Ecuadoreans Prefer the Immature and Manipulative

March 26, 2011     In reviewing a book on the rise and fall of educating humanity on the efficacies of civilization, we come upon a few core matters still corrosively scattering Ecuadorean sensitivities: the role of the material world and its use or abuse.

To be sure, President Rafael Correa is a fool’s fool for promoting Cuban communism to save all Ecuadoreans, a la his pathetic 9-08 constitution, and trampling or stealing any and all effective private enterprise and assets. Correa has repeatedly drawn on his dishonest meme that he justifies his own self enrichment to elevate the politburo. Correa denounces capitalism while engaging in commerce for himself and his nasty inner politburo. Correa tells us that it is Western Civilization that has ruined Eden on Earth while he despoils all he can touch.

Here we come to recurring narratives by those who destroy history and its gifts and those who commendably work a pace to discern and better the common good. Clearly Correa is of the former as a phony populist-communist. There can be no question that Correa “merely caters to whatever appeals to the crowd” and his family wallet: “Mr. Armstrong makes a crucial distinction between the popularizer and the populist. A popularizer like Suger is someone who wishes to share his own enthusiasm and refined judgment with others and does so through charm and encouragement. The populist merely caters to whatever appeals to the crowd, often playing to the crowd's worst instincts. Mr. Armstrong is firmly on the side of the popularizers. Unlike many intellectuals, who resent any linking of wealth and culture, he sees the two as intimately connected, but they need to be integrated, he says, since wealth by itself does not compel admiration. “

Rafael Correa tells us that the wealthy cannot commit to any admirable activity and thus must be destroyed. We know too well that for centuries Ecuador defined itself as a wholly lazy mercantilist nation of arrivistes, ne’er do wells and selfish sycophants, adding absolutely nothing to mankind’s common good and achieving no due respect because no one warranted respect. Like Lenin and Trotsky and every single US AID operative in Ecuador, the oligarchy is blamed for the failures of the nation to “save” the poor. This simple and seemingly unending refrain is pathetic. Of course the oligarchy in Ecuador no longer exists because Correa has destroyed any private businesses. But more to the point- most of Ecuador’s lazy-ass citizens have simply worn out their welcome, being unwelcome anywhere because they are lazy and stupid.

Neither Correa’s Cuban communist governance nor lazy sycophants will rebuild this nation. Who inspires? What credos hold? Where is the font of ethical positionings? Nowhere- no where at all because no Ecuadorean wants an ethical life and its rewards. That is precisely why Correa sells his dishonesty and why he gets away with it, leaving Ecuador today for what it is- a nation of racketeering agents, criminals all..

And what of civilization which “represents something infinitely precious and life-sustaining, a source of strength and inspiration. The great civilizations…provide `a community of maturity in which across the ages individuals try to help each other cope with the demands of mortality.’ “

What civilization do Ecuadoreans live under? What hath Correa, the shallow and dishonest apparatchik of Iran himself wrought? What will history reveal of this paralyzed and truncated nation of idiots? Will Ecuadoreans be known for their high value on ethics, or even handed justice, on fairly dealing with their neighbors and nation? Of course not. Under Correa, the nation has broken apart as greed and cartel corruption permeates every single citizen who shamefully takes Correa’s dirty bribe, pretends that he or she is afraid of Correa’s threats and extortion racket but refuse to do one thing to end the bribes, the complete extortion racket that is their days. This is not civilization and it is not freedom. Anyone who is trying to sell you this false civilization must be rejected and shunned- sent packing for all their aberrant, inane excuses. We hope you stand up for civilization. Study it. Know it well. Learn from its mistakes and its glories. It is a strong narrative on life- your life. The new state religion of Ecuador- polytheism under the fake, fat goddess Pachamama is dishonesty personified. Unless and until Ecuador ends its love affair with dishonesty and manipulative thinking, Ecuador is dooming itself to criminal extortion rackets as exist fully today. This is not civilization and is nothing to be proud of.  You want a civilized nation? Work for it. You wanna’ thrive? First grow a set of morals.

-Pedro Camargo for ECrisis

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

The Wall Street Journal

BOOKSHELF

MARCH 25, 2011

Hidden Treasure
It is possible to inherit a great civilization without possessing the will to defend its ideals.
By HENRIK BERING
Among academics, the word "civilization" has long had a sinister ring to it, carrying associations of elitism and luxury. Worse, it is linked to imperialism, having provided Europeans with the justification for their far-flung conquests in centuries past—and, these days, for endless self-flagellation.

With "In Search of Civilization," John Armstrong, the resident philosopher at the Melbourne Business School in Australia, sets out to restore the reputation of a word that, to him, represents something infinitely precious and life-sustaining, a source of strength and inspiration. The great civilizations, he says, provide "a community of maturity in which across the ages individuals try to help each other cope with the demands of mortality."

As he makes clear, his purpose is not to provide a history of various civilizations or to update Samuel Huntington's seminal 1996 book on the post-Cold War world, "The Clash of Civilizations," though he cites Huntington's conclusion that today's real conflict is between civilization and barbarism. Mr. Armstrong wishes to convey what the idea means to him personally.

He identifies two basic attitudes toward civilization. One is that of the pessimist, exemplified here by the medieval abbot Bernard of Clairvaux. To Bernard, civilization was a rare and delicate plant, one that could survive only when sheltered behind the thick walls of a monastery. Outside were brutal barons, vulgar merchants and hoggish peasants. Such benighted folk he considered beyond reach.

Mr. Armstrong notes that even though British art historian Kenneth Clark crafted the 1969 television documentary series "Civilisation"—a survey of Europe's greatest artistic achievements and a cultural event in its own right—deep down he shared Bernard's pessimism. Clark once delivered a speech in Washington to rapturous applause, we're told, and then fled to the men's room, where he "sobbed and howled for a quarter of an hour." The historian felt like a fraud for having betrayed great artworks by peddling his thoughts about them to people who lacked the insight to truly appreciate them.

The second, more generous attitude is represented by Suger, the 12th-century abbot of St. Denis who served as regent for Louis VI while the king was away on a crusade. To inspire his parishioners, Suger built a magnificent church in the emerging Gothic style. He had a levelheaded understanding of the frailties of his fellow men, Mr. Armstrong notes, yet he did not despise them. Instead, combining realism and idealism, he sought to raise them, to help them ascend from the material to the spiritual.

Here Mr. Armstrong makes a crucial distinction between the popularizer and the populist. A popularizer like Suger is someone who wishes to share his own enthusiasm and refined judgment with others and does so through charm and encouragement. The populist merely caters to whatever appeals to the crowd, often playing to the crowd's worst instincts.

Mr. Armstrong is firmly on the side of the popularizers. Unlike many intellectuals, who resent any linking of wealth and culture, he sees the two as intimately connected, but they need to be integrated, he says, since wealth by itself does not compel admiration. Thus he looks for "the sweet spot where luxury and spiritual prosperity meet." In no age was this more the case than in the Renaissance, which went back to classical times for the best in literature, sculpture and architecture and confidently built upon it with the riches of a newly mercantile age. "What is striking," Mr. Armstrong finds, "is how well money was spent."

Compare this civilizing project with 19th-century France under Napoleon III, all gold and glitter on the surface but rot and wormholes below. Mr. Armstrong is particularly illuminating on decadence, which he defines as "defeatism before the consequences of defeat have been felt." In the dark cynicism of writers such as Baudelaire or Stendhal Mr. Armstrong sees not so much indolence as a form of fear and despair masquerading as sophistication. It is possible to inherit a great civilization, he implies, without possessing the will to defend its ideals. The bill came due in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War; patriotic German paintings from the time show manly Prussian troopers upsetting "mincingly delicate furniture."

Ideally, one wants a combination of sensitivity and robustness. The Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero is another of Mr. Armstrong's heroes. Like many of his countrymen, Cicero admired Greek philosophy but felt that the Greeks had allowed themselves to become a little too rarified for their own good, hence their later subjection by the Romans. Cicero wanted both culture and military muscle, combining the refinement of the Greeks with the power of Rome.

As for our own day, Mr. Armstrong observes, we enjoy great material prosperity, but the spiritual side of culture has lost a sense of legitimacy and depth. Much of the blame lies with the humanities, where scholars have buried themselves in arcana and lost sight of the larger lessons, such as how different ages can lend inspiration to one another. Instead of being "our treasure house," he says, the humanities have become "bank vaults," latter-day cloisters like Bernard of Clairvaux's.

Mr. Armstrong finds that this blinkered attitude is true even among those whose subject is the Renaissance itself. In Florence he meets a scholar who devotes his days to studying why camels are depicted with crossed legs in some Renaissance versions of "The Adoration of the Magi" and with straight legs in others. But the scholar remains oddly indifferent to what the Renaissance should mean to us today.

Our artists, too, have failed: The author sees Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons and their ilk as representatives of a decadent cultural elite that insists on provocation and newness as the only criteria for judging art. "Mockery, irony and archness," Mr. Armstrong says, "is not what we need." What is needed is hope and confidence. The treasures are all there to be rediscovered, if only we would bother.