The Sunday Mail
In life, never assume that all those who have eaten big books are the most intelligent and wisest beings under the sun.
It’s not always the case.
The mind, just like the body, reacts differently to different prescriptions.
It is, therefore, not uncommon that a prescribed medicine might get an ailing patient sicker than they were before taking the curative drug.
It is the same with education: in benign cases, it can be edifying; in malign cases, it can be corrosive.
And probably this is why English naturalist John Ray — after spending most of his life studying natural phenomena and behaviour — concluded that learning makes the wise wiser and the foolish more foolish.
If this principle where true, it would mean that education inevitably produces two distinct creatures on either side of the spectrum — the whip-smart geeks on one hand and the abjectly dumb folk on the other.
But what’s worse is that the dumb folk always think of themselves as extraordinarily smart.
You do not have to look any further than that nutty American chap who calls himself “an extremely stable genius”.
Yes, dear reader, we are talking about Trump.
Flaunting his supposed genius, he once tweeted: “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.”
But journalist and author Michael Wolff in the novel “Fire and Fury”, which he has since followed up with another sequel “Siege: Trump under Fire”, actually gives us a brutal assessment of the man, who he falls short of calling dyslexic.
“Trump didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. If it was print, it might as well not exist. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi literate. (There was some argument about this, because he could read headlines on articles about himself, and the gossip squibs). . .
“Some thought him dyslexic; certainly his comprehension was limited. Others concluded that he didn’t read because he just didn’t have to . . .
“But not only didn’t he read, he didn’t listen. He preferred to be the person talking . . . What’s more, he had an extremely short attention span, even when he thought you were worthy of attention.”
Kikikikiki. Argh! This is savage.
Bishop Lazi actually doesn’t know what it is about Twitter and these “extremely stable” geniuses.
The social media platform is like the latter-day modelling ramp of these nauseatingly absurd wackos.
One day, on a good day, I will tell you the full story of one such “award-winning” genius called Hopewell Chin’ono.
Thinkers are Creators
But Twitter and other modern technological marvels, which are a playing ground for these geniuses, are a telling result of the intellectual acuity of modern-day thinkers and innovators.
It is the same with society, which, as we know it today — its structure, laws and regulations — is arguably a creation of thinkers or philosophers.
Thanks to the recent Zesa power cuts, which have weaned the Bishop off TV, there is now more than enough time to read — Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli are particularly sumptuous if you are into philosophy.
Of late, works from the 18th century Swiss-born Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, have tickled the Bishop’s fancy, not least because they try to explain the root causes of the inequality, dependency, violence and general unhappiness we find in the world today.
They also tried to suggest how this can be cured.
In his essay “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men”, Rousseau presupposes that human beings are naturally free, innocent, virtuous and full of compassion and empathy.
Once the state of innocence is disrupted, he argues, they become detached from their natural virtues.
One of the major disruptors he identified was the rise of organised civil society, which engendered inequality, dependency, violence and unhappiness.
But it is Rousseau’s second essay “The Social Contract” — written in 1792 — which explains how individuals can enjoy freedom within the context of society.
No society can be free, he says, unless individuals understand that the general will — general interest as opposed to private interest — should prevail over their own individual pursuits.
Interpreted differently, this simply means individuals have to subordinate their personal, parochial interests to the will of the majority.
Selfish Sanctions Brigade
Bishop Lazi would think that such enlightened views cannot possibly escape the University of Zimbabwe law alumni, which now calls itself the MDC.
But again, that is before one reflects on John Ray’s aforementioned theory.
The Bishop almost choked on his tea and fatcooks when he was told about what Nelson Chamisa, the leader of the MDC, recently said about American sanctions on Zimbabwe.
“Even when you look at ZDERA (Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act), it is actually supposed to give us an indication. ZDERA is actually the aspirations of all Zimbabwe. What they want to see is democracy. That is how we must look at it.”
Excuse me! What?
Perhaps this is why the callow young man, with barely a month after the political transition in November 2017, rushed to Washington in obscene haste to tell Uncle Sam to maintain sanctions on the country of his birth.
As the Bishop said last week, Chamisa knows — just as he knew that he had to use Morgan Tsvangirai’s casket as a springboard to the party’s leadership — that the economy must flounder just for him to get the remotest prospect of moving into State House.
The more the economy suffers, the more he remains relevant; the more the economy tanks, the more his political fortunes ostensibly soar; and the more the international community becomes disaffected with Zimbabwe, the more they remain relevant to their international partners.
More worryingly, for their political enterprise to succeed, Zimbabweans has to be divided, and not united.
This is why the sabre-rattling from this noisy and recalcitrant group continues.
And this is also why every time they open their mouth, words like “strike”, “overthrow” and “demonstrations” roll down their tongues.
Further, this is also why you would not find anything valuable in that typographical and grammatical calamity — which seemed to have been written and edited by that South African slay queen, Bonang Matheba — and launched disguised as an economic blueprint called Reload (Roadmap to Economic Recovery, Openness, Legitimacy and Democracy).
Of course, the MDC’s imagined end-state of the violent demonstrations they intend to unleash is a new political order presided over by them. Baba’ngu shava.
The denouement, as the loud-mouth Paddington Japajapa discovered last week, can only be a lonely prison cell.
The Holy Book, Luke 11: 17-18, speaks against division.
“Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? It says.
But in any democratic society, there are always malcontents who want to supplant the general will of the people with their own selfish interests.
But, as Rousseau says, the general will always be paramount.
The Bishop would argue that while it might have been inopportune before, the promulgation of a law that criminalises those that work against the national interest — the general will so to speak — is now opportune.
The American Logan Act easily comes to mind.
In essence, the Act, which sanctions any American citizen who works with foreign governments and or citizens to undermine the influence of the United States of America (USA), was legislated after George Logan — also an American — sought, by negotiating with the French, to undercut then-President John Adams decision to align with the British.
You see, the Americans, with the support from the French — where revolutionaries were taking over power — had successfully fought against the British to gain independence.
After simmering tensions between Paris and Washington, precipitated by America’s decision to ally with the British through the Jay Treaty, Logan took it upon himself to travel to Paris to ease the tensions.
His move, though successful, was interpreted as treasonous as it was purportedly selfishly made.
The Federalists, who were in power, thought Logan’s party would use this as a campaign tool for elections that had become imminent then.
So, put simply, individuals are obliged to pledge their fealty to Zimbabwe’s interests, and not their own, because the general will is paramount.
Frankly, we are tired of those who overtly or covertly work against the country.
It is high time the rod is wielded to keep these spoilt malcontents on the straight and narrow.