as did the Romans their sacred bucklers and the shields cast from heaven to earth, according to Virgil. He will use our phial of holy oil much as the Athenians used the basket of Ericthonius; he will win applause for our deeds of valor as they did for their olive wreath which they insist can still be found in Minerva's tower. Certainly I should be presumptuous if I tried to cast slurs on our records and thus invade the realm of our poets.
But to return to our subject, the thread of which I have unwittingly lost in this discussion: it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration. Therefore all that I have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the inferior and common classes.
In the first place, all would agree that, if we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her, we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody. Concerning the obedience given instinctively to one's father and mother, we are in agreement, each one admitting himself to be a model. As to whether reason is born with us or not, that is a question loudly discussed by academicians and treated by all schools of philosophers. For the present I think I do not err in stating that there is in our souls some native seed of reason, which, if nourished by good counsel and training, flowers into virtue, but which, on the other hand, if unable to resist the vices surrounding it, is stifled and blighted. Yet surely if there is anything in this world clear and obvious, to which one cannot close one's eyes, it is the fact that nature, handmaiden of God, governess of men, has cast us all in the same mold in order that we may behold in one another companions, or rather brothers. If in distributing her gifts nature has favored some more than others with respect to body or spirit, she has nevertheless not planned to place us within this world as if it were a field of battle, and has not endowed the stronger or the cleverer in order that they may act like armed brigands in a forest and attack the weaker. One should rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and smaller shares to others, nature has intended to give occasion for brotherly love to become manifest, some of us having the strength to give help to others who are in need of it. Hence, since this kind mother has given us the whole world as a dwelling place, has lodged us in the same house, has fashioned us according to the same model so that in beholding one another we might almost recognize ourselves; since she has bestowed upon us all the great gift of voice and speech for fraternal relationship, thus achieving by the common and mutual statement of our thoughts a communion of our wills; and since she has tried in every way to narrow and tighten the bond of our union and kinship; since she has revealed in every possible manner her intention, not so much to associate us as to make us one organic whole, there can be no further doubt that we are all naturally free, inasmuch as we are all comrades. Accordingly it should not enter the mind of anyone that nature has placed some of us in slavery, since she has actually created us all in one likeness.
Therefore it is fruitless to argue whether or not liberty is natural, since none can be held in slavery without being wronged, and in a world governed by a nature, which is reasonable, there is nothing so contrary as an injustice. Since freedom is our natural state, we are not only in possession of it but have the urge to defend it. Now, if perchance some cast a doubt on this conclusion and are so corrupted that they are not able to recognize their rights and inborn tendencies, I shall have to do them the honor that is properly theirs and place, so to speak, brute beasts in the pulpit to throw light on their nature and condition, The very beasts, God help me! if men are not too deaf, cry out to them, "Long live Liberty!" Many among them die as soon as captured: just as the fish loses life as soon as he leaves the water, so do these creatures close their eyes upon the light and have no desire to survive the loss of their natural freedom. If the animals were to constitute their kingdom by rank, their nobility would be chosen from this type. Others, from the largest to the smallest, when captured put up such a strong resistance by means of claws, horns, beak, and paws, that they show clearly enough how they cling to what they are losing; afterwards in captivity they manifest by so many evident signs their awareness of their misfortune, that it is easy to see they are languishing rather than living, and continue their existence---more in lamentation of their lost freedom than in enjoyment of their servitude. What else can explain the behavior of the elephant who, after defending himself to the last ounce of his strength and knowing himself on the point of being taken, dashes his jaws against the trees and breaks his tusks, thus manifesting his longing to remain free as he has been and proving his wit and ability to buy off the huntsmen in the hope that through the sacrifice of his tusks he will be permitted to offer his ivory as a ransom for his liberty? We feed the horse from birth in order to train him to do our bidding. Yet he is tamed with such difficulty that when we begin to break him in he bites the bit, he rears at the touch of the spur, as if to reveal his instinct and show by his actions that, if he obeys, he does so not of his own free will but under constraint. What more can we say?
Even the oxen under the weight of the yoke complain,
And the birds in their cage lament,
as I expressed it some time ago, toying with our French poesy. For I shall not hesitate in writing to you, O Longa, to introduce some of my verses, which I never read to you because of your obvious encouragement which is quite likely to make me conceited. And now, since all beings, because they feel, suffer misery in subjection and long for liberty; since the very beasts, although made for the service of man, cannot become accustomed to control without protest, what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?
There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance. Those who have acquired power by means of war act in such wise that it is evident they rule over a conquered country. Those who are born to kingship are scarcely any better, because they are nourished on the breast of tyranny, suck in with their milk the instincts of the tyrant, and consider the people under them as their inherited serfs; and according to their individual disposition, miserly or prodigal, they treat their kingdom as their property. He who has received the state from the people, however, ought to be, it seems to me, more bearable and would be so, I think, were it not for the fact that as soon as he sees himself higher than the others, flattered by that quality which we call grandeur, he plans never to relinquish his position. Such a man usually determines to pass on to his children the authority that the people have conferred upon him; and once his heirs have taken this attitude, strange it is how far they surpass other tyrants in all sorts of vices, and especially in cruelty, because they find no other means to impose this new tyranny than by tightening control and removing their subjects so far from any notion of liberty that even if the memory of it is fresh it will soon be eradicated. Yet, to speak accurately, I do perceive that there is some difference among these three types of tyranny, but as for stating a preference, I cannot grant there is any. For although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of ruling is practically the same; those who are elected act as if they were breaking in bullocks; those who are conquerors make the people their prey; those who are heirs plan to treat them as if they were their natural slaves.
In connection with this, let us imagine some newborn individuals, neither acquainted with slavery nor desirous of liberty, ignorant indeed of the very words. If they were permitted to choose between being slaves and free men, to which would they give their vote? There can be no doubt that they would much prefer to be guided by reason itself than to be ordered about by the whims of a single man. The only possible exception might be the Israelites who, without any compulsion or need, appointed a tyrant.7 I can never read their history without becoming angered and even inhuman enough to find satisfaction in the many evils that befell them on this account. But certainly all men, as long as they remain men, before letting themselves become enslaved must either be driven by force or led into it by deception; conquered by foreign armies, as were Sparta and Athens by the forces of Alexander8 or by political factions, as when at an earlier period the control of Athens had passed into the hands of Pisistrates.9 When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves. This was the case with the people of Syracuse, chief city of Sicily when, in the throes of war and heedlessly planning only for the present danger, they promoted Denis,10 their first tyrant, by entrusting to him the command of the army, without realizing that they had given him such power that on his victorious return this worthy man would behave as if he had vanquished not his enemies but his compatriots, transforming himself from captain to king, and then from king to tyrant.11
It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born. There is, however, no heir so spendthrift or indifferent that he does not sometimes scan the account books of his father in order to see if he is enjoying all the privileges of his legacy or whether, perchance, his rights and those of his predecessor have not been encroached upon. Nevertheless it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection. It is said that Mithridates12 trained himself to drink poison. Like him we learn to swallow, and not to find bitter, the venom of servitude. It cannot be denied that nature is influential in shaping us to her will and making us reveal our rich or meager endowment; yet it must be admitted that she has less power over us than custom, for the reason that native endowment, no matter how good, is dissipated unless encouraged, whereas environment always shapes us in its own way, whatever that may be, in spite of nature's gifts. The good seed that nature plants in us is so slight and so slippery that it cannot withstand the least harm from wrong nourishment; it flourishes less easily, becomes spoiled, withers, and comes to nothing. Fruit trees retain their own particular quality if permitted to grow undisturbed, but lose it promptly and bear strange fruit not their own when ingrafted. Every herb has its peculiar characteristics, its virtues and properties; yet frost, weather, soil, or the gardener's hand increase or diminish its strength; the plant seen one spot cannot be recognized in another.
Whoever could have observed the early Venetians, a handful of people living so freely that the most wicked among them would not wish to be king over them, so born and trained that they would not vie with one another except as to which one could give the best counsel and nurture their liberty most carefully, so instructed and developed from their cradles that they would not exchange for all the other delights of the world an iota of their freedom; who, I say, familiar with the original nature of such a people, could visit today the territories of the man known as the Great Doge,13 and there contemplate with composure a people unwilling to live except to serve him, and maintaining his power at the cost of their lives? Who would believe that these two groups of people had an identical origin? Would one not rather conclude that upon leaving a city of men he had chanced upon a menagerie of beasts? Lycurgus,14 the lawgiver of Sparta, is reported to have reared two dogs of the same litter by fattening one in the kitchen and training the other in the fields to the sound of the bugle and the horn, thereby to demonstrate to the Lacedaemonians that men, too, develop according to their early habits. He set the two dogs in the open market place, and between them he placed a bowl of soup and a hare. One ran to the bowl of soup, the other to the hare; yet they were, as he maintained, born brothers of the same parents. In such manner did this leader, by his laws and customs, shape and instruct the Spartans so well that any one of them would sooner have died than acknowledge any sovereign other than law and reason.
It gives me pleasure to recall a conversation of the olden time between one of the favorites of Xerxes, the great king of Persia, and two Lacedaemonians. When Xerxes equipped his great army to conquer Greece, he sent his ambassadors into the Greek cities to ask for water and earth. That was the procedure the Persians adopted in summoning the cities to surrender. Neither to Athens nor to Sparta, however, did he dispatch such messengers, because those who had been sent there by Darius his father had been thrown, by the Athenians and Spartans, some into ditches and others into wells, with the invitation to help themselves freely there to water and soil to take back to their prince. Those Greeks could not permit even the slightest suggestion of encroachment upon their liberty. The Spartans suspected, nevertheless, that they had incurred the wrath of the gods by their action, and especially the wrath of Talthybios, the god of the heralds; in order to appease him they decided to send Xerxes two of their citizens in atonement for the cruel death inflicted upon the ambassadors of his father. Two Spartans, one named Sperte and the other Bulis, volunteered to offer themselves as a sacrifice. So they departed, and on the way they came to the palace of the Persian named Hydarnes, lieutenant of the king in all the Asiatic cities situated on the sea coasts. He received them with great honor, feasted them, and then, speaking of one thing and another, he asked them why they refused so obdurately his king's friendship. "Consider well, O Spartans," said he, "and realize by my example that the king knows how to honor those who are worthy, and believe that if you were his men he would do the same for you; if you belonged to him and he had known you, there is not one among you who might not be the lord of some Greek city."
"By such words, Hydarnes, you give us no good counsel," replied the Lacedaemonians, "because you have experienced merely the advantage of which you speak; you do not know the privilege we enjoy. You have the honor of the king's favor; but you know nothing about liberty, what relish it has and how sweet it is. For if you had any knowledge of it, you yourself would advise us to defend it, not with lance and shield, but with our very teeth and nails."
Only Spartans could give such an answer, and surely both of them spoke as they had been trained. It was impossible for the Persian to regret liberty, not having known it, nor for the Lacedaemonians to find subjection acceptable after having enjoyed freedom.
Cato the Utican, while still a child under the rod, could come and go in the house of Sylla the despot. Because of the place and family of his origin and because he and Sylla were close relatives, the door was never closed to him. He always had his teacher with him when he went there, as was the custom for children of noble birth. He noticed that in the house of Sylla, in the dictator's presence or at his command, some men were imprisoned and others sentenced; one was banished, another was strangled; one demanded the goods of another citizen, another his head; in short, all went there, not as to the house of a city magistrate but as to the people's tyrant, and this was therefore not a court of justice, but rather a resort of tyranny. Whereupon the young lad said to his teacher, "Why don't you give me a dagger? I will hide it under my robe. I often go into Sylla's room before he is risen, and my arm is strong enough to rid the city of him." There is a speech truly characteristic of Cato; it was a true beginning of this hero so worthy of his end. And should one not mention his name or his country, but state merely the fact as it is, the episode itself would speak eloquently, and anyone would divine that he was a Roman born in Rome at the time when she was free.
And why all this? Certainly not because I believe that the land or the region has anything to do with it, for in any place and in any climate subjection is bitter and to be free is pleasant; but merely because I am of the opinion that one should pity those who, at birth, arrive with the yoke upon their necks. We should exonerate and forgive them, since they have not seen even the shadow of liberty, and, being quite unaware of it, cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery. If there were actually a country like that of the Cimmerians mentioned by Homer,15 where the sun shines otherwise than on our own, shedding its radiance steadily for six successive months and then leaving humanity to drowse in obscurity until it returns at the end of another half-year, should we be surprised to learn that those born during this long night do grow so accustomed to their native darkness that unless they were told about the sun they would have no desire to see the light? One never pines for what he has never known; longing comes only after enjoyment and constitutes, amidst the experience of sorrow, the memory of past joy. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.
Let us therefore admit that all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to him which he receives with his primitive, untrained individuality. Thus custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings. Similarly men will grow accustomed to the idea that they have always been in subjection, that their fathers lived in the same way; they will think they are obliged to suffer this evil, and will persuade themselves by example and imitation of others, finally investing those who order them around with proprietary rights, based on the idea that it has always been that way.
There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.
The Grand Turk16 was well aware that books and teaching more than anything else give men the sense to comprehend their own nature and to detest tyranny. I understand that in his territory there are few educated people, for he does not want many. On account of this restriction, men of strong zeal and devotion, who in spite of the passing of time have preserved their love of freedom, still remain ineffective because, however numerous they may be, they are not known to one another; under the tyrant they have lost freedom of action, of speech, and almost of thought; they are alone in their aspiration. Indeed Momus, god of mockery, was not merely joking when he found this to criticize in the man fashioned by Vulcan, namely, that the maker had not set a little window in his creature's heart to render his thoughts visible. It is reported that Brutus, Cassius, and Casca, on undertaking to free Rome, and for that matter the whole world, refused to include in their band Cicero, that great enthusiast for the public welfare if ever there was one, because they considered his heart too timid for such a lofty deed; they trusted his willingness but they were none too sure of his courage. Yet whoever studies the deeds of earlier days and the annals of antiquity will find practically no instance of heroes who failed to deliver their country from evil hands when they set about their task with a firm, whole-hearted, and sincere intention. Liberty, as if to reveal her nature, seems to have given them new strength. Harmodios and Aristogiton, Thrasybulus, Brutus the Elder, Valerianus, and Dion achieved successfully what they planned virtuously: for hardly ever does good fortune fail a strong will. Brutus the Younger and Cassius were successful in eliminating servitude, and although they perished in their attempt to restore liberty, they did not die miserably (what blasphemy it would be to say there was anything miserable about these men, either in their death or in their living!).17 Their loss worked great harm, everlasting misfortune, and complete destruction of the Republic, which appears to have been buried with them. Other and later undertakings against the Roman emperors were merely plottings of ambitious people, who deserve no pity for the misfortunes that overtook them, for it is evident that they sought not to destroy, but merely to usurp the crown, scheming to drive away the tyrant, but to retain tyranny. For myself, I could not wish such men to propser and I am glad they have shown by their example that the sacred name of Liberty must never be used to cover a false enterprise.
But to come back to the thread of our discourse, which I have practically lost: the essential reason why men take orders willingly is that they are born serfs and are reared as such. From this cause there follows another result, namely that people easily become cowardly and submissive under tyrants. For this observation I am deeply grateful to Hippocrates, the renowned father of medicine, who noted and reported it in a treatise of his entitled Concerning Diseases. This famous man was certainly endowed with a great heart and proved it clearly by his reply to the Great King, who wanted to attach him to his person by means of special privileges and large gifts. Hippocrates answered frankly that it would be a weight on his conscience to make use of his science for the cure of barbarians who wished to slay his fellow Greeks, or to serve faithfully by his skill anyone who undertook to enslave Greece. The letter he sent the king can still be read among his other works and will forever testify to his great heart and noble character.
By this time it should be evident that liberty once lost, valor also perishes. A subject people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in combat: its men march sullenly to danger almost as if in bonds, and stultified; they do not feel throbbing within them that eagerness for liberty which engenders scorn of peril and imparts readiness to acquire honor and glory by a brave death amidst one's comrades. Among free men there is competition as to who will do most, each for the common good, each by himself, all expecting to share in the misfortunes of defeat, or in the benefits of victory; but an enslaved people loses in addition to this warlike courage, all signs of enthusiasm, for their hearts are degraded, submissive, and incapable of any great deed. Tyrants are well aware of this, and, in order to degrade their subjects further, encourage them to assume this attitude and make it instinctive.
Xenophon, grave historian of first rank among the Greeks, wrote a book in which he makes Simonides speak with Hieron, Tyrant of Syracuse, concerning the anxieties of the tyrant. This book is full of fine and serious remonstrances, which in my opinion are as persuasive as words can be. Would to God that all despots who have ever lived might have kept it before their eyes and used it as a mirror! I cannot believe they would have failed to recognize their warts and to have conceived some shame for their blotches. In this treatise is explained the torment in which tyrants find themselves when obliged to fear everyone because they do evil unto every man. Among other things we find the statement that bad kings employ foreigners in their wars and pay them, not daring to entrust weapons in the hands of their own people, whom they have wronged. (There have been good kings who have used mercenaries from foreign nations, even among the French, although more so formerly than today, but with the quite different purpose of preserving their own people, considering as nothing the loss of money in the effort to spare French lives. That is, I believe, what Scipio the great African meant when he said he would rather save one citizen than defeat a hundred enemies.) For it is plainly evident that the dictator does not consider his power firmly established until he has reached the point where there is no man under him who is of any worth. Therefore there may be justly applied to him the reproach to the master of the elephants made by Thrason and reported by Terence:
Are you indeed so proud
Because you command wild beasts?
This method tyrants use of stultifying their subjects cannot be more clearly observed than in what Cyrus did with the Lydians after he had taken Sardis, their chief city, and had at his mercy the captured Croesus, their fabulously rich king. When news was brought to him that the people of Sardis had rebelled, it would have been easy for him to reduce them by force; but being unwilling either to sack such a fine city or to maintain an army there to police it, he thought of an unusual expedient for reducing it. He established in it brothels, taverns, and public games, and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to enjoy them. He found this type of garrison so effective that he never again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. These wretched people enjoyed themselves inventing all kinds of games, so that the Latins have derived the word from them, and what we call pastimes they call ludi, as if they meant to say Lydi. Not all tyrants have manifested so clearly their intention to effeminize their victims; but in fact, what the aforementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into effect, most of the others have pursued secretly as an end. It is indeed the nature of the populace, whose density is always greater in the cities, to be suspicious toward one who has their welfare at heart, and gullible toward one who fools them. Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths. Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books. Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way---eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured. Nowadays I do not meet anyone who, on hearing mention of Nero, does not shudder at the very name of that hideous monster, that disgusting and vile pestilence. Yet when he died---when this incendiary, this executioner, this savage beast, died as vilely as he had lived---the noble Roman people, mindful of his games and his festivals, were saddened to the point of wearing mourning for him. Thus wrote Cornelius Tacitus, a competent and serious author, and one of the most reliable. This will not be considered peculiar in view of what this same people had previously done at the death of Julius Caesar, who had swept away their laws and their liberty, in whose character, it seems to me, there was nothing worth while, for his very liberality, which is so highly praised, was more baneful than the cruelest tyrant who ever existed, because it was actually this poisonous amiability of his that sweetened servitude for the Roman people. After his death, that people, still preserving on their palates the flavor of his banquets and in their minds the memory of his prodigality, vied with one another to pay him homage. They piled up the seats of the Forum for the great fire that reduced his body to ashes, and later raised a column to him as to "The Father of His People." (Such was the inscription on the capital.) They did him more honor, dead as he was, than they had any right to confer upon any man in the world, except perhaps on those who had killed him.
They didn't even neglect, these Roman emperors, to assume generally the title of Tribune of the People, partly because this office was held sacred and inviolable and also because it had been founded for the defense and protection of the people and enjoyed the favor of the state. By this means they made sure that the populace would trust them completely, as if they merely used the title and did not abuse it. Today there are some who do not behave very differently; they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good. You well know, O Longa, this formula which they use quite cleverly in certain places; although for the most part, to be sure, there cannot be cleverness where there is so much impudence. The kings of the Assyrians and even after them those of the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man, and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination for those things which they cannot judge by sight. Thus a great many nations who for a long time dwelt under the control of the Assyrians became accustomed, with all this mystery, to their own subjection, and submitted the more readily for not knowing what sort of master they had, or scarcely even if they had one, all of them fearing by report someone they had never seen. The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.
What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money? They believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases of the spleen; they even enhanced the tale further with the legend that this toe, after the corpse had been burned, was found among the ashes, untouched by the fire. In this wise a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them. Many men have recounted such things, but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were pieced together from idle gossip of the city and silly reports from the rabble. When Vespasian, returning from Assyria, passes through Alexandria on his way to Rome to take possession of the empire, he performs wonders: he makes the crippled straight, restores sight to the blind, and does many other fine things, concerning which the credulous and undiscriminating were, in my opinion, more blind than those cured. Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of divinity to bolster up their evil ways. If we are to believe the Sybil of Virgil, Salmoneus, in torment for having paraded as Jupiter in order to deceive the populace, now atones in nethermost Hell:
He suffered endless torment for having dared to
imitate
The thunderbolts of heaven and the flames of
Jupiter.
Upon a chariot drawn by four chargers he went,
unsteadily
Riding aloft, in his fist a great shining torch.
Among the Greeks and into the market-place
In the heart of the city of Elis he had ridden
boldly:
And displaying thus his vainglory he assumed
An honor which undeniably belongs to the gods
alone.
This fool who imitated storm and the inimitable
thunderbolt
By clash of brass and with his dizzying charge
On horn-hoofed steeds, the all-powerful Father
beheld,
Hurled not a torch, nor the feeble light
From a waxen taper with its smoky fumes,
But by the furious blast of thunder and lightning
He brought him low, his heels above his head.
If such a one, who in his time acted merely through the folly of insolence, is so well received in Hell, I think that those who have used religion as a cloak to hide their vileness will be even more deservedly lodged in the same place.
Our own leaders have employed in France certain similar devices, such as toads, fleurs-de-lys, sacred vessels, and standards with flames of gold. However that may be, I do not wish, for my part, to be incredulous, since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion up to now for skepticism. Our kings have always been so generous in times of peace and so valiant in time of war, that from birth they seem not to have been created by nature like many others, but even before birth to have been designated by Almighty God for the government and preservation of this kingdom. Even if this were not so, yet should I not enter the tilting ground to call in question the truth of our traditions, or to examine them so strictly as to take away their fine conceits. Here is such a field for our French poetry, now not merely honored but, it seems to me, reborn through our Rosnard, our Baif, our Bellay. These poets are defending our language so well that I dare to believe that very soon neither the Greeks nor the Latins will in this respect have any advantage over us except possibly that of seniority. And I should assuredly do wrong to our poesy---I like to use that word despite the fact that several have rhymed mechanically, for I still discern a number of men today capable of ennobling poetry and restoring it to its first lustre---but, as I say, I should do the Muse great injury if I deprived her now of those fine tales about. King Clovis, amongst which it seems to me I can already see how agreeably and how happily the inspiration of our Ronsard in his Frunciade will play. I appreciate his loftiness, I am aware of his keen spirit, and I know the charm of the man: he will appropriate the oriflamme to his use much as did the Romans their sacred bucklers and the shields cast from heaven to earth, according to Virgil. He will use our phial of holy oil much as the Athenians used the basket of Ericthonius; he will win applause for our deeds of valor as they did for their olive wreath which they insist can still be found in Minerva's tower. Certainly I should be presumptuous if I tried to cast slurs on our records and thus invade the realm of our poets.
But to return to our subject, the thread of which I have unwittingly lost in this discussion: it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration. Therefore all that I have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the inferior and common classes.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie - Part I
"I see no good in having several lords;
Let one alone be master, let one alone be king."
THESE WORDS Homer puts in the mouth of Ulysses,1 as he addresses the people. If he had said nothing further than "I see no good in having several lords," it would have been well spoken. For the sake of logic he should have maintained that the rule of several could not be good since the power of one man alone, as soon as he acquires the title of master, becomes abusive and unreasonable. Instead he declared what seems preposterous: "Let one alone be master, let one alone be king." We must not be critical of Ulysses, who at the moment was perhaps obliged to speak these words in order to quell a mutiny in the army, for this reason, in my opinion, choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Yet, in the light of reason, it is a great misfortune to be at the beck and call of one master, for it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be kind, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As for having several masters, according to the number one has, it amounts to being that many times unfortunate. Although I do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated question, namely whether other types of government are preferable to monarchy,2 still I should like to know, before casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths, whether or not it belongs to such a group, since it is hard to believe that there is anything of common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. This question, however, can remain for another time and would really require a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts of political discussion.
FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants3 one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.
Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it. Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he may do evil. Certainly while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed.
But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?
Place on one side fifty thousand armed men, and on the other the same number; let them join in battle, one side fighting to retain its liberty, the other to take it away; to which would you, at a guess, promise victory? Which men do you think would march more gallantly to combat---those who anticipate as a reward for their suffering the maintenance of their freedom, or those who cannot expect any other prize for the blows exchanged than the enslavement of others? One side will have before its eyes the blessings of the past and the hope of similar joy in the future; their thoughts will dwell less on the comparatively brief pain of battle than on what they may have to endure forever, they, their children, and all their posterity. The other side has nothing to inspire it with courage except the weak urge of greed, which fades before danger and which can never be so keen, it seems to me, that it will not be dismayed by the least drop of blood from wounds. Consider the justly famous battles of Miltiades,4 Leonidas,5 Themistocles,6 still fresh today in recorded history and in the minds of men as if they had occurred but yesterday, battles fought in Greece for the welfare of the Greeks and as an example to the world. What power do you think gave to such a mere handful of men not the strength but the courage to withstand the attack of a fleet so vast that even the seas were burdened, and to defeat the armies of so many nations, armies so immense that their officers alone outnumbered the entire Greek force? What was it but the fact that in those glorious days this struggle represented not so much a fight of Greeks against Persians as a victory of liberty over domination, of freedom over greed?
It amazes us to hear accounts of the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts of those who defend it; but who could believe reports of what goes on every day among the inhabitants of some countries, who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? Who would credit such a report if he merely heard it, without being present to witness the event? And if this condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us, which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented, and not really true? Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?
Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a flame. Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering. It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented. Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.
Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows---to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?
Let one alone be master, let one alone be king."
THESE WORDS Homer puts in the mouth of Ulysses,1 as he addresses the people. If he had said nothing further than "I see no good in having several lords," it would have been well spoken. For the sake of logic he should have maintained that the rule of several could not be good since the power of one man alone, as soon as he acquires the title of master, becomes abusive and unreasonable. Instead he declared what seems preposterous: "Let one alone be master, let one alone be king." We must not be critical of Ulysses, who at the moment was perhaps obliged to speak these words in order to quell a mutiny in the army, for this reason, in my opinion, choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Yet, in the light of reason, it is a great misfortune to be at the beck and call of one master, for it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be kind, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As for having several masters, according to the number one has, it amounts to being that many times unfortunate. Although I do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated question, namely whether other types of government are preferable to monarchy,2 still I should like to know, before casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths, whether or not it belongs to such a group, since it is hard to believe that there is anything of common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. This question, however, can remain for another time and would really require a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts of political discussion.
FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants3 one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.
Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it. Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he may do evil. Certainly while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed.
But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?
Place on one side fifty thousand armed men, and on the other the same number; let them join in battle, one side fighting to retain its liberty, the other to take it away; to which would you, at a guess, promise victory? Which men do you think would march more gallantly to combat---those who anticipate as a reward for their suffering the maintenance of their freedom, or those who cannot expect any other prize for the blows exchanged than the enslavement of others? One side will have before its eyes the blessings of the past and the hope of similar joy in the future; their thoughts will dwell less on the comparatively brief pain of battle than on what they may have to endure forever, they, their children, and all their posterity. The other side has nothing to inspire it with courage except the weak urge of greed, which fades before danger and which can never be so keen, it seems to me, that it will not be dismayed by the least drop of blood from wounds. Consider the justly famous battles of Miltiades,4 Leonidas,5 Themistocles,6 still fresh today in recorded history and in the minds of men as if they had occurred but yesterday, battles fought in Greece for the welfare of the Greeks and as an example to the world. What power do you think gave to such a mere handful of men not the strength but the courage to withstand the attack of a fleet so vast that even the seas were burdened, and to defeat the armies of so many nations, armies so immense that their officers alone outnumbered the entire Greek force? What was it but the fact that in those glorious days this struggle represented not so much a fight of Greeks against Persians as a victory of liberty over domination, of freedom over greed?
It amazes us to hear accounts of the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts of those who defend it; but who could believe reports of what goes on every day among the inhabitants of some countries, who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? Who would credit such a report if he merely heard it, without being present to witness the event? And if this condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us, which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented, and not really true? Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?
Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a flame. Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering. It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented. Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.
Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows---to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
GA Montazeri passed away
GA Montazeri, the prominent dissident just passed away.
he was a cleric. one of the influential figures of revolution. a cleric, writer and later he showed his human right activist side.
if he had not the same effect as the Founder of revolution on 1979 event, he's definitely the second in line. he fought hard and bravely against Pahvlavi's and spent sometimes in prison too. he was the right hand of GA Khomeini who led Iran to revolution. however, during late 80's (89) he fell out of favour with Leader at time and the founder of revolution. at that time, when mass execution of dissident started, he was almost the only one who stood up against it and he later started his house arrest and was banned from teaching and preaching.
at first look, it might look silly i am writing about him, as we have the least in common. me being someone who keeps his beliefs to himself and he, a true god believer and someone who worked all his life to fight for it and promote it. as a matter of fact we have an important thing in common, and that was the strive and passion for freedom from oppression. he supported the dissident activists all these years. he never stop criticising the government and false divinity of a leader. he stood up against the execution of dissidents and paid the price but never backed down. he stayed true to it and did so until the last minute. may he rest in peace.
i hope i could do the same and can make a difference, though very little.
he was a cleric. one of the influential figures of revolution. a cleric, writer and later he showed his human right activist side.
if he had not the same effect as the Founder of revolution on 1979 event, he's definitely the second in line. he fought hard and bravely against Pahvlavi's and spent sometimes in prison too. he was the right hand of GA Khomeini who led Iran to revolution. however, during late 80's (89) he fell out of favour with Leader at time and the founder of revolution. at that time, when mass execution of dissident started, he was almost the only one who stood up against it and he later started his house arrest and was banned from teaching and preaching.
at first look, it might look silly i am writing about him, as we have the least in common. me being someone who keeps his beliefs to himself and he, a true god believer and someone who worked all his life to fight for it and promote it. as a matter of fact we have an important thing in common, and that was the strive and passion for freedom from oppression. he supported the dissident activists all these years. he never stop criticising the government and false divinity of a leader. he stood up against the execution of dissidents and paid the price but never backed down. he stayed true to it and did so until the last minute. may he rest in peace.
i hope i could do the same and can make a difference, though very little.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
our part in our future
have any of us thought about how much did we contribute to the failure of last reform movement? did we do enough? did we play our part, and did we play it right? i hope there are at least few who have though about these questions or other questions that i haven’t ask?
i believe what we need to realize is that one person, can only do so much and our net president if he’s the one we want ca only provide the chance, the rest is up to us to use it.
we people, as the social units, have a huge role to play and unless we play it right, there would not be much hope and a president and it’s administration cannot change.
why? simply for the fact that we undo the effects of government’s efforts. Khatami, at least from economic perspective, did a huge job. Iran masterminded the return of OPEC. financially we were sound and had reserve with oil price of 7-10 us$ per barrel (OPEC revival resulted in see a rise in oil prices). cultural activities saw a boost during that time. his administration unearthed the intellectuals serial massacre. he made the interior Minster to resign and replaced him, the one who is now attorney general and has a lot of power. he he’s mistakes as well. for one he didn’t manage the expectations well.
other instance of our (as individuals) effect on government efforts are, is situation of driving in Iran. i am sure there is simply too many complaining about situation and are not happy. they might say, well there’s no rules! well my friends you are wrong. there are rules. the signs are rules. the no parking sign is a rule, which one chooses to break it. and when s/he is fined for breaking the rule, they curse and insult the police.
i was in Libya for 6 months for work and i had too much time not to think about certain issues and observe their habits and compare it to ourselves (which most might think they are inferiors and we are the supreme ones) and the result is depressing and shocking. Libya is known for having it’s driving codes and regulation established and into effect only recently. few years back. anything goes there as long as the car passes. but is that any different in Tehran? or up north? down south? no
i find them (in general and not all of them) extremely lazy and they can pass two three weeks without working. how are we compared to them? how can we claim we are one the sharpest races when we only use less than 40 minutes a day of that genius gene during a day. how intolerable we are when it comes down to other ethnicities.
most of us simply don’t hesitate to talk shit behind others back even if we haven’t even seen the subjects of the gossip! how lame?
we are racist as much as they are! intolerant as much as they are!
we are like them. i refuse to be like them so i have to refuse being an Iranian, but i can’t. i can’t because i simply see no divide between me and that soil. it is important for me as it is to all of others. but we need to change as much as our government needs to change. change starts here, from within. anything other than that is a painkiller but not a cure. o am surely looking forward to better days and peaceful time. looking forward to that day that i travel to another country and they respect me not because i am a muslim but because i am an Iranian.
i still am a proud Iranian, but it had caused me some troubles even in Libya!
i hope the tax i pay is spent in Iran to improve the situation of my own people, rather than thousands of miles away in no man’s land to blow up the enemy and be therefore a cause for Palestinian children loss of life.
i believe what we need to realize is that one person, can only do so much and our net president if he’s the one we want ca only provide the chance, the rest is up to us to use it.
we people, as the social units, have a huge role to play and unless we play it right, there would not be much hope and a president and it’s administration cannot change.
why? simply for the fact that we undo the effects of government’s efforts. Khatami, at least from economic perspective, did a huge job. Iran masterminded the return of OPEC. financially we were sound and had reserve with oil price of 7-10 us$ per barrel (OPEC revival resulted in see a rise in oil prices). cultural activities saw a boost during that time. his administration unearthed the intellectuals serial massacre. he made the interior Minster to resign and replaced him, the one who is now attorney general and has a lot of power. he he’s mistakes as well. for one he didn’t manage the expectations well.
other instance of our (as individuals) effect on government efforts are, is situation of driving in Iran. i am sure there is simply too many complaining about situation and are not happy. they might say, well there’s no rules! well my friends you are wrong. there are rules. the signs are rules. the no parking sign is a rule, which one chooses to break it. and when s/he is fined for breaking the rule, they curse and insult the police.
i was in Libya for 6 months for work and i had too much time not to think about certain issues and observe their habits and compare it to ourselves (which most might think they are inferiors and we are the supreme ones) and the result is depressing and shocking. Libya is known for having it’s driving codes and regulation established and into effect only recently. few years back. anything goes there as long as the car passes. but is that any different in Tehran? or up north? down south? no
i find them (in general and not all of them) extremely lazy and they can pass two three weeks without working. how are we compared to them? how can we claim we are one the sharpest races when we only use less than 40 minutes a day of that genius gene during a day. how intolerable we are when it comes down to other ethnicities.
most of us simply don’t hesitate to talk shit behind others back even if we haven’t even seen the subjects of the gossip! how lame?
we are racist as much as they are! intolerant as much as they are!
we are like them. i refuse to be like them so i have to refuse being an Iranian, but i can’t. i can’t because i simply see no divide between me and that soil. it is important for me as it is to all of others. but we need to change as much as our government needs to change. change starts here, from within. anything other than that is a painkiller but not a cure. o am surely looking forward to better days and peaceful time. looking forward to that day that i travel to another country and they respect me not because i am a muslim but because i am an Iranian.
i still am a proud Iranian, but it had caused me some troubles even in Libya!
i hope the tax i pay is spent in Iran to improve the situation of my own people, rather than thousands of miles away in no man’s land to blow up the enemy and be therefore a cause for Palestinian children loss of life.
elections
being thousand miles away simply doesn't help. it's election time and i find myself even more anxious than 12 years ago when khatami was elected for te first time. the energy amongst people especially the youth was fantastic. it was so full of hope. although, i believe, the expectations were somehow way off the reality and people expected some founadmental changes, which were far from reality and expectation management is simply not there, but one thnig was obvious and that was how hope brought the people together and brought them to life. the vibes changed.
we have a immensly difficult task in front of us for change. now we need foundamental change and that change starts within. we as individual need and have to change. our manners, way of life shall change or we are doomed. we need to live responsibly and enjoy it responsibly. people need to realise that one person can only do so much. the rest is up to us.
my hope is for a reformist to be elected, which one i still don't know. and if there would be a run off, then i am looking forward to see two reformists be selected. i crave to see ahmadinejad get less than 10% of the votes (is it a "dream on boy" wish?)
we have a immensly difficult task in front of us for change. now we need foundamental change and that change starts within. we as individual need and have to change. our manners, way of life shall change or we are doomed. we need to live responsibly and enjoy it responsibly. people need to realise that one person can only do so much. the rest is up to us.
my hope is for a reformist to be elected, which one i still don't know. and if there would be a run off, then i am looking forward to see two reformists be selected. i crave to see ahmadinejad get less than 10% of the votes (is it a "dream on boy" wish?)
Thursday, April 9, 2009
political incarnation
i was reading the news today to quench my political thirst, that i came to an article on Iran-US relations. the position that Iranians had taken had gone from firm and righteous stance to a lame and ridiculous one!
previously, during bush time, Iranian were saying that they will negotiate if only there's no preconditions. it has been one thing that i was in agreement with our current government. there should not be any preconditions for negotiations. it seems that new US office had reconsidered their stance and not only there would not be any preconditions now to negotiate with Iran, but also Obama sends a new year message to Iranians, not excluding the Government.
now what is our politicians response to that change of rhetoric? they now have preconditions for negotiations! i don't really care whether we have relations with US? Having relations will make life easier but if there are no relations then life is not impossible.
one thing that our politicians are missing, is that time for clever plays and get ride for free is over. just as bush could get to nowhere for free and seeing the world from a defiant eye, Iranians can't as well. now US has a world behind his policies. they are now really leaders with consent of others.
i'm afraid the bush's soul had been in to pieces and each piece had reincarnated in Iranian politicians body!
previously, during bush time, Iranian were saying that they will negotiate if only there's no preconditions. it has been one thing that i was in agreement with our current government. there should not be any preconditions for negotiations. it seems that new US office had reconsidered their stance and not only there would not be any preconditions now to negotiate with Iran, but also Obama sends a new year message to Iranians, not excluding the Government.
now what is our politicians response to that change of rhetoric? they now have preconditions for negotiations! i don't really care whether we have relations with US? Having relations will make life easier but if there are no relations then life is not impossible.
one thing that our politicians are missing, is that time for clever plays and get ride for free is over. just as bush could get to nowhere for free and seeing the world from a defiant eye, Iranians can't as well. now US has a world behind his policies. they are now really leaders with consent of others.
i'm afraid the bush's soul had been in to pieces and each piece had reincarnated in Iranian politicians body!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
new US administration
i have been following the news on obama and his team after election. he's been already criticised for what he have not done and have been blamed for financial aid mess, where it has often been overlooked that the financial aid package was implemented by previous administration.
regardless of all that, i believe he had shown sparks of brilliance and (i can say) i believe he is leading the US to greater times. it would be a different US than we all have seen from 80's onward ( my info about pre-80's era is too little to include it here).
regardless of all that, i believe he had shown sparks of brilliance and (i can say) i believe he is leading the US to greater times. it would be a different US than we all have seen from 80's onward ( my info about pre-80's era is too little to include it here).
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
nuclear threat of iran
it's funny how politics work and how much in fact it is affected by economic drives, specially lobbying, tradition, etc.
for instance, the nuclear stand off between iran and US-EU alliance lately coupled with arab nations of persian gulf and middle east. they have been putting so much effort on having iran abandon it's nuclear programme and how iran is a threat to regions stability and the worlds safety. so many sanctions that had made our life, and specially our life as iranians more miserable. these are all where, next door in pakistan, one of the most politically fragile governments, they own nuclear facilities, had clearly stated that they are not in favour of demolishing nuclear weapons by not joining NPT, they own ready to use nuclear heads, they recently recognised the so called "Taliban" group of murderers and gave them authority, who could at anytime launch an attack on the nuclear facilities and steal nuclear warheads! and yet iran is the danger to world and middle east? am i missing something?
for instance, the nuclear stand off between iran and US-EU alliance lately coupled with arab nations of persian gulf and middle east. they have been putting so much effort on having iran abandon it's nuclear programme and how iran is a threat to regions stability and the worlds safety. so many sanctions that had made our life, and specially our life as iranians more miserable. these are all where, next door in pakistan, one of the most politically fragile governments, they own nuclear facilities, had clearly stated that they are not in favour of demolishing nuclear weapons by not joining NPT, they own ready to use nuclear heads, they recently recognised the so called "Taliban" group of murderers and gave them authority, who could at anytime launch an attack on the nuclear facilities and steal nuclear warheads! and yet iran is the danger to world and middle east? am i missing something?
devided nations
observing UN for sometime now and how they come to a dead end recently on most of the issues and the fact that they don't really act as if they have any authorities whatsoever, i suggest we change the name to Divided Nations so there would be no more confusions and the most importantly no expectations!
where are all the warriors?
after more or less three months, UN managed to issue a report on Ghaza offensive and surprisingly condemn Israel! (see http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/23/israel.gaza.un.report/index.html )
so unlikely of the "sacred whore" called UN!
what was more shocking was the content of the report where it says: "on January 15, in a town southwest of Gaza City, Israel Defense Forces soldiers ordered an 11-year-old boy to open Palestinians' packages, presumably so that the soldiers would not be hurt if they turned out to contain explosives, the 43-page report said."
this is not to forget that Hamas also used human shield. how chicken one can be to use another life to protect himself?
well done soldiers, if i could call you soldiers. you sound more of a chicken than a soldier. there was a time that soldiers would have gone to distances to save a life. now, they rather see others die! where are all the warriors?
your existance is only sad and sick.
so unlikely of the "sacred whore" called UN!
what was more shocking was the content of the report where it says: "on January 15, in a town southwest of Gaza City, Israel Defense Forces soldiers ordered an 11-year-old boy to open Palestinians' packages, presumably so that the soldiers would not be hurt if they turned out to contain explosives, the 43-page report said."
this is not to forget that Hamas also used human shield. how chicken one can be to use another life to protect himself?
well done soldiers, if i could call you soldiers. you sound more of a chicken than a soldier. there was a time that soldiers would have gone to distances to save a life. now, they rather see others die! where are all the warriors?
your existance is only sad and sick.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
presidential candidacy
i read today that Khatami former iranian president (before ahmadinejad) had decided not to run for presidency. it was a bad news on my own personal terms. i personally trust him and finds him a good man and someone who is fit for the office.
he will now be supporting the former vice president Mousavi i believe. he had already said only one of the two would run for presidency and since Mousavi is insisting on candidacy, he will resign but will help the campaign. it could however be a good. Mousavi is also moderate and reformist with less resistance from hardliners. so he might have a slightly better environment to work at.
i wanted so much for Khatami to run for election and i would have liked to work for his campaign. now, i am not sure. i feel a bit deflated, which is not a good sign.
he will now be supporting the former vice president Mousavi i believe. he had already said only one of the two would run for presidency and since Mousavi is insisting on candidacy, he will resign but will help the campaign. it could however be a good. Mousavi is also moderate and reformist with less resistance from hardliners. so he might have a slightly better environment to work at.
i wanted so much for Khatami to run for election and i would have liked to work for his campaign. now, i am not sure. i feel a bit deflated, which is not a good sign.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
oppressed (mos'taz'afaan)
my mind is pretty busy with upcoming elections and can say i monitor it as close as i can through the media, only though. today i read that mr. Mousavi, a foundamentalist but a reformist, had announced his candidacy. he's somewhere in between. not a reformist but a reformist, with values of fundamentalism but a fundamentalist!
he's a reasonable individual. i don't know if how he handled the situation, at the time he was prime minister, was the best and we sure did suffered, but it worth considering we were in war and even tehran which was 1000 kilometers away from baghdad, was being bombarded and missiled.
i read part of his candidacy announcement article today. it was a flash back to 20+ years ago. here's what he said:
مهندس موسوي در اين بيانيه با اشاره به اين موضوع که "مستضعفان مطمئنترين پايگاه براي ارزشهاي برآمده از انقلاب اسلامي هستند" تلاش کرده است بر نقش ميانه خود در ارزشهاي اصلاح طلبي و اصولگرايي تاکيد ورزد.
(link to article here)
translation: mr. Mousavi stated that oppressed (mos'taz'afaan) are the most reliable base for revolutionary values (to protect them) and he had emphasized on his balanced approach toward fundamentalism and reforms.
the phrase was very discomforting and disturbing. what's not clear here is the definition of oppressed.
30 years ago, by the time of revolution we had a definition of oppressed, which could be very different from what we have today. there's a senselessness in the phrase. the profile of oppressed had changed. i wonder whether he understands that or not. that's what i am scared of. someone living in 20 + years ago who intends to run for presidency. however, at the end i think he would do a much better job than the incumbent!
he's a reasonable individual. i don't know if how he handled the situation, at the time he was prime minister, was the best and we sure did suffered, but it worth considering we were in war and even tehran which was 1000 kilometers away from baghdad, was being bombarded and missiled.
i read part of his candidacy announcement article today. it was a flash back to 20+ years ago. here's what he said:
مهندس موسوي در اين بيانيه با اشاره به اين موضوع که "مستضعفان مطمئنترين پايگاه براي ارزشهاي برآمده از انقلاب اسلامي هستند" تلاش کرده است بر نقش ميانه خود در ارزشهاي اصلاح طلبي و اصولگرايي تاکيد ورزد.
(link to article here)
translation: mr. Mousavi stated that oppressed (mos'taz'afaan) are the most reliable base for revolutionary values (to protect them) and he had emphasized on his balanced approach toward fundamentalism and reforms.
the phrase was very discomforting and disturbing. what's not clear here is the definition of oppressed.
30 years ago, by the time of revolution we had a definition of oppressed, which could be very different from what we have today. there's a senselessness in the phrase. the profile of oppressed had changed. i wonder whether he understands that or not. that's what i am scared of. someone living in 20 + years ago who intends to run for presidency. however, at the end i think he would do a much better job than the incumbent!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Election
for iran's future, next iranian preseidential election, i blieve, is more important and decisive than the one back in 1995, when khatami got elected for the first time. maybe the most decisive ever. i truely believe those who run for presidency now are selfless and very very dedicated. socially, the situation is much worse than it was before; economy is down and investors are not even near to keen on investing in iran.
i believe khatami is the best choice and i don't agree with most of people around me that it's a choice between the bad and the worse, it's the choice between a reasonableness and lunacy.
i do hope that khatami and the rest of reformists come to an agreement and run united. they need to play everyone and need to attract the unions, especially teachers and labour unions and use them to attract votes. external affairs in this capaign, is decisive.
i believe khatami is the best choice and i don't agree with most of people around me that it's a choice between the bad and the worse, it's the choice between a reasonableness and lunacy.
i do hope that khatami and the rest of reformists come to an agreement and run united. they need to play everyone and need to attract the unions, especially teachers and labour unions and use them to attract votes. external affairs in this capaign, is decisive.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
darfur conviction
an inetersting event http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7922705.stm and a shocking story on darfur http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7921311.stm . it's quite depressing if what in the second article had been said is true. it's dangerous how can people with such mentalities gain power, rule over people and then decide that some of them (a large sum) are no good, so kill them and rape them. i guess the role of education and democracy becomes highly significant in avoiding such occurence and resurrection of human rights, which is nothing fancy but the right to live!
also, if any of the prophets were to see these days, how would have they felt, react? is this really their legacy? i wonder.
also, if any of the prophets were to see these days, how would have they felt, react? is this really their legacy? i wonder.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
another gunmen attack, this time in pakistan and in a cricket match! few dead and few players injured! i wonder why? how the can finance these attacks?
i was watching a programme on NAT GEO Adventure yesterday. it was about the ordeal a woman had in philipines. the islamic militants of Abu-Sayyaf abducted them and held her and a group of others for a year long period. she was a meissionaire with her husband, also a missionaire. the attitude of militants was not strange at all. i have personnally seen and expereinced such attitude from up close in iran. the following questions had came to my mind:
1- is islam really that harsh a religion that it's followers can easily kill people, kidnap them and ask for ransome! then they use the ransome to finance their shit!
2- in case there would be any change, would that happen in iran as well? such attitudes are not rare in iran and while it is very selfish yet in the mean time so selfless it is that becomes very scary.
she finally lost her husband at the end when philipino army attempted to rescue them!
i was watching a programme on NAT GEO Adventure yesterday. it was about the ordeal a woman had in philipines. the islamic militants of Abu-Sayyaf abducted them and held her and a group of others for a year long period. she was a meissionaire with her husband, also a missionaire. the attitude of militants was not strange at all. i have personnally seen and expereinced such attitude from up close in iran. the following questions had came to my mind:
1- is islam really that harsh a religion that it's followers can easily kill people, kidnap them and ask for ransome! then they use the ransome to finance their shit!
2- in case there would be any change, would that happen in iran as well? such attitudes are not rare in iran and while it is very selfish yet in the mean time so selfless it is that becomes very scary.
she finally lost her husband at the end when philipino army attempted to rescue them!
Monday, February 16, 2009
political Alzheimer!
Pakistan Government had agreed to a deal with Taliban militants to lay down Sharia law in Swat area of Pakistan, in exchange for Taliban to lay down their arms and weapons. who's Sharia law? Taliban's of course. it has been regarded as a very positive. yesterdays murderers who banned women from education, girls & boys from playing, largest producer of opium in the world whom i held responsible for growing addiction in Iran, etc. are now officially controlling an area in middle east! i can't see any reason other than the politician in pakistan are suffering from Alzheimer and had forgotten what these bloody Taliban had done in the past.
it has been said it is a requirement of people of that region! i wonder if this requirement had been discussed with the girls, and children who have to hide in their houses, or abandon their education. Or maybe, Pakistani Government are short of cash and with this deal, they can use some opium funds from Taliban!
then why are we after drug dealers and human traffickers and child pornographers? what is the difference between Taliban and them? let them live freely as well! why not? Taliban have the right to control a part of this planet, why shouldn't they?shame on pioneers of democracy and human rights. welcome back murder! i guess these days are as black as medieval times!
it has been said it is a requirement of people of that region! i wonder if this requirement had been discussed with the girls, and children who have to hide in their houses, or abandon their education. Or maybe, Pakistani Government are short of cash and with this deal, they can use some opium funds from Taliban!
then why are we after drug dealers and human traffickers and child pornographers? what is the difference between Taliban and them? let them live freely as well! why not? Taliban have the right to control a part of this planet, why shouldn't they?shame on pioneers of democracy and human rights. welcome back murder! i guess these days are as black as medieval times!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)