===============================================
MEANINGLESS GENERALITIES
===============================================
Let me explain for which reason I am allergic 
to statements like "rest of the world thinks 
this or that", or "Islam is intolerant".
They refer to "generalities" or general classes 
"as such" and one cannot say anything meaningful 
about a generality else than specify its 
instances. 
Thus "Islam is intolerant" is neither true, nor
false, but meaningless. Only about an instance 
of the class "Islam", such as "Muslim Spain" 
can one utter meaningful i.e. logically 
determinate statements eg. "Muslim Spain was 
intolerant". This statement is meaningful and 
has an associated "certainty" variable, set in 
our case to "0"(false), because "Muslim Spain" 
happens to be one of two most tolerant states 
in the history of Europe.

Abstract, dogmatic Logic pretends to be capable
to deal with generalities.

Reality, however, happens to be dialectical and 
only dialectical methods, such as my 
"Relativistic Dialectics" can deal with it in 
an adequate and meaningful way.

However, demagogues love "generalizations"
i.e. meaningless statements about generalities, 
to which they assign arbitrary, dogmatic meaning 
and which are most common tools for manipulating 
people and for generating mass hysteria. 

Let's have a look at some of them.
===============================================
FAITHFULNESS

To the Relativistic Dialectics "faithfulness"
is a meaningless noise, unless you specify
its instance, i.e. who is faithful to whom/what 
and in which concrete situation.

To Dogmatic Logic faithfulness as such is a 
virtue, dogmatically, independently of context.
And as any dogma, once raised to the level of 
a device written on the flags it may found 
crusades and indeed mobilized and motivated 
the toughest legion of the history, which in 
its name murdered millions and let itself be 
massacred in turn.
(Meine Ehre heisst Treue. 
 Faithfulness is the name of my honor. 
 Slogan of SS.)
Actually two absurd dogmas in an ideal harmony.
===============================================
CORRUPTION

Here at last, one may say, we have something 
essentially wrong, wrong in absolute,
independently of any context.

Well, I am sorry to disagree.

In Soviet Empire there was a current saying:
`Corruption is the last human attitude surviving 
in Communism`.
And, indeed falling on an upright KGB agent 
meant the end of all hope, while with a corrupt 
one you had a small chance.

Fascism has been invented in Italy and Hitler 
considered Mussolini as his master. One would
logically expect Italy to surpass Germany in 
atrocities, while compared with Himmler`s empire
it looked like a Kindergarten.  
Why? Simply because Italians were to egotistic 
and to corrupt to sincerely contribute to an 
idealistic stupidity in which they had no personal 
interest.

On the contrary, Germany counted enough upright, 
dedicated and efficient people to accomplish
the great job.

Auschwitz has not been created by small Totenkopf 
sadists hiding in camps from the Russian front, 
but by people like its commanding officer Hess 
(sorry for eventual misspelling). 
I have followed his trial, read his memories and 
studied his life, which left me with the image of 
an example of honesty, devotion to duty, efficiency 
and, of course, faithfulness. He was not even cruel, 
has never beaten or tortured people personally. 
An example of virtues.

So we may note that in systems based upon 
Dogmatic Logic our virtues turn to vices and 
our vices to virtues.
===============================================
FASCISM

Something which is usually considered to be 
wrong as such, in the deepest layers of its 
essence.

Well, Franco was a Fascist, but he saved more 
Nazi victims and Resistance agents than all
Democracies together.

Switzerland, so wonderfully Direct-Democratic 
and human has been Nazis accomplice by 
mishandling and sending back the refugees 
without being in any way obliged to do it.  
It made fortune on washing money robed by SS 
from murdered victims and on steeling victims'
money deposited in Swiss banks.

Allies are directly responsible for hundreds 
of thousands of Hungarian Jews, by having 
refused the famous Eichmann deal and indirectly 
for millions by having refused the request of 
Polish exile president to bomb access ways to 
camps and the gas chambers. 
And Poles volunteered their own pilots for 
these dangerous missions.
But every surviving Jew represented additional 
trouble for Britain in Palestine, so why 
prevent Hitler to do the dirty work for her?

After having escaped from Warsaw Ghetto I 
worked for Polish Resistance and have been 
involved in designing routes for our agents 
and some victims. We have considered Spain as 
a paradise, followed closely by Rumania, 
fascist and collaborating.

So, is fascism as such good or bad?
===============================================
FREEDOM

First dogmatic slogan written on the flags of 
all `Republics`. 

Still, when I look around I see that I appear 
not to be free at all: I have to keep right and 
stop at red light, when driving, I have to 
work in order to make money and to survive, 
I have to pay taxes, etc. I support much more 
constraints, enjoy particular forms of freedom. 
So, maybe I am not in a Republic?

Will Direct Democracy, or some other ideal 
system  leave all these restrictions, so that 
I will be free to drive against the current 
on expressways and to hit my neighbor because 
his dog woke me up?

To Dogmatic Logic `freedom is good` is true
as such, in absolute. And  as `faithfulness` 
it can perfectly motivate masses for a war in 
the name of `More Freedom`.

Relativistic Dialectics, on the contrary, 
considers `freedom` as some particular type of 
freedom in a given situation.

And the Theory of Chaos and Order tells us that 
we can enjoy a desired type of freedom only 
within an ordered system, where order results 
from inhibition of most other types of freedom. 
RD sees DL`s absolute freedom as chaos 
and chaos kills all desired types of freedom. 
It`s own concept of `freedom` sees RD as an 
enormous amount of restrictions providing 
relatively few desired types of freedom in 
practically unrestricted form.

DL`s `freedom` is freedom to die in a desert.  
RD`s freedom is the choice of the best of
available prisons. And, whether we like it 
or not, it is the highest degree of freedom 
determined by the very nature of the human being. 

Illusory absolute freedom of DL's chaos and 
restricted, but real freedom of RD's order are 
beautifully contrasted in Faulkner's novellas 
"The Wild Palms" and "Old Man". 
In "The Wild Palms" Harry motivated by love 
refuses all rules and conventions, goes down 
all steps of the social ladder and finishes by 
killing Charlotte, the very object of his love 
for whose sake he claimed this absolute
freedom. 
In "Old Man" the Tall Convict executes orders 
of prison guard and battles the great 
Mississippi flood to save a pregnant woman. 
Free to stay out he returns spontaneously to 
prison to find again the specific freedom of 
his destiny.  

A train has one type of freedom: to move along 
the rails. In order to enjoy it, it has to 
satisfy thousands of restrictions. Take one of 
them away and you will have no train at all.
===============================================
ALLY AND ENEMY

DL is based among other things upon the 
exclusive or: one can be EITHER ally OR enemy,
but not both, which would be a logical 
contradiction.
To RD it is a Dichotomy. Unlike the 
contradictory terms of a logical antinomy, 
the terms of a dialectical dichotomy are
COMPLEMENTARY. They do not denote an 
impossibility, but a particular instance of
an involved entity: one CAN be at the same
time ally AND enemy.

In WW2 Soviet Union was ally of the USA, but at 
the same time was her most dangerous enemy. 

In PAX AMERICANA WW2 in
  http://213.69.121.236/myarchive/
  or
  http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/

we have shown how FDR limited to DL based 
dogmatic reasoning and conditioning considered 
Soviets as absolute ally and friend, which 
made him commit one of the greatest errors
and crimes in the history of the USA. 

Let's suppose that the control of the USA risks 
to be split between an Al Capone and a Lucky 
Luciano. The police is too week to get rid of
any of them. If they declare war to one another
police may help, say Lucky against Al, thus
making Lucky to it's ally. But he does not
become an absolute friend and once the war
finished, should be defeated in turn. 

If we substitute Hitler for Al and Stalin for
Lucky, we shall get a better feeling for the 
history.
===============================================
ALLY OF MY ENEMY IS MY ENEMY

A clear DL's deduction.

Now, in WW2 Finland fought against Soviets, 
thus being Nazis' ally. 
However, RD reminds us that she did not fight
FOR Nazis, but AGAINST Soviets. Understanding
it we never considered her as enemy and 
admired her heroic struggle for survival in 
face of the deadly Gulag's threat.
===============================================