In one of the letters written to the Infeld group in Warsaw Einstein wrote:
"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."

MEANINGLESS GENERALITIES ===============================================

Let me explain the reason why  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 most tolerant states in the history of Europe.

Abstract, Dogmatic Logic (DL) pretends to be capable to deal with generalities.

Reality, however, happens to be dialectical and only dialectical methods, such as our "Relativistic Dialectic" (RD) 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 Dialectic "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 too egotistic and too 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, than enjoy particular forms of freedom.

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 Dialectic, 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 other types of freedom. DL`s absolute "freedom" is chaos and chaos kills all desired types of freedom. RD's freedom is an enormous amount of restrictions providing relatively few desired types of freedom.

DL`s `freedom` is freedom to die in a desert. RD`s freedom is the choice of the least bad 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 conditioned to follow Dogmatic Logic considered Soviets as absolute ally and friend, which made him commit in Yalta one of the greatest errors and crimes in the history of the USA condemning his real and possibly the best ally, Poland, along with other 100 million people to Gulag's slavery.

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.