On the Theory of Knowledge

In yesterday’s post on the EU, I mentioned en passant the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban and his demonization in the west after he got between capital and its quest for high rate of returns.

Today, the New York Times had a front page article in the business section on Hungary. Hungary, Once a Star, Loses Its Shine, was the heading. If you can, read the whole piece here. If you read yesterday’s post, you will smile in many places and can even anticipate what is coming next. I was not kidding about the tiresome predictability of the news. Look at this paragraph:

To some critics, the biggest problem with the Hungarian economy is Mr. Orban himself …Backed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, Mr. Orban has passed a flurry of laws that have concentrated power in his hands, weakened competing institutions like the central bank and alienated international lenders as well as an increasing number of Hungarians.

No doubt one of those alienated Hungarians is George Soros.

Note also the reference to “competing institutions”. The Times considers Hungary’s central bank as a competing institution with the government. I could not have said it better myself.

I have a soft spot for Hungarians because of Sandor Marai. His Casanova in Bolzano is the most adult and thus, the most touching, love story I have read. But this is not about Hungary. Rather, I want to make a point about what you know and how you know.

From the short Times paragraph above, we see that Orban has two-thirds majority in the parliament. That is more than you could say for Cameron, Merkel or Sarkozy. Yet, try as you might, you will not find a single article in English anywhere – newspapers or otherwise – explaining Orban’s point of view and his rationale for submitting those laws to the parliament. Nada. Zilch.

There is no centralized command and control center for these media outlets. How could it be that they all say the same thing as if on cue?

Which brings me to Michael Burleigh.

I don’t know who Michael Burleigh is. He must be a piece of shit, judging from where he writes and what he writes. I stumbled upon his writing following news links in relation with the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist. Here is what he wrote:

They [Iranian nuclear scientists] work for a regime that has explicitly threatened Israel (and by implication many ambient Palestinians) with such a weapon. I shall not shed any tears whenever one of these scientists encounters the unforgiving men on motorbikes, men who live in the real world rather than a laboratory or philosophy seminar

I am not concerned with the lie about Iran having nuclear weapons or threatening others with them. Nor do I care about his use of the word "unforgiving". Unless he knows the assassins, he could not possibly know their motive.

What fired me up, though, was his put-down of men studying philosophy. I am one such man, constantly brushing up on my Rumi, Kant and Hegel to use in the upcoming Vol. 4.

The above mentioned shit thinks philosophy has no relation to real life. He is right so far as what he has in mind is philosophy as taught at Harvard and Yale. But real philosophy is real, sufficiently real, in fact, as to be unsettling. You will see.