iconic classic cars

Stickman Readers' Submissions August 23rd, 2012

The End of the Beginning

Ohhh ignorance is bliss. Out of all the submissions I have read to date, nothing compares to the utter narrowness of the “The Beginning of the End
submission. It’s not the beginning of anything, nor will it ever be. Rather, the desired effect of the submission ended the moment it was submitted.

How on earth does the writer go from posing the question “how can Maslow’s hierarchy of needs be implemented on a global scale”? then turn around and say it’s impossible BECAUSE of the “over production
of human entities that are now clogging the surface of this planet”. Not content, he labels those involved in the production of these human entities as irresponsible idiots that are claiming to be marginalized due to
the fact they are unable to afford, feed and raise their children. Basically, the world is suffering because it is overpopulated and those contributing to the population are irresponsible idiots who aren’t able to rear their children
who also rely on the support of others. When I read this utter nonsense, it reminded of another well known British economist who wrote similar things a little over 200 years ago who said:

A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labor, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders, if he does not work upon the compassion of some of her guests. If these guests get up and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favor. The report of a provision for all that come, fills the hall with numerous claimants. The order and harmony of the feast is disturbed, the plenty that before reigned is changed into scarcity; and the happiness of the guests is destroyed by the spectacle of misery and dependence in every part of the hall, and by the clamorous importunity of those, who are justly enraged at not finding the provision which they had been taught to expect. The guests learn too late their error, in counter-acting those strict orders to all intruders, issued by the great mistress of the feast, who, wishing that all guests should have plenty, and knowing she could not provide for unlimited numbers, humanely refused to admit fresh comers when her table was already full."
(Thomas Malthus in “An Essay on the Principle of Population”).

Malthus’ solution to the so-called problem of overpopulation was to let the children die and perish as he “has no business to be where he is” meaning the child has no right to be living in the world as we know it.
Let’s pose a few questions here. How did Malthus (and those who think similar to him) view a human being? Is a human being just a piece of flesh no different to animals we slaughter? What value does a human being possess in the mind
of Malthus et al? How do they ‘approach’ the subject of being human? No doubt religion and philosophy have many things to say related to these questions. However, some of the most renowned and revered Western intellectuals have
the most insulting view of a human being and without a doubt, these writers’ thoughts are very prevalent today especially in the West.

Take Marx for example. Although in his corpus of work, he provides valuable insights to the nature of capitalism; his historical materialism reduced the entire history of humanity into a class war fighting over surplus. In this conception,
human beings have mainly fought with each other over the control of the means of production and distribution of wealth. Really? Is this what the entire history of humanity has been reduced to? Reminds me of a pack of dogs at my wife’s
village. Throw a bone and they start fighting each other for that bone with the tough one eventually winning out. Is this what we human beings are? Are we the same as these dogs? I don’t think so. We are way above dogs although; there
obviously are people in this world who are the same, if not, lower than dogs. Marx’s historical materialism is nothing but an insult to humanity. His notion of history is better suited to dogs than human beings.

And what about Freud? Now here’s another hero of university lecturers especially the feminist minded women. This man without doubt was psychologically sick himself. In his “Three essays on sexuality”, he argued that
a baby suckling its mothers breast was a way for the baby to satisfy its libido. Now for someone to suggest that a baby suckling milk from his or her mother is an act of satisfying the infants sexual desire in my strong opinion is mentally
deranged. This is exactly where the problem with this idiot is anyway. Freud reduced the entire human race to libido. Everything and anything related to human beings was explained by the libido. For Freud, human beings are animals at the mercy
of their libido. To reduce humanity to slaves of their libido is degrading. Although, in the case of most people who come to live in Thailand, it might be a legitimate question.

Another writer who is ‘worshipped’ in the West who possessed very degrading ideas about human beings was Darwin but I don’t want to divert off what I really want to say in this submission and start a whole debate
about evolution versus creation as this is not the place to discuss these issues as we are writing submissions related to Thailand. Suffice it to say that Marx, Freud and Darwin, three giant thinkers of the West had, I believe the most insulting
and degrading view of human beings and humanity in general whose ideas are prevalent today. And why is all this important and relevant you might ask?

Well if you look misguidedly, you’ll see misguidedly. This is Chalermchai’s problem but not only his. Right at the core, at the essence, the problem is how we view and approach another human being. Without solving this problem,
the problem of viewing ‘the other’, we are problematic ourselves. Edward Said’s Orientalism comes to mind. Do yourselves a favor and read it for an in depth understanding of ‘viewing the other’. In light
of this, let’s view a few quotes of Chalermchai’s:

“At this point in time we need a 50% reduction in global population levels and that is not likely to occur without tough attitudes being implemented”

“there have not been any major wars to eradicate the excess population levels since the end of WWII”

“We over-medicate people (especially in the West) who probably should die from their medical conditions”

“The major problem begins with the production of unsustainable offspring in African and Middle-Eastern Nations”

“Of course there are many “bleeding-heart” idiots always ready to come to their “rescue” under the guise of NGO's who will raise public funding to perpetuate this travesty”

Let me briefly say that these abominable quotes are evidence enough of someone who doesn’t possess a ‘bleeding heart’ as he puts it and gives the impression he is an ultra rationalist without an ounce of emotion towards
his fellow human beings because it’s all their fault anyway as they are ‘irresponsible idiots’. So whose fault is it anyway?

Well let us look at these questions first which will give us direction. Do these ‘irresponsible idiots ‘really want to be poor and suffer like this? Is it their own entire fault that they are poor and suffering? Is it their
‘fate’ or ‘destiny’ or God’s will that these people suffer like this? Are they the real idiots or are the people who put them in this situation the real idiots?

Absolutely not! No one wants to willfully be poor and destitute living in slums. So is it their fault for being poor and destitute. Absolutely not! Historically, the impact Imperialism had on her colonies is undeniable. They not only
brought these nations into the web of capitalism but prevented them from industrializing. Rather, they had these nations focus their production on whatever raw materials they possessed abundantly. For example, Egypt=cotton, India=grain, Cuba=Sugar,
Brazil=tin, rubber, Congo=cocoa. In effect these countries were mainly single good producing countries for the rest of the developing and industrializing nations. Once the price of their raw materials dropped, it had devastating consequences
on their economy as they were at the mercy of fluctuating international prices. To make matters worse, those involved in the production of these raw materials were partnered with their imperial masters. They obeyed their masters’ demands
and their masters promised them riches provided they help control the uprisings and riots. Hardly any of the money made from exporting these raw materials reached the masses below. The upper echelons partnered with their imperial masters were
the ones eating the chunk of the cake.

Just one example of how capitalism and avarice mercilessly killed millions of people was the great famine in India between 1876 and 1878. While people were literally starving to death, trains carrying tonnes of grain was being exported
to outside markets. So why not help and have ‘bleeding hearts’ for these people? Because the profit motive is more important than the life of a human being. After all, if you view human beings as labor or as animals who are always
in conflict with each other where the fittest survive, then it’s no problem if millions die because they are just worthless animals and ‘irresponsible idiots’ who were not fit to survive. If you look at it from this perspective
then it’s perfectly alright for them to die. Of course it’s not their fault they were colonized and it’s not their fault they were brought into the web of capitalism. No but of course not. It’s their fault.

Currently, half the world goes to bed hungry and is unable to find clean water. But what can they do when a country like America who makes up approximately 5 to 7% of the world population consumes almost 30% of the world’s resources.
If the world’s richest 100 individuals gave 2.5% of their wealth each year, there would not be one single person without clean water, food, clothes and shelter. We have more than enough wealth and resources to comfortably feed the entire
planet but the problem is some people want not only vegetables and rice but a rump steak along with rib eye and lamb shanks. Some people are not content with a rump steak either and go to these glitzy restaurants and pay 500 dollars for a
3 course meal. While we are busy awaiting the next I phone or Samsung Galaxy or new LED, others are busy finding their next meal. We have become experts at ignoring the plight of our fellow human beings.

You see, the problem is not with the ‘irresponsible idiots’ but with avaricious and unfulfilled sickly desires of the mega wealthy who hoard their wealth and just want to keep on making more and more and more. More is not
enough for them. Enough is not enough for them. Their insatiable desires can never be satiated. Their greed and avarice will never diminish. Take Iraq for example. An innocent country according to the accusations of first being behind 9/11
then possessing weapons of mass destruction. Totally devastated with hundreds and thousands of people killed and displaced. Yes it’s their fault they didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction and it’s their fault they
weren’t behind 9/11. But attacking Iraq was good business for the avaricious ‘dogs’. Arms producers, construction companies, electrical suppliers and a whole host of other goods and service providers benefited from that
war. It didn’t matter that a completely innocent nation was being invaded and that innocent people were dying and suffering. Again, if you look at them as flesh, as an excessive number of people populating this planet that should die
anyway or as animals, then it’s no problem they die. It’s really not that important is it?

When these people are fleeing their homeland from the cluster bombs seeking refuge elsewhere, such as Australia, then they are the illegal aliens who should be turned back to where they came from because it’s their fault their
country has been illegally invaded? Dear o dear.

So what has all this got to do with Thailand or the region? Well it has a lot to do with Thailand and the region. Capitalism has taken hold of Thailand as well and some of the horrific consequences of this have revealed itself. For example,
I personally know someone involved in a near fatal motorbike accident. Because he didn’t have insurance, the hospital didn’t attend to all of his wounds and left him half healed who had to fly back home to complete the rest of
the operations required. Human trafficking and Thai farmers from the north selling their baby girls to Thai mafias is another tragedy all together. Corruption and scandal is rife in the kingdom. I have been told numerous times that you could
literally kill someone and pay your way out of being incarcerated or be incarcerated for a very small amount of time.

Like I said before, we are experts at ignoring the plight of our fellow human beings. This beautiful kingdom like many other nations has severe problems related to poverty. Again, while we are walking towards Nana Plaza or Soi Cowboy
or going to Climax to find freelancers, how many times have we come across beggars with legs missing or amputated? How many times have we seen mothers send their tiny daughters to beg off tourists or sell gum? How many times have we seen homeless
people in grease and grime lying under a bridge or awning? We come to what I said before. It’s how we view these people that matters. Are they animals and dogs who were not fit enough to survive? Are they ‘irresponsible idiots’
or the result of ‘irresponsible idiots? Just how are we supposed to view them? Should we just ignore them and let our desire to bed another lady overwhelm us? I’ve merely posed the questions. It’s up to you to share your
answers and thoughts… <By private email, not on this siteStick>


Relevance to Thailand?

He Clinic Bangkok