Thomas Hobbes, Greta Thunberg, and me

 

Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they began the Declaration of Independence with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

Our founding fathers were horrified by the results throughout history of “The Divine Right of Kings,” which stated that kings had been chosen by God, and thus had enormous power over other men. Even atheist pacifists like Thomas Hobbes tended to support such things, in fear of the results of unbridled human nature, because they knew humans, and they shared the dim view of human nature expressed by The Bible, Shakespeare, and modern conservatives. So while kings claimed to derive their power from God, Americans claimed that individual rights had been granted to each human being by God, and thus government could only secure those rights which had already been granted by a higher power. That’s a pretty solid argument for the limitation of government power. Until we decide that we are God.

The shift from the 1970’s global cooling to the 1980’s global warming was a good example of the acquisition of nearly absolute power through compassion and good intentions, regardless of the actual scientific or policy details. If you mean well, you should be granted nearly Divine Rights of Kings. Your authority should not be questioned. Anyone who questions your intentions is not engaging in a simple disagreement over a policy debate – they are guilty of blasphemy. Such people are beyond the pale of polite society, and the mistreatment of such evil simpletons is not just acceptable but encouraged. I don’t think that Mark Steyn would find this statement to be an exaggeration.

This sign is another example of this phenomenon. Do masks reduce the death rate from COVID-19? Possibly. On one hand, the viral particle is 1,000X smaller than the holes in the mask, so masks may not help. But the viral particles are often adhered to droplets of moisture, which are larger, so masks may help. But those who wear masks touch their face a lot more, so masks may actually increase the rate of viral transmission. But perhaps the mask serves as a constant reminder to avoid personal contact with others, so they may actually decrease the rate of viral transmission. But since those truly threatened by this virus are generally very sick, very old residents of long-term care facilities, and most of us are unlikely to encounter many such people each day (especially while we’re jogging), so perhaps masks worn out in public (especially while jogging) can’t really have much impact either way on COVID-19 death rates. But the concept of herd immunity may change that. Or perhaps not.

So do masks reduce the death rate from COVID-19? Perhaps. Or perhaps not.

It’s complicated.

Or rather, it’s complicated to me, at least.

You might gather from this sign that the authors don’t find this to be complicated. They seem to claim a God-like, complete, and full understanding of all the nuances of the debate.

But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people. Different people, in this case.

This, too, is complicated.

Or rather, it’s complicated to me, at least.

While such a sign may seem absurd, I think it’s a helpful attempt to clarify what could be confusing to some (like me). If you were jogging along this street and someone started throwing stuff at you, you might think that that was a sign of hatred. But you would be wrong. Such unprovoked attacks are actually a sign of compassion, not hatred.

It’s complicated.


“Leviathon” is an extraordinary book in which Thomas Hobbes argued that a strong central government should be forgiven the occasional misuse of its near-limitless power because the only alternative he could envision at the time was anarchy. And anarchy would expose humans to human nature in its natural, ungoverned, state; leading to a life that he famously described as “nasty, brutish, and short.” As an atheist, Hobbes feared that as men became less religious, and thus less confined by the ethics and morals of a higher power, a powerful central government would become increasingly necessary to moderate and regulate the passions of men.

I wonder what Mr. Hobbes would make of that sign? Or of Greta Thunberg? Or of Al Sharpton? Christine Blasey Ford? John McCain? The EPA? David Hogg? The United Nations? AOC?

How can anyone control those who claim something like the Divine Right of Kings based purely on their self-described compassion or victimhood? They aren’t granted power by God. They aren’t deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, to protect the individual rights granted by God.

No. Their compassion and/or victimhood mean that, for all intents and purposes, they are God. And thus their proclamations, whatever they are, must be obeyed. Any disagreement with whatever they think “social justice” means today is not a disagreement to be discussed – it is blasphemy that must be vigorously punished. You can even throw stuff at such people. You can tell them what cars they may drive. You can require certain bakers to bake certain types of cakes for certain types of events. You can make plastic bags either mandatory or forbidden. Not just for your groceries, but for everybody else’s. You can do whatever you want.

Your compassion entitles you to Divine Rights.

I think Mr. Hobbes would find such modern forms of tyranny to be more terrifying than The Divine Rights of Kings that he wrote about in the 1600s. Kings could, ultimately, be controlled. If not by their subjects, than by reality itself. They were, after all, only men, albeit in extraordinary circumstances.

How does anyone control an army of Gods who answer to no one?

Today’s God-like compassionate victims dismiss the “Social Contract Theory” of medieval times as ignorant, simplistic, or blasphemous. Or more likely all three. Charles, I would agree with them. But in the battle between The “Divine Right of Kings” and “Social Contract Theory,” he lost. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but essentially, Social Contract Theory won, in that case.

I argue that it is losing today.

Again, it’s a bit more complicated than that. But still, I think it’s losing.


I think that Mr. Hobbes would find this new age of the Divine Rights of self-proclaimed compassion Gods to be concerning. Greta Thunberg would scare him, I suspect.

I know that she scares me.

I would love to have dinner with just the three of us – Thomas Hobbes, Greta Thunberg, and me. Mr. Hobbes would have a lot of fascinating things to say, I suspect. He was an absolutely brilliant man. I would have a lot of questions if nothing else.

I wonder what Greta Thunberg would add to the discussion? My guess is, not much. Not much brilliance, and even fewer questions.

But then, why should she be bothered with the prattlings of mere humans? The entire earth needs saving, for God’s sake. Gods have more important concerns than mundane discussions of the matters of men. To Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and all that.

Such compassionate Gods should be forgiven the occasional misuse of their near-limitless power because the only alternative we can envision is chaos. We fear the unknown and long for the structure and comfort of a powerful governing force. But we no longer believe in an actual God. And we don’t like being told what do to by the government, even if we elect it ourselves. So we agree to allow our human passions to be moderated and regulated by these new self-proclaimed compassion-Gods. Like Greta Thunberg. Goodness.

This is scary stuff.

Still, I think that dinner would lead to a fascinating discussion.

For two of us, at least. The two of us who are actually interested in the mundane matters of men.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 25 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?  

    • #1
  2. Sisyphus (Rolling Stone) Member
    Sisyphus (Rolling Stone)
    @Sisyphus

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?

    There is no need to indict the preconvicted, there is only sentencing and execution. Just ask Xi, if he stops laughing long enough. He understands these things.

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    An excellent post that asks all the right questions.

    On a cognitive level, we now know that this pneumonia is killing the frail elderly and people who have serious infirmities.

    But there is something kicking in at the emotional level that says to us that we don’t want to go there. We don’t want to think about it that way. It’s dangerous to allow ourselves to be completely dispassionate about the virus for the reason that those people are its only victims.

    On a humanitarian level, I am relieved that people feel that way. I’ve seen the ugliness of indifference to suffering and death, and I don’t want that to happen in America.

    I believe we can deal with the virus and restart the economy while being happy to be who we are, which is foolishly committed to loving everyone. Let God take care of death while we take care of life.

    Or perhaps I’m being too generous, and they are just enjoying being scolds. :-)

    • #3
  4. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    MarciN (View Comment):
    Letting God take care of death while we take care of life.

    We can never turn away from death. 

    • #4
  5. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    I found this sentence of yours interesting, Dr B: As an atheist, Hobbes feared that as men became less religious, and thus less confined by the ethics and morals of a higher power, a powerful central government would become increasingly necessary to moderate and regulate the passions of men.

    The leaders on the Left basically are stipulating that certain things need to come about, like contact testing, for instance. They do continually point to the ultimate compassion for and consideration of the vulnerable as the reason for those limitations they seek to impose. But I really doubt they care about moderating and regulating the passions of men that much. What they are seeking is ultimate control.

    Hobbes’ lack of insight on this matter is perhaps due to the fact that he was born two centuries too early to even conceive, let alone contemplate, the horror fest of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China.

    • #5
  6. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    Scared of a little girl? Perhaps not what she is, but what she will become. What if you had known the 14-year-old Adolph Hitler or Mao Tse Tung (Zhe-dong?)? I have known adolescents who are scary because I have seen the path that they are starting out on and don’t know how they can be persuaded to get onto a better one before it ruins them and injures others.  I don’t know where I’m going with this – just a first impression.

    • #6
  7. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I think Greta is genuinely baffled that the world hasn’t changed because of her. After all, didn’t she stand there at the United Nations and yell at world leaders, telling them to redo their entire economies and throw away most of what we’ve gained since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? You know, because she loves the Earth so much? What are they waiting for? She obviously has the authority of Caring A Lot!

    • #7
  8. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?

    So, people from windows will throw stuff at maskless joggers.  Sounds like they advocate violence . . .

    • #8
  9. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Stad (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?

    So, people from windows will throw stuff at maskless joggers. Sounds like they advocate violence . . .

    They’re just trying to make the world a better place.  You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, after all…

    • #9
  10. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    It’s really still top down.   Powerful organizing forces come at us from above.  If not,  we’d have to work things out, locally, and influence would grow up from below.  The silly little girl is a national media phenomena and so are most things that give rise to local shouting mobs;  the media, the bureaucracy, giant national and international retail, the educational establishment and party leadership have interests and their influence grows, narrows, and is blind about the reality of real people living in those communities that pay for it but have less influence every year.  That’s why we ended up with Kings, dictators and Soviet like leadership then died.  Modern bureaucratic structures demand more so have to keep a more modern economy but the end is probably the same.

    • #10
  11. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    First time I have seen an image of Hobbes.  Thanks for posting it.

    • #11
  12. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I think Greta is genuinely baffled that the world hasn’t changed because of her. After all, didn’t she stand there at the United Nations and yell at world leaders, telling them to redo their entire economies and throw away most of what we’ve gained since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? You know, because she loves the Earth so much? What are they waiting for? She obviously has the authority of Caring A Lot!

    Plus she’s nasty and short.

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Dr. Bastiat: Anyone who questions your intentions is not engaging in a simple disagreement over a policy debate – they are guilty of blasphemy.

    You’re right about a lot in this piece, Doc, but you miss the mark here. I don’t question the intentions of the warmists or most other leftists (some are blatantly malicious, but not most). I question their facts. I question their grasp of reality, their understanding of human nature and, in general, their knowledge of how things work. I assume they mean well (although we probably disagree on what “the good” even is), but they’re under the sway of emotions (intoxicated by their “virtue,” as David Horowitz says) and many very bad ideas.

    • #13
  14. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    We already know what people driven by great ideas unhindered by traditional and religious morality are capable of.  We saw this unfold in the 20th century with millions of citizens being murdered by their own governments in the name of changing the world for the better.

    Thunberg, Hogg and the other socialist millennials offer us the same sort of thing.

    • #14
  15. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    It doesn’t help that non-scientists indoctrinate school children in what they adamantly believe to be “science”, and promulgate the idea that those who disagree with them are the idiots.

    We really need to level-set the processes here.  I don’t need someone with an English undergrad degree telling children how planetary physics works.  Because they clearly do not know, will never know, nor understand it – especially when PhD’s don’t have an absolute handle on all of it, and 40 years ago we were all going to be frozen under a block of ice by the year 2000.

    Then we were all going to be boiled alive by global warming.

    Then all storms, earthquakes, and upset tum-tums were caused by climate change.

    Next, when we get struck by a large enough meteor to cause a planetwide cooling, it’ll somehow be Exxon’s fault.

    What I think people are missing, if they don’t have direct contact with grade, high school, and college students, is how fervently some of them believe in a science they literally know next to nothing about, from a technical perspective, much less the standard skepticism that a scientist would have for any proclamation about absolutes.

    Coming from children.  Who can apparently be trusted with the future of our planet, economies, and what kind of help to wear, but can’t be trusted to do the goddamn dishes once in a while.

    Thanks, but until chowderheads can fend for themselves, I’ll happily ignore their proclamations about What Is To Be Done?  Put down your made-from-plastic cell phone and iPad, never drive a car, and never eat food that is transported in any way by fossil fuels, and then maybe I’ll listen.

    Until then, do something productive, or stop talking.  Your choice.

     

    • #15
  16. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    MarciN (View Comment):

    An excellent post that asks all the right questions.

    On a cognitive level, we now know that this pneumonia is killing the frail elderly and people who have serious infirmities.

    But there is something kicking in at the emotional level that says to us that we don’t want to go there. We don’t want to think about it that way. It’s dangerous to allow ourselves to be completely dispassionate about the virus for the reason that those people are its only victims.

    On a humanitarian level, I am relieved that people feel that way. I’ve seen the ugliness of indifference to suffering and death, and I don’t want that to happen in America.

    I believe we can deal with the virus and restart the economy while being happy to be who we are, which is foolishly committed to loving everyone. Let God take care of death while we take care of life.

    Or perhaps I’m being too generous, and they are just enjoying being scolds. :-)

    6 feet apart or 6 feet under?  dumb joke

     

    • #16
  17. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    I found this sentence of yours interesting, Dr B: As an atheist, Hobbes feared that as men became less religious, and thus less confined by the ethics and morals of a higher power, a powerful central government would become increasingly necessary to moderate and regulate the passions of men.

    The leaders on the Left basically are stipulating that certain things need to come about, like contact testing, for instance. They do continually point to the ultimate compassion for and consideration of the vulnerable as the reason for those limitations they seek to impose. But I really doubt they care about moderating and regulating the passions of men that much. What they are seeking is ultimate control.

    Hobbes’ lack of insight on this matter is perhaps due to the fact that he was born two centuries too early to even conceive, let alone contemplate, the horror fest of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China.

    Or Hobbes didn’t give anarchy a chance?  

    In the absense of a police force, people will do whatever they need to avoid danger or protect themselves from danger.

    Why carry a gun?  Because I can’t carry a police officer with me

    In the absence of legislative/statutory law, people can resort to ‘common law’ to settle civil and criminal disputes.

     

    • #17
  18. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I think Greta is genuinely baffled that the world hasn’t changed because of her. After all, didn’t she stand there at the United Nations and yell at world leaders, telling them to redo their entire economies and throw away most of what we’ve gained since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? You know, because she loves the Earth so much? What are they waiting for? She obviously has the authority of Caring A Lot!

    I believe she has Asperger’s syndrome

     

    • #18
  19. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?

    So, people from windows will throw stuff at maskless joggers. Sounds like they advocate violence . . .

    They’re just trying to make the world a better place. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, after all…

    maskless jogger with egg on his face

     

    • #19
  20. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: But if you read the sign carefully, they don’t really say that. They make no effort to convince anyone of the benefits of masks to anybody. They don’t call mask-less joggers evil or stupid. They call them selfish – they accuse such joggers of a lack of compassion. They then claim to “value the lives of our elderly neighbors” more than the mask-less joggers. They then further claim that their superior compassion for other people grants them the right to actually physically attack other people.

    I wonder how they plan to distinguish maskless selfish joggers from maskless unselfish joggers. Maybe some kind of super x-ray vision?

    So, people from windows will throw stuff at maskless joggers. Sounds like they advocate violence . . .

    They’re just trying to make the world a better place. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, after all…

    are these eggs cage free?

     

    • #20
  21. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Anyone who questions your intentions is not engaging in a simple disagreement over a policy debate – they are guilty of blasphemy.

    You’re right about a lot in this piece, Doc, but you miss the mark here. I don’t question the intentions of the warmists or most other leftists (some are blatantly malicious, but not most). I question their facts. I question their grasp of reality, their understanding of human nature and, in general, their knowledge of how things work. I assume they mean well (although we probably disagree on what “the good” even is), but they’re under the sway of emotions (intoxicated by their “virtue,” as David Horowitz says) and many very bad ideas.

    Lefties have become the biggest and best example of what “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is all about.

    • #21
  22. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I think Greta is genuinely baffled that the world hasn’t changed because of her. After all, didn’t she stand there at the United Nations and yell at world leaders, telling them to redo their entire economies and throw away most of what we’ve gained since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? You know, because she loves the Earth so much? What are they waiting for? She obviously has the authority of Caring A Lot!

    Plus she’s nasty and short.

    How tall was Napolean?

    How tall were Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

    Lincoln was 6’4

     

    • #22
  23. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat: Anyone who questions your intentions is not engaging in a simple disagreement over a policy debate – they are guilty of blasphemy.

    You’re right about a lot in this piece, Doc, but you miss the mark here. I don’t question the intentions of the warmists or most other leftists (some are blatantly malicious, but not most). I question their facts. I question their grasp of reality, their understanding of human nature and, in general, their knowledge of how things work. I assume they mean well (although we probably disagree on what “the good” even is), but they’re under the sway of emotions (intoxicated by their “virtue,” as David Horowitz says) and many very bad ideas.

    they have good and bad intentions.

    Their worst trait is their methods of achieving their ‘noble’ objectives.

    If you use corrupt methods to try to achieve a ‘noble’ objective, the objective becomes corrupt.

    And they don’t believe in individual liberty and private property because they are intoxicated by their ‘virtue’.

     

    • #23
  24. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret (View Comment):

    I found this sentence of yours interesting, Dr B: As an atheist, Hobbes feared that as men became less religious, and thus less confined by the ethics and morals of a higher power, a powerful central government would become increasingly necessary to moderate and regulate the passions of men.

    The leaders on the Left basically are stipulating that certain things need to come about, like contact testing, for instance. They do continually point to the ultimate compassion for and consideration of the vulnerable as the reason for those limitations they seek to impose. But I really doubt they care about moderating and regulating the passions of men that much. What they are seeking is ultimate control.

    Hobbes’ lack of insight on this matter is perhaps due to the fact that he was born two centuries too early to even conceive, let alone contemplate, the horror fest of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China.

    Or Hobbes didn’t give anarchy a chance?

    In the absense of a police force, people will do whatever they need to avoid danger or protect themselves from danger.

    Why carry a gun? Because I can’t carry a police officer with me

    In the absence of legislative/statutory law, people can resort to ‘common law’ to settle civil and criminal disputes.

     

    Speaking of guns, what is going on in Congress regarding guns and ammo, while we are all distracted by masks and COVID and all the rest of it:

    • #24
  25. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    I think Greta is genuinely baffled that the world hasn’t changed because of her. After all, didn’t she stand there at the United Nations and yell at world leaders, telling them to redo their entire economies and throw away most of what we’ve gained since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? You know, because she loves the Earth so much? What are they waiting for? She obviously has the authority of Caring A Lot!

    Plus she’s nasty and short.

    How tall was Napolean?

    How tall were Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

    Lincoln was 6’4

    I don’t know about the other three, but Napoleon was apparently an average heighth for his time.

     

    • #25
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.