Hoffer 4

More from Eric Hoffer. If you don't like his aphorisms as I do, skip this. As before, I've added comments to many of them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rabid suspicion has nothing in it of skepticism. The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I'm one of those who believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I guess I'm suspicious. In reality, however, suspicion has nothing to do with it. There is evil every person, and it often comes out.

Conservatism is sometimes a symptom or sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted.  I must admit to being a conservative. I picked up sterile radical ideas in my youth, but I let go of them. My ideas have grown and developed.

Those who proclaim the brotherhood of men fight every war as if it were a civil war. Nowadays it's protest and riot.

The hardest thing to cope with is not selfishness or vanity or deceitfulness, but sheer stupidity. One needs the talents of an animal trainer to deal with the stupid.

The passionate are not as a rule culturally creative, but only they make history.

Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth. Actually what it yields in the modern world is accusations and negative appraisals of anyone you don't like.

The true prophet is not he who peers into the future but he who reads and reveals the present. Or pays attention to opinion polls and focus groups. The prophet, today, sees where we are going then runs to the front to lead.

Fear and freedom are mutually exclusive.

To the old, the new is usually bad news. The old are smarter than the rest of us.

America has never ceased to be an experiment. In every generation America has still to prove that a society founded on values cherished by common people can endure, and that it is possible to fuse hordes of heterogeneous immigrants into one nation indivisible.

     [Achievement is largely the product of steadily raising one's levels of aspiration and expectation. (Jack Nicklaus)] It applies to all of society, not just sports.

Everyone expects 1975 [this was written early in 1975] to be a year of decision for the Occident, My fear is that it will be a year of protracted crisis. It is the lingering crisis that debilitates. An explosion would cleanse the air. I would welcome a blowing up of the oil wells in the Persian Gulf. A dramatic end of the fossil-fuel age could be an opening act in the renewal and rebirth of the Occident. The balance of century should be devoted to the search for cheaper and cleaner fuels. In the meantime the Occident should adopt a simpler and slower mode of life and use its manpower in a concerted effort to cleanse and water of pollution, replenish the soil, reforest the hills, and clean up the cities.

Who in the 1950s had a premonition of the witches' sabbath that would be enacted in the 1960s? Once events have taken place, a horde of commentators demonstrate that the unexpected was inevitable. Actually, chance stupidity and cowardice were chief factors. Nothing was inevitable. As I said earlier, evil, as well as stupidity, is lurking in everyone.

To give equality to people who cannot be equal is to intensify their feeling of inequality. So too to give freedom to people who cannot help themselves is to increase their feeling of oppression, Moreover, to give freedom and equality to people who cannot help themselves is to rob them of soul-soothing alibis.

Old age has made me common. I have the typical aches and predicaments of the old. It is true that my nose is not dripping when my head nods in drowsiness and I manage to keep the corners of my mouth clean.

       It is good to remind myself that it is by sheer wild luck that I have in my old age enough money to live on and no money worries at all. So far I have no misfortunes, and at seventy-three I feel that I have won the race. It is true that I am easy on myself. I have a right to an unstrenuous old age. But it must be free of boredom and a feeling of stagnation. This means that I must go on thinking, learning and writing. All I can allow myself is a slower tempo. Mostly this describes me.

The birth of the nineteenth century: the prelude to this most stable and peaceful century was a massive hemorrhage, a twenty-year war. We cannot blame war for the demented savagery of the twentieth century. It is legitimate to wonder whether the nineteenth century would have become what it was had the French come out of the Napoleonic wars as conquerors. The reason the First World War did not wind up the way other wars (including the Second World War) did was that France wanted to be the foremost nation in Europe and would not leave Germany alone. Vive la France. It could use help before it destroys itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More to come, sooner or later.

Various Ideas VI

As I said last time. The following ideas bother me but they can hardly be viewed as revelations. They're more like thoughts that need development but now's not the time for me. You can do that if you choose. Perhaps I've done them before or perhaps I have other things on my mind. In either case I'll just set them out and move on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A clock makes me think. Before time was an issue for me I could think of the future as endless. Now that I've been warned I see everything in the perspective of time and its boundaries. Don't misunderstand. I have every intention of living forever (if it's G-d's will, and with my doctor's help – and the tests so far suggest that it's a possibility. Well maybe not forever). Still there is a (potential) limit set by the clock on everything and it's hard to ignore. Knowledge of time as a factor makes me more appreciative of what I have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – “Obamacare”) passed the House of Representatives today. Some Republicans voted against it, although most supported it. All the Democrats voted against it. This is the Congress which “governs” us nowadays: party-line (party-discipline) votes with no room for debate and compromise. President Truman complained about a “do nothing Congress” but at least the issues were discussed. All that matters now is public relations. The parties are positioning themselves for the next election and the next Congress that will accomplish very little despite the loud rhetoric.

The media glories in such controversies (and this is only one). It sells. And the media promotes controversy. A small group of protesters – even a sole petitioner – is worth a lot of media time and attention. That sells, too. As the protesters plan, the media helps them get their message out. Their complaint is well publicized and has the appearance of validity and mass support. At least it has the support of the media – especially those eager to promote the message. They can publicize those who support their views (as they promote their views in “objective” reporting by promoting advocacy journalism) and there's no cost to the protesters.

As time goes by we're becoming more polarized by those who vow to bring us together.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In "Family Plot," Hitchcock's last film, there are two "evil" couples, but one kills while the other only pursues scams, like psychic services. The latter pair are appealing while the other pair are to be condemned by the audience. Is there a relativity of evil – are some sins "worse" than others?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It was interesting to note that liberals, so eager to make changes, and so dismissive of our past traditions and documents, were suddenly horrified by the possibility of a change in the senate rules. It was wrong of Republicans to change the rules although, under Harry Reid, Democrats had themselves done that in 2013 to establish that only 51 votes would be needed to approve a presidential nominee (apart from Supreme Court Justice). It was a party-line vote, and resulted in the passing of what was then known as the “Nuclear Option.” To secure the confirmation of Judge David Gorsuch as a Supreme Court Justice only four years later the Republicans extended the “option” to include that office. They were roundly condemned by the Democrats, who made no mention of what they had done so recently.

The Constitution, was passed soon after our nation was established and it did not require a super-majority. But that was not the tradition that the Democrats honored. They preferred to follow the rules of their more recent Senate predecessors – at least the rules they liked. The initial rules were written by Thomas Jefferson as part of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and intended to ensure civility and décor. The manual's rules for the Senate were adopted in 1828, more than four decades after the Constitution and, indeed, after Jefferson's death. Subsequently those rules have become our “tradition” and are sacred when they serve the purpose of those who invoke them. I suspect that they should be reviewed and rewritten to reflect current views, but they should in no way be considered our tradition and beyond reconsideration. The wisdom of any changes will be decided by voters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Enough. Time to move on.

Equal Time

Last week I wrote about Donald Trump, concluding that he was not fit to be president. So today I'll comment on the other major party candidate. I made two mistakes last week and I'll try not to repeat them. First of all, I waited for his acceptance speech to make my judgment, but all that did was to give him some extra time to smooth out the rough edges. He didn't, but even if he had accomplished the rhetorical feat, it wouldn't have changed his previous record. In addition, I saved my conclusion for the end, as I was instructed to do by a high school English teacher. It's good advice to let the strength of the arguments make the conclusion inevitable, but WYSIWYG, “truth in advertising” and similar issues mean that I should tell you my view, rather than put you in the position of drawing your own conclusions. After all, you may make a mistake. If my arguments are not powerful enough to lead you to the Truth, I don't want you to draw the wrong conclusion.

To reveal the punch line first, then, the former Secretary of State is not fit to be president either. In fact, she wasn't fit to be Secretary of State. Even her nomination is tainted by the leaks of e-mails demonstrating efforts to undermine the candidacy of Senator Sanders. (Lest I be misunderstood, it's my view that his nomination would be a disaster as bad as that of the Secretary of State.) It appears that the Democratic Party is somewhat less democratic than we have been led to believe. But we were foolish if we accepted the idea that either political party was really interested in us.

But, as William Claude Dukenfield said, “I digress.”

Our questions begin with Whitewater and Castle Grande, the business dealings in which she participated in the 1970s and 1980s. While despite her involvement, no charges were filed against her, according to Breitbart (and I leave it to the reader to evaluate the source),

In the mid-1980s, federal bank regulators started taking a closer look at Madison Guaranty [a bank she represented] and concluded that Castle Grande was a sham, a crime, and part of a pyramid scheme to enrich insiders and hide the S&L's disintegrating finances. According to the newly obtained document [an unredacted version of the “original Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) memorandum in the Whitewater affair obtained by Judicial Watch.”], “Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell [an Arkansas businessman also involved in the “sham” deal] concealed their involvement in Castel Grande.”

Despite contrary documentary evidence, Ms. Clinton denied any involvement. “I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.” Memory is a strange thing.

Similarly, when questioned about her own e-mail server and the transmission of secret documents on it, her defense was that she didn't know the documents were classified, and besides, those before her had done it too. It is troubling that someone with her security clearance could not recognize a sensitive document (some subsequently judged too secret to reveal in the report of the problem) and take the proper precautions, and that she wasn't aware that the practice was then illegal though it had not been so during the terms of her predecessors. In terms of both the Arkansas business dealings and the e-mail controversy it is worth remembering that President Nixon was almost impeached not for the Watergate break-in, but for trying to cover it up. Ms. Clinton worked hard to cover up her involvement in the two scandals.

Another concern relates to the Secretary's performance during the episode in Benghazi, Libya. During the entire period of its happening, the State Department took no action. What it might have done would possibly have failed, but it did nothing, so we'll never know if the deaths could have been avoided. And, at least initially, the Secretary blamed conservatives in the United States (who had produced an anti-Islamic video) for the whole affair, although based on e-mail she sent at the time she knew that wasn't true. Another cover-up.

Ms. Clinton would have us accept her judgment that these matters have already been discussed, and “it's time to move on” from them – they're past performance items that we should ignore when we evaluate her – while she raises questions about decades-old business practices of her opponent.

Her past performance raises questions about her judgment and her trustworthiness. This is not an example of “genderism.” (More on that term in “Mixed Grill” which will appear on October 23^rd.) She should not be elected president for her service in that office would put us all at risk. But that leaves us with unfit nominees from both the Democrats and the Republican parties. Where do I go from here?

I'll have more to say on that subject in my next essay.

People Don't Need People

I lied. Well I didn't exactly lie, but I've changed my mind – and several other things. At the end of my last essay I wrote “Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.” Maybe I'll get around to that and maybe not, but I realized when sitting around that I'd already achieved my purpose.

Since I began spawning these narcissistic forays in October of 2010, I've written close to 375. I've spoken quite a bit of what's on my mind and, by and large, virtually everyone must agree with me since only one person has taken issue with what I've said. I refuse to believe that the reason for this is that no one is interested, but even if that were the case, if others actually read what I write, there would be concurrence with my thoughts.

Anyway, the first of my essays, “Prolegomenon,” appeared on October 5, 2010, and in it I wrote

I hope that others will benefit from my wisdom (which is a given if they read this), but even if not, just putting ideas on screen allows me to consider and develop them. I can confront my own rare logical weakness when I see (and recognize) it in front of me, and, since I always agree with the point I am trying to make, that helps me reinforce and strengthen my arguments. I make no pretense as to fair and balanced opinions. The views are my own. If I present someone else's, it's only to expound on why it is wrong.

I'm sure that the message is clear, but just in case let me explain myself. I've used this tool to help me work out some of the questions that have occurred to me – to try to come up with a better understanding of the issues and to decide on the correct answer (not just for me, but the TRUTH) to the problem I've been pondering. And I did this without even consulting Douglas Adams's computer. The answer – and it is the ultimate answer to cause of the world's problems – is not “42,” but “people,” and the computers they construct and program. If there were fewer people there would be fewer problems. And if there were none, there would be none.

The idea is, at least as far as I am concerned, worth some dilation.

Whatever issue I consider – politics, hostility in the Middle East, religion, constitutional freedoms, or almost anything else – the cause of the difficulty is human. For example, if the government isn't working (“Why,” you ask, “did he use the word 'if?' The government never works”) it's because no one is willing to hear the views of anyone who disagrees with him or to compromise; when (not “if.” I know it will happen, and I know that you'll smirk at “if”) an instance of terrorism occurs in the Middle East, it is because of people's beliefs or fears. Some people who call for freedom of speech demand that right only for themselves and would deny it to those who disagree with them; and those who are believers blame evil on people, who have free will, while those who are atheists have no choice but to agree that people are to blame.

Pogo put it best. “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We're our own worst enemies. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) practices “one-upmanship.” It's as important to us to defeat the “other” as to be right. Too often our goal is not just to help me (a more or less “acceptable” aim), but to beat you (which is more “problematic”). We're always looking for an angle or a loophole. We can't get along with each other because we always want to come out on top. Right and wrong are irrelevant.

Whether you're a Darwinist or a believer, your object is survival. It may be personal, patriotic, or religious – or there may be some other aim. But in order to accomplish it you must conquer your enemies. Life is a zero-sum “game.” Everyone's in it for himself. The one who dies with the most, wins.

The recognition of human responsibility for all our ills confirms my wish to be a hermit on a desert island. The fewer the people the better. The fewer the people, the fewer the problems. Cooperation is an illusion. Some information is OK. It's nice to be connected to the world – to know what's going on – as long as no expectations or obligations accompany that connection. Any interactions with the other participants is certain to lead to disharmony at least, with deception and competition more likely outcomes. Who needs that? I'm from the live-and-let-live school, and that will only work if I stay away from others.

And I've achieved my goal because that's the answer. It's the answer to all our problems. People are responsible. (Other people, of course.) So to have the fewest problems, stay away from people. And recognize their position as the sowers of discontent, as I do. So having clarified the issues I had five years ago, it seems to me that I have nothing to gain by continuing this series. At least not on a regular basis. If there's a particular situation or subject I want to discuss, I'll do so, but there won't be any pattern to my postings.

You're on your own.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, maybe there'll be more.  People may be bad, but I'm not.  And I have more to say.  I can't help it.  Tune in next week ...

The Root Of All Evil

If a billionaire saves a hundred million or so on his taxes by the use of tax shelters, it's unfair. If you leave your car by an expired parking meter while you run inside a store for a minute to get a newspaper, and find a ticket on the windshield when you return, that isn't fair. The difference is that he hasn't broken the law but you have. And that's not fair either.ⁱ

Or is it?

We are ready to attribute all sorts of crimes and evils to those who are better off than we, but our eagerness to do so may not be justified. From early childhood we're taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. For some this is a prelude to a life of evil. For most, however, this is considered a warning not to treasure money – that we must forswear such a preoccupation. But the original claim is not true. And even those who believe it,ⁱⁱ ignore it. That's the way it is with most warnings. They have little effect.

The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil. Really? All? The two most serious evils are murder and rape. And of the murders, serial killing is the most reprehensible. Perhaps love is sometimes the reason for rape, but it is not the love of money.ⁱⁱⁱ Freud could tell you that – but you don't need Freud. And while the motives for murder may include financial gain, there are numerous other causes that have nothing to do with money. Among them (the list is far from all-inclusive) are jealousy, hatred, vengeance, lust for power, and envy. And the all-inclusive “psychological factors.” For serial killers the reason^iv is equally, or perhaps more complex. “There are many other motivations [besides sex] for serial murders including anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.”^v

I don't mean to minimize the power of money to govern our activities and to inspire evil activity, but we are all guilty to one degree or another. Human nature is unchangeable. All people share the same attitudes, whether we're rich or poor, and we all have the same failings, desires, and fantasies. We're ready to take credit for something praiseworthy that we didn't do and to shift the responsibility for our error. We resent the success of others in getting what we want for ourselves. We don't want to have to keep up with the Jonses. We want them to try (unsuccessfully) to keep up with us. If we view ourselves as members of the ninety-nine percent whose goal is to achieve what the one percent have,^vi who can blame us?^vii

There are some perfectly legal ways to get a bigger slice of the pie. In union there is strength. So if we join a union that threatens a rich industrialist^viii with a work stoppage^ix unless he increases salaries, pensions and other benefits, it's perfectly all right. In fact it's admirable. And it's all right to park next to the broken parking meter or go through a broken turnstile. After all, you didn't break them. Another thing – you certainly don't want to waste time and gas driving back to the supermarket because you got too much change. It was their error, not yours. And you can save on state taxes if you buy on the internet, or if you go out of state to make a major purchase.^x

Making money otherwise, however, isn't so easy. Perhaps we lack the creativity, connections, or monetary backing of those we envy, but we can try to make up for it with luck. The government is likely to promote such thinking by sponsoring get-rich-quick lotteries, but for most people this method is not likely to be rewarding.^xi It's easier to cut corners. If a friend, who works in a local store, tells you that the item you're about to buy will be on sale tomorrow, chances are good you'll put off your purchase.^xii After all, no one gets hurt. The store owner is going to put it on sale anyway and someone will buy it at the lower price. It might as well be you. But it's as much insider trading as that of a stockbroker who is being prosecuted by the Attorney General.

Perhaps you “forget” to report all your income^xiii when making out your tax forms. Or maybe you were “creative” in their completion. Perhaps you didn't present exactly right the facts regarding the accident you just reported to your insurance company. Maybe you weren't completely in the right. Perhaps, also, some of the scratches and dents were there before the accident. But you live in a “no-fault” state and they have deep pockets. And you've paid them for years. It's payback time.

And if all else fails, there's always bankruptcy. If you can't pay your American Excess bills, some lawyer or business will have a plan to get you out of money trouble, or at least make you think he is doing so. The trick is to work things out so that you can keep everything you have but not be required to pay for it. And then you'll need to get a new start so you can do the same thing all over again. Who loses but the companies that have too much money to begin with?

When condemning money, and its holders, as evil, though, we shouldn't overlook some of its positives. The one who wants to make a fortune with a new company will probably create jobs and hire workers. Many of our charities get a significant part of their income from wealthy donors who benefit from the tax deductions they get. And there are drugs which may make money for their manufacturers because they actually help others. The love of money will sometimes result in good as well as evil.

But the bottom line is that we're too quick to blame others for having what we want for ourselves. And we resent the fact that some have succeeded where we've failed. After all, all we want to do is walk a mile in their Pradas.

Next episode: “The Elephant And Insurance” – Massive coverage.

i     Some definitions are in order: “Fair”: If I benefit from it. “Unfair”: If someone else benefits from it. (Or benefits more than I do.)

ii     At least most of them.

iii    The argument may be made, moreover, that the love of money isn't evil at all. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are cited as unalienable [sic] rights in the Declaration of Independence, where “the pursuit of Happiness” is a generalization of “property” – including money – which was George Mason's terminology in his draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He was citing the philosophy of John Locke. The final version of the Declaration spoke of “the means of acquiring and possessing property.” However much we may strive for it ourselves, that's not something we admire in others.

iv     Actually reason has nothing to do with it.

v     Serial Murder – Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators – FBI, 2005

vi     More realistically, we want to bring them down to our level. Actually, we'd like them in jail with their wealth divided among the rest of us. Especially me.

vii    Ideally we'll get some of their money. It's not socialism to correct the deficiencies of capitalism. They got the money by soaking us anyway.

viii    Or the government.

ix     The possibility of the absence of government services is often all that is necessary to bring politicians into line, although bad publicity is also a threat. And since union votes will be important in the next election, the promise of union support is a powerful tool. If an industrialist offers money to help get the same votes, however, he is evil.

x     There may be a requirement that you report and pay taxes on those purchase, but that's far too complicated.

xi    Of course that doesn't mean people won't try. I heard on the radio today (March 30^th) that the Mega Millions jackpot for tonight's drawing will be over half a billion dollars. I doubt that any of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd or other members of the ninety-nine percent will buy tickets, because if they win they'll become part of the despised one percent. But if that's the case, if ninety-nine percent of the population don't participate, how do the prizes get so big. I guess that they'll swallow their pride and accept the designation for enough money. I know that I would. Of course I'd never buy a ticket.

xii     Or if you overhear something. Eavesdropping isn't your fault. Someone else is talking too loud. And you'd be a fool not to take advantage of what you hear. The person revealing the information is to blame.

xiii    Especially that in cash. And you probably wouldn't hesitate to pay someone else in cash – especially if he tells you that he won't have to charge you tax that way.