In 'Criticism & Exile', Edward Said wrote-
The greatest single fact of the past three decades has been,
i.e. the period between 1970 and 2000. The greatest single fact during that period was the collapse of Communist command economies.
I believe, the vast human migration attendant upon war, colonialism and decolonization, economic and political revolution, and such devastating occurrences as famine, ethnic cleansing, and great power machinations.
Said's people had begun emigrating to the US in the 1870s with numbers peaking between 1880 and 1924. Migration is more about 'pull' than 'push' factors.
In a place like New York, but surely also in other Western metropoles like London, Paris, Stockholm, and Berlin, all these things are reflected immediately in the changes that transform neighborhoods, professions, cultural production, and topography on an almost hour-by-hour basis.
Immigration occurred because standards of living were higher in places still ruled by market-friendly White Christians.
Exiles, émigrés, refugees, and expatriates uprooted from their lands must make do in new surroundings,
Said is pretending he was an exile. He wasn't. He was a voluntary immigrant.
and the creativity as well as the sadness that can be seen in what they do is one of the experiences that has still to find its chroniclers,
It has too many.
even though a splendid cohort of writers that includes such different figures as Salman Rushdie and V. S. Naipaul
immigrants not exiles
has already opened further the door first tried by Conrad.
An exile. The Russians had suppressed the Polish national movement.
Said taught English & Comp Lit because that is what he had studied in America. However, he did not understand English English literature because he knew little about England and its history. Consider the following.
There is a moment in Samuel Butler’s The Way of All Flesh that has always had for me the startling and completely pleasurable force of a benign epiphany, despite the fact that the novel itself is as much an artifact of late Victorianism as the characters and attitudes it mocks.
Said was extraordinarily ignorant of English history & Literature. Butler began writing the book in 1873. The mid-Victorian period is generally defined as the period from 1851–1873. The protagonist has an Early Victorian childhood and comes of age in the mid-Victorian period. Edmund Gosse's 'Father & Son' is late Victorian. Butler isn't.
Butler asks rhetorically about the appalling life of a clergyman’s children: “How was it possible that a child only a little past five years old, trained in such an atmosphere of
hypocritical
prayers and hymns and sums and happy Sunday evenings—to say nothing of daily repeated beatings over the said prayers and hymns, etc., …—how was it possible that a lad so trained should grow up in any healthy or vigorous development?”
His aunty helps him. That's why he doesn't turn into a sneak & a snob.
As the plot goes on to show, young Ernest Pontifex would have a dreadful time because of this strenuously virtuous upbringing,
Butler's point is that no virtue was involved. The boy was being brought up to be a sneak, a snob & a hypocrite.
but the problem goes back to the way Rev. Theobald, Ernest’s father, was himself brought up to behave.
His father published religious texts. His elder son would inherit the business. The younger son- a dim bulb- was forced to become a clergyman because this promoted the family reputation for piety & orthodoxy in Religion. There was no genuine piety here. There was crass commercialism on the one hand, and hypocrisy & snobbishness on the other.
“The clergyman,” Butler says, “is expected to be a kind of human Sunday.”
Butler's readers knew this wasn't the case. England always had fox-hunting clergymen. Had Theobald had any talent or intelligence he could have risen as a scholar or missionary or popular preacher.
This brilliant reversal,
metonymy
by which a person suddenly becomes a day, scarcely needs the preachy explanation given a moment later by Butler. Priests, he goes on, are supposed to live stricter lives than anyone else;
Not in Early Victorian England. Butler's readers understood that this was a family which had risen from the working class through commerce. They needed to 'keep up appearances'. The younger son of a Baronet, who gets the advowson to the Rectory in lieu of anything more substantial by way of inheritance, might have very little piety. Indeed, if he inherits a bit of cash from an aunt, he might hire a curate and spend his time at Bath or Boulogne.
as vicars their “vicarious goodness” is meant to substitute for the goodness of others;
No. It is meant to inspire an equal piety.
the children of such professionally righteous individuals end up as the ones most damaged by the pretense.
Only if the righteousness is feigned and no actual enthusiasm replaces it. Having a dad who pretends piety to get his salary is fine if he is teaching you about Darwin.
Yet for anyone who (perhaps more frequently in an earlier age) was required to dress up, go to religious services, attend a solemn family dinner, and otherwise face the rigors of a day from which many of the sins and pleasures of life had been forcibly swept, to be a human Sunday is an immediately horrible thing.
Nonsense! Ernest's plight is horrible because his dad is horrible. Thankfully he has a nice Aunty.
And although the phrase “human Sunday” is compressed in the extreme, it has the effect of releasing a whole storehouse of experiences refracted in as well as pointed to directly by the two words.
Said forgets that there is a novel called 'The man who was Thursday'. The human Sunday turns out to be... a nightmare version of God.
Butler’s novel is not very much in fashion these days.
It came into fashion with the publication of Gosse's 'Father & Son'. Gosse was a well known man of letters. It must be said,
He stands at the threshold of modernism, but really belongs to an age in which questions of religion, upbringing and family pressures still represented the important questions, as they did for Newman, Arnold, and Dickens.
He was mid Victorian. Erewhon was well received. However, his opposition to both the Church & the school of Darwin relegated him to obscurity.
Moreover, The Way of All Flesh is hardly a novel at all but rather a semi-fictionalized autobiographical account of Butler’s own unhappy youth, full of scarcely veiled attacks on his own father, his own early religious inclinations, and the pre-Darwinian age in which he grew up, when how to deal with faith, and not science or ideas, was the preeminent concern. It would not, I think, be doing The Way of All Flesh an injustice to say that it provides readers with principally a historical, rather than an aesthetic, experience.
It was an effective complement to Gosse's book. One might say Butler's work is crude but what it caricatures was real enough. Kipling's Ba Baa Black sheep came out in 1888. Butler shows the Oxbridge educated father & even the mother could be just as bad as the lower middle class landlady/ foster-mother.
Literary art, rhetoric, figurative language, and structure are there to be looked for,
Butler was a fine Classicist.
to be occasionally encountered and admired, but only minimally and momentarily, as a way of leading readers directly back to particular experiences of life at a particular time and place.
No. Butler is Lamarkian. The servile son is likely to become a bullying father. Change the environment and you change the phenotype regardless of genotype. Incidentally, Gosse's father had proposed the "Omphalos" theory, which suggested God created the world with artificial signs of age (e.g., fossils, tree rings) to represent a pre-existent history.
One neither could nor would want to compare Butler with Henry James or Thomas Hardy,
Nonsense! James is a psychologist of a similar type to Butler. Hardy has a theory of history which one might call Schopenhauerian or a pessimistic Darwinism. Butler too could be pessimistic. What if machines are evolving? Might they not supplant human beings?
two of his immediate contemporaries: they represent a far more complete encoding of historical experience by aesthetic or literary form.
No. They failed. Of James, H.G Wells said, there was James the First (wisest fool in Christendom & probably gay as fuck) James the Second (who lost his throne because of his mulish obstinacy) and the Old Pretender. As for Hardy, nobody could stand his 'Dynasts'. The feeling was that he should have stuck with tales of the rustic proletariat. Still there's nothing funnier than the ending of Jude the Obscure. 'Old Father Time' kills the kids & himself because 'we are too menny'. Don't forget, it was Malthus who laid the foundation for Darwin.
It would be more appropriate somehow to read The Way of All Flesh along with Newman’s Apologia,
Fuck off! Anyway, nobody actually reads that shite.
Mill’s Autobiography,
see above.
and even so eccentric and rousing a work as Swift’s Tale of a Tub,
ditto. We get that Professors of Literature have to pretend that unreadable shite aint shite, but Said is overegging the cake.
than it would to compare Butler’s novel with The Golden Bowl or The Ambassadors, works that have been far more influential in setting the standard for interpretation and critical theory in our time
that theory was utter garbage. Anyway, E.M Forster did that sort of thing much better.
than the story of Ernest Pontifex.
Which has a lot of verisimilitude & is well written.
The point I am trying to make in all this, however, is related to the recent trends in the criticism and study of literature that have shied away from the unsettling contentiousness of experiences like this one,
which one? Creaming your pants over the phrase 'human Sunday'?
or from exiled or silenced voices.
why shy away from shite you can't hear?
Most of what has been exciting and contentious about the vogue of formalist and deconstructive theory has been
the fact that when it isn't coprophagy, it is finger painting using your own shit?
its focus on purely linguistic and textual matters. A phrase like “the clergyman is expected to be a kind of human Sunday” is too transparent on one level, too inchoate in its recollection and summonings on another, for the theorists of simile, metaphor, topology, or phallologocentrism.
Nonsense! It is merely a metaphor. Clergymen are associated with Sunday because it the day on which they work while others rest. It is a day of calm spirituality and pious devotion- qualities a man of the cloth is expected to embody. It was Chesterton's nightmarish 'Sunday' who defies analysis.
Said did not claim to have studied the Orient. However he was an emigrant from that region. Might this not give him some locus standi in critiquing 'Orientalists' in the manner that I- who emigrated to London around the time Samuel Butler's first book came out in the Seventies- have critiqued Said?
Consider the following-
At bottom, what I said in Orientalism had been said before me by A. L. Tibawi,
His 1963 essay 'English-Speaking Orientalists: A Critique of Their Approach to Islam and Arab Nationalism' could be said to have been the seed of Said's own chef de oeuvre. Tibawi was the professor of Islamic Education at the London Institute of Education till about 1977 when he retired.
by Abdullah Laroui,
who argues that the Arab Intellectual has no use for historicism. In other words, Orientals really see the Orient as outside time. In other words, they are saying opposite things- probably because Laroui remained in Morocco while Tibawi settled in London.
by Anwar Abdel Malek,
a Copt who settled in France. He was a Marxist & Pan-Arabist. As such, he understood that what some stupid Professors said didn't matter in the slightest. Money matters & so do guns.
by Talal Asad,
who settled in the UK after studying in Pakistan. His father was a Jewish convert to Islam. He is an anthropologist who, quite rightly, points out that a lot of anthropological field work was short on theory. Sadly, what succeeded it was short on field-work. Indeed, it was utterly worthless & paranoid.
by S. H. Alatas,
Malaysian. He bridled at the European depiction of Malays as lazy though, truth be told, it was the Chinese who proved this must be the case. To his credit he opposed nativist 'bhumiputra' policies- which is why he had no political future.
by Frantz Fanon and Aimé Césaire,
Martinique had the sense to remain with France
by Sardar K. M. Pannikar
a brilliant writer & diplomat though a little too pro-China.
and Romila Thapar,
a cretin, but well connected & close to the dynasty
all of whom had suffered the ravages of imperialism and colonialism,
None had. They benefited from it. Martinique was lucky because it remained with France.
and who, in challenging the authority, provenance, and institutions of the science that represented them to Europe,
None did. Tibawi criticised some books by Christian missionaries which did the Prophet less than justice. But the Brits already viewed Prophet Muhammad favourably because of Carlyle. Tibawi was preaching to the converted which is why the Brits appointed him a Professor.
were also understanding themselves as something more than what this science said they were.
No Science was involved unless Hope Risley & anthropometrics is meant. But this was eroded by the Boas critique (i.e. adaptation to the environment) & the rise of genetics.
As an patriotic, albeit immigrant, American, not a Palestinian exile, Said should be praised for pushing forward the American 'Rodgers Plan' to return Israel to its pre '67 borders. Other Americans- including WASPs like Clinton- harboured the same illusions as Said.
Still it was possible to believe
even after Arafat sided with the butcher Saddam
that the Palestinian cause continued to represent an idea of justice and equality around which many others could rally.
It made some Palestinians very rich.
By being for Palestinian rights we stood for nondiscrimination, for social justice and equality, for enlightened nationalism.
In other words, an independent Palestine would be like Israel, not Saddam's Iraq.
Our aim was an independent sovereign state, of course. Even though we had lived through our loss, we were able to accept a compromise whereby what we lost in 1948 to Israel (contained within the prewar 1967 lines) would be lost forever, if in return we could have a state in the Occupied Territories. We had assumed (and I do not recall much discussion of this particular option for the future) that our state would have sovereignty, our refugees would have the right of some sort of repatriation or compensation, and our politics would be a distinct advance over those of the Arab states, with their oligarchies, military dictatorships, brutal police regimes.
So, Said thought the Palestinians would have elections & courts of law in the same manner as the Jews.
During the period that was effectively terminated by the Oslo agreement of 1993 I recall quite distinctly that most of the intellectuals, professionals, political activists (leadership and nonleadership), and ordinary individuals I knew well lived at least two parallel lives.
Most people have two parallel lives- viz. a professional one, during office hours, and a personal one the rest of the time.
The first was in varying degrees a difficult one: as Palestinians living under different jurisdictions, none of them Palestinian of course, with a general sense of powerlessness and drift. Second was a life that was sustained by the various promises of the Palestinian struggle, utopian and unrealistic perhaps, but based on solid principles of justice and, at least since the late 1980s, negotiated peace with Israel.
So, this cretin wasn't aware that Hamas- which was founded in 1987.
The distorted view of us as a people single-mindedly bent on Israel’s destruction that existed in the West bore no relationship at all to any reality I lived or knew of.
Because Said was an ignorant American. Between 1990-1992 Hamas candidates won an average of 30 percent of the seats in elections for professional organizations (engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.) in the West Bank and Gaza, according to observers.
Most of us, the overwhelming majority, in fact, were most interested in the recognition and acknowledgment of our existence as a nation, and not in retribution; everyone I knew was flabbergasted and outraged that the Israelis, who had destroyed our society in 1948, took our land, occupied what remained of it since 1967, and who bombed, killed, and otherwise oppressed an enormous number of us, could appeal to the world as constantly afraid for their security, despite their immense power relative to ours.
Israel was able to convince the US that unilateral reversion to pre-'67 borders meant the country could not be effectively defended. To counter the argument, you need a military expert not a fucker who teaches literature to morons.
Few Westerners took seriously our insecurity and real deprivation: somehow Israel’s obsession with its insecurity and need for assurance—with its soldiers beating up Palestinians every day after twenty-eight years of occupation—took precedence over our misery. I vividly recall the anger I felt when I learned that starting in the fall of 1992 under the auspices of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an organization of which I was a member, a group of privileged Palestinian intellectuals met with Israeli security officials in secret to begin a discussion of security for settlers and army personnel who would remain in the Occupied Territories should there be some form of Palestinian self-rule arrangement.
What's wrong with 'confidence building talks'? It is part & parcel of peace-keeping initiatives in different parts of the world. Why did the thing make Said so angry? The answer, I suppose, is that as an immigrant, not an exile, he didn't really care what happened in a far away country.
This was a prelude to Oslo, but the fact that there was an acceptance of the Israeli agenda and a scanting of real Palestinian losses struck me as ominous, a sign that capitulation had already set in.
Peace, for Hamas, means capitulation unless all the Jews & other kaffirs are killed.
Another sign of capitulation was the efflorescence of Islamic movements whose reactionary message (the aim of which was to establish an Islamic state in Palestine) testified to the secular desperation of the nationalist cause.
In other words, if Arafat & the 'secular' forces made peace, then it would be 'capitulation' unless all the Jews were killed or enslaved.
Let me skip directly to Oslo and after. The mystery there—indeed, from my viewpoint, the only interesting thing—is how a people that had struggled against the British and the Zionists for over a century (unevenly and without much success it is true) were persuaded—perhaps by the international and regional balance of power, the blandishments of their leaders, the fatigue of long and apparently fruitless struggle—to declare in effect that their hope of real national reconstruction and real self-determination was in effect a lost cause.
because 'real national reconstruction' meant killing all the Jews. This was a lost cause because the Jews were better at fighting and not as corrupt as fuck.
One of the advantages of so extraordinary a volte face
like Germany surrendering to the Allies?
is that one can see what is happening against the immediate and also the more distant background.
Said couldn't see shit.
History of course is full of peoples who simply gave up and were persuaded to accept a life of servitude;
America was once full of such people. They are called the First Nations.
they are all but forgotten, their voices barely heard, the traces of their life scarcely decipherable. History is not kind to them since even in the present they are seen as losers, even though it is sometimes possible, as Walter Benjamin says, to realize that “whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate” (Illuminations, 256).
Those of Benjamin's people who moved to Israel did become victorious.
How does the cause of a people, a culture, or an individual become hopeless?
In the case of Palestinians, they couldn't form a fiscally viable state in 1948 or at any later date.
We had once believed as a people that there was room for us at the rendezvous of destiny. In the instance I have been discussing, it was certainly true that a collective sentiment developed that the time was no longer right, that now is the period of ascendancy of America and its allies, and that everyone else is required to go along with Washington’s dictates.
Sadly, Arafat refused to take the very good deal Clinton offered. Clinton Parameters presented in December 2000, or the subsequent Taba negotiations in January 2001. These proposals suggested a Palestinian state in 94-96% of the West Bank, full control of Gaza, and East Jerusalem as the capital. Arafat's procrastination would cost the Palestinians dear. After 9/11, the whole of NATO was killing Muslim terrorists with a vim and vigour even the Israelis had never displayed. It now appears, that the Palestinians will never regain the whole of Gaza while losing more and more land in the West Bank & East Jerusalem. America has already recognised the annexation of the Golan Heights and accepted Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.
A gradual shift in perspective revealed to the collective consciousness that the cause of Palestinian nationalism, with its earlier yet long-standing and uncompromising position on
killing all the Jews
sovereignty, justice, and self-determination, could no longer be fought for:
because the Jews were better at killing
there had to be a change of strategy whereby the nation now thought of its cause less as something won than as something conceded to it as a defeated people by its opponents and by the international authority.
A self-defeating people. But Lebanon too has turned to shit. The Saids have a holiday home there.
Certainly for Palestinians the sense of isolation among the other Arabs had been growing inexorably. What used to be the great Arab cause of Palestine was so diminished that it became a bargaining card in the hands of countries like Egypt and Jordan, who
hated Palestinians with good reason. The Palestinians had tried to take over Jordan with the result that Pakistani pilots flying Saudi Arabian planes bombed Palestinian refugee camps- a great example of pan-Islamic cooperation. Egypt's Anwar Sadat was angered by Abu Nidal's killing of his friend & Minister of Culture, Yusuf Sibai in 1978. The feeling was that Palestinians are mad dogs. Some years earlier, when the Palestinians killed a senior Jordanian politician in Cairo, one of them took the trouble to lick his blood. These aren't Muslims because these aren't men. They are rabid beasts.
were desperately hard up for American patronage and largesse
they were fed up with Palestinian craziness.
and therefore tried to position themselves as talking realistic sense to the Palestinians.
Fuck that. Expel the cunts & make peace with Israel. They aren't the enemy.
Whereas in the past Palestinians gathered hope and optimism from the struggles of other peoples (e.g., the South African battle against apartheid), the opposite became true:
They became pessimistic because Mandela & his crew didn't kill every White person and then lick their blood.
they were successful because their circumstances were more favorable, and since we did not have the same conditions, we needed instead to become more accommodating.
Fuck that. Just immigrate to some place where Jews are safe.
What had once been true for liberation movements was no longer applicable in our case.
Because liberation isn't about killing people and licking their blood. This may be a difficult concept for Palestinian intellectuals to comprehend.
Soviet help was nonexistent, and besides the times had changed. Liberation was no longer a timely cause—democracy and the free market were,
Said, as a Palestinian, thinks democracy is very evil. Nobody should be allowed to choose what to buy or sell or whom to vote for. Liberation means killing lots of people & licking their blood. Somebody should explain this to Mandela.
does the consciousness and even the actuality of a lost cause entail
anything other than than being smart enough to see you have lost? No.
that sense of defeat and resignation that we associate with the abjections of capitulation
There can be capitulation without defeat & defeat without capitulation or resignation
and the dishonor of grinning or bowing survivors who opportunistically fawn on their conquerors and seek to ingratiate themselves with the new dispensation?
Who says that is dishonourable? Guys who aren't happy unless they are killing people and licking their blood?
Must it always result in the broken will and demoralized pessimism of the defeated?
No. The Brits lost the American War of Independence. You didn't see them repining. The South lost the American Civil War. They didn't start obsequiously fawning over African American lieutenant-Governors.
I think not, although the alternative is a difficult and extremely precarious one, at least on the level of the individual.
Not for WASPs. Palestinians may be differently constituted.
In the best analysis of alternatives to the helpless resignation of a lost cause that I know, Adorno
a shithead
diagnoses the predicament as follows.
'At a moment of defeat: For the individual, life is made easier through capitulation to the collective with which he identifies.
No. It is made easier by capitulating to the guys who have defeated that collective. Thus, when Germany was defeated, smart Germans ingratiated themselves with the occupying powers. They didn't capitulate to equally abject Germans.
He is spared the cognition of his impotence; within the circle of their own company, the few become many.
I suppose there were underground cells of Hitler worshippers who, during the day, worked in menial occupations for the occupying power.
It is this act—not unconfused thinking—which is resignation.
No. What is being described as 'magical thinking'. Resignation represents clear thinking if there is no way to reverse the outcome. Thus if I am diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour, I resign myself to dying. I don't join a group of people with brain tumours who say 'our tumours make us immortal. It is the guys who don't have tumours who will die in a month or two.'
No transparent relation prevails between the interests of the ego and the collective to which it assigns itself.
Nonsense! My relation to my family is transparent. That's the 'collective' to which I belong by natural 'oikeiosis'. On the other hand my relationship to the collective represented by winners of the Fields medal isn't transparent. It is wishful thinking because I am as stupid as shit.
The ego must abrogate itself, if it is to share in the predestination of the collective.
This is not necessary at all. I may join the Iyer Liberation Army which is predestined to be defeated in its attempt to reclaim Ireland from Marathi leprechauns like Leo Varadkar, but my ego swells in doing so. It isn't abrogated at all.
Explicitly a remnant of the Kantian categorical imperative manifests itself:
Everybody should kill everybody and lick their blood? Is that the Palestinian categorical imperative?
your signature is required.
No it isn't unless you are acknowledging receipt of something beneficial to you.
The feeling of new security is purchased with the sacrifice of autonomous thinking.
Stupidity or being as crazy as shit has that effect.
The consolation that thought within the context of collective actions is an improvement proves deceptive: thinking, employed only as the instrument of action, is blunted in the same manner as all instrumental reason. (167–168)
Adorno was stupid. What he studied & taught was nonsense. Instrumental reason is what scientists and businessmen & Mums display.
As opposed to this abrogation of consciousness, Adorno posits as an alternative to resigned capitulation of the lost cause the intransigence of the individual thinker whose power of expression is a power—however modest and circumscribed in its capacity for action or victory—that enacts a movement of vitality, a gesture of defiance, a statement of hope whose “unhappiness” and meager survival are better than silence or joining in the chorus of defeated activists:
Very true. Did you know that Sartre achieved the Liberation of France by writing some shite? Eisenhower played no role in that happy outcome.
In contrast, the uncompromisingly critical thinker, who neither superscribes his conscience nor permits himself to be terrorized into action, is in truth the one who does not give up.
Adorno, in truth, was one of those who was so terrorized that the action he took involved fucking off to the US in 1938.
Furthermore, thinking is not the spiritual reproduction of that which exists.
Thinking about a dog doesn't turn you into a spiritual reproduction of a dog. What an amazing discovery!
As long as thinking is not interrupted, it has a firm grasp upon possibility.
Not if the thinking is done by shitheads who study or teach stupid shit.
Its insatiable quality, the resistance against petty satiety,
why be content with licking the blood of one person you murdered? Why not kill everybody and lick all their blood?
rejects the foolish wisdom of resignation. (168)
because fantasizing about licking blood isn't foolish at all.
I offer this in tentative conclusion as a means of affirming the individual intellectual vocation,
These guys are idiots. They have no fucking intellect.
which is neither disabled by a paralyzed sense of political defeat nor impelled by groundless optimism and illusory hope.
The Frankfurt School couldn't understand why the proletariat didn't want Communism. What was the reason for their own defeat in Democratic countries? The answer is they had shit for brains & this was fucking obvious. But this was an answer they couldn't accept more particularly if they had tenure as 'drunken helots' whose intoxication with Marxism made their cretinous antics an example & a warning to the jeunesse doree. This was also the reason Rawls & Sen & other such shitheads were taught to undergrads.
Consciousness of the possibility of resistance can reside
in guys who are smart and who see how, when & were resistance can be successfully mounted.
only in the individual will that is fortified by intellectual rigor
so not these shitheads then
and an unabated conviction in the need to begin again, with no guarantees except, as Adorno says, the confidence of even the loneliest and most impotent thought that “what has been cogently thought must be thought in some other place and by other people.”
Sadly, stupid magical thinking of the same type appears in every age and every milieu. How can we resist the ravages of cancer? My solution is masturbation. It is stupid but I bet lots of people have wanked in the hope of ridding themselves of illness. But smart sciencey guys have found ways to shrink or remove many different types of tumours. In this case, it is better not to reinvent the wheel. Just go to where these smart people are and learn the technique from them.
In this way thinking might perhaps acquire and express the momentum of the general, thereby blunting the anguish and despondency of the lost cause, which its enemies have tried to induce.
Why not just take a lot of drugs & get someone to tell you that the Palestinians have killed all the Jews and are busy licking up all their blood?
We might well ask from this perspective if any lost cause can ever really be lost.
We might, if we are as stupid as shit. The South won't rise again. Charles III won't reconquer what George III lost. Palestinians, however, will keep killing but even they seem to have given up licking blood. That's like so not halal.
No comments:
Post a Comment