Tuesday 1st of July 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

angels weep and devils grin to see the pickle we are in.....

Ethics is basically a learned habit of behavior.  —  Aristotle.

Virtue is its own reward.  —  Plato.

Plato:  Welcome, Aristotle!  It’s been a while since I have seen you at the Academy.

Aristotle:  And it is good to see you as well my teacher.  And how have things been?

P:  I hear that you have had the honor of instructing the great Alexander in philosophy and morals.  How has that suited you?

A:  Alexander is a man of action and, ultimately, had little time for philosophic instruction.  And what about your trip to Syracuse?  Have you had the same experience as myself with ___________ or have the gods looked down and smiled upon you and gave you a willing and able “Philosopher-King” to groom in __________?  I am all ears.

 

Dialogue: Plato and Aristotle on Happiness, and Whether a Good Man be harmed by a Bad Man?

 

P:  As with you, my so-called “student-Philosopher-King” was not ready to engage in dialectics and discover Truth for himself, so—since, as you know, I do not believe that “teaching” is possible—there was no point in me remaining there, so I have returned to Athens and the Academy to be with those willing fellow companions who are eagar to “teach” themselves.

A:  Do you still believe that “wisdom” is accessible to literally everyone or, like me, do you believe that different people have different abilities and therefore some are necessarily excluded from ever possibly becoming “wise”?

P:  Of course, as you know, Aristotle, we have radically different definitions of “wisdom.”  I am absolutely convinced that everyone can be wise.  All they simply need to do is recognise the limitations to their knowledge—not presume to know things they do not know—and they thus can be considered “wise.”  So, given my definition of “wisdom,” a king or theoretical physicist may each be considered fools if they believe that because one is a king and the other a deeply learned scientist that therefore each knows truths outside of their limited area of expertise as well.  A mongoloid or Down’s Syndrome child, on the other hand, who recognises and does not venture beyond his or her limited field of knowledge–however trunchated–may justly be considered “wise” instead. 

A:  Tosh!  Tosh!  No one believes that a person who is mentally limited can be “wise,”  that is ridiculous. 

P:  If what you say is correct, then who is in fact “mentally limited,” the “wise” and intellectually humble Mongoloid or the over-reaching, proud, and full-of-themselves masses?!!! 

A:  I guess, as always, we will have to agree to disagree.  So what brings you to the Acropolis today?  As always, trying to test your wits against “those-who-think-they-know” and take pleasure and enjoyment in embarrassing and humiliating them intellectually or are you here for some other reason?  

P:  Of course I do not take “pleasure and enjoyment” in showing allegedly “wise” persons that they are in fact fools—exactly the opposite.  I would that the world be populated with knowledgeable and wise interlocutors immune and superior to my philosophic interrogations, but—unfortunately, very unfortunately!!!—that is not the case today.  In the future, perhaps, but not tody.

A:  So, what shall you and I discuss today?  I assume, being impoverished but with time on your hands, you and I can enjoy a good, educational, and pleasurable conversation.  That being so, what shall we discuss today?

P:  I propose we discuss what, in various permutations, I virtually always discuss, namely, why should a good man be good and not evil—especially if the rewards for being evil are many and varried whereas the so-called “reward” for being good is, as many people believe, intangible and non-existent?  And, as a secondary topic, what brings “happiness” to a person?  Are you agreed, and shall we begin?

A:  I can always count on you to ask the deepest questions. I believe that this is one reason your fellow-students at the Academy consider you a better philosopher than myself, not because you have better answers but because you ask better questions.  Yes, let’s begin, and in true Socratic fashion let’s begin by defining our terms. 

     Ultimately, we are discussing what it means to be “virtuous.”  Today, of course, the definition of the word “virtue” is trunchated.  “Virtue” is associated, in particular, with essentially sexual connotations.  To call someone “virtuous” today is to label them as “chaste,” “virginal,” “sexually continant,” or “faithfully monogamous,” but as we both know, historically, that has not always been the case.  “Virtue” comes from the Latin for “manliness”—as in “virility”—and this itself derives from the Latin (?) for “excellence.”  In other words, to be “virtuous” in the ancient world meant, especially, to be an excellent example, a paradigm, of true honorable manliness—a manliness to be emulated–and not merely someone who is sexually continent. 

     Of course today morality is placed on its head—upside down.  Few people, especially young men, wish to be labeled “virtuous.”  It connotes sexualy inexperience, something most all adolescent boys (and girls as well) feel embarrassed to acknowledge.  On the contrary, sexual promiscuity is held up to be a universally desirable goal, a belief widely peddled throughout the Jewish-controlled Media.  Granted, sexual activity is pleasurable and can bring two people closer together emotionally and psychologically, which is certainly a good thing, but there is more to the story.  In the dominant Jewish moral vocabulary as promulgated in the Jewish-dominated Western Media, the pleasures of sex are inextricably linked with the (fuzzy) Western notion of “love.”  If someone engages in pleasurable sex with someone (and women/girls are especially prone to this) then that physical pleasure is associated with being in love.  The “high” of experiencing this feeling is almost universally interpreted as being a true manifestation and earmark of “being in love.”  Now here is where the problem comes in:  what happens when—and it will always inevitably happen—that the psychic “high” of the experience of having sex dissipates and wanes?  What do many people—epecially young people—make of this?  Naturally enough, with the gradual diminishment of the sexual “high,” the parties to this once oceanic feeling of alleged “never-ending” psycho-sexual pleasure will come to believe that, in the proportion that the pleasure ebbs, so also their feelings of love for one another likewise ebbs as well.  Is it any surprise that sexual promiscuity and divorce are so commonplace today?  Of course not!!!  I am certainly not saying that all sex needs to lead to children or marriage, only that people see sex in its proper context (and use contraceptives appropriately).

     Anyway, with this necessary preface now complete, we can address the the main topic at hand.

P:  Thank you, Aristotle, for “clearing away some of the verbal underbrush,” so to speak, so we are not misled by ambiguity and imprecise, fuzzy thinking.  Yes, let us begin.

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/06/28/dialogue-plato-and-aristotle-on-happiness-and-whether-a-good-man-be-harmed-by-a-bad-man/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.


While angels weep and devils grin

To see the pickle we are in.....

        R. H. LONG. War (1917)

damage....

 

The U.S. Bombing of Iran Damages International Law
The unprovoked attack exposes Western hypocrisy.

 

BY Ted Snider

 

It is not yet clear how much damage was done to Iran’s civilian nuclear facilities by the fourteen bunker-buster bombs the United States dropped last weekend. But the damage done to international law, not only by the bombing but also by the response of America’s allies, is very clear.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Washington and its Western allies have committed to a military and intelligence operation against Russia in defense of Ukraine so massive that it has put the world on the brink of nuclear war more than once. The weight of the justification for that effort rests, in large part, on the defense of international law and especially the ban on any nation violating the sovereignty of another nation with an aggressive attack.
And yet, the U.S. committed that very crime by attacking, without approval of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a sovereign nation that had neither attacked nor threatened it.
America’s action and the response to it by its allies exposes the charade of international law. In the U.S.-led rules-based order, there is no consistently applied international law; Washington and its allies selectively apply the rules when they suit them and exempt themselves from the rules when they do not.
That reality is laid bare not only by America’s illegal bombing of Iran but by Europe, NATO, and Ukraine’s justification of that attack while simultaneously condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
British prime minister Keir Starmer placed the responsibility on Iran and praised the U.S. “Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the U.S. has taken action to alleviate that threat,” Starmer said.
France “expressed its firm opposition to Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons” and “urge[d] the parties to exercise restraint.”
Italy called for de-escalation while saying Iran’s nuclear facilities “represented a danger for the entire area.”
The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, could only muster a milquetoast pronouncement: “I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation.” EU president Ursula von der Leyen said, “Iran must never acquire the bomb…. Now is the moment for Iran to engage in a credible diplomatic solution.”
Germany, France and Britain issued a joint statement, insisting “that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.” It implied that America’s “targeted military strikes against nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan” were consistent with their nations’ shared aim “to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” They then called on Iran “to engage in negotiations” and “urge[d] Iran not to take any further action that could destabilize the region.”
Molly O’Neal, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggested to me that the European response is best represented by Germany, whose chancellor, Friedrich Merz, recently said the U.S. was doing “our dirty work” by attacking Iran.
“This offensive remark,” O’Neal said, “exposed vividly that norms of sovereignty and territorial integrity, applied rigorously in Europe, are ignored when the U.S. applies force in violation of these norms.”
Australia announced, “We support action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon and that is what this is.” Czechia similarly endorsed the attack. “The U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is an understandable attempt to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons,” the prime minister wrote on X.
Al Jazeera’s James Bays pointed out to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that NATO has “been criticizing Russia for breaching the rules-based international order by invading Ukraine.” Bays asked, “Doesn’t all of that seem very hypocritical given the U.S.’s recent actions which are clearly dubious under international law?” Rutte stammered through a response. “Well, I don’t agree with that assessment at all…. I do not at all—not one syllable of your assessment—sorry—on what you just said…. I think you have this completely wrong.”
NATO’s reaction to the U.S. bombing had already been revealed when President Donald Trump published Rutte’s message to him on Truth Social. “Mr. President, dear Donald,” Rutte wrote, “Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.”
But, perhaps, the greatest example of self-defeating hypocrisy goes to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has, understandably, insisted on enforcing the international law against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations without UNSC approval.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement saying, “Ukraine is convinced that Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped so that it never again poses a threat to the countries of the Middle East or any other state.” Zelensky reiterated that Iran “must absolutely not” be allowed to have “nuclear weapons,” and he praised “the resolve of President Trump.” There is also a hypocrisy to Zelensky’s insistence that “there must be no proliferation of nuclear weapons in the modern world,” since he himself has threatened to reacquire nuclear weapons in Ukraine, a remark that went uncriticized by the U.S. or NATO in another selective application of international law.

The sincerity of America’s commitment to an impartial international law has long been questioned in much of the world, and especially in the Global South. That suspicion has undoubtedly been hardened by America’s recent unprovoked bombing of Iran in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States or of UNSC approval. 

Though the damage done to Iran’s nuclear program remains to be seen, one cost of that achievement is the great, and possibly irreparable, damage done to international law and America’s claim to be its greatest defender.

  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-u-s-bombing-of-iran-damages-international-law/ READ FROM TOP. 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.