What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲
"亘丨孬賳丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賲丞 丕賱鬲賷 夭賱夭賱鬲 亘賳賷丕賳 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺貙 賵賱賰賳賳丕 賮氐賱賳丕 -毓賱賶 丕賱禺氐賵氐- 兀賲乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯賱亘鬲 兀賵乇亘丞 賲丿丞 毓卮乇賷賳 爻賳丞貙 賵賱兀賳 氐丿丕賴丕 賱丕 賷夭丕賱 賷乇賳"
賴賰匕丕 丕禺鬲鬲賲 睾賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱匕賷 鬲賳丕賵賱 賮賷賴 爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵胤亘丕卅毓 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 禺賱丕賱賴丕貙 賵賲丕 賷毓賯亘 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賲賳 賮賵囟賶貙 賵鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賮賷 鬲丨賵賷賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮賵囟賶 廿賱賶 賳馗丕賲 賲賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵丕賱兀毓乇丕賮. 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賮乇賵賯 亘賷賳 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞貙 賵鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 氐丿丕賲賸丕 亘賷賳 賯賵賶 賳賮爻賷丞 鬲鬲賳丕夭毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞.
賵賷胤亘賯 賱賵亘賵賳 賰賱 賲丕 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 毓亘乇 鬲兀賲賱丕鬲賴 賮賷 鬲賵丕乇賷禺 卮毓賵亘 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賱賶 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賱賷爻鬲賰卮賮 爻乇賾 鬲兀孬賷乇賴丕 丕賱亘丕賱睾 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳. 賰賲丕 賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱賯丕卅賲賷賳 亘丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 噩乇亘賵丕 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 亘丕爻賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丨鬲賶 丕賳賯賱亘賵丕 亘賴賲 廿賱賶 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲胤賱賯 賱賷爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳 匕丕賰 丿賱賷賱賸丕 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱兀賲賲 賱丕 鬲鬲睾賷乇 賮賯胤 亘賳賷賾丞 賵丕囟毓賷 鬲卮乇賷毓丕鬲賴丕.
賴賰匕丕 丕禺鬲鬲賲 睾賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱匕賷 鬲賳丕賵賱 賮賷賴 爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵胤亘丕卅毓 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 禺賱丕賱賴丕貙 賵賲丕 賷毓賯亘 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賲賳 賮賵囟賶貙 賵鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賮賷 鬲丨賵賷賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮賵囟賶 廿賱賶 賳馗丕賲 賲賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 賵丕賱兀毓乇丕賮. 賵賰匕賱賰 丕賱賮乇賵賯 亘賷賳 丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿賷賳賷 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞貙 賵鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 氐丿丕賲賸丕 亘賷賳 賯賵賶 賳賮爻賷丞 鬲鬲賳丕夭毓 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞.
賵賷胤亘賯 賱賵亘賵賳 賰賱 賲丕 鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴 毓亘乇 鬲兀賲賱丕鬲賴 賮賷 鬲賵丕乇賷禺 卮毓賵亘 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賱賶 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賱賷爻鬲賰卮賮 爻乇賾 鬲兀孬賷乇賴丕 丕賱亘丕賱睾 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳. 賰賲丕 賷卮乇丨 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱賯丕卅賲賷賳 亘丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 噩乇亘賵丕 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲 亘丕爻賲 丕賱毓賯賱 丨鬲賶 丕賳賯賱亘賵丕 亘賴賲 廿賱賶 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲胤賱賯 賱賷爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳 匕丕賰 丿賱賷賱賸丕 毓賱賶 兀賳 丕賱兀賲賲 賱丕 鬲鬲睾賷乇 賮賯胤 亘賳賷賾丞 賵丕囟毓賷 鬲卮乇賷毓丕鬲賴丕.
206 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1898
312 people are currently reading
3372 people want to read
About the author
Gustave Le Bon
417听books1,472听followersA social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. He was the author of several works in which he expounded theories of national traits, racial superiority, herd behavior and crowd psychology.
See also 袚褞褋褌邪胁 袥械 袘芯薪
See also 袚褞褋褌邪胁 袥械 袘芯薪
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
September 12, 2022
賲亘丿卅賷丕 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 賲卮 丨賱賵賴 賵 賱賲 兀亘丿兀 丕爻鬲賲鬲丕毓 亘丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱丕 賮賷 賳氐賮賴 丕賱孬丕賳賷
丕賱賮丕卅丿賴 丕賱賰亘乇賷 賴賷 丕賳賶 毓賱賲鬲 兀賳 丕賱丨賰賲 毓賱賷 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賱丕 賷賰賵賳 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 丕賳鬲賴丕卅賴丕 賵 兀賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賱丕 鬲賳鬲賴賶 廿賱丕 亘毓丿 爻賳賷賳 胤賵丕賱 賵 賱丕亘丿 賲賳 丿賮毓 囟乇賷亘丞 丕賱丿賲 賵 丕賱賮賵囟賶 賲賳 丕賱噩賲賷毓
.丕賱睾乇賷亘 賴賵 毓丿賲 馗賴賵乇 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱噩賷卮 賮賷 賲噩乇賷丕鬲 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 胤賵丕賱 毓賲乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
賲毓 兀賳 丿賵乇 丕賱噩賷卮 賰丕賳 賱賴 丕賱兀孬乇 丕賱兀賰亘乇 亘毓丿 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賳丕亘賱賷賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵 亘丿亍 丕賱丨賯亘丞 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 丕賱丕爻鬲毓賲丕乇賷丞 賵 賱賰賳 >賱賰 賲賲丕 賱賲 賷鬲賳丕賵賱賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
September 24, 2013
兀乇賵毓 丨丕噩丞 賮賶 賰鬲丕亘 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱賯丕乇賶亍 丕賱賲氐乇賶 亘卮賰賱 禺丕氐 賵丕賱毓乇亘賶 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 ..兀賳賰 鬲丨爻 丕賳賳丕 賲卮 亘爻 丕賱賶 賲睾賮賱賷賳 賵賲睾賷亘賷賳 賵丕賱賶 亘賷丨氐賱 毓賳丿賳丕 丨氐賱 賯亘賱 賰丿賴 亘賯乇賵賳 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賲毓 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賮賶 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 ..賲卮 丕賳鬲 賱賵丨丿賰 丕賱賶 毓賲賱鬲 孬賵乇丞 賵賲賱賯鬲卮 賳鬲賷噩鬲賴丕 賮賶 賵賯鬲賴丕 賵丕賱賰賱 亘賷丨丕賵賱 賷賲賵鬲賴丕 ..丕丨爻丕爻 乇丕卅毓 丕賳賰 鬲毓乇賮 丕賳賰 賲賲賰賳 鬲賳噩丨 賮賶 賳賴丕賷丞 ...賰鬲丕亘 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 亘賷丨賱賱 賵亘賷丐乇禺 賱賱賳賮爻賷丕鬲 丕賱亘卮乇賷賴 賮賶 丕賵賯丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賱賮賵囟賶 丕賰鬲乇 賲賳賴 亘賷丐乇禺 丕丨丿丕孬賴丕
June 20, 2016
Ch峄� c岷 膽峄峜 kho岷g 20 trang 膽岷 cu峄憂 s谩ch, 膽茫 c贸 th峄� hi峄僽 v矛 sao Nh脿 xu岷 b岷 膽茫 c贸 m峄檛 l峄漣 gi峄沬 thi峄噓 h岷縯 s峄ヽ r脿o 膽贸n nh瓢 v岷瓂. T瓢 t瓢峄焠g c峄 le Bon trong cu峄憂 n脿y qu岷� th岷璽 r岷 controversial. V峄� c膬n b岷, 么ng cho r岷眓g nh峄痭g 膽岷穋 膽i峄僲 t芒m l媒 c峄 m峄檛 d芒n t峄檆 quy 膽峄媙h nh峄痭g di峄卬 ti岷縩 l峄媍h s峄� 膽峄慽 v峄沬 d芒n t峄檆 膽贸. N贸i c谩ch kh谩c, c谩 t铆nh d芒n t峄檆 quy岷縯 膽峄媙h 膽峄媙h m峄噉h c峄 h峄�. 脭ng 膽瓢a ra nhi峄乽 v铆 d峄� trong l峄媍h s峄� 膽峄� ch峄﹏g minh cho lu岷璶 膽i峄僲 c峄 m矛nh, t峄� La M茫, cho 膽岷縩 c谩ch m岷g Ph谩p. D末 nhi锚n, ng瓢峄漣 ta ho脿n to脿n c贸 th峄� t矛m ra ph岷 v铆 d峄�. Nh瓢ng, c农ng d末 nhi锚n, ta c农ng c贸 th峄� b峄� sung cho 么ng th锚m m峄檛 v铆 d峄� s谩t s瓢峄漬, ch岷硁g h岷 v矛 sao H峄� Ch铆 Minh th脿nh c么ng c貌n Phan Chu Trinh th岷 b岷 峄� Vi峄噒 Nam.
膼峄搉g 媒 ho岷穋 kh么ng 膽峄搉g 媒 v峄沬 le Bon, v岷玭 kh么ng th峄� kh么ng c么ng nh岷璶 cu峄憂 s谩ch 膽谩ng 膽峄峜. Ngo脿i ra, n岷縰 tin, cu峄憂 s谩ch c贸 th峄� 膽贸ng vai tr貌 nh瓢 m峄檛 li峄噓 ph谩p ch峄痑 l脿nh m峄峣 ch峄﹏g ph脿n n脿n v峄沬 x茫 h峄檌, ch岷� 膽峄�, ch铆nh quy峄乶, th峄漣 cu峄檆 etc. After all, we deserve what we have.
膼峄搉g 媒 ho岷穋 kh么ng 膽峄搉g 媒 v峄沬 le Bon, v岷玭 kh么ng th峄� kh么ng c么ng nh岷璶 cu峄憂 s谩ch 膽谩ng 膽峄峜. Ngo脿i ra, n岷縰 tin, cu峄憂 s谩ch c贸 th峄� 膽贸ng vai tr貌 nh瓢 m峄檛 li峄噓 ph谩p ch峄痑 l脿nh m峄峣 ch峄﹏g ph脿n n脿n v峄沬 x茫 h峄檌, ch岷� 膽峄�, ch铆nh quy峄乶, th峄漣 cu峄檆 etc. After all, we deserve what we have.
September 19, 2018
亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 兀丨丿 兀賴賲 賰鬲亘 鬲賮氐賷賱 賵鬲卮乇賷丨 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 兀爻亘丕亘丕賸 賵兀丨丿丕孬丕賸 賵賳鬲丕卅噩丕賸 .. 賯乇兀鬲 丕賷囟丕賸 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賰鬲丕亘 丨賳丕 丕乇賳丿鬲 賱賰賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻賷鬲丨賵匕 毓賱賶 鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱賯丕乇卅 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 兀賶 賳馗賷乇 賮賶 賳賮爻 丕賱賲噩丕賱.
鬲鬲卮丕亘賴 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賮賶 兀丨丿丕孬賴丕 賵賳賴丕賷鬲賴丕 乇亘賲丕 鬲禺鬲賱賮 賮賶 賲爻亘亘丕鬲賴丕 兀賵 卮乇丕乇丞 丕賳胤賱丕賯賴丕 賱賰賳 爻鬲噩丿 兀賵噩賴 鬲卮丕亘賴 睾乇賷亘丞 賵毓噩賷亘丞 亘賷賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 兀賲丕 毓賳 丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 丨丿孬 賵賱丕 丨乇噩 賮賶 丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賵丕丨丿丞 賱丕 鬲鬲睾賷乇 賮丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱亘丕賯賶 孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘丿丕賷丞賸 亘丕賯鬲丨丕賲 爻噩賳 丕賱亘丕爻鬲賷賱 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘廿毓丿丕賲 丕賱賲賱賰 丕賱賮乇賳爻賶 賱賵賷爻 丕賱爻丕丿爻 毓卮乇 賵廿丕賱睾丕亍 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賵廿賱睾丕亍 丕賱廿賯胤丕毓 賵廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵廿毓丿丕賲 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 40000 賲丿賳賶 賵鬲賴賲賷卮 丿賵乇 乇噩丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賶 賵鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賶 賵廿賳鬲賴丕亍丕賸 亘丕毓鬲賱丕亍 丕賱噩賳乇丕賱 賳丕亘賱賷賵賳 亘賵賳丕亘乇鬲 丕賱噩賳乇丕賱 丕賱廿賲亘乇賷丕賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅丿 鬲賵丕賸 賲賳 丨賲賱鬲賴 丕賱鬲賵爻毓賷丞 毓賱賶 賲氐乇 1798 毓乇卮 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵廿賳賴丕亍 丨賱賲 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賵賵囟毓 丨丿 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
鬲鬲卮丕亘賴 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賰孬賷乇丕賸 賮賶 兀丨丿丕孬賴丕 賵賳賴丕賷鬲賴丕 乇亘賲丕 鬲禺鬲賱賮 賮賶 賲爻亘亘丕鬲賴丕 兀賵 卮乇丕乇丞 丕賳胤賱丕賯賴丕 賱賰賳 爻鬲噩丿 兀賵噩賴 鬲卮丕亘賴 睾乇賷亘丞 賵毓噩賷亘丞 亘賷賳 噩賲賷毓 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賷賳 亘賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 兀賲丕 毓賳 丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 丨丿孬 賵賱丕 丨乇噩 賮賶 丕賱賳賴丕賷丕鬲 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賵丕丨丿丞 賱丕 鬲鬲睾賷乇 賮丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱亘丕賯賶 孬賵乇丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘丿丕賷丞賸 亘丕賯鬲丨丕賲 爻噩賳 丕賱亘丕爻鬲賷賱 賲乇賵乇丕賸 亘廿毓丿丕賲 丕賱賲賱賰 丕賱賮乇賳爻賶 賱賵賷爻 丕賱爻丕丿爻 毓卮乇 賵廿丕賱睾丕亍 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賵廿賱睾丕亍 丕賱廿賯胤丕毓 賵廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵廿毓丿丕賲 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 40000 賲丿賳賶 賵鬲賴賲賷卮 丿賵乇 乇噩丕賱 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賶 賵鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賳 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賶 賵廿賳鬲賴丕亍丕賸 亘丕毓鬲賱丕亍 丕賱噩賳乇丕賱 賳丕亘賱賷賵賳 亘賵賳丕亘乇鬲 丕賱噩賳乇丕賱 丕賱廿賲亘乇賷丕賱賶 丕賱毓丕卅丿 鬲賵丕賸 賲賳 丨賲賱鬲賴 丕賱鬲賵爻毓賷丞 毓賱賶 賲氐乇 1798 毓乇卮 丕賱廿賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵廿賳賴丕亍 丨賱賲 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 賵賵囟毓 丨丿 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
June 7, 2011
丕匕丕 丕乇丿鬲 賯乇兀鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮兀賳丕 丕賳氐丨賰 丕賳 鬲賯乇兀 賰鬲丕亘丕 賷丐乇禺 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賯亘賱賴 賱丕賳賴 賲賱賷亍 亘丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 丕丿乇賷 賲丕賰賴賳賴丕 賵丕賱兀爻賲丕亍 賵丕賱卮禺賵氐 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賱丕賳 鬲毓乇賮 丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 賰賱 賲乇丨賱丞 賵賱賴匕丕 賮丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷賴 賱賲丨丕鬲 賵廿卮丕乇丕鬲 匕賰賷丞 賰賱 伲-伽 氐賮丨丕鬲 鬲爻鬲丨賯 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賵爻鬲毓賲賱 毓賯賱賰 噩賷丿丕 賵丕賱亘丕賯賷 賴賷 丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賵乇亘胤 亘賷賳賴丕 賮賱賴匕丕 兀賳丕 丕賳氐丨賰 亘丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賶 鬲兀乇賷禺 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賯亘賱 賯乇兀鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱噩賷丿
June 26, 2012
丕賳鬲賴賷鬲 賲賳 賯乇丕亍丞 " 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 " 賱 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 ( 賲丐賱賮 丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱毓乇亘 )
亘丿丕賷丞 賳賯賵賱 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵亘賴 賲賳 丕賱丕乇丕亍 丕賱噩賷丿賴 賵丕賱賲亘丿毓賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 , 賷賰賮賷 丕賳賳賷 丕爻鬲胤毓鬲 丕賳 丕爻賯胤 毓丿丿丕 賲賳 丕乇丕亍賴 毓賱賶 賵丕賯毓賳丕 丕賱丨丕賱賷 賵丕賮爻乇 亘賴丕 亘毓囟丕 賲賲丕 賷丨丿孬 , 丕匕賰乇 賲賳賴丕 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賮賰乇丞 毓丿賲 丿賮丕毓 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 胤丕賱賲丕 賱賲 鬲鬲兀氐賱 丕賮賰丕乇賴丕 賮賷賴 , 賵丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱丕禺乇賷 丕賳賴 毓賳丿 丕賰鬲爻丕亘 賮卅丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘毓囟丕 賲賳 丕賱賲賰丕爻亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 鬲氐亘丨 賲賳 丕卮丿 賲賳丕氐乇賷賴丕.
賵賱賰賳 賷噩亘 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丨匕乇 , 賮亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賲丕 亘賴 賲賳 丕乇丕亍 賵鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲 賯賵賷丞 賵賵丕噩亘丞 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱丿乇丕爻丞, 賮丕賱賲丐賱賮 卮丿賷丿 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賵賴賵 賷賲賷賳賷 賲鬲胤乇賮 , 賵賴匕丕 賷亘丿賵 賵丕囟丨丕 噩賱賷丕 賮賷 賰賱丕賲賴 毓賱賶 胤賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賷賳馗乇 亘丕丨鬲賯丕乇 卮丿賷丿 賱丿毓丕丞 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賮賴賵 賲丨丕賮馗 賷賲賷賱 賱賱賲賱賰賷丞 , 賰賲丕 丕賳 賰乇賴賴 賱賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 丕賲乇 賱丕 鬲禺胤卅賴 毓賷賳 , 賳囟賷賮 丕賱賷 匕賱賰 賰賱賴 賳馗乇鬲賴 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 賱賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵鬲賮爻賷乇賴 丕賱賲丕丿賷 丕賱丨鬲賲賷 賱鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賴 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賷丨賲賱 賮賷賲丕 丕馗賳 丕丨鬲賯丕乇丕 賲丕 賱亘賱丿賴 賵賱賴 賳馗乇丞 丿賵賳賷賴 賮賷 亘賳賷 賵胤賳賴, 亘賯賷 丕賳 賳賯賵賱 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰鬲亘 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 , 賵賲賳 孬賲 賷噩亘 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賵賮賴賲 丕賮賰丕乇賴 賮賷 丕胤丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丕賱匕賷 賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賮賷賴 賲孬賱賲丕 丨丿孬 丕賱賷賵賲.
賷噩亘 丕賷囟丕 丕賱丕卮丕乇丞 丕賱賷 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 丕卮亘賴 亘丕賱賲孬丕賱 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯賷 賱丕賮賰丕乇 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮乇賴丕 賮賷 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱丕禺乇賷 ( 賲孬賱 乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 賵丕賱丕乇丕亍 賵丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 ) 賵賴賵 賷爻鬲賯賷 賲賳賴丕 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 禺賱氐 丕賱賷賴丕 賱賰賷 賷賮爻乇 丕丨丿丕孬 賵馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
賷鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 孬賱丕孬 丕噩夭丕亍
丕賱丕賵賱 : 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 : 賵賴賵 賷鬲丨丿孬 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賳 丕爻亘丕亘 賳卮賵亍 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賵鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲賴丕
丕賱孬丕賳賷 : 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 : 賵賴賵 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱 丕丨丿丕孬賴丕 亘丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵丕賱鬲賯賷賷賲
丕賱孬丕賱孬 : 賳卮賵亍 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱丨丕囟乇 : 賵賴賵 丕卮亘賴 亘賲丨丕賵賱丞 乇氐丿 賲丕 鬲亘賯賷 賲賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賷丨賲賱 亘毓囟丕 賲賳 丕乇丕亍賴 毓賳 賵賯鬲賴 賵夭賲丕賳賴
賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲賷 :
1- 賴賵 丕賵賱 賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲禺氐氐 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賯乇兀賴 賵賯丿 丕賮丕丿賳賷 賰孬賷乇丕 賵丕賵囟丨 賱賷 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 禺丕氐丞 毓賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賳 " 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賰賱鬲 丕亘賳丕亍賴丕 " 賮賯丿 丕鬲囟丨 丕賳 賱賲 鬲兀賰賱賴賲 賮賯胤 亘賱 賱賯丿 賲夭賯鬲賴賲 丕乇亘丕 賲毓 亘賯賷丞 丕賱卮毓亘 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 鬲賯乇賷亘丕
2- 賴賳丕賰 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 亘丨丕噩賴 丕賱賷 丕噩丕亘賴 , 賮毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱賲 賷賮爻乇 賰賷賮 丕賳鬲賯賱鬲 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賳禺亘賴 丕賱賷 卮乇丕卅丨 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賰賷賮 鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱賷 毓丕胤賮丞 丿賷賳賷丞 噩毓賱鬲賴賲 賷丨丕乇亘賵賳 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賵賷賴夭賲賵賳賴丕 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賱賲 賷毓賱賱 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賮 賰賷賮 爻賰鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賱賶 賲丕 丨賱 亘賴 賲賳 賲匕丕亘丨
3- 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賱賱賲爻賷乇賷 爻賵賮 賷賱丨馗 賳賯胤賴 賴丕賲賴 賵賴賷 丕賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賵丕丨丿賴 賲賳 丕賴賲 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賳丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賵丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷 , 賰賲丕 丕賳 賲丕 賯丕賲 亘賴 賳丕亘賱賷賵賳 賮賷賲丕 亘毓丿 賴賵 亘亘爻丕胤賴 丕賯丕賲丞 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱賯賵賲賷丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬賴
4- 賴賳丕賰 丨丕噩賴 賲賱丨丞 -賱丿賷 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賯賱- 賱賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賳馗賲 賮賷 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賷 賵禺丕氐丞 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賵丕賱丨賯 丕賱丕賱賴賷
丕禺賷乇丕 ,
1- 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 丕氐丿丕乇 爻賱爻賱丞 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵丕賱丨乇賷丞 , 賵賴賷 爻賱爻賱丞 睾賷乇 丿賵乇賷丞 賲賳 丿丕乇 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱賵孬丕卅賯
2- 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 賯丿 鬲亘丿賵 睾乇賷亘賴 賱賱亘毓囟 賵賱賰賳 賷噩亘 賲乇丕毓丕丞 丕賳 賴匕丕 賰丕賳 卮賰賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵賯鬲 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 ( 1924 )
3- 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯胤毓 賵爻胤 賵賷亘賱睾 222 氐賮丨丞
亘丿丕賷丞 賳賯賵賱 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵亘賴 賲賳 丕賱丕乇丕亍 丕賱噩賷丿賴 賵丕賱賲亘丿毓賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 , 賷賰賮賷 丕賳賳賷 丕爻鬲胤毓鬲 丕賳 丕爻賯胤 毓丿丿丕 賲賳 丕乇丕亍賴 毓賱賶 賵丕賯毓賳丕 丕賱丨丕賱賷 賵丕賮爻乇 亘賴丕 亘毓囟丕 賲賲丕 賷丨丿孬 , 丕匕賰乇 賲賳賴丕 毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賮賰乇丞 毓丿賲 丿賮丕毓 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 胤丕賱賲丕 賱賲 鬲鬲兀氐賱 丕賮賰丕乇賴丕 賮賷賴 , 賵丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱丕禺乇賷 丕賳賴 毓賳丿 丕賰鬲爻丕亘 賮卅丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 亘毓囟丕 賲賳 丕賱賲賰丕爻亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 鬲氐亘丨 賲賳 丕卮丿 賲賳丕氐乇賷賴丕.
賵賱賰賳 賷噩亘 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丨匕乇 , 賮亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賲丕 亘賴 賲賳 丕乇丕亍 賵鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲 賯賵賷丞 賵賵丕噩亘丞 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕賱丿乇丕爻丞, 賮丕賱賲丐賱賮 卮丿賷丿 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 賵賴賵 賷賲賷賳賷 賲鬲胤乇賮 , 賵賴匕丕 賷亘丿賵 賵丕囟丨丕 噩賱賷丕 賮賷 賰賱丕賲賴 毓賱賶 胤賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賷賳馗乇 亘丕丨鬲賯丕乇 卮丿賷丿 賱丿毓丕丞 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賮賴賵 賲丨丕賮馗 賷賲賷賱 賱賱賲賱賰賷丞 , 賰賲丕 丕賳 賰乇賴賴 賱賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 丕賲乇 賱丕 鬲禺胤卅賴 毓賷賳 , 賳囟賷賮 丕賱賷 匕賱賰 賰賱賴 賳馗乇鬲賴 丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 賱賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵鬲賮爻賷乇賴 丕賱賲丕丿賷 丕賱丨鬲賲賷 賱鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賴 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賷丨賲賱 賮賷賲丕 丕馗賳 丕丨鬲賯丕乇丕 賲丕 賱亘賱丿賴 賵賱賴 賳馗乇丞 丿賵賳賷賴 賮賷 亘賳賷 賵胤賳賴, 亘賯賷 丕賳 賳賯賵賱 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰鬲亘 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳 , 賵賲賳 孬賲 賷噩亘 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賵賮賴賲 丕賮賰丕乇賴 賮賷 丕胤丕乇 賴匕丕 丕賱夭賲賳 丕賱匕賷 賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕賮賰丕乇 賮賷賴 賲孬賱賲丕 丨丿孬 丕賱賷賵賲.
賷噩亘 丕賷囟丕 丕賱丕卮丕乇丞 丕賱賷 丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 丕卮亘賴 亘丕賱賲孬丕賱 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯賷 賱丕賮賰丕乇 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮乇賴丕 賮賷 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱丕禺乇賷 ( 賲孬賱 乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 賵丕賱丕乇丕亍 賵丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 ) 賵賴賵 賷爻鬲賯賷 賲賳賴丕 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕 丕賱賳賴丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 禺賱氐 丕賱賷賴丕 賱賰賷 賷賮爻乇 丕丨丿丕孬 賵馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
賷鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 孬賱丕孬 丕噩夭丕亍
丕賱丕賵賱 : 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 : 賵賴賵 賷鬲丨丿孬 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賳 丕爻亘丕亘 賳卮賵亍 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵鬲胤賵乇賴丕 賵鬲賯爻賷賲丕鬲賴丕
丕賱孬丕賳賷 : 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 : 賵賴賵 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 亘丕賱鬲賮氐賷賱 丕丨丿丕孬賴丕 亘丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵丕賱鬲賯賷賷賲
丕賱孬丕賱孬 : 賳卮賵亍 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 丕賱丨丕囟乇 : 賵賴賵 丕卮亘賴 亘賲丨丕賵賱丞 乇氐丿 賲丕 鬲亘賯賷 賲賳 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賷丨賲賱 亘毓囟丕 賲賳 丕乇丕亍賴 毓賳 賵賯鬲賴 賵夭賲丕賳賴
賲賱丕丨馗丕鬲賷 :
1- 賴賵 丕賵賱 賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲禺氐氐 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賯乇兀賴 賵賯丿 丕賮丕丿賳賷 賰孬賷乇丕 賵丕賵囟丨 賱賷 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 禺丕氐丞 毓賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賳 " 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賰賱鬲 丕亘賳丕亍賴丕 " 賮賯丿 丕鬲囟丨 丕賳 賱賲 鬲兀賰賱賴賲 賮賯胤 亘賱 賱賯丿 賲夭賯鬲賴賲 丕乇亘丕 賲毓 亘賯賷丞 丕賱卮毓亘 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 鬲賯乇賷亘丕
2- 賴賳丕賰 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 亘丨丕噩賴 丕賱賷 丕噩丕亘賴 , 賮毓賱賷 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賱賲 賷賮爻乇 賰賷賮 丕賳鬲賯賱鬲 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賳禺亘賴 丕賱賷 卮乇丕卅丨 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵賰賷賮 鬲丨賵賱鬲 丕賱賷 毓丕胤賮丞 丿賷賳賷丞 噩毓賱鬲賴賲 賷丨丕乇亘賵賳 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賵賷賴夭賲賵賳賴丕 , 賰賲丕 丕賳賴 賱賲 賷毓賱賱 亘卮賰賱 賰丕賮 賰賷賮 爻賰鬲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 毓賱賶 賲丕 丨賱 亘賴 賲賳 賲匕丕亘丨
3- 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賱賱賲爻賷乇賷 爻賵賮 賷賱丨馗 賳賯胤賴 賴丕賲賴 賵賴賷 丕賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賵丕丨丿賴 賲賳 丕賴賲 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賲賳丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷 賵丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷 , 賰賲丕 丕賳 賲丕 賯丕賲 亘賴 賳丕亘賱賷賵賳 賮賷賲丕 亘毓丿 賴賵 亘亘爻丕胤賴 丕賯丕賲丞 賱賱丿賵賱丞 丕賱賯賵賲賷丞 丕賱賲乇賰夭賷丞 丕賱丨丿賷孬賴
4- 賴賳丕賰 丨丕噩賴 賲賱丨丞 -賱丿賷 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賯賱- 賱賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕乇賷禺 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱賳馗賲 賮賷 丕賵乇賵亘丕 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賷 賵禺丕氐丞 賮賰乇丞 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賵丕賱丨賯 丕賱丕賱賴賷
丕禺賷乇丕 ,
1- 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 丕氐丿丕乇 爻賱爻賱丞 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵丕賱丨乇賷丞 , 賵賴賷 爻賱爻賱丞 睾賷乇 丿賵乇賷丞 賲賳 丿丕乇 丕賱賰鬲亘 賵丕賱賵孬丕卅賯
2- 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 賯丿 鬲亘丿賵 睾乇賷亘賴 賱賱亘毓囟 賵賱賰賳 賷噩亘 賲乇丕毓丕丞 丕賳 賴匕丕 賰丕賳 卮賰賱 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵賯鬲 丕賱鬲乇噩賲賴 ( 1924 )
3- 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯胤毓 賵爻胤 賵賷亘賱睾 222 氐賮丨丞
June 4, 2016
L芒u qu谩 sau nh峄痭g b峄檔 b峄� c么ng vi峄嘽, thi c峄� nay m峄沬 d脿nh nguy锚n ng脿y 膽峄� b矛nh t芒m 膽峄峜 m峄檛 trong nh峄痭g cu峄憂 s谩ch 鈥渜uan tr峄峮g鈥漜峄 nh芒n lo岷 m脿 c岷� Adolf Hitler v脿 Theodore Roosevelt 膽峄乽 ch峄媢 nhi峄乽 岷h h瓢峄焠g: 鈥淣h峄痭g quy lu岷璽 t芒m l媒 v峄� s峄� ti岷縩 ho谩 c峄 c谩c d芒n t峄檆鈥� (T谩c gi岷�: Gustave Le Bon, Ng瓢峄漣 d峄媍h: Nguy峄卬 V膬n Ti岷縩, NXB Th岷� Gi峄沬, 2016).
Theo m矛nh 膽芒y l脿 cu峄憂 s谩ch hay nh岷 v脿 c农ng g芒y tranh lu岷璶 nhi峄乽 nh岷 c峄 Gustave Le Bon, sau 鈥淭芒m l媒 h峄峜 膽谩m 膽么ng鈥�. Cu峄憂 s谩ch hay b峄焛 nhi峄乽 y岷縰 t峄� nh瓢ng tr瓢峄沜 h岷縯 l脿 t峄� 膽峄� t脿i 膽瓢峄 l峄盿 ch峄峮: c谩ch c谩c x茫 h峄檌/d芒n t峄檆 ti岷縩 ho谩 v脿 di峄噒 vong 鈥� v峄憂 lu么n l脿 m峄檛 trong nh峄痭g ch峄� 膽峄� h岷 d岷玭 v脿 c峄憈 l玫i nh岷 c峄 nh芒n lo岷 t峄� c峄� ch铆 kim. 膼峄搉g th峄漣, nh瓢 膽茫 n贸i, cu峄憂 s谩ch c农ng t岷 n锚n nhi峄乽 tranh lu岷璶 v脿 c岷� tranh c茫i v矛 nh峄痭g kh岷硁g 膽峄媙h v脿 lu岷璶 gi岷 v岷 膽峄� t峄� g贸c 膽峄� c岷 t岷 tinh th岷, t芒m h峄搉 d芒n t峄檆 c峄 t谩c gi岷� kh谩c bi峄噒 v脿 th岷璵 ch铆 膽i ng瓢峄 l岷 v峄沬 nhi峄乽 quan 膽i峄僲 tr瓢峄沜, trong v脿 sau 么ng鈥δ愥悍c bi峄噒 ph岷 k峄� 膽岷縩 ph谩t bi峄僽 sau 膽芒y ph岷 谩nh tinh th岷 chung c峄 cu峄憂 s谩ch:
鈥淭芒m h峄搉 c峄 ch峄g t峄檆 膽i峄乽 khi峄僴 v岷璶 m峄噉h c谩c d芒n t峄檆, x谩c 膽峄媙h c谩c t铆n ng瓢峄g, thi岷縯 ch岷� v脿 ngh峄� thu岷璽 c峄 h峄� d霉 nghi锚n c峄﹗ y岷縰 t峄� n脿o c峄 n峄乶 v膬n minh, ta c农ng th岷 膽i峄乽 膽贸. N贸 l脿 quy峄乶 l峄眂 duy nh岷 m脿 kh么ng quy峄乶 l峄眂 n脿o kh谩c c贸 th峄� ch峄憂g l岷. N贸 膽岷 di峄噉 cho s峄ヽ m岷h c峄 h脿ng ng脿n th岷� h峄�, l脿 s峄� t峄昻g h峄 c峄 t瓢 t瓢峄焠g c峄 h峄嶁€�.L峄媍h s峄� c谩c d芒n t峄檆 膽瓢峄 xem nh瓢 h峄� qu岷� c峄 膽岷穋 t铆nh c峄 h峄嶁€�.
C岷 l瓢u 媒 l脿 ch峄g t峄檆 峄� 膽芒y theo 媒 t谩c gi岷� kh么ng 膽啤n thu岷 l脿 m峄檛 t岷璸 h峄 ng瓢峄漣 c贸 c霉ng m峄檛 ngu峄搉 g峄慶 sinh h峄峜/gen duy truy峄乶 gi峄憂g nhau m脿 l脿 m峄檛 nh贸m ng瓢峄漣 c贸 th峄� c贸 ngu峄搉 g峄慶 kh谩c nhau nh瓢ng c霉ng s峄� h峄痷 m峄檛 t芒m h峄搉 t岷璸 th峄�, t铆ch lu峄� 膽瓢峄 nh峄痭g t矛nh t峄� chung, nh峄痭g quy峄乶 l峄 chung, nh峄痭g t铆n ng瓢峄g chung qua m峄檛 th峄漣 gian d脿i. Nh瓢ng 鈥渄霉 c贸 l脿m g矛 膽i n峄痑, m峄梚 c谩 nh芒n v岷玭 lu么n lu么n v脿 tr锚n h岷縯 膽岷 di峄噉 cho ch峄g t峄檆 m矛nh. T峄昻g th峄� c峄 t岷 c岷� nh峄痭g 媒 ni峄噈, t矛nh c岷 m脿 t岷 c岷� c谩c c谩c nh芒n c峄 c霉ng m峄檛 x峄� s峄� mang l煤c ra 膽峄漣 s岷� t岷 n锚n t芒m h峄搉 c峄 ch峄g t峄檆鈥�.
V岷 膽峄� m脿 Gustave Le Bon b脿n lu岷璶 trong t谩c ph岷﹎: 膽i峄乽 g矛 c谩c x茫 h峄檌/d芒n t峄檆 ti岷縩 ho谩 v脿 di峄噒 vong c贸 th峄� t矛m th岷 trong kh么ng 铆t c谩c nghi锚n c峄﹗/lu岷璶 gi岷 c峄 nhi峄乽 h峄峜 gi岷� t峄� x瓢a 膽岷縩 nay. Nh瓢 Daron Acemoglu v脿 James A. Robinson trong cu峄憂 鈥淭岷 sao c谩c qu峄慶 gia th岷 b岷鈥� (NXB Tr岷�, 2013) cho r岷眓g TH峄� CH岷� (g峄搈 th岷� ch岷� ch铆nh tr峄� - ch铆nh th峄� v脿 th峄� ch岷� kinh t岷�) m峄沬 ch铆nh l脿 nguy锚n nh芒n khi岷縩 qu峄慶 gia n脿y th脿nh c么ng trong khi c谩c qu峄慶 gia kh谩c th岷 b岷. Ngo脿i ra, c贸 kh么ng 铆t quan 膽i峄僲 c峄 c谩c h峄峜 gi岷�/nh脿 nghi锚n c峄﹗ l岷 nghi锚n v峄� l岷璸 lu岷璶 ch铆nh 膽岷穋 膽i峄僲 m么i tr瓢峄漬g t峄� nhi锚n, v膬n ho谩 hay gi谩o d峄 m峄沬 l脿 th峄� 岷h h瓢峄焠g l峄沶 膽岷縩 s峄� th脿nh b岷 c峄 m峄檛 qu峄慶 gia/d芒n t峄檆. 峄� 膽芒y, Gustave Le Bon kh岷硁g 膽峄媙h v脿 膽瓢a ra nhi峄乽 l岷璸 lu岷璶 v脿 d岷玭 ch峄﹏g 膽峄� ch峄﹏g minh r岷眓g: 鈥淰瓢峄 l锚n tr锚n nh峄痭g thi岷縯 ch岷�, ngh峄� thu岷璽, t铆n ng瓢峄g v脿 s峄� x谩o tr峄檔 ch铆nh tr峄� c峄 m峄梚 d芒n t峄檆, c贸 m峄檛 s峄� 膽岷穋 t铆nh tinh th岷 v脿 tr铆 tu峄� 膽茫 quy岷縯 膽峄媙h s峄� ti岷縩 ho谩 c峄 d芒n t峄檆. 膼贸 l脿 to脿n b峄� nh峄痭g 膽岷穋 t铆nh h峄 th脿nh t芒m h峄搉 c峄 m峄檛 ch峄g t峄檆鈥�. V脿 鈥渘岷縰 ch峄� xem x茅t 膽岷穋 t铆nh t芒m l媒 chung, c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 ng瓢峄漣 c贸 th峄� ph芒n l脿m b峄憂 nh贸m: 1- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 nguy锚n thu峄�; 2- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 h岷� 膽岷硁g; 3- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 trung b矛nh; 4- nh峄痭g ch峄g t峄檆 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g鈥�.
B岷 c贸 th峄� 膽峄搉g t矛nh ho岷穋 kh么ng 膽峄搉g t矛nh v脿 c贸 quy峄乶 ph岷 bi峄噒 c谩c quan 膽i峄僲/c谩ch ph芒n lo岷 n贸i tr锚n c峄 Gustave Le Bon hay c谩c h峄峜 gi岷� kh谩c v矛 x茅t v峄� b岷 ch岷, v岷 膽峄� ch煤ng ta 膽ang xem x茅t l脿 m峄檛 v岷 膽峄� thu峄檆 l末nh v峄眂 khoa h峄峜 x茫 h峄檌 (c峄� th峄�: x茫 h峄檌 h峄峜), m峄檛 l末nh v峄眂 kh么ng c贸 膽煤ng chu岷﹏ 膽煤ng sai r岷h r貌i m脿 ch峄� c贸 tranh lu岷璶 (mang t铆nh x芒y d峄眓g) v脿 thuy岷縯 ph峄 m峄沬 gi煤p l脿m r玫 hay gi岷 quy岷縯 膽瓢峄 v岷 膽峄�.
Ng脿y nay ch煤ng ta 膽ang 峄� th峄漣 膽岷 kh么ng c貌n 鈥溎懨砳鈥� m脿 l脿 鈥渂峄檌 th峄眂鈥� th么ng tin, theo 膽贸, c霉ng m峄檛 v岷 膽峄�/s峄� ki峄噉 s岷� c贸 r岷 nhi峄乽 quan 膽i峄僲/nh矛n nh岷璶 v脿 膽谩nh gi谩 kh谩c nhau v脿 th岷璵 ch铆 tr谩i ng瓢峄 nhau m脿 n贸i nh瓢 Le Bon t峄� g贸c nh矛n 鈥渢inh th岷鈥� l脿: 鈥淣h峄痭g kh谩c bi峄噒 s芒u s岷痗 t峄搉 t岷 gi峄痑 c岷 t岷 tinh th岷 c峄 nhi峄乽 d芒n t峄檆 c贸 k岷縯 qu岷� l脿 khi岷縩 h峄� c岷 nh岷璶 th岷� gi峄沬 b锚n ngo脿i b岷眓g nh峄痭g c谩ch ho脿n to脿n kh么ng gi峄憂g nhau. Do 膽贸, c谩c d芒n t峄檆 c贸 c岷 x煤c, l媒 lu岷璶, v脿 h脿nh 膽峄檔g theo nh峄痭g c谩ch r岷 kh谩c nhau v脿 b峄焛 th岷� h峄� b岷 膽峄搉g tr锚n t岷 c岷� m峄峣 v岷 膽峄� khi ti岷縫 x煤c v峄沬 nhau. Ph岷 l峄沶 nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh trong l峄媍h s峄� 膽峄乽 n岷 sinh t峄� s峄� b岷 膽峄搉g n脿y. Nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chinh ph峄, nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh t么n gi谩o, nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh tri峄乽 膽岷, trong th峄眂 t岷� lu么n l脿 nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh ch峄g t峄檆鈥�. V峄� nh岷璶 膽峄媙h n脿y, b岷 c贸 c农ng c贸 th峄� v脿 c贸 quy峄乶 kh么ng 膽峄搉g t矛nh v峄沬 Le Bon v脿 膽瓢a ra c谩c ph岷 lu岷璶 hay ph岷 ch峄﹏g c峄 m矛nh r岷眓g: ch铆nh m么i tr瓢峄漬g v脿 gi谩o d峄 thay v矛 c岷 t岷 tinh th岷 m峄沬 t岷 n锚n nh峄痭g kh谩c bi峄噒 trong th岷� gi峄沬 quan gi峄痑 c谩c d芒n t峄檆/qu峄慶 gia v.v鈥脿 n锚n nh峄� r岷眓g m峄檛 x茫 h峄檌 t么n tr峄峮g t峄� do h峄峜 thu岷璽 s岷� lu么n khuy岷縩 kh铆ch b岷 l脿m 膽i峄乽 膽贸.
Li锚n h峄� v岷 膽峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 trong quan 膽i峄僲 v峄玜 n贸i v峄沬 Vi峄噒 Nam, c贸 th峄� th岷 l峄媍h s峄� hi峄噉 膽岷 c峄 d芒n t峄檆 Vi峄噒 l脿 l峄媍h s峄� c峄 cu峄檆 n峄檌 chi岷縩 膽岷玬 m谩u v脿 v么 ngh末a v矛 媒 th峄ヽ h峄�, k茅o d脿i v脿 chia c岷痶 l貌ng d芒n t峄檆 (trong 膽贸 c贸 b岷 v脿 t么i) 膽岷縩 t岷璶 h么m nay v脿 c贸 th峄� s岷� v岷玭 c貌n ti岷縫 di峄卬 d脿i l芒u. D霉 鈥渃峄檔g s岷鈥� hay 鈥渜u峄慶 gia鈥�, 鈥渢o脿n tr峄嬧€� hay 鈥渄芒n tr峄嬧€�, 鈥減h岷璽 gi谩o鈥� hay 鈥渢hi锚n ch煤a gi谩o鈥漹.v鈥�, trong m峄峣 tr瓢峄漬g h峄, t么i v脿 b岷 h茫y lu么n nh峄� B脤NH T脗M 膽峄峜/l岷痭g nghe, ph芒n t铆ch v脿 tranh lu岷璶 m峄檛 c谩ch x芒y d峄眓g (contributive) tr锚n tinh th岷 c岷 th峄� (receptive) v脿 ch岷 nh岷璸 s峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 (respect the difference). 膼芒y ch铆nh c谩ch 峄﹏g x峄� 鈥渃h铆nh danh鈥� v脿 鈥溎懨簄g vi峄嘽鈥� n岷縰 ta c貌n coi m矛nh l脿 ng瓢峄漣 tr铆 th峄ヽ, th脿nh ph岷 c贸 th峄� kh么ng 膽峄� 鈥渘gu d峄憈鈥� v脿 鈥渘hi峄噒 t矛nh鈥澞戓粌 ki岷縩 t岷 ra l峄媍h s峄� nh瓢ng s岷� lu么n g贸p ph岷 th煤c 膽岷﹜ n峄乶 v膬n minh nh瓢 Le Bon 膽茫 t峄玭g n贸i. 膼芒y c农ng l脿 b脿i h峄峜 gi谩 tr峄� nh岷 m脿 m矛nh ti岷縫 thu t峄� vi峄嘽 膽峄峜 s谩ch n贸i chung v脿 vi峄嘽 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y n贸i ri锚ng.
200 n膬m tr瓢峄沜, v膬n h脿o 鈥� tri岷縯 gia Voltaire 膽茫 n贸i m峄檛 c芒u r岷 hay m脿 m矛nh lu么n t芒m 膽岷痗 v脿 ch峄 li锚n t瓢峄焠g 膽岷縩 t峄沬 khi 膽峄峜 xong cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y: 鈥淚 do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it鈥� (C贸 th峄� t么i kh么ng 膽峄搉g 媒 v峄沬 膽i峄乽 anh n贸i; nh瓢ng t么i s岷� 膽岷 tranh 膽岷縩 c霉ng cho quy峄乶 膽瓢峄 n贸i c峄 anh). V芒ng, s峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 trong 媒 th峄ヽ h峄� hay t么n gi谩o hay b岷 k峄� th峄ヽ g矛 kh谩c kh么ng n锚n khi岷縩 ch煤ng ta xa nhau m峄檛 khi ch煤ng ta v岷玭 c貌n chia s岷� nh峄痭g gi谩 tr峄� v脿 t么n tr峄峮g ph岷﹎ h岷h c峄 nhau !
(V, SG, 05/06/2016)
Theo m矛nh 膽芒y l脿 cu峄憂 s谩ch hay nh岷 v脿 c农ng g芒y tranh lu岷璶 nhi峄乽 nh岷 c峄 Gustave Le Bon, sau 鈥淭芒m l媒 h峄峜 膽谩m 膽么ng鈥�. Cu峄憂 s谩ch hay b峄焛 nhi峄乽 y岷縰 t峄� nh瓢ng tr瓢峄沜 h岷縯 l脿 t峄� 膽峄� t脿i 膽瓢峄 l峄盿 ch峄峮: c谩ch c谩c x茫 h峄檌/d芒n t峄檆 ti岷縩 ho谩 v脿 di峄噒 vong 鈥� v峄憂 lu么n l脿 m峄檛 trong nh峄痭g ch峄� 膽峄� h岷 d岷玭 v脿 c峄憈 l玫i nh岷 c峄 nh芒n lo岷 t峄� c峄� ch铆 kim. 膼峄搉g th峄漣, nh瓢 膽茫 n贸i, cu峄憂 s谩ch c农ng t岷 n锚n nhi峄乽 tranh lu岷璶 v脿 c岷� tranh c茫i v矛 nh峄痭g kh岷硁g 膽峄媙h v脿 lu岷璶 gi岷 v岷 膽峄� t峄� g贸c 膽峄� c岷 t岷 tinh th岷, t芒m h峄搉 d芒n t峄檆 c峄 t谩c gi岷� kh谩c bi峄噒 v脿 th岷璵 ch铆 膽i ng瓢峄 l岷 v峄沬 nhi峄乽 quan 膽i峄僲 tr瓢峄沜, trong v脿 sau 么ng鈥δ愥悍c bi峄噒 ph岷 k峄� 膽岷縩 ph谩t bi峄僽 sau 膽芒y ph岷 谩nh tinh th岷 chung c峄 cu峄憂 s谩ch:
鈥淭芒m h峄搉 c峄 ch峄g t峄檆 膽i峄乽 khi峄僴 v岷璶 m峄噉h c谩c d芒n t峄檆, x谩c 膽峄媙h c谩c t铆n ng瓢峄g, thi岷縯 ch岷� v脿 ngh峄� thu岷璽 c峄 h峄� d霉 nghi锚n c峄﹗ y岷縰 t峄� n脿o c峄 n峄乶 v膬n minh, ta c农ng th岷 膽i峄乽 膽贸. N贸 l脿 quy峄乶 l峄眂 duy nh岷 m脿 kh么ng quy峄乶 l峄眂 n脿o kh谩c c贸 th峄� ch峄憂g l岷. N贸 膽岷 di峄噉 cho s峄ヽ m岷h c峄 h脿ng ng脿n th岷� h峄�, l脿 s峄� t峄昻g h峄 c峄 t瓢 t瓢峄焠g c峄 h峄嶁€�.L峄媍h s峄� c谩c d芒n t峄檆 膽瓢峄 xem nh瓢 h峄� qu岷� c峄 膽岷穋 t铆nh c峄 h峄嶁€�.
C岷 l瓢u 媒 l脿 ch峄g t峄檆 峄� 膽芒y theo 媒 t谩c gi岷� kh么ng 膽啤n thu岷 l脿 m峄檛 t岷璸 h峄 ng瓢峄漣 c贸 c霉ng m峄檛 ngu峄搉 g峄慶 sinh h峄峜/gen duy truy峄乶 gi峄憂g nhau m脿 l脿 m峄檛 nh贸m ng瓢峄漣 c贸 th峄� c贸 ngu峄搉 g峄慶 kh谩c nhau nh瓢ng c霉ng s峄� h峄痷 m峄檛 t芒m h峄搉 t岷璸 th峄�, t铆ch lu峄� 膽瓢峄 nh峄痭g t矛nh t峄� chung, nh峄痭g quy峄乶 l峄 chung, nh峄痭g t铆n ng瓢峄g chung qua m峄檛 th峄漣 gian d脿i. Nh瓢ng 鈥渄霉 c贸 l脿m g矛 膽i n峄痑, m峄梚 c谩 nh芒n v岷玭 lu么n lu么n v脿 tr锚n h岷縯 膽岷 di峄噉 cho ch峄g t峄檆 m矛nh. T峄昻g th峄� c峄 t岷 c岷� nh峄痭g 媒 ni峄噈, t矛nh c岷 m脿 t岷 c岷� c谩c c谩c nh芒n c峄 c霉ng m峄檛 x峄� s峄� mang l煤c ra 膽峄漣 s岷� t岷 n锚n t芒m h峄搉 c峄 ch峄g t峄檆鈥�.
V岷 膽峄� m脿 Gustave Le Bon b脿n lu岷璶 trong t谩c ph岷﹎: 膽i峄乽 g矛 c谩c x茫 h峄檌/d芒n t峄檆 ti岷縩 ho谩 v脿 di峄噒 vong c贸 th峄� t矛m th岷 trong kh么ng 铆t c谩c nghi锚n c峄﹗/lu岷璶 gi岷 c峄 nhi峄乽 h峄峜 gi岷� t峄� x瓢a 膽岷縩 nay. Nh瓢 Daron Acemoglu v脿 James A. Robinson trong cu峄憂 鈥淭岷 sao c谩c qu峄慶 gia th岷 b岷鈥� (NXB Tr岷�, 2013) cho r岷眓g TH峄� CH岷� (g峄搈 th岷� ch岷� ch铆nh tr峄� - ch铆nh th峄� v脿 th峄� ch岷� kinh t岷�) m峄沬 ch铆nh l脿 nguy锚n nh芒n khi岷縩 qu峄慶 gia n脿y th脿nh c么ng trong khi c谩c qu峄慶 gia kh谩c th岷 b岷. Ngo脿i ra, c贸 kh么ng 铆t quan 膽i峄僲 c峄 c谩c h峄峜 gi岷�/nh脿 nghi锚n c峄﹗ l岷 nghi锚n v峄� l岷璸 lu岷璶 ch铆nh 膽岷穋 膽i峄僲 m么i tr瓢峄漬g t峄� nhi锚n, v膬n ho谩 hay gi谩o d峄 m峄沬 l脿 th峄� 岷h h瓢峄焠g l峄沶 膽岷縩 s峄� th脿nh b岷 c峄 m峄檛 qu峄慶 gia/d芒n t峄檆. 峄� 膽芒y, Gustave Le Bon kh岷硁g 膽峄媙h v脿 膽瓢a ra nhi峄乽 l岷璸 lu岷璶 v脿 d岷玭 ch峄﹏g 膽峄� ch峄﹏g minh r岷眓g: 鈥淰瓢峄 l锚n tr锚n nh峄痭g thi岷縯 ch岷�, ngh峄� thu岷璽, t铆n ng瓢峄g v脿 s峄� x谩o tr峄檔 ch铆nh tr峄� c峄 m峄梚 d芒n t峄檆, c贸 m峄檛 s峄� 膽岷穋 t铆nh tinh th岷 v脿 tr铆 tu峄� 膽茫 quy岷縯 膽峄媙h s峄� ti岷縩 ho谩 c峄 d芒n t峄檆. 膼贸 l脿 to脿n b峄� nh峄痭g 膽岷穋 t铆nh h峄 th脿nh t芒m h峄搉 c峄 m峄檛 ch峄g t峄檆鈥�. V脿 鈥渘岷縰 ch峄� xem x茅t 膽岷穋 t铆nh t芒m l媒 chung, c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 ng瓢峄漣 c贸 th峄� ph芒n l脿m b峄憂 nh贸m: 1- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 nguy锚n thu峄�; 2- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 h岷� 膽岷硁g; 3- c谩c ch峄g t峄檆 trung b矛nh; 4- nh峄痭g ch峄g t峄檆 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g鈥�.
B岷 c贸 th峄� 膽峄搉g t矛nh ho岷穋 kh么ng 膽峄搉g t矛nh v脿 c贸 quy峄乶 ph岷 bi峄噒 c谩c quan 膽i峄僲/c谩ch ph芒n lo岷 n贸i tr锚n c峄 Gustave Le Bon hay c谩c h峄峜 gi岷� kh谩c v矛 x茅t v峄� b岷 ch岷, v岷 膽峄� ch煤ng ta 膽ang xem x茅t l脿 m峄檛 v岷 膽峄� thu峄檆 l末nh v峄眂 khoa h峄峜 x茫 h峄檌 (c峄� th峄�: x茫 h峄檌 h峄峜), m峄檛 l末nh v峄眂 kh么ng c贸 膽煤ng chu岷﹏ 膽煤ng sai r岷h r貌i m脿 ch峄� c贸 tranh lu岷璶 (mang t铆nh x芒y d峄眓g) v脿 thuy岷縯 ph峄 m峄沬 gi煤p l脿m r玫 hay gi岷 quy岷縯 膽瓢峄 v岷 膽峄�.
Ng脿y nay ch煤ng ta 膽ang 峄� th峄漣 膽岷 kh么ng c貌n 鈥溎懨砳鈥� m脿 l脿 鈥渂峄檌 th峄眂鈥� th么ng tin, theo 膽贸, c霉ng m峄檛 v岷 膽峄�/s峄� ki峄噉 s岷� c贸 r岷 nhi峄乽 quan 膽i峄僲/nh矛n nh岷璶 v脿 膽谩nh gi谩 kh谩c nhau v脿 th岷璵 ch铆 tr谩i ng瓢峄 nhau m脿 n贸i nh瓢 Le Bon t峄� g贸c nh矛n 鈥渢inh th岷鈥� l脿: 鈥淣h峄痭g kh谩c bi峄噒 s芒u s岷痗 t峄搉 t岷 gi峄痑 c岷 t岷 tinh th岷 c峄 nhi峄乽 d芒n t峄檆 c贸 k岷縯 qu岷� l脿 khi岷縩 h峄� c岷 nh岷璶 th岷� gi峄沬 b锚n ngo脿i b岷眓g nh峄痭g c谩ch ho脿n to脿n kh么ng gi峄憂g nhau. Do 膽贸, c谩c d芒n t峄檆 c贸 c岷 x煤c, l媒 lu岷璶, v脿 h脿nh 膽峄檔g theo nh峄痭g c谩ch r岷 kh谩c nhau v脿 b峄焛 th岷� h峄� b岷 膽峄搉g tr锚n t岷 c岷� m峄峣 v岷 膽峄� khi ti岷縫 x煤c v峄沬 nhau. Ph岷 l峄沶 nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh trong l峄媍h s峄� 膽峄乽 n岷 sinh t峄� s峄� b岷 膽峄搉g n脿y. Nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chinh ph峄, nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh t么n gi谩o, nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh tri峄乽 膽岷, trong th峄眂 t岷� lu么n l脿 nh峄痭g cu峄檆 chi岷縩 tranh ch峄g t峄檆鈥�. V峄� nh岷璶 膽峄媙h n脿y, b岷 c贸 c农ng c贸 th峄� v脿 c贸 quy峄乶 kh么ng 膽峄搉g t矛nh v峄沬 Le Bon v脿 膽瓢a ra c谩c ph岷 lu岷璶 hay ph岷 ch峄﹏g c峄 m矛nh r岷眓g: ch铆nh m么i tr瓢峄漬g v脿 gi谩o d峄 thay v矛 c岷 t岷 tinh th岷 m峄沬 t岷 n锚n nh峄痭g kh谩c bi峄噒 trong th岷� gi峄沬 quan gi峄痑 c谩c d芒n t峄檆/qu峄慶 gia v.v鈥脿 n锚n nh峄� r岷眓g m峄檛 x茫 h峄檌 t么n tr峄峮g t峄� do h峄峜 thu岷璽 s岷� lu么n khuy岷縩 kh铆ch b岷 l脿m 膽i峄乽 膽贸.
Li锚n h峄� v岷 膽峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 trong quan 膽i峄僲 v峄玜 n贸i v峄沬 Vi峄噒 Nam, c贸 th峄� th岷 l峄媍h s峄� hi峄噉 膽岷 c峄 d芒n t峄檆 Vi峄噒 l脿 l峄媍h s峄� c峄 cu峄檆 n峄檌 chi岷縩 膽岷玬 m谩u v脿 v么 ngh末a v矛 媒 th峄ヽ h峄�, k茅o d脿i v脿 chia c岷痶 l貌ng d芒n t峄檆 (trong 膽贸 c贸 b岷 v脿 t么i) 膽岷縩 t岷璶 h么m nay v脿 c贸 th峄� s岷� v岷玭 c貌n ti岷縫 di峄卬 d脿i l芒u. D霉 鈥渃峄檔g s岷鈥� hay 鈥渜u峄慶 gia鈥�, 鈥渢o脿n tr峄嬧€� hay 鈥渄芒n tr峄嬧€�, 鈥減h岷璽 gi谩o鈥� hay 鈥渢hi锚n ch煤a gi谩o鈥漹.v鈥�, trong m峄峣 tr瓢峄漬g h峄, t么i v脿 b岷 h茫y lu么n nh峄� B脤NH T脗M 膽峄峜/l岷痭g nghe, ph芒n t铆ch v脿 tranh lu岷璶 m峄檛 c谩ch x芒y d峄眓g (contributive) tr锚n tinh th岷 c岷 th峄� (receptive) v脿 ch岷 nh岷璸 s峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 (respect the difference). 膼芒y ch铆nh c谩ch 峄﹏g x峄� 鈥渃h铆nh danh鈥� v脿 鈥溎懨簄g vi峄嘽鈥� n岷縰 ta c貌n coi m矛nh l脿 ng瓢峄漣 tr铆 th峄ヽ, th脿nh ph岷 c贸 th峄� kh么ng 膽峄� 鈥渘gu d峄憈鈥� v脿 鈥渘hi峄噒 t矛nh鈥澞戓粌 ki岷縩 t岷 ra l峄媍h s峄� nh瓢ng s岷� lu么n g贸p ph岷 th煤c 膽岷﹜ n峄乶 v膬n minh nh瓢 Le Bon 膽茫 t峄玭g n贸i. 膼芒y c农ng l脿 b脿i h峄峜 gi谩 tr峄� nh岷 m脿 m矛nh ti岷縫 thu t峄� vi峄嘽 膽峄峜 s谩ch n贸i chung v脿 vi峄嘽 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y n贸i ri锚ng.
200 n膬m tr瓢峄沜, v膬n h脿o 鈥� tri岷縯 gia Voltaire 膽茫 n贸i m峄檛 c芒u r岷 hay m脿 m矛nh lu么n t芒m 膽岷痗 v脿 ch峄 li锚n t瓢峄焠g 膽岷縩 t峄沬 khi 膽峄峜 xong cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y: 鈥淚 do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it鈥� (C贸 th峄� t么i kh么ng 膽峄搉g 媒 v峄沬 膽i峄乽 anh n贸i; nh瓢ng t么i s岷� 膽岷 tranh 膽岷縩 c霉ng cho quy峄乶 膽瓢峄 n贸i c峄 anh). V芒ng, s峄� kh谩c bi峄噒 trong 媒 th峄ヽ h峄� hay t么n gi谩o hay b岷 k峄� th峄ヽ g矛 kh谩c kh么ng n锚n khi岷縩 ch煤ng ta xa nhau m峄檛 khi ch煤ng ta v岷玭 c貌n chia s岷� nh峄痭g gi谩 tr峄� v脿 t么n tr峄峮g ph岷﹎ h岷h c峄 nhau !
(V, SG, 05/06/2016)
August 8, 2015
爻賵亍 鬲乇噩賲丞 賳爻禺丞 賲丐爻爻丞 賴賳丿丕賵賷 噩毓賱鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賷乇 賲賮賴賵賲 賵賱丕 賷爻鬲爻丕睾
April 11, 2015
賲丨鬲丕噩 賯乇丕亍丞 鬲丕賳賷丞 亘毓丿 賲丕賷亘賯賶 毓賳丿賷 卮賵賷丞 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 夭賷丕丿丞 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 , 賱賰賳 so far 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賵賷爻 噩丿丕
December 27, 2018
V膬n phong s岷痗 s岷, ki岷縩 th峄ヽ l峄媍h s峄� d峄搃 d脿o nh瓢ng Le Bon l脿 m峄檛 tay racist c峄眂 膽oan, kh么ng che gi岷. T岷 nhi锚n h峄搃 么ng ta vi岷縯 cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y th矛 ch峄� ngh末a ph芒n bi峄噒 ch峄g t峄檆 l脿 norm chung c农ng x茫 h峄檌.
Tuy ph锚 ph谩n CNXH nh瓢ng Le Bon c贸 c谩i g矛 膽贸 r岷 gi峄憂g nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 m脿 么ng ta ph锚 ph谩n, khi 膽岷穞 ti峄乶 膽峄� c峄 s峄� 鈥渢i岷縩 ho谩鈥� hay suy tho谩i c峄 c谩c d芒n t峄檆 theo m峄檛 c么ng th峄ヽ v脿 c贸 t铆nh quy岷縯 膽峄媙h lu岷璶. V峄沬 Le Bon, th矛 y岷縰 t峄� quy岷縯 膽峄媙h lu岷璶 膽贸 l脿 ch峄g t峄檆, v峄沬 nh峄痭g thang n岷 膽瓢峄 quy 膽峄媙h r岷 ch岷穞 ch岷� t峄沬 m峄ヽ kh贸 hi峄僽 l脿 ko hi峄僽 n贸 c膬n c峄� v脿o 膽芒u (v铆 d峄� t岷 sao ng瓢峄漣 Hy L岷 v脿 ng瓢峄漣 Ba T瓢 膽峄乽 膽瓢峄 coi l脿 ch峄g t峄檆 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g nh瓢ng ng瓢峄漣 Hy L岷 l岷 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g h啤n ng瓢峄漣 Ba T瓢?).
Hitler h岷硁 s岷� r岷 th铆ch th煤 n岷縰 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y.
Tuy ph锚 ph谩n CNXH nh瓢ng Le Bon c贸 c谩i g矛 膽贸 r岷 gi峄憂g nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 m脿 么ng ta ph锚 ph谩n, khi 膽岷穞 ti峄乶 膽峄� c峄 s峄� 鈥渢i岷縩 ho谩鈥� hay suy tho谩i c峄 c谩c d芒n t峄檆 theo m峄檛 c么ng th峄ヽ v脿 c贸 t铆nh quy岷縯 膽峄媙h lu岷璶. V峄沬 Le Bon, th矛 y岷縰 t峄� quy岷縯 膽峄媙h lu岷璶 膽贸 l脿 ch峄g t峄檆, v峄沬 nh峄痭g thang n岷 膽瓢峄 quy 膽峄媙h r岷 ch岷穞 ch岷� t峄沬 m峄ヽ kh贸 hi峄僽 l脿 ko hi峄僽 n贸 c膬n c峄� v脿o 膽芒u (v铆 d峄� t岷 sao ng瓢峄漣 Hy L岷 v脿 ng瓢峄漣 Ba T瓢 膽峄乽 膽瓢峄 coi l脿 ch峄g t峄檆 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g nh瓢ng ng瓢峄漣 Hy L岷 l岷 th瓢峄g 膽岷硁g h啤n ng瓢峄漣 Ba T瓢?).
Hitler h岷硁 s岷� r岷 th铆ch th煤 n岷縰 膽峄峜 cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y.
December 29, 2016
Definitely a 5+ star-rating book, and a super heavy read to me (I do a lot of extra search while reading). This was an eye-opening experience that not only provides information about one of the most noticeable events in Mid-modern history but also brings multi-dimensional perspectives to the nature as well as pros and cons of the Revolution.
1) Information
a. Simplify the Revolution timeline, and its each period's power structure. Note that this period was super chaotic with an overwhelming number of events.
b. Brought new information about the Revolution's nature as well as its impact: While the Revolution was fantasized in enormous novels and art works, Le Bon saw it as costly and useless. According to Le Bon, those fantasies were created before poets and artists see the war's ugly motivations and its endless destructions on their nation. By ugly motivations, I refer to the difference between pre-war promises and during-and-post-war actions. By endless destructions, I mean this war was not a just-one-time pain, but its anti-human consequences kept haunting France for a quarter of a century. Gustave Le Bon wrote this book one hundred years after the Revolution, thus he viewed the Revolution less emotionally and more rationally. His conclusion seemed shocking for me at first, but understandable after going through his arguments and evidences.
c. A great motivation to seek out for more insights: as mentioned above, this period had a great number of events and activities. Therefore, this book encourages me to reach out to understand it more thoroughly. Psychologically speaking, Le Bon's shocking hypotheses and conclusions motivate me to find evidence to either reject or support him.
2) Arguments and Hypotheses
a. Human nature: First and foremost, deep in side, all humans are evil: humans are unconsciously obsessed with sex, violence and envy. Modern humans inherit these traits from their ancient hunting ancestors. In a stable society, those evil natures are restricted by culture, education and social standards, but in war time, those restrictions (Le Bon called them "social breaks") are loosened and humans turns into evils. This theory has been backed up by a great number of books about wars.
b. Group psychology (or crowd psychology): According to Le Bon, people are connected by common characteristics. In particular, a group of book readers is interested in sharing knowledge; while a group of fishermen can easily feel connected in fishing-related topics and activities. This psychology exposed its practical influences in some evidences below
- A person as an individual and a group participant is different. In other words, being in a group changes one's thinking and actions, as he/she is psychologically influenced by the majority of the crowd.
- Most of social changes are violent-oriented: As mentioned in 2a., most people share the same natural traits, no matter if they realize or accept them. Therefore, in order to connect the largest proportion of agreement, taking advantages of their natural traits is the quickest way. The weaker "social break" in audience, the more effective this method proves. About evidence, well, you can look at wars, historical and political events in 1929 - 1933 and even recently,...
- A crowd is powerful but not consistent. Because a crowd can't think, it does not take side in a war. Jacobin used the crowd and was killed by the crowd. Therefore the violent crowd is also dangerous whoever uses it, and that explains why violence results in endless violence.
c. Three layers of social influencers: philosophical people, elite class and social class (majority)
d. In non-political areas, society's daily activities and traditions are resistant against any changes:
According to Le Bon, a revolution has a guaranteed success rate when it involves at least 7% of relating population. The reason is even at its best, the Revolution could not attract people from all areas of France. Therefore, the majority of French was still living in their stable social system, with a predicted set of rules and regulations to ensure their well-being. A new government, if any, could not satisfy the needs of these conservative areas in time will raise conflicts and be opposed. Le Bon used this theory to explain why France came back to monarchy after 25 years: a new system was not yet compatible to most existing values and traditions. People could not live without their Kings and Queens
3) Questionable/ Limitations
a. Le Bon mentioned "after a while, the crowd gets tired, stops and dismisses", but did not explain why.
From my personal observation, there is a need of emotional burst: a nature-traits-connected crowd doesn't think, so its behaviors are not rational-based but emotional-based. Without emotional bursts, a crowd is useless and directionless; and it quickly dismisses. This explains the need of a Single symbolic Leader, who repeatedly delivers emotional messages, on top of the messy crowd.
1) Information
a. Simplify the Revolution timeline, and its each period's power structure. Note that this period was super chaotic with an overwhelming number of events.
b. Brought new information about the Revolution's nature as well as its impact: While the Revolution was fantasized in enormous novels and art works, Le Bon saw it as costly and useless. According to Le Bon, those fantasies were created before poets and artists see the war's ugly motivations and its endless destructions on their nation. By ugly motivations, I refer to the difference between pre-war promises and during-and-post-war actions. By endless destructions, I mean this war was not a just-one-time pain, but its anti-human consequences kept haunting France for a quarter of a century. Gustave Le Bon wrote this book one hundred years after the Revolution, thus he viewed the Revolution less emotionally and more rationally. His conclusion seemed shocking for me at first, but understandable after going through his arguments and evidences.
c. A great motivation to seek out for more insights: as mentioned above, this period had a great number of events and activities. Therefore, this book encourages me to reach out to understand it more thoroughly. Psychologically speaking, Le Bon's shocking hypotheses and conclusions motivate me to find evidence to either reject or support him.
2) Arguments and Hypotheses
a. Human nature: First and foremost, deep in side, all humans are evil: humans are unconsciously obsessed with sex, violence and envy. Modern humans inherit these traits from their ancient hunting ancestors. In a stable society, those evil natures are restricted by culture, education and social standards, but in war time, those restrictions (Le Bon called them "social breaks") are loosened and humans turns into evils. This theory has been backed up by a great number of books about wars.
b. Group psychology (or crowd psychology): According to Le Bon, people are connected by common characteristics. In particular, a group of book readers is interested in sharing knowledge; while a group of fishermen can easily feel connected in fishing-related topics and activities. This psychology exposed its practical influences in some evidences below
- A person as an individual and a group participant is different. In other words, being in a group changes one's thinking and actions, as he/she is psychologically influenced by the majority of the crowd.
- Most of social changes are violent-oriented: As mentioned in 2a., most people share the same natural traits, no matter if they realize or accept them. Therefore, in order to connect the largest proportion of agreement, taking advantages of their natural traits is the quickest way. The weaker "social break" in audience, the more effective this method proves. About evidence, well, you can look at wars, historical and political events in 1929 - 1933 and even recently,...
- A crowd is powerful but not consistent. Because a crowd can't think, it does not take side in a war. Jacobin used the crowd and was killed by the crowd. Therefore the violent crowd is also dangerous whoever uses it, and that explains why violence results in endless violence.
c. Three layers of social influencers: philosophical people, elite class and social class (majority)
d. In non-political areas, society's daily activities and traditions are resistant against any changes:
According to Le Bon, a revolution has a guaranteed success rate when it involves at least 7% of relating population. The reason is even at its best, the Revolution could not attract people from all areas of France. Therefore, the majority of French was still living in their stable social system, with a predicted set of rules and regulations to ensure their well-being. A new government, if any, could not satisfy the needs of these conservative areas in time will raise conflicts and be opposed. Le Bon used this theory to explain why France came back to monarchy after 25 years: a new system was not yet compatible to most existing values and traditions. People could not live without their Kings and Queens
3) Questionable/ Limitations
a. Le Bon mentioned "after a while, the crowd gets tired, stops and dismisses", but did not explain why.
From my personal observation, there is a need of emotional burst: a nature-traits-connected crowd doesn't think, so its behaviors are not rational-based but emotional-based. Without emotional bursts, a crowd is useless and directionless; and it quickly dismisses. This explains the need of a Single symbolic Leader, who repeatedly delivers emotional messages, on top of the messy crowd.
May 21, 2014
This was what I call a "tough" reading, I took this book home thinking it will enlighten me more about the French revolution, it did, but mostly by forcing me to use Google & Wikipedia multiple times!
I didn't know it was more of an analysis to the events than being an information provider about it. still, it was useful and shed light on another angle & review of one of the world's biggest uprisings ever.
And to anyone whom had or witnessed a revolution in his country, you'll find this book really enlightening & interesting to read!
I didn't know it was more of an analysis to the events than being an information provider about it. still, it was useful and shed light on another angle & review of one of the world's biggest uprisings ever.
And to anyone whom had or witnessed a revolution in his country, you'll find this book really enlightening & interesting to read!
April 5, 2016
B峄� qua s峄� ph芒n bi峄噒 ch峄g t峄檆 v脿 ph岷 膽峄慽 ch峄� ngh末a x茫 h峄檌 c峄 Le Bon, th矛 cu峄憂 s谩ch c贸 nhi峄乽 l岷璸 lu岷璶 kh谩 hay v脿 c岷 膽瓢峄 tranh lu岷璶. B锚n c岷h c谩ch gi岷 th铆ch b岷眓g ph茅p duy v岷璽 v脿 bi峄噉 ch峄﹏g l峄媍h s峄�, nay m矛nh bi岷縯 th锚m 1 c谩ch gi岷 th铆ch l峄媍h s峄� b岷眓g tinh th岷 d芒n t峄檆. V脿 bi岷縯 膽瓢峄 1 l岷璸 lu岷璶 cho s峄� t峄搉 t岷 c峄 t么n gi谩o.
May 23, 2023
賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賲賳丕爻亘丞 鬲爻鬲丨賯 兀賳 賷購賯乇兀 賱兀噩賱賴丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賴匕丕 兀賵丕賳 丕賱賷兀爻 廿賱賶 兀賳 賷卮丕亍 丕賱賱賴貨 賱賰賳賶 卮丕賴丿鬲 賮賷賱賲丕 賷賰丕丿 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賵孬丕卅賯賷丕 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 禺賱丕賱 爻賳賵丕鬲 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 丕賱孬賵乇賷貙 賵賰賳鬲 兀亘丨孬 毓賳 廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賱賴匕丕 丕賱毓賳賮 睾賷乇 丕賱賲亘乇乇 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賳賮賵爻 丕賱鬲賶 賷亘丿賵 兀賳賴 賱賲 賷賲賳毓賴丕 毓賳 丕賱馗賱賲 廿賱丕 丕賱毓噩夭 賮賱賲丕 鬲賲賰賳鬲 賮丕賯鬲 噩賱丕丿賷賴丕 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賳 賮賷 丕賱亘睾賷 賵丕賱睾丿乇.
兀噩丕亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 亘毓囟 鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲賷 賱賰賳 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 馗賲兀 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 兀毓賲賯 賵兀賰亘乇 賱賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘賰賱 兀丨丿丕孬賴丕 賵賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕.
兀噩丕亘 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 亘毓囟 鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲賷 賱賰賳 賲丕夭丕賱鬲 馗賲兀 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 兀毓賲賯 賵兀賰亘乇 賱賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘賰賱 兀丨丿丕孬賴丕 賵賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕.
June 6, 2018
賷賯賵賱 賲乇賷丿 丕賱亘乇睾賵孬賷"廿賳 丕賱孬賵丕亘鬲 賲丕 禺賱賯鬲 廿賱丕 賱賰賷 賳乇噩賴丕 乇噩丕..賵賳賴鬲賰 賲賳賴丕 賲丕 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賴鬲賰 丨鬲賶 賳毓乇賮 丕賱賮乇賯 丕賱毓馗賷賲 賵丕賱賯丕爻賷 亘賷賳 丕賱賵乇丕亍 賵丕賱兀賲丕賲" .. 賵賱匕賱賰 賯丕賲鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵爻鬲亘賯賶 鬲賯賵賲.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷 賱賯賷丕賲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 毓丕賲丞 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 禺丕氐丞貙 賲乇賰夭丕 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵丕賱鬲兀賵賷賱 賱賱鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 丿賵賳 鬲兀乇賷禺 賵匕賰乇 賱賱兀丨丿丕孬.
賷毓賷亘賴 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲毓賲賯 賮賷 丕賱兀賲賵乇 賮兀丨爻爻鬲 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賷賳賯氐賴 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賵丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲 賱丕 爻賷賲丕 兀賳賴 賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丨丕夭賲 賵丨賷丿 賮賷 兀賲賵乇 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賲氐丕丨亘丞 賱賴賷噩丕賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵兀賷囟丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 賲丨丕賷丿丕 賵卮丕賲賱丕 亘丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 鬲賵賯毓鬲賴貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳氐 賮賷 賮氐賵賱 賰孬賷乇丞 賮賯丿 噩夭亍 賲賳 鬲爻賱爻賱賴 賵鬲乇丕亘胤賴貙 亘丕賱賲噩賲賱 噩賷丿 賵賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱賳賮爻賷 賱賯賷丕賲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 毓丕賲丞 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 禺丕氐丞貙 賲乇賰夭丕 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵丕賱鬲兀賵賷賱 賱賱鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 丿賵賳 鬲兀乇賷禺 賵匕賰乇 賱賱兀丨丿丕孬.
賷毓賷亘賴 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲毓賲賯 賮賷 丕賱兀賲賵乇 賮兀丨爻爻鬲 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賷賳賯氐賴 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賵丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲 賱丕 爻賷賲丕 兀賳賴 賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丨丕夭賲 賵丨賷丿 賮賷 兀賲賵乇 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賲氐丕丨亘丞 賱賴賷噩丕賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵兀賷囟丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 賲丨丕賷丿丕 賵卮丕賲賱丕 亘丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 鬲賵賯毓鬲賴貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賳氐 賮賷 賮氐賵賱 賰孬賷乇丞 賮賯丿 噩夭亍 賲賳 鬲爻賱爻賱賴 賵鬲乇丕亘胤賴貙 亘丕賱賲噩賲賱 噩賷丿 賵賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞.
September 9, 2014
兀卮毓乇 亘兀賳賳賷 賲鬲兀禺乇丞 噩丿丕賸 賱兀賳賷 賱賲 兀賯乇兀 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 賯亘賱 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賷乇 賲毓賯丿 賮賷 胤乇丨 兀賮賰丕乇賴 賰亘毓囟 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲
賮賯丿 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱卮禺氐 賱丿賷賴 廿胤賱丕毓 賲爻亘賯 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賵 丕賱卮賵丕賴丿 賵 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞
賱禺賱賵 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 丕賱賴賵丕賲卮 丕賱賲爻丕毓丿丞 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 貙 賵 賯丿 丕爻鬲毓賳鬲 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 亘賲丨乇賰 丕賱亘丨孬 賯賵賯賱
賵 丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 賰賱 賲乇丞 兀毓賵丿 廿賱賷 爻胤乇 鬲賵賯賮賷 亘匕丕鬲 丕賱賳賴賲 .
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 睾賷乇 賲毓賯丿 賮賷 胤乇丨 兀賮賰丕乇賴 賰亘毓囟 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲
賮賯丿 賷丨鬲丕噩 賱卮禺氐 賱丿賷賴 廿胤賱丕毓 賲爻亘賯 毓賱賶 亘毓囟 丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賵 丕賱卮賵丕賴丿 賵 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞
賱禺賱賵 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳 丕賱賴賵丕賲卮 丕賱賲爻丕毓丿丞 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 貙 賵 賯丿 丕爻鬲毓賳鬲 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 亘賲丨乇賰 丕賱亘丨孬 賯賵賯賱
賵 丕賱噩賲賷賱 賮賷 賰賱 賲乇丞 兀毓賵丿 廿賱賷 爻胤乇 鬲賵賯賮賷 亘匕丕鬲 丕賱賳賴賲 .
November 30, 2014
賵氐賮 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵鬲丿丕毓賷丕鬲賴丕 賰兀賳賴 廿爻賯丕胤 毓賱賶 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賲氐乇賷丞 亘丕賱丨乇賮貙 賲毓 廿禺鬲賱丕賮 丕賱兀夭賲賳丞 賵亘毓囟 丕賱賲毓胤賷丕鬲 .. 賮毓賱丕賸 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵丕丨賽丿 賵鬲賮賰賷乇賴 賵噩卮毓賴購 賵鬲賲乇丿賴 賵丕丨賽丿 .. 賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳 賲賰丕賳賴購 賵夭賲丕賳賴購
December 31, 2019
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賷丿乇爻 睾賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賲賳 丕賱賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 兀賵 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇貙 賷鬲胤乇賯 賱賵亘賵賳 廿賱賶 鬲兀孬賷乇 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵鬲丨乇賷賰賴丕 賮賷 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 廿匕 兀卮丕乇 廿賱賶 兀賳 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賱丕 鬲鬲丨乇賰 賲賳 鬲賱賯丕亍 賳賮爻賴丕 丨賷孬 賵購噩丿鬲 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵噩丿 丕賱賯丕卅丿 丕賱賲丨乇賰 賵賱賵 賲賳 禺賱賮 丕賱爻鬲丕乇.
賷賮氐賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賷鬲賵爻毓 賮賷 匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲毓賷丞 賱賱鬲噩賲毓丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丨丿孬鬲 賮賷 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賲賳 賷丨乇賰賴丕貙 賵丨鬲賶 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱廿毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲丨賵賱 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丨囟 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱丿賷賳賷貙 賵爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 毓賱賶 乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賵賯 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賲賳 賳賴噩 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲亘毓賴 賲賱賵賰 賮乇賳爻丕 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 丌禺乇 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲賮乇丿丞 賲胤丕胤賷丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱丨賷賳貙 賵賲毓 丕賱鬲丨乇賰 賵鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賵噩賵賴 賵丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賳賴噩 丕鬲亘毓賴 賲賳 賷丨乇賰 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 兀毓賵丕賲 胤賵賷賱丞貙 賮賯丿 丌賱鬲 賮乇賳爻丕 亘毓丿 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱噩賵賴乇賷丞 賵賲毓丕丿丕丞 丕賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丕鬲 賵賲賲丕賱賰 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賮賷賴丕 廿賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 賳乇丕賴 丕賱賷賵賲.
丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
賮丕賱丨賱賲 賵丕賱賲孬丕賱 丕賱兀毓賱賶 賵丕賱兀爻胤賵乇丞 賵亘賰賱賲丞 賵丕丨丿丞 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷 賴賵 賲丕 賷賯賵丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐伲贍
賷爻鬲丨賷賱 鬲亘丿賷賱 賯賳丕毓丕鬲 丕賱賳丕爻 丿賵賳 鬲亘丿賷賱 卮乇賵胤 丨賷丕鬲賴賲 兀賷囟丕賸.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐伽佴
丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘丕賱孬賵乇丞 兀賲乇 爻賴賱貙 兀賲丕 鬲睾賷賷乇 乇賵丨 丕賱卮毓亘 賮兀賲乇 氐毓亘 噩丿丕賸.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐侑伽
賯賱賷賱丞 賴賷 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱鬲賷 毓乇賮鬲 賰賷賮 鬲賯賷賲 丕賱鬲賵丕夭賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 亘賷賳 賴丕鬲賷賳 丕賱氐賮鬲賷賳 丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟鬲賷賳 丕賱孬亘丕鬲 賵丕賱賱賷賵賳丞.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐侑佴
丨賷賳賲丕 鬲鬲賱丕卮賶 丕賱賴賷亘丞 賵丕賱鬲賯丕賱賷丿 賮廿賳 丕賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 爻賷賳賴丕乇 賮噩兀丞.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐佟侑侑
賮丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丌賱賷丞 賴卮丞 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賵丕賱丿賲賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨乇賰 賮賵賯 賲爻乇丨 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賳丕丿乇丕賸 賲丕 鬲毓乇賮 丕賱鬲氐丿賷 賱賱賯賵賶 丕賱賯丕丿乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賮毓賴丕. 丕賱賵乇丕孬丞貙 丕賱賵爻胤貙 丕賱馗乇賵賮貙 兀爻賷丕丿 賲鬲噩亘乇賵賳. 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀丨丿 丕賱賯賵賱 亘孬賯丞 賰丕賲賱丞 賲丕 丕賱匕賷 爻賷賰賵賳 爻賱賵賰賴 賱賵 賰丕賳 賮賷 賲賵囟毓 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱匕賷賳 賷丨丕賵賱 鬲賮爻賷乇 兀賮毓丕賱賴賲.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐佗侃伽
賷賮氐賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賷鬲賵爻毓 賮賷 匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲毓賷丞 賱賱鬲噩賲毓丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丨丿孬鬲 賮賷 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賲賳 賷丨乇賰賴丕貙 賵丨鬲賶 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱廿毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲丨賵賱 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賲丨囟 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱丿賷賳賷貙 賵爻賷胤乇丞 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿 毓賱賶 乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲賵賯 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賲賳 賳賴噩 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲亘毓賴 賲賱賵賰 賮乇賳爻丕 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 丌禺乇 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賲賮乇丿丞 賲胤丕胤賷丞 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱丨賷賳貙 賵賲毓 丕賱鬲丨乇賰 賵鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賵噩賵賴 賵丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 賳賴噩 丕鬲亘毓賴 賲賳 賷丨乇賰 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 兀毓賵丕賲 胤賵賷賱丞貙 賮賯丿 丌賱鬲 賮乇賳爻丕 亘毓丿 丕賱鬲睾賷乇丕鬲 丕賱噩賵賴乇賷丞 賵賲毓丕丿丕丞 丕賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丕鬲 賵賲賲丕賱賰 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賮賷賴丕 廿賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱匕賷 賳乇丕賴 丕賱賷賵賲.
丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
賮丕賱丨賱賲 賵丕賱賲孬丕賱 丕賱兀毓賱賶 賵丕賱兀爻胤賵乇丞 賵亘賰賱賲丞 賵丕丨丿丞 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷 賴賵 賲丕 賷賯賵丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐伲贍
賷爻鬲丨賷賱 鬲亘丿賷賱 賯賳丕毓丕鬲 丕賱賳丕爻 丿賵賳 鬲亘丿賷賱 卮乇賵胤 丨賷丕鬲賴賲 兀賷囟丕賸.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐伽佴
丕賱賯賷丕賲 亘丕賱孬賵乇丞 兀賲乇 爻賴賱貙 兀賲丕 鬲睾賷賷乇 乇賵丨 丕賱卮毓亘 賮兀賲乇 氐毓亘 噩丿丕賸.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐侑伽
賯賱賷賱丞 賴賷 丕賱卮毓賵亘 丕賱鬲賷 毓乇賮鬲 賰賷賮 鬲賯賷賲 丕賱鬲賵丕夭賳 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘 亘賷賳 賴丕鬲賷賳 丕賱氐賮鬲賷賳 丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟鬲賷賳 丕賱孬亘丕鬲 賵丕賱賱賷賵賳丞.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐侑佴
丨賷賳賲丕 鬲鬲賱丕卮賶 丕賱賴賷亘丞 賵丕賱鬲賯丕賱賷丿 賮廿賳 丕賱亘賳丕亍 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 爻賷賳賴丕乇 賮噩兀丞.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐佟侑侑
賮丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 丌賱賷丞 賴卮丞 鬲賲丕賲丕賸 賵丕賱丿賲賶 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨乇賰 賮賵賯 賲爻乇丨 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 賳丕丿乇丕賸 賲丕 鬲毓乇賮 丕賱鬲氐丿賷 賱賱賯賵賶 丕賱賯丕丿乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賮毓賴丕. 丕賱賵乇丕孬丞貙 丕賱賵爻胤貙 丕賱馗乇賵賮貙 兀爻賷丕丿 賲鬲噩亘乇賵賳. 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀丨丿 丕賱賯賵賱 亘孬賯丞 賰丕賲賱丞 賲丕 丕賱匕賷 爻賷賰賵賳 爻賱賵賰賴 賱賵 賰丕賳 賮賷 賲賵囟毓 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱匕賷賳 賷丨丕賵賱 鬲賮爻賷乇 兀賮毓丕賱賴賲.
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 氐佗侃伽
July 27, 2013
乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲
Gustave Le Bon 丕賱賰丕鬲亘
賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱匕賷 睾賷乇 賵噩賴 丕賱毓丕賱賲 ...丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賴賲賷鬲賴丕
賵毓賱賶 賵噩賴 丕賱兀禺氐 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賲鬲 賱賱毓丕賱賲 鬲噩乇亘丞 賲賱賷卅丞 亘賱禺亘乇丕鬲 賵丕賱兀禺胤丕亍 賵丕賱賮賵丕卅丿
毓賱賲丕 丕賳丕 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賴賷 賲丨胤 鬲爻丕丐賱 賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳.....孬賵乇丞 賱賱卮毓亘 丿賮毓鬲 賮乇賳爻丕 賱賱兀賲丕賲 ..兀賲 ...禺胤兀 賮丕丿丨 賵賯毓 賮賷賴 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷賵賳 責!
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賶 孬賱丕孬 丕噩夭丕亍 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱丕賵賱 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵氐賮丕鬲賴丕 賵賱賲丕匕丕 鬲賯賵賲 賵賲丕賴賷 丕賱賳賮爻賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賷賴丕
賵賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕 賵毓賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 噩乇鬲 亘賴丕 賵賲賳 丕爻鬲賱賲 丕賱丨賰賲 賵賰賷賮 鬲丿亘賱鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丕鬲 賵鬲亘丿賱 賳賲胤 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱賶 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 孬賲 賲賱賰賷丞 孬賲 丕賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 孬賲 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲亘丿賱丕鬲 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 毓賳 丕賱丕禺胤丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賵賯毓 亘賴丕 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賳 賵毓賳 丕賱廿賳噩丕夭丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賲 亘賴丕 丕賱噩賷卮 賲賳 噩丕賳亘 丕禺乇
丕賲丕 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賮賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲亘丕丿卅 孬賵乇賷丞 毓丕賲丞 賵丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐丕鬲 賱亘毓囟 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賲賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賮賷丿 噩丿丕 賵賷丨賵賷 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕乇丕亍 賵丕賱兀賮賰乇丕 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱丕爻鬲賮丕丿丞 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 馗賱 賲丕賳毓賷卮賴 賲賳 賵丕賯毓 丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賵賷馗賴乇 賱賳丕 亘卮賰賱 禺丕氐 賲卮丕賰賱 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵賲丕賲賲賰賳 丕賳 賷毓鬲乇賷賴丕 賲賳 丕禺胤丕亍
丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵賴賵 賲賮賰乇 賵賮賷賱爻賵賮 賱賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丕丨馗 賲賷賵賱賴 賱賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賵賲賱丕丨馗鬲賴 賱賱噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 賮賯胤 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱賰賳 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻賱胤 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賲丕夭賱賳丕 賳噩賴賱賴丕 賮賷 賵丕賯毓賳丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷
Gustave Le Bon 丕賱賰丕鬲亘
賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 丕賱匕賷 睾賷乇 賵噩賴 丕賱毓丕賱賲 ...丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賴賲賷鬲賴丕
賵毓賱賶 賵噩賴 丕賱兀禺氐 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賲鬲 賱賱毓丕賱賲 鬲噩乇亘丞 賲賱賷卅丞 亘賱禺亘乇丕鬲 賵丕賱兀禺胤丕亍 賵丕賱賮賵丕卅丿
毓賱賲丕 丕賳丕 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賴賷 賲丨胤 鬲爻丕丐賱 賱噩賲賷毓 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳.....孬賵乇丞 賱賱卮毓亘 丿賮毓鬲 賮乇賳爻丕 賱賱兀賲丕賲 ..兀賲 ...禺胤兀 賮丕丿丨 賵賯毓 賮賷賴 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷賵賳 責!
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賶 孬賱丕孬 丕噩夭丕亍 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱丕賵賱 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵氐賮丕鬲賴丕 賵賱賲丕匕丕 鬲賯賵賲 賵賲丕賴賷 丕賱賳賮爻賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻賷胤乇 毓賱賷賴丕
賵賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賳 鬲丕乇賷禺賴丕 賵毓賳 丕賱鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 噩乇鬲 亘賴丕 賵賲賳 丕爻鬲賱賲 丕賱丨賰賲 賵賰賷賮 鬲丿亘賱鬲 丕賱爻賱胤丕鬲 賵鬲亘丿賱 賳賲胤 丕賱丿賵賱丞 賲賳 賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱賶 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 孬賲 賲賱賰賷丞 孬賲 丕賲亘乇丕胤賵乇賷丞 孬賲 噩賲賴賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱鬲亘丿賱丕鬲 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 丕賷囟丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 毓賳 丕賱丕禺胤丕亍 丕賱鬲賷 賵賯毓 亘賴丕 丕賱賯丕丿丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賳 賵毓賳 丕賱廿賳噩丕夭丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賲 亘賴丕 丕賱噩賷卮 賲賳 噩丕賳亘 丕禺乇
丕賲丕 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賮賴賵 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲亘丕丿卅 孬賵乇賷丞 毓丕賲丞 賵丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐丕鬲 賱亘毓囟 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 馗賴乇鬲 賲賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賮賷丿 噩丿丕 賵賷丨賵賷 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕乇丕亍 賵丕賱兀賮賰乇丕 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲賰賳 丕賱丕爻鬲賮丕丿丞 賲賳賴丕 賮賷 馗賱 賲丕賳毓賷卮賴 賲賳 賵丕賯毓 丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷 賵賷馗賴乇 賱賳丕 亘卮賰賱 禺丕氐 賲卮丕賰賱 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵賲丕賲賲賰賳 丕賳 賷毓鬲乇賷賴丕 賲賳 丕禺胤丕亍
丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵賴賵 賲賮賰乇 賵賮賷賱爻賵賮 賱賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丕丨馗 賲賷賵賱賴 賱賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲賱賰賷 賵賲賱丕丨馗鬲賴 賱賱噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱爻賱亘賷丞 賮賯胤 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱賰賳 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻賱胤 丕賱囟賵亍 毓賱賶 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱鬲賷 賲丕夭賱賳丕 賳噩賴賱賴丕 賮賷 賵丕賯毓賳丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷
April 25, 2018
丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 賲賳 丕賱兀爻賮賱
兀賲 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀毓賱賶
鬲睾賷賷乇 孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘
兀賲 孬賵乇丞 丕賱卮毓亘 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞責責
賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱匕賷 賰賳鬲 丿丕卅賲丕賸 賲丐賲賳丕賸 亘兀賳 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 毓賱賷賴 賴賵 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賷亘丿兀 賲賳 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱卮毓亘
賱兀賰鬲卮賮 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
兀賳賴 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賯丕毓丿丞 孬丕亘鬲丞 賱賰賱 夭賲丕賳 賵賲賰丕賳 賵賲噩鬲賲毓
賵賱鬲噩賷亘 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱
賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲購丿乇爻 賳賮爻賷丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 兀賵賱丕賸 賵賲賳 孬賲 鬲賯賷賲 馗乇賵賮 賵兀賵囟丕毓 丕賱亘賱丕丿 孬丕賳賷丕賸
賵亘賳丕亍丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳毓乇賮 賲賳 兀賷賳 賳亘丿兀 賲賳 賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱賴乇賲 兀賵 賲賳 乇兀爻 丕賱賴乇賲!
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵卮賷賯 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵兀丨賵丕賱 丕賱兀賲賲 賮賷賴丕 賵賷丨賱賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 鬲丨賱賷賱丕賸 賳賮爻賷丕賸 .. 賲毓 賳賯丿 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賵乇 丨賵賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 ..
賱賰賱 賲賳 賷鬲胤賱毓 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賵丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 賵賱賰賱 賲賳 賷賴鬲賲 亘賮賴賲 賵丕賯毓 "丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷" 賰賲孬丕賱 賱丨乇丕賰 丕賱卮毓賵亘 毓賱賷賴 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮爻賷噩丿 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕爻賯丕胤丕鬲 亘賷賳 丿賮鬲賷賴 賵爻賷囟賷亍 賱賴 毓賱賶 噩賵丕賳亘 噩丿賷丿丞 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賯丿 睾賮賱 毓賳賴丕 ..
兀賲 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀毓賱賶
鬲睾賷賷乇 孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘
兀賲 孬賵乇丞 丕賱卮毓亘 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞責責
賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱匕賷 賰賳鬲 丿丕卅賲丕賸 賲丐賲賳丕賸 亘兀賳 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 毓賱賷賴 賴賵 丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賷亘丿兀 賲賳 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱卮毓亘
賱兀賰鬲卮賮 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
兀賳賴 賱丕 鬲賵噩丿 賯丕毓丿丞 孬丕亘鬲丞 賱賰賱 夭賲丕賳 賵賲賰丕賳 賵賲噩鬲賲毓
賵賱鬲噩賷亘 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱爻丐丕賱
賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲購丿乇爻 賳賮爻賷丞 丕賱卮毓賵亘 賵丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 兀賵賱丕賸 賵賲賳 孬賲 鬲賯賷賲 馗乇賵賮 賵兀賵囟丕毓 丕賱亘賱丕丿 孬丕賳賷丕賸
賵亘賳丕亍丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賳毓乇賮 賲賳 兀賷賳 賳亘丿兀 賲賳 賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱賴乇賲 兀賵 賲賳 乇兀爻 丕賱賴乇賲!
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓 賵卮賷賯 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵兀丨賵丕賱 丕賱兀賲賲 賮賷賴丕 賵賷丨賱賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 鬲丨賱賷賱丕賸 賳賮爻賷丕賸 .. 賲毓 賳賯丿 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賳賯丕胤 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丿賵乇 丨賵賱 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 ..
賱賰賱 賲賳 賷鬲胤賱毓 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇 賵丕賱廿氐賱丕丨 賵賱賰賱 賲賳 賷賴鬲賲 亘賮賴賲 賵丕賯毓 "丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷" 賰賲孬丕賱 賱丨乇丕賰 丕賱卮毓賵亘 毓賱賷賴 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮爻賷噩丿 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕爻賯丕胤丕鬲 亘賷賳 丿賮鬲賷賴 賵爻賷囟賷亍 賱賴 毓賱賶 噩賵丕賳亘 噩丿賷丿丞 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賯丿 睾賮賱 毓賳賴丕 ..
March 30, 2020
丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
賵賱賰賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賲毓 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯賵丞 賵賲毓 丕賳鬲氐丕乇 丕賱噩賷賵卮 賵賲毓 賲丕 爻賳購賾賵賴 賲賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱氐丕乇賲丞 賵賲毓 丕爻鬲卅孬丕乇賴賲 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞貙 賱賲 鬲丐丿賽賾 廿賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱鬲禺乇賷亘 賵廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲胤賱賯.
賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 毓賳 丨丿孬 丕孬乇 賮賶 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賵乇亘丕 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘兀賰賲賱賴 .爻鬲賰鬲卮賮 噩賵丕賳亘 毓丿賷丿丞 賱賲丕 賷爻賲賶 亘丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 禺氐賵氐丕 賵 丕賱鬲賶 毓賱賶 卮賴乇鬲賴丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賰賲丕 鬲鬲氐賵乇 賲夭賷噩 賲賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賮賴賶 賱賲 鬲爻賱賲 賲賳 爻賮賰 丕賱丿賲丕亍 賵 丕賱丿賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 丨丿孬鬲 鬲丨鬲 丕賱卮毓丕乇丕鬲 丕賱乇賳丕賳丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 賵 賴賶 賮賶 丕賱丕賴賷乇 賱賲 鬲禺鬲賱賮 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賲丕 丨丿孬 賮賶 亘賱丕丿賳丕 鬲丨鬲 丕爻賲 丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷
賵賱賰賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賲毓 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯賵丞 賵賲毓 丕賳鬲氐丕乇 丕賱噩賷賵卮 賵賲毓 賲丕 爻賳購賾賵賴 賲賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱氐丕乇賲丞 賵賲毓 丕爻鬲卅孬丕乇賴賲 亘丕賱爻賱胤丞貙 賱賲 鬲丐丿賽賾 廿賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱鬲禺乇賷亘 賵廿賯丕賲丞 丕賱丨賰賲 丕賱賲胤賱賯.
賰鬲丕亘 賯賷賲 毓賳 丨丿孬 丕孬乇 賮賶 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賵乇亘丕 賵丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘兀賰賲賱賴 .爻鬲賰鬲卮賮 噩賵丕賳亘 毓丿賷丿丞 賱賲丕 賷爻賲賶 亘丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 禺氐賵氐丕 賵 丕賱鬲賶 毓賱賶 卮賴乇鬲賴丕 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賰賲丕 鬲鬲氐賵乇 賲夭賷噩 賲賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 賵 丕賱毓丿丕賱丞 賮賴賶 賱賲 鬲爻賱賲 賲賳 爻賮賰 丕賱丿賲丕亍 賵 丕賱丿賰鬲丕鬲賵乇賷丞 丕賱鬲賶 丨丿孬鬲 鬲丨鬲 丕賱卮毓丕乇丕鬲 丕賱乇賳丕賳丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 賵 賴賶 賮賶 丕賱丕賴賷乇 賱賲 鬲禺鬲賱賮 賰孬賷乇丕 毓賲丕 丨丿孬 賮賶 亘賱丕丿賳丕 鬲丨鬲 丕爻賲 丕賱乇亘賷毓 丕賱毓乇亘賷
August 2, 2016
乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞
噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳
....................................
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲孬賲乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 賮賰乇鬲賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲孬賲乇賴丕 賮賷 賰鬲亘 爻丕亘賯丞貨 賱廿賳鬲丕噩 賰鬲丕亘 噩丿賷丿. 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賴賷: 丕賱賮丕乇賯 亘賷賳 丨丕賱 丕賱賮乇丿 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 賵丨賷賳賲丕 賷氐亘丨 毓囟賵丕 賮賷 噩賲丕毓丞. 賮賴賵 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞 賵賰丕賳 賲爻鬲賵賷 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 丕賱賳丕賯丿 兀毓賱賷 賲賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 賮賷 賲噩賲賵毓丞貙 賮賴賵 賰賮乇丿 賮賷 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賷爻毓賶 賱賱亘賯丕亍 賰毓囟賵 賮賷賴丕 賮賷鬲賳丕夭賱 毓賳 賲賲賷夭丕鬲 鬲賮乇丿賴 毓賳 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕丨鬲賮丕馗丕 亘毓囟賵賷鬲賴 賮賷賴丕貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 鬲鬲禺賱賮 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丞貙 賰匕賱賰 丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 丕賱丕賳賮毓丕賱賷丞 鬲禺鬲賱賮 鬲賲丕賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱噩賲丕毓丞貙 賮丕賱賮乇丿 賷爻賴賱 毓賱賷賴 囟亘胤 丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲賴貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱鬲賴賷噩 賱兀鬲賮賴 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘貙 賵睾賷丕亘 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賳丕賯丿 毓賳 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賷噩毓賱 賴賷丕噩賴丕 兀爻乇毓.
賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕 兀氐丕丿賮賴丕 賮賷 賲丐賱賮丕鬲 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇兀鬲賴丕貙 賵賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲賲乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賳賮爻 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賰賲丕 賯賱鬲.
賷賯爻賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰鬲丕亘賴 _ 丕賱賲賰賵賳 賲賳 賲丕卅鬲賷 氐賮丨丞 _ 廿賱賷 賯爻賲賷賳: 丕賱兀賵賱 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵賮賷 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 禺氐賴 賱賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
賷亘丿兀 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱兀賲丞 賰匕賱賰 賮賷 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲. 賰賷賮 鬲賵丕噩賴 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 孬賵乇丕鬲 卮毓賵亘賴丕 賵賲鬲賶 鬲賳鬲氐乇 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賵 賲鬲賶 鬲賳鬲氐乇 丕賱卮毓賵亘.
鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻賵丿 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵鬲賯賱亘丕鬲 丕賱禺賱賯 兀賷丕賲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞貙 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞貙賭 賱賲 賷禺乇噩 賮賷賲丕 賯丕賱賴 毓賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲孬賲乇賴丕 賮賷 睾丕賱亘 賰鬲亘賴.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 禺氐氐賴 賱賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賵噩毓賱賴 賰鬲胤亘賷賯 賱兀賮賰丕乇賴 毓賳 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲. 賵丕爻鬲睾乇賯 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 睾丕賱亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賱賰賳 賱賲 兀賯乇兀賴 亘鬲賲毓賳 賲孬賱 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賱毓丿賲 丨丕噩鬲賷 丕賱賲賱丨丞 廿賱賷賴.
噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳
....................................
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲孬賲乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 賮賰乇鬲賴 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞貙 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲孬賲乇賴丕 賮賷 賰鬲亘 爻丕亘賯丞貨 賱廿賳鬲丕噩 賰鬲丕亘 噩丿賷丿. 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賴賷: 丕賱賮丕乇賯 亘賷賳 丨丕賱 丕賱賮乇丿 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 賵丨賷賳賲丕 賷氐亘丨 毓囟賵丕 賮賷 噩賲丕毓丞. 賮賴賵 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 鬲毓丕賲賱 亘賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱賰丕賲賱丞 賵賰丕賳 賲爻鬲賵賷 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 丕賱賳丕賯丿 兀毓賱賷 賲賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賮乇丿丕 賮賷 賲噩賲賵毓丞貙 賮賴賵 賰賮乇丿 賮賷 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賷爻毓賶 賱賱亘賯丕亍 賰毓囟賵 賮賷賴丕 賮賷鬲賳丕夭賱 毓賳 賲賲賷夭丕鬲 鬲賮乇丿賴 毓賳 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕丨鬲賮丕馗丕 亘毓囟賵賷鬲賴 賮賷賴丕貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 賯丿乇丕鬲賴 丕賱賳賯丿賷丞 鬲鬲禺賱賮 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賵毓丞貙 賰匕賱賰 丕賱賳賵丕丨賷 丕賱丕賳賮毓丕賱賷丞 鬲禺鬲賱賮 鬲賲丕賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賮乇丿 賵丕賱噩賲丕毓丞貙 賮丕賱賮乇丿 賷爻賴賱 毓賱賷賴 囟亘胤 丕賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲賴貙 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 鬲鬲賲賷夭 亘丕賱鬲賴賷噩 賱兀鬲賮賴 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘貙 賵睾賷丕亘 丕賱毓賯賱 丕賱賳丕賯丿 毓賳 丕賱噩賲丕毓丞 賷噩毓賱 賴賷丕噩賴丕 兀爻乇毓.
賴匕賴 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丿丕卅賲丕 賲丕 兀氐丕丿賮賴丕 賮賷 賲丐賱賮丕鬲 噩賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇兀鬲賴丕貙 賵賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲賲乇 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 賳賮爻 丕賱賮賰乇丞 賰賲丕 賯賱鬲.
賷賯爻賲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰鬲丕亘賴 _ 丕賱賲賰賵賳 賲賳 賲丕卅鬲賷 氐賮丨丞 _ 廿賱賷 賯爻賲賷賳: 丕賱兀賵賱 賷鬲丨丿孬 賮賷賴 毓賳 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵賮賷 丕賱賯爻賲 丕賱孬丕賳賷 禺氐賴 賱賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
賷亘丿兀 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 賵丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵丿賵乇 丕賱兀賲丞 賰匕賱賰 賮賷 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲. 賰賷賮 鬲賵丕噩賴 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 孬賵乇丕鬲 卮毓賵亘賴丕 賵賲鬲賶 鬲賳鬲氐乇 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賵 賲鬲賶 鬲賳鬲氐乇 丕賱卮毓賵亘.
鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻賵丿 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵鬲賯賱亘丕鬲 丕賱禺賱賯 兀賷丕賲 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲貙 賵乇賵丨 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞貙 賵丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞貙賭 賱賲 賷禺乇噩 賮賷賲丕 賯丕賱賴 毓賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲孬賲乇賴丕 賮賷 睾丕賱亘 賰鬲亘賴.
賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 禺氐氐賴 賱賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞貙 賵噩毓賱賴 賰鬲胤亘賷賯 賱兀賮賰丕乇賴 毓賳 乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲. 賵丕爻鬲睾乇賯 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 睾丕賱亘 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賱賰賳 賱賲 兀賯乇兀賴 亘鬲賲毓賳 賲孬賱 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賱毓丿賲 丨丕噩鬲賷 丕賱賲賱丨丞 廿賱賷賴.
June 9, 2018
鬲丨丿賷孬:
賯乇兀鬲 鬲乇噩賲丞 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿貙 賲賰賵賳丞 賲賳 伲侉伲 氐賮丨丞 賵賴賷 鬲乇噩賲丞 賰丕賲賱丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲毓賳賵賳丞 亘 "丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲". 賯乇兀鬲 廿賳鬲賯丕丿 丕賱亘毓囟 賱賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇丞 賵賴賷 毓賱賶 賰賱 丨丕賱 賲購禺鬲氐乇丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘. 兀賳氐丨 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿.
丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞:
賰鬲丕亘 賷丨賱賱 賮賷賴 睾賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賮賱丕 賴賵 賷賯賮 賲毓 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱賲購胤賱賯丞 賵賱丕 賲毓 丕賱孬賵丕乇. 賷亘爻胤 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賵丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 氐丕丨亘鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵兀睾賱亘賴丕 丨賯丕卅賯 氐丕丿賲丞 賵賲賴賵賱丞 鬲賴夭 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳爻賷丞 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞. 賷鬲胤乇賯 賮賷賴 兀賷囟丕賸 賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵丕賱賳購禺亘 賵丕賱兀丨夭丕亘 丕賱賲購禺鬲賱賮丞 禺賱丕賱 佟贍贍 毓丕賲 亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞貙 賵賰賷賮 鬲賮爻乇 賰賱 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賲亘丕丿賶亍 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬: 丨乇賷丞 貙 賲爻丕賵丕丞 貙 賵兀禺賵丞. 孬賲 賷鬲胤乇賯 賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賵賷賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 賵丕賱卮毓賵亘. 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲丐乇禺 賲購丨丕賷丿 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賱賵亘賵賳貙 賵賱賰賳 賲賳賴噩賴購 -賰賲丕 亘丿丕 賱賷- 毓賱賶 賯丿乇 賰亘賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丿貙 賵匕賱賰 賱鬲賯丿賷賲賴 賱丨賯丕卅賯 鬲賳賯囟 鬲賰丕丿 鬲賰賵賳 賲購爻賱賲丕鬲 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲卮賰賷賰. 賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賵賷睾乇亘賱 賲賮丕賴賷賲賳丕 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
賯乇兀鬲 鬲乇噩賲丞 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿貙 賲賰賵賳丞 賲賳 伲侉伲 氐賮丨丞 賵賴賷 鬲乇噩賲丞 賰丕賲賱丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲毓賳賵賳丞 亘 "丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲". 賯乇兀鬲 廿賳鬲賯丕丿 丕賱亘毓囟 賱賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱賲卮賴賵乇丞 賵賴賷 毓賱賶 賰賱 丨丕賱 賲購禺鬲氐乇丞 賱賱賰鬲丕亘. 兀賳氐丨 亘鬲乇噩賲丞 丿丕乇 丕賱賮乇賯丿.
丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞:
賰鬲丕亘 賷丨賱賱 賮賷賴 睾賵爻鬲丕賮 賱賵亘賵賳 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賮賱丕 賴賵 賷賯賮 賲毓 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 丕賱賲購胤賱賯丞 賵賱丕 賲毓 丕賱孬賵丕乇. 賷亘爻胤 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 賵丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱丿賲賵賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 氐丕丨亘鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵兀睾賱亘賴丕 丨賯丕卅賯 氐丕丿賲丞 賵賲賴賵賱丞 鬲賴夭 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丕賱乇賵賲丕賳爻賷丞 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞. 賷鬲胤乇賯 賮賷賴 兀賷囟丕賸 賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵丕賱賳購禺亘 賵丕賱兀丨夭丕亘 丕賱賲購禺鬲賱賮丞 禺賱丕賱 佟贍贍 毓丕賲 亘毓丿 丕賱孬賵乇丞貙 賵賰賷賮 鬲賮爻乇 賰賱 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賲亘丕丿賶亍 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬: 丨乇賷丞 貙 賲爻丕賵丕丞 貙 賵兀禺賵丞. 孬賲 賷鬲胤乇賯 賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 賵賷賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丿賷賲賵賯乇丕胤賷丞 丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 賵丕賱卮毓賵亘. 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲丐乇禺 賲購丨丕賷丿 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賱賵亘賵賳貙 賵賱賰賳 賲賳賴噩賴購 -賰賲丕 亘丿丕 賱賷- 毓賱賶 賯丿乇 賰亘賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丿貙 賵匕賱賰 賱鬲賯丿賷賲賴 賱丨賯丕卅賯 鬲賳賯囟 鬲賰丕丿 鬲賰賵賳 賲購爻賱賲丕鬲 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲卮賰賷賰. 賰鬲丕亘 噩賲賷賱 賵賷睾乇亘賱 賲賮丕賴賷賲賳丕 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞.
February 22, 2016
膼峄搉g 媒 hay kh么ng 膽峄搉g 媒 v峄沬 G. Le Bon, c农ng ph岷 ng茫 m农 tr瓢峄沜 s峄� s芒u s岷痗 v脿 t峄塶h t谩o c峄 么ng. V峄沬 m矛nh, d霉 kh么ng ph岷 膽峄搉g 媒 to脿n b峄� nh峄痭g g矛 么ng vi岷縯, th岷璵 ch铆 c贸 th峄� th岷 s峄� thi锚n ki岷縩 hi峄噉 r玫 trong nh峄痭g v铆 d峄� 么ng 膽瓢a ra, nh瓢ng ph岷 gi岷 th铆ch v峄� vai tr貌 c峄 t瓢 t瓢峄焠g v脿 t么n gi谩o trong 膽峄漣 s峄憂g c峄 c谩c d芒n t峄檆 (ch瓢啤ng 4) c锟斤拷锟絘 么ng th峄眂 s峄� g峄 m峄� cho m矛nh nhi峄乽 膽i峄乽. Ch岷痗 ch岷痭 m矛nh s岷� 膽峄峜 l岷, v脿 s岷� suy ngh末 k峄� h啤n nh峄痭g g矛 么ng vi岷縯. Tuy nhi锚n, n岷縰 mu峄憂 ph岷 b谩c 么ng, vi峄嘽 膽岷 ti锚n c岷 ph岷 hi峄僽 r玫 t瓢 t瓢峄焠g c峄 么ng h啤n n峄痑!
M峄檛 膽i峄乽 m矛nh r岷 th铆ch 峄� cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y, 膽贸 l脿 v膬n phong c峄 G. Le Bon: r岷 hoa m峄�, nh瓢ng c农ng r岷 s煤c t铆ch. 膼峄峜 c峄眂 k峄� th铆ch!
Nh芒n ti峄噉, qua cu峄憂 n脿y m峄沬 bi岷縯 G.Le Bon ph锚 ph谩n CNXH c貌n gay g岷痶 h啤n c岷� George Orwell :p
M峄檛 膽i峄乽 m矛nh r岷 th铆ch 峄� cu峄憂 s谩ch n脿y, 膽贸 l脿 v膬n phong c峄 G. Le Bon: r岷 hoa m峄�, nh瓢ng c农ng r岷 s煤c t铆ch. 膼峄峜 c峄眂 k峄� th铆ch!
Nh芒n ti峄噉, qua cu峄憂 n脿y m峄沬 bi岷縯 G.Le Bon ph锚 ph谩n CNXH c貌n gay g岷痶 h啤n c岷� George Orwell :p
April 20, 2014
賰鬲丕亘 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 賲賲鬲丕夭 賵 賷噩亘 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 毓丿賷丿 丕賱賲乇丕鬲...賯丿賲 賮賷賴 賱賵亘賵賳 賳賮丕胤 鬲丨賱賷賱丞 賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱氐毓賵丿 賵 丕賱賴亘賵胤 賮賶 賮乇賳爻丕 亘丿丕賷丞 賲賳 丕賳胤賱丕賯 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵 賳馗乇丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱賲 丕賰賳 毓賱賶 丿乇丕賷賴 亘賴丕 賵 賱賲 丕噩丿 丕賶 鬲胤乇賮 丕賷丿賵賱賵噩賶 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 亘賯丿乇 賲丕 賵噩丿鬲 乇丐賷丞 孬丕賯亘丞 賱賱兀賵囟丕毓 賮賶 賮乇賳爻丕 毓卮賷丞 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賵 賷亘丿賵 丕賳 丕賱賳賵匕噩 孬丕亘鬲 賮賶 賰賱 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賱賲 賷鬲睾賷乇 賲賳匕 丕賱賯丿賲 賵 氐丿賯 "丕乇孬乇 乇丕賲亘賵" 丨賷賳賲丕 賯丕賱 "賲賳 丕賱賲丐賰丿 丕賳賳賶 丕賳鬲賲賶 廿賱賶 毓乇賯 賲賳丨胤 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 賮賴賲 丕賱孬賵乇丞...廿賳 卮毓亘賶 賱賳 賷賳鬲賮囟 廿賱丕 賱賷賳賴亘..賲孬賱 丕賱匕卅丕亘 鬲賳賯囟 毓賱賶 丕賱賮乇賷爻丞 丕賱鬲賶 賱賲 鬲賯鬲賱賴丕"...賵 乇丕卅毓賴 賲賳 乇賵丕卅毓 鬲乇噩賲丕鬲 毓丕丿賱 夭毓賷鬲乇 賰丕賱毓丕丿丞.
October 11, 2014
賰鬲丕亘 賷卮乇丨 亘卮賰賱 鬲丨賱賷賱賷 噩賷丿 鬲賰賵賾賳 賵鬲胤賵乇 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵毓賵丕賲賱 丕賳丿賱丕毓賴丕 賵賰賷賮 鬲賳馗乇 廿賱賷賴丕 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵鬲鬲兀孬乇 亘賴丕 亘卮賰賱 賳賮爻賷 賵丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷 貙貙 鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 亘丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賵丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱賳賮爻賷丕鬲 兀賮乇丕丿賴丕 賵噩賲丕毓丕鬲賴丕 丕賱匕賷賳 兀孬乇賵丕 亘卮賰賱 賲丕 賮賷 賲爻丕乇賴丕 賵賷馗賴乇 亘卮賰賱 賵丕囟丨 賲賷賱賴 賳丨賵 丕賱賲賱賰賷丞 賵廿賳 丨丕賵賱 賵囟毓 匕賱賰 賮賷 賯丕賱亘 賮賱爻賮賷 鬲賳馗賷乇賷 亘丨鬲 賱賰賳賴 賲毓 匕賱賰 爻胤賾乇 賮賷 丿丕禺賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丿乇賵爻 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕亘丿 兀賳 賷爻鬲賮賷丿 賲賳賴丕 丕賱賲賴鬲賲賵賳 亘丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 賵丕賱匕賷賳 賷賳丕丿賵賳 亘丕賱鬲睾賷賷乇 丨鬲賶 賱丕 鬲鬲賰乇乇 兀禺胤丕亍 丕賱賲丕囟賷 貙貙 賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賮鬲乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賲乇 亘賴丕 毓丕賱賲賳丕 丕賱毓乇亘賷
May 22, 2015
賷賳丿乇噩 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 爻賱爻賱丞 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丕賲 亘賴丕 賱賵亘賵賳 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱噩賲丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵 丕賮毓丕賱賴丕 丕賱賮乇丿賷丞 丕賵 丕賱噩賲丕毓賷丞貙丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴丕賲 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 毓乇囟賴 氐賵乇丞 賲睾丕賷乇丞 賱賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 鬲亘賷賳 丨噩賲 丕賱賲噩丕夭乇 丕賱鬲賷 丕乇鬲賰亘鬲 亘丕爻賲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賲賳 賯亘賱 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 賵 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞貙乇睾賲 賵噩賵丿 賲亘丕賱睾丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲氐賵賷乇 鬲丿賱 毓賱賶 毓丿賲 乇囟丕 賱賵亘賵賳 毓賳 賲爻丕乇 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 賲乇丕丨賱賴丕.
賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐亘睾丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賱賲氐亘賵睾丞 亘卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱噩兀 丕賱賷賴丕 賱賵亘賵賳 賮賷 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕囟毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙丕囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賱鬲丨丕賲賱 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 毓賱賶 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 賵 鬲氐賵賷乇賴丕 亘丕賱睾賵賱 丕賱匕賷 爻賷賴丿賲 賮乇賳爻丕 賵 孬賵乇鬲賴丕.
賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱氐亘睾丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賱賲氐亘賵睾丞 亘卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱毓賳氐乇賷丞 丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賱噩兀 丕賱賷賴丕 賱賵亘賵賳 賮賷 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賵丕囟毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙丕囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賱鬲丨丕賲賱 丕賱賲亘丕賱睾 賮賷賴 毓賱賶 丕賱丕卮鬲乇丕賰賷丞 賵 鬲氐賵賷乇賴丕 亘丕賱睾賵賱 丕賱匕賷 爻賷賴丿賲 賮乇賳爻丕 賵 孬賵乇鬲賴丕.
November 16, 2011
If you want to read this book, you have to have a good knowledge about the French revolution since a good part of the book is dedicated to it; some chapters of the book even talk specifically about it.
It seemed to me more of a philosophical book than a scientific one that explains in terms of psychology and sociology what goes on during revolutions. However, some of what has been stated in this book does remarkably apply to the revolutions that have recently taken place.
It seemed to me more of a philosophical book than a scientific one that explains in terms of psychology and sociology what goes on during revolutions. However, some of what has been stated in this book does remarkably apply to the revolutions that have recently taken place.
January 22, 2021
QUOTES
But besides the fixed collectivities formed by the peoples, there are mobile and transitory collectivities known as crowds. Now these crowds or mobs, by the aid of which the great movements of history are accomplished, have characteristics absolutely different from those of the individuals who compose them. What are these characteristics, and how are they evolved? This new problem was examined in The Psychology of the Crowd.
So long as psychology regards beliefs as voluntary and rational they will remain inexplicable. Having proved that they are usually irrational and always involuntary, I was able to propound the solution of this important problem; how it was that beliefs which no reason could justify were admitted without difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of all ages.
I arrived at the conclusion that beside the rational logic which conditions thought, and was formerly regarded as our sole guide, there exist very different forms of logic: affective logic, collective logic, and mystic logic, which usually overrule the reason and engender the generative impulses of our conduct.
This fact well established, it seemed to me evident that if a great number of historical events are often uncomprehended, it is because we seek to interpret them in the light of a logic which in reality has very little influence upon their genesis.
When any question gives rise to violently contradictory opinions we may be sure that it belongs to the province of beliefs and not to that of knowledge. We have shown in a preceding work that belief, of unconscious origin and independent of all reason, can never be influenced by reason.
Although in its beginnings a religious or political revolution may very well be supported by rational elements, it is developed only by the aid of mystic and affective elements which are absolutely foreign to reason.
The historians who have judged the events of the French Revolution in the name of rational logic could not comprehend them, since this form of logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these events themselves understood them but ill, we shall not be far from the truth in saying that our Revolution was a phenomenon equally misunderstood by those who caused it and by those who have described it. At no period of history did men so little grasp the present, so greatly ignore the past, and so poorly divine the future.
Although the origin of a revolution may be perfectly rational, we must not forget that the reasons invoked in preparing for it do not influence the crowd until they have been transformed into sentiments. Rational logic can point to the abuses to be destroyed, but to move the multitude its hopes must be awakened. This can only be effected by the action of the affective and mystic elements which give man the power to act. At the time of the French Revolution, for example, rational logic, in the hands of the philosophers, demonstrated the inconveniences of the ancien regime, and excited the desire to change it. Mystic logic inspired belief in the virtues of a society created in all its members according to certain principles. Affective logic unchained the passions confined by the bonds of ages and led to the worst excesses. Collective logic ruled the clubs and the Assemblies and impelled their members to actions which neither rational nor affective nor mystic logic would ever have caused them to commit.
The sudden political revolutions which strike the historian most forcibly are often the least important. The great revolutions are those of manners and thought. Changing the name of a government does not transform the mentality of a people. To overthrow the institutions of a people is not to re-shape its soul.
Science has not yet discovered the magic ring capable of saving a society without discipline. There is no need to impose discipline when it has become hereditary, but when the primitive instincts have been allowed to destroy the barriers painfully erected by slow ancestral labours, they cannot be reconstituted save by an energetic tyranny.
As a proof of these assertions we may instance an experiment analogous to that undertaken by China; that recently attempted by Turkey. A few years ago young men instructed in European schools and full of good intentions succeeded, with the aid of a number of officers, in overthrowing a Sultan whose tyranny seemed insupportable. Having acquired our robust Latin faith in the magic power of formulae, they thought they could establish the representative system in a country half-civilised, profoundly divided by religious hatred, and peopled by divers races. The attempt has not prospered hitherto. The authors of the reformation had to learn that despite their liberalism they were forced to govern by methods very like those employed by the government overthrown. They could neither prevent summary executions nor wholesale massacres of Christians, nor could they remedy a single abuse.
The real directing forces of a country are the administrations, composed of impersonal elements which are never affected by the changes of government. Conservative of traditions, they are anonymous and lasting, and constitute an occult power before which all others must eventually bow. Their action has even increased to such a degree that, as we shall presently show, there is a danger that they may form an anonymous State more powerful than the official State.
To create a revolution is easy, but to change the soul of a people is difficult indeed.
In the past, built up by slow accumulations of centuries, was formed the aggregation of thoughts, sentiments, traditions, and prejudices constituting the national mind which makes the strength of a race. Without it no progress is possible. Each generation would necessitate a fresh beginning.
Rarely does the crowd understand anything of the revolutions accomplished with its assistance. It obediently follows its leaders without even trying to find out what they want.
These noisy and maleficent crowds, the kernel of all insurrections, from antiquity to our own times, are the only crowds known to the orator. To the orator they are the sovereign people. As a matter of fact this sovereign people is principally composed of the lower populace of whom Thiers said: ``Since the time when Tacitus saw it applaud the crimes of the emperors the vile populace has not changed. These barbarians who swarm at the bottom of societies are always ready to stain the people with every crime, at the beck of every power, and to the dishonour of every cause.'
Such movements are never comprehended by those who imagine that their origin is rational. Political or religious, the beliefs which have moved the world possess a common origin and follow the same laws. They are formed, not by the reason, but more often contrary to reason.
This analysis will show in the first place that the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped in rationalism he employs it very little in his thoughts and his conduct.
All the civilised societies inevitably drag behind them a residue of degenerates, of the unadapted, of persons affected by various taints. Vagabonds, beggars, fugitives from justice, thieves, assassins, and starving creatures that live from day to day, may constitute the criminal population of the great cities. In ordinary times these waste products of civilisation are more or less restrained by the police. During revolution nothing restrains them, and they can easily gratify their instincts to murder and plunder. In the dregs of society the revolutionaries of all times are sure of finding recruits. Eager only to kill and to plunder, little matters to them the cause they are sworn to defend. If the chances of murder and pillage are better in the party attacked, they will promptly change their colours. To these criminals, properly so called, the incurable plague of all societies, we must add the class of semi-criminals. Wrongdoers on occasion, they never rebel so long as the fear of the established order restrains them, but as soon as it weakens they enroll themselves in the army of revolution. These two categories鈥攈abitual and occasional criminals鈥攆orm an army of disorder which is fit for nothing but the creation of disorder. All the revolutionaries, all the founders of religious or political leagues, have constantly counted on their support.
Whatever their origin, revolutions do not produce their full effects until they have penetrated the soul of the multitude. They therefore represent a consequence of the psychology of crowds.
Man, as part of a multitude, is a very different being from the same man as an isolated individual. His conscious individuality vanishes in the unconscious personality of the crowd. Material contact is not absolutely necessary to produce in the individual the mentality of the crowd. Common passions and sentiments, provoked by certain events, are often sufficient to create it.
These various characteristics show that man in the crowd descends to a very low degree in the scale of civilisation. He becomes a savage, with all a savage's faults and qualities, with all his momentary violence, enthusiasm, and heroism. In the intellectual domain a crowd is always inferior to the isolated unit. In the moral and sentimental domain it may be his superior. A crowd will commit a crime as readily as an act of abnegation. Personal characteristics vanish in the crowd, which exerts an extraordinary influence upon the individual which form it.
I have shown elsewhere, making use of certain physiological experiments, that the unconscious collective mind of the crowd seems bound up with the mind of the leader. The latter gives it a single will and imposes absolute obedience.
Many experiments have shown to what point a collectivity may be subjected to suggestion. Among the numerous experiments made to prove this fact one of the most remarkable was performed on the pupils of his class by Professor Glosson and published in the Revue Scientifique for October 28, 1899. ``I prepared a bottle filled with distilled water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a box. After several other experiments I stated that I wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those present to raise their hands the moment they perceived the odour. . . . I took out the bottle and poured the water on the cotton, turning my head away during the operation, then took up a stop-watch and awaited the result. . . . I explained that I was absolutely sure that no one present had ever smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had spilt. . . . At the end of fifteen seconds the majority of those in front had held up their hands, and in forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the hall by fairly regular waves. About three-quarters of those present declared that they perceived the odour. A larger number would doubtless have succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I had not been forced to stop the experiment, some of those in the front rows being unpleasantly affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the hall.''
It is permissible to consider the Revolution as being partly a necessity, but it was above all鈥攚hich is what the fatalistic writers already cited do not show us鈥攁 permanent struggle between theorists who were imbued with a new ideal, and the economic, social, and political laws which ruled mankind, and which they did not understand.
Having broken all human restraints, the men of the Revolution finally discovered that a society cannot live without them; but when they sought to create them anew they saw that even the strongest society, though supported by the fear of the guillotine, could not replace the discipline which the past had slowly built up in the minds of men. As for understanding the evolution of society, or judging men's hearts and minds, or foreseeing the consequences of the laws they enacted, they scarcely attempted to do so.
It is therefore impossible, unless he contents himself with simple chronologies summing up each event with a few words and a date, to produce a truly impartial volume of history. No author could be impartial; and it is not to be regretted. The claim to impartiality, so common to-day, results in those flat, gloomy, and prodigiously wearisome works which render the comprehension of a period completely impossible. Should the historian, under a pretext of impartiality, abstain from judging men鈥攖hat is, from speaking in tones of admiration or reprobation?
Many historians assure us that the Revolution was directed against the autocracy of the monarchy. In reality the kings of France had ceased to be absolute monarchs long before its outbreak.
Despite the apparent authority of the central power, the kingdom, formed by the successive conquest of independent provinces, was divided into territories each of which had its own laws and customs, and each of which paid different imposts. Internal customs-houses separated them. The unity of France was thus somewhat artificial. It represented an aggregate of various countries which the repeated efforts of the kings, including Louis XIV., had not succeeded in wholly unifying. The most useful effect of the Revolution was this very unification.
Although the philosophers who have been supposed the inspirers of the French Revolution did attack certain privileges and abuses, we must not for that reason regard them as partisans of popular government. Democracy, whose role in Greek history was familiar to them, was generally highly antipathetic to them. They were not ignorant of the destruction and violence which are its invariable accompaniments, and knew that in the time of Aristotle it was already defined as ``a State in which everything, even the law, depends on the multitude set up as a tyrant and governed by a few declamatory speakers.''
Pierre Bayle, the true forerunner of Voltaire, recalled in the following terms the consequences of popular government in Athens: ``If one considers this history, which displays at great length the tumult of the assemblies, the factions dividing the city, the seditious disturbing it, the most illustrious subjects persecuted, exiled, and punished by death at the will of a violent windbag, one would conclude that this people, which so prided itself on its liberty, was really the slave of a small number of caballers, whom they called demagogues, and who made it turn now in this direction, now in that, as their passions changed, almost as the sea heaps the waves now one way, now another, according to the winds which trouble it. You will seek in vain in Macedonia, which was a monarchy, for as many examples of tyranny as Athenian history will afford.''
Montesquieu had no greater admiration for the democracy. Having described the three forms of government鈥攔epublican, monarchical, and despotic鈥攈e shows very clearly what popular government may lead to: ``Men were free with laws; men would fain be free without them; what was a maxim is called severity; what was order is called hindrance. Formerly the welfare of individuals constituted the public wealth, but now the public wealth becomes the patrimony of individuals. The republic is spoil, and its strength is merely the power of a few citizens and the license of all.''
Rousseau was one of the very few democratic philosophers of his age, which is why his Contrat Social became the Bible of the men of the Terror. It seemed to furnish the rational justification necessary to excuse the acts deriving from unconscious mystic and affective impulses which no philosophy had inspired. To be quite truthful, the democratic instincts of Rousseau were by no means above suspicion. He himself considered that his projects for social reorganisation, based upon popular sovereignty, could be applied only to a very small State; and when the Poles asked him for a draft democratic Constitution he advised them to choose a hereditary monarch.
A brutal and audacious minority will always lead a fearful and irresolute majority.
Men judge with their intelligence, and are guided by their characters. To understand a man fully one must separate these two elements. During the great periods of activity鈥攁nd the revolutionary movements naturally belong to such periods鈥攃haracter always takes the first rank. In all revolutions, and in particularly in the French Revolution, we observe a small minority of narrow but decided minds which imperiously dominate an immense majority of men who are often very intelligent but are lacking in character.
The successive revolutions which France has suffered have been the consequences of struggles between two portions of the nation whose mentalities are different. One is religious and monarchical and is dominated by long ancestral influences; the other is subjected to the same influences, but gives them a revolutionary form.
The democratic ideas which have so often shaken the world from the heroic ages of Greece to modern times are always clashing with natural inequalities. Some observers have held, with Helvetius, that the inequality between men is created by education. As a matter of fact, Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigour, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows. No theory can alter these discrepancies, so that democratic doctrines will remain confined to words until the laws of heredity consent to unify the capacities of men. Can we suppose that societies will ever succeed in establishing artificially the equality refused by Nature? A few theorists have believed for a long time that education might effect a general leveling. Many years of experience have shown the depth of this illusion.
The same phenomenon is to be observed in societies. The forms of democracy which select the better elements of the popular classes finally result in the creation of an intellectual aristocracy, a result the contrary of the dream of the pure theorists, to beat down the superior elements of society to the level of the inferior elements. On the side of natural law, which is hostile to theories of equality, are the conditions of modern progress. Science and industry demand more and more considerable intellectual efforts, so that mental inequalities and the differences of social condition which spring from them cannot but become accentuated.
We therefore observe this striking phenomenon: as laws and institutions seek to level individuals the progress of civilisation tends still further to differentiate them. From the peasant to the feudal baron the intellectual difference was not great, but from the working-man to the engineer it is immense and is increasing daily.
Among the dogmas of democracy perhaps the most fundamental of all and the most attractive is that of universal suffrage. It gives the masses the idea of equality, since for a moment at least rich and poor, learned and ignorant, are equal before the electoral urn. The minister elbows the least of his servants, and during this brief moment the power of one is as great as the others. These same psychological laws also show us that so-called universal suffrage is in reality a pure fiction. The crowd, save in very rare cases, has no opinion but that of its leaders. Universal suffrage really represents the most limited of suffrages.
No one yet seems to understand that individuals and their methods, not regulations, make the value of a people. The efficacious reforms are not the revolutionary reforms but the trifling ameliorations of every day accumulated in course of time. The great social changes, like the great geological changes, are effected by the daily addition of minute causes
But besides the fixed collectivities formed by the peoples, there are mobile and transitory collectivities known as crowds. Now these crowds or mobs, by the aid of which the great movements of history are accomplished, have characteristics absolutely different from those of the individuals who compose them. What are these characteristics, and how are they evolved? This new problem was examined in The Psychology of the Crowd.
So long as psychology regards beliefs as voluntary and rational they will remain inexplicable. Having proved that they are usually irrational and always involuntary, I was able to propound the solution of this important problem; how it was that beliefs which no reason could justify were admitted without difficulty by the most enlightened spirits of all ages.
I arrived at the conclusion that beside the rational logic which conditions thought, and was formerly regarded as our sole guide, there exist very different forms of logic: affective logic, collective logic, and mystic logic, which usually overrule the reason and engender the generative impulses of our conduct.
This fact well established, it seemed to me evident that if a great number of historical events are often uncomprehended, it is because we seek to interpret them in the light of a logic which in reality has very little influence upon their genesis.
When any question gives rise to violently contradictory opinions we may be sure that it belongs to the province of beliefs and not to that of knowledge. We have shown in a preceding work that belief, of unconscious origin and independent of all reason, can never be influenced by reason.
Although in its beginnings a religious or political revolution may very well be supported by rational elements, it is developed only by the aid of mystic and affective elements which are absolutely foreign to reason.
The historians who have judged the events of the French Revolution in the name of rational logic could not comprehend them, since this form of logic did not dictate them. As the actors of these events themselves understood them but ill, we shall not be far from the truth in saying that our Revolution was a phenomenon equally misunderstood by those who caused it and by those who have described it. At no period of history did men so little grasp the present, so greatly ignore the past, and so poorly divine the future.
Although the origin of a revolution may be perfectly rational, we must not forget that the reasons invoked in preparing for it do not influence the crowd until they have been transformed into sentiments. Rational logic can point to the abuses to be destroyed, but to move the multitude its hopes must be awakened. This can only be effected by the action of the affective and mystic elements which give man the power to act. At the time of the French Revolution, for example, rational logic, in the hands of the philosophers, demonstrated the inconveniences of the ancien regime, and excited the desire to change it. Mystic logic inspired belief in the virtues of a society created in all its members according to certain principles. Affective logic unchained the passions confined by the bonds of ages and led to the worst excesses. Collective logic ruled the clubs and the Assemblies and impelled their members to actions which neither rational nor affective nor mystic logic would ever have caused them to commit.
The sudden political revolutions which strike the historian most forcibly are often the least important. The great revolutions are those of manners and thought. Changing the name of a government does not transform the mentality of a people. To overthrow the institutions of a people is not to re-shape its soul.
Science has not yet discovered the magic ring capable of saving a society without discipline. There is no need to impose discipline when it has become hereditary, but when the primitive instincts have been allowed to destroy the barriers painfully erected by slow ancestral labours, they cannot be reconstituted save by an energetic tyranny.
As a proof of these assertions we may instance an experiment analogous to that undertaken by China; that recently attempted by Turkey. A few years ago young men instructed in European schools and full of good intentions succeeded, with the aid of a number of officers, in overthrowing a Sultan whose tyranny seemed insupportable. Having acquired our robust Latin faith in the magic power of formulae, they thought they could establish the representative system in a country half-civilised, profoundly divided by religious hatred, and peopled by divers races. The attempt has not prospered hitherto. The authors of the reformation had to learn that despite their liberalism they were forced to govern by methods very like those employed by the government overthrown. They could neither prevent summary executions nor wholesale massacres of Christians, nor could they remedy a single abuse.
The real directing forces of a country are the administrations, composed of impersonal elements which are never affected by the changes of government. Conservative of traditions, they are anonymous and lasting, and constitute an occult power before which all others must eventually bow. Their action has even increased to such a degree that, as we shall presently show, there is a danger that they may form an anonymous State more powerful than the official State.
To create a revolution is easy, but to change the soul of a people is difficult indeed.
In the past, built up by slow accumulations of centuries, was formed the aggregation of thoughts, sentiments, traditions, and prejudices constituting the national mind which makes the strength of a race. Without it no progress is possible. Each generation would necessitate a fresh beginning.
Rarely does the crowd understand anything of the revolutions accomplished with its assistance. It obediently follows its leaders without even trying to find out what they want.
These noisy and maleficent crowds, the kernel of all insurrections, from antiquity to our own times, are the only crowds known to the orator. To the orator they are the sovereign people. As a matter of fact this sovereign people is principally composed of the lower populace of whom Thiers said: ``Since the time when Tacitus saw it applaud the crimes of the emperors the vile populace has not changed. These barbarians who swarm at the bottom of societies are always ready to stain the people with every crime, at the beck of every power, and to the dishonour of every cause.'
Such movements are never comprehended by those who imagine that their origin is rational. Political or religious, the beliefs which have moved the world possess a common origin and follow the same laws. They are formed, not by the reason, but more often contrary to reason.
This analysis will show in the first place that the Jacobin is not a rationalist, but a believer. Far from building his belief on reason, he moulds reason to his belief, and although his speeches are steeped in rationalism he employs it very little in his thoughts and his conduct.
All the civilised societies inevitably drag behind them a residue of degenerates, of the unadapted, of persons affected by various taints. Vagabonds, beggars, fugitives from justice, thieves, assassins, and starving creatures that live from day to day, may constitute the criminal population of the great cities. In ordinary times these waste products of civilisation are more or less restrained by the police. During revolution nothing restrains them, and they can easily gratify their instincts to murder and plunder. In the dregs of society the revolutionaries of all times are sure of finding recruits. Eager only to kill and to plunder, little matters to them the cause they are sworn to defend. If the chances of murder and pillage are better in the party attacked, they will promptly change their colours. To these criminals, properly so called, the incurable plague of all societies, we must add the class of semi-criminals. Wrongdoers on occasion, they never rebel so long as the fear of the established order restrains them, but as soon as it weakens they enroll themselves in the army of revolution. These two categories鈥攈abitual and occasional criminals鈥攆orm an army of disorder which is fit for nothing but the creation of disorder. All the revolutionaries, all the founders of religious or political leagues, have constantly counted on their support.
Whatever their origin, revolutions do not produce their full effects until they have penetrated the soul of the multitude. They therefore represent a consequence of the psychology of crowds.
Man, as part of a multitude, is a very different being from the same man as an isolated individual. His conscious individuality vanishes in the unconscious personality of the crowd. Material contact is not absolutely necessary to produce in the individual the mentality of the crowd. Common passions and sentiments, provoked by certain events, are often sufficient to create it.
These various characteristics show that man in the crowd descends to a very low degree in the scale of civilisation. He becomes a savage, with all a savage's faults and qualities, with all his momentary violence, enthusiasm, and heroism. In the intellectual domain a crowd is always inferior to the isolated unit. In the moral and sentimental domain it may be his superior. A crowd will commit a crime as readily as an act of abnegation. Personal characteristics vanish in the crowd, which exerts an extraordinary influence upon the individual which form it.
I have shown elsewhere, making use of certain physiological experiments, that the unconscious collective mind of the crowd seems bound up with the mind of the leader. The latter gives it a single will and imposes absolute obedience.
Many experiments have shown to what point a collectivity may be subjected to suggestion. Among the numerous experiments made to prove this fact one of the most remarkable was performed on the pupils of his class by Professor Glosson and published in the Revue Scientifique for October 28, 1899. ``I prepared a bottle filled with distilled water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a box. After several other experiments I stated that I wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those present to raise their hands the moment they perceived the odour. . . . I took out the bottle and poured the water on the cotton, turning my head away during the operation, then took up a stop-watch and awaited the result. . . . I explained that I was absolutely sure that no one present had ever smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had spilt. . . . At the end of fifteen seconds the majority of those in front had held up their hands, and in forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the hall by fairly regular waves. About three-quarters of those present declared that they perceived the odour. A larger number would doubtless have succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I had not been forced to stop the experiment, some of those in the front rows being unpleasantly affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the hall.''
It is permissible to consider the Revolution as being partly a necessity, but it was above all鈥攚hich is what the fatalistic writers already cited do not show us鈥攁 permanent struggle between theorists who were imbued with a new ideal, and the economic, social, and political laws which ruled mankind, and which they did not understand.
Having broken all human restraints, the men of the Revolution finally discovered that a society cannot live without them; but when they sought to create them anew they saw that even the strongest society, though supported by the fear of the guillotine, could not replace the discipline which the past had slowly built up in the minds of men. As for understanding the evolution of society, or judging men's hearts and minds, or foreseeing the consequences of the laws they enacted, they scarcely attempted to do so.
It is therefore impossible, unless he contents himself with simple chronologies summing up each event with a few words and a date, to produce a truly impartial volume of history. No author could be impartial; and it is not to be regretted. The claim to impartiality, so common to-day, results in those flat, gloomy, and prodigiously wearisome works which render the comprehension of a period completely impossible. Should the historian, under a pretext of impartiality, abstain from judging men鈥攖hat is, from speaking in tones of admiration or reprobation?
Many historians assure us that the Revolution was directed against the autocracy of the monarchy. In reality the kings of France had ceased to be absolute monarchs long before its outbreak.
Despite the apparent authority of the central power, the kingdom, formed by the successive conquest of independent provinces, was divided into territories each of which had its own laws and customs, and each of which paid different imposts. Internal customs-houses separated them. The unity of France was thus somewhat artificial. It represented an aggregate of various countries which the repeated efforts of the kings, including Louis XIV., had not succeeded in wholly unifying. The most useful effect of the Revolution was this very unification.
Although the philosophers who have been supposed the inspirers of the French Revolution did attack certain privileges and abuses, we must not for that reason regard them as partisans of popular government. Democracy, whose role in Greek history was familiar to them, was generally highly antipathetic to them. They were not ignorant of the destruction and violence which are its invariable accompaniments, and knew that in the time of Aristotle it was already defined as ``a State in which everything, even the law, depends on the multitude set up as a tyrant and governed by a few declamatory speakers.''
Pierre Bayle, the true forerunner of Voltaire, recalled in the following terms the consequences of popular government in Athens: ``If one considers this history, which displays at great length the tumult of the assemblies, the factions dividing the city, the seditious disturbing it, the most illustrious subjects persecuted, exiled, and punished by death at the will of a violent windbag, one would conclude that this people, which so prided itself on its liberty, was really the slave of a small number of caballers, whom they called demagogues, and who made it turn now in this direction, now in that, as their passions changed, almost as the sea heaps the waves now one way, now another, according to the winds which trouble it. You will seek in vain in Macedonia, which was a monarchy, for as many examples of tyranny as Athenian history will afford.''
Montesquieu had no greater admiration for the democracy. Having described the three forms of government鈥攔epublican, monarchical, and despotic鈥攈e shows very clearly what popular government may lead to: ``Men were free with laws; men would fain be free without them; what was a maxim is called severity; what was order is called hindrance. Formerly the welfare of individuals constituted the public wealth, but now the public wealth becomes the patrimony of individuals. The republic is spoil, and its strength is merely the power of a few citizens and the license of all.''
Rousseau was one of the very few democratic philosophers of his age, which is why his Contrat Social became the Bible of the men of the Terror. It seemed to furnish the rational justification necessary to excuse the acts deriving from unconscious mystic and affective impulses which no philosophy had inspired. To be quite truthful, the democratic instincts of Rousseau were by no means above suspicion. He himself considered that his projects for social reorganisation, based upon popular sovereignty, could be applied only to a very small State; and when the Poles asked him for a draft democratic Constitution he advised them to choose a hereditary monarch.
A brutal and audacious minority will always lead a fearful and irresolute majority.
Men judge with their intelligence, and are guided by their characters. To understand a man fully one must separate these two elements. During the great periods of activity鈥攁nd the revolutionary movements naturally belong to such periods鈥攃haracter always takes the first rank. In all revolutions, and in particularly in the French Revolution, we observe a small minority of narrow but decided minds which imperiously dominate an immense majority of men who are often very intelligent but are lacking in character.
The successive revolutions which France has suffered have been the consequences of struggles between two portions of the nation whose mentalities are different. One is religious and monarchical and is dominated by long ancestral influences; the other is subjected to the same influences, but gives them a revolutionary form.
The democratic ideas which have so often shaken the world from the heroic ages of Greece to modern times are always clashing with natural inequalities. Some observers have held, with Helvetius, that the inequality between men is created by education. As a matter of fact, Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigour, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows. No theory can alter these discrepancies, so that democratic doctrines will remain confined to words until the laws of heredity consent to unify the capacities of men. Can we suppose that societies will ever succeed in establishing artificially the equality refused by Nature? A few theorists have believed for a long time that education might effect a general leveling. Many years of experience have shown the depth of this illusion.
The same phenomenon is to be observed in societies. The forms of democracy which select the better elements of the popular classes finally result in the creation of an intellectual aristocracy, a result the contrary of the dream of the pure theorists, to beat down the superior elements of society to the level of the inferior elements. On the side of natural law, which is hostile to theories of equality, are the conditions of modern progress. Science and industry demand more and more considerable intellectual efforts, so that mental inequalities and the differences of social condition which spring from them cannot but become accentuated.
We therefore observe this striking phenomenon: as laws and institutions seek to level individuals the progress of civilisation tends still further to differentiate them. From the peasant to the feudal baron the intellectual difference was not great, but from the working-man to the engineer it is immense and is increasing daily.
Among the dogmas of democracy perhaps the most fundamental of all and the most attractive is that of universal suffrage. It gives the masses the idea of equality, since for a moment at least rich and poor, learned and ignorant, are equal before the electoral urn. The minister elbows the least of his servants, and during this brief moment the power of one is as great as the others. These same psychological laws also show us that so-called universal suffrage is in reality a pure fiction. The crowd, save in very rare cases, has no opinion but that of its leaders. Universal suffrage really represents the most limited of suffrages.
No one yet seems to understand that individuals and their methods, not regulations, make the value of a people. The efficacious reforms are not the revolutionary reforms but the trifling ameliorations of every day accumulated in course of time. The great social changes, like the great geological changes, are effected by the daily addition of minute causes
August 14, 2019
賱賲 賷囟賮 賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵匕賱賰 賱爻亘亘賷賳
丕賱丕賵賱 乇丕噩毓 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷爻乇丿 丕丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱匕丕 賮丕匕丕 賰賳鬲 睾賷乇 賲賱賲 賲爻亘賯丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賮賱賳 鬲噩丿賷賰 賴匕賴 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 卮賷卅丕 丨鬲賶 鬲賱賲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 .
睾賷乇 丕賳 賴丿賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷亘丿賵 賲購亘賻乇乇丕賸 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳 賮丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷毓鬲乇賮 丕賳 賱賷爻 賲賳 睾乇囟賴 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻乇丿 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賵鬲兀乇賷禺賴丕 亘賱 丕賷囟丕丨 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱賰丕賲賳丞 賮賶 賲孬賱 賴匕丕 丕賱丨丿孬 - 丕賶 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 - 賵賲丨丕賵賱丞 賲胤丕亘賯丞 乇賵丨 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 毓賲賵賲丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 .
賵賴賳丕 賷禺賷亘 鬲賵賯毓賶 賮乇睾賲 丕賳 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 丕丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賮賶 賲毓馗賲賴丕 鬲兀鬲賶 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱毓賱賱 賵丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賵丕賱睾丕賷丕鬲 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱丕 丕賳賶 賱賲 丕乇賶 賮賷賴丕 賲丕 賷囟賷賮 丕賱賶 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲賶 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賶 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賵丕賳亘 賵賱賲 丕噩丿 賰匕賱賰 賲丕 賷亘賴乇賳賶 賲賳 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱丕 丕賱賯賱賷賱 . 睾賷乇 丕賳 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賮賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賰鬲氐賵賷乇 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱丿賷賳賶 賰毓賳氐乇 兀爻丕爻賷 賱賮賴賲 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 禺賱丕賱 賮鬲乇丞 丨賰賲 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞 亘賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱丕乇賴丕亘 賵丕賱鬲賶 賯丕丿賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵丕賱乇亘賵亘賷賵賳 賵匕賵賶 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘賱 賵丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟丞 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賷噩鬲賲毓賵賳 毓賱賶 賲亘丕丿賶亍 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰丞 賵賴賶 賲氐丕賱丨 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賵賲鬲卮丕亘賰丞 . 丕賱丕 丕賳 賱賵亘賵賳 賷賵丨丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 鬲丨鬲 賲賮賴賵賲 丿賷賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丿賵賳 丕賳 賷賵囟丨 亘丕賱賮毓賱 賲丕 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丿賷賳 .
丕賲丕 丕賱爻亘亘 丕賱孬丕賳賶 賮賴賵 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱爻賷卅丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 鬲噩毓賱 賮賴賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 氐毓亘丕 丨鬲賶 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賱賲 亘兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賴賶 鬲乇噩賲丞 賱丕 鬲噩毓賱 賮賯胤 丕賱賳氐 毓爻賷乇丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲 亘賱 丕賳賴丕 賰匕賱賰 鬲丨鬲賵賶 毓賱賶 兀爻賲丕亍 禺丕氐丞 亘賴丕 賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵賮鬲乇丕鬲 賵卮賴賵乇 賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賶 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴丕 賲爻亘賯丕賸 賮賮鬲乇丞 丨賰賲 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 賷爻賲賷賴丕 丿賵乇 丕賱賴賵賱 . 賵丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱廿丿丕乇丞 鬲購匕賰乇 亘廿爻賲 丕賱丿賷乇賰鬲賵丕乇 丕賲丕 兀賳 丕乇賶 兀爻賲丕亍 卮賴賵乇 丕賱鬲賯賵賷賲 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賲鬲乇噩賲丞 亘卮賰賱 賲禺丕賱賮 毓賳 賳胤賯賴丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 賮賴賵 賲丕 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 丕爻鬲爻賷睾賴 賵毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕乇賶亍 丕賳 賷孬丕亘乇 丨鬲賶 賷賮賴賲 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 亘丕賱卮賴賵乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲賶 丨丿孬鬲 賮賷賴丕 賵兀爻賲丕亍 亘毓囟 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 賮鬲乇丕鬲 丨賰賲賴丕 賵丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賲賳 兀賮毓丕賱賴丕 賵賲賳丕氐亘賴丕 賵賰賱 賲丕 兀賯賵賱賴 廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賲孬丕亘丞 賲兀爻丕丞 賱賯丕乇卅 噩賷丿 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賮賴賵 賯丿 賷禺賱胤 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵賯丿 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賷馗賳 丕賳賴 賱賲 賷賱賲 亘賰賱 兀丨丿丕孬 賵卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 亘賱 賵丨鬲賶 兀爻賲丕亍 卮賴賵乇 鬲賯賵賷賲賴丕 丕賱丕孬賳賶 毓卮乇 丕賱鬲賶 丕噩賴丿 賳賮爻賴 賯亘賱 匕賱賰 賮賶 丨賮馗賴丕 賱賷爻鬲賵毓亘 鬲爻賱爻賱 兀丨丿丕孬 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 .
丕賱丕賵賱 乇丕噩毓 賱賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷爻乇丿 丕丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賱匕丕 賮丕匕丕 賰賳鬲 睾賷乇 賲賱賲 賲爻亘賯丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賮賱賳 鬲噩丿賷賰 賴匕賴 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 卮賷卅丕 丨鬲賶 鬲賱賲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 .
睾賷乇 丕賳 賴丿賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷亘丿賵 賲購亘賻乇乇丕賸 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳 賮丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賷毓鬲乇賮 丕賳 賱賷爻 賲賳 睾乇囟賴 賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 爻乇丿 丕賱丕丨丿丕孬 賵鬲兀乇賷禺賴丕 亘賱 丕賷囟丕丨 丕賱睾丕賷丞 丕賱賰丕賲賳丞 賮賶 賲孬賱 賴匕丕 丕賱丨丿孬 - 丕賶 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 - 賵賲丨丕賵賱丞 賲胤丕亘賯丞 乇賵丨 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 亘乇賵丨 丕賱孬賵乇丕鬲 毓賲賵賲丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞 賵丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 .
賵賴賳丕 賷禺賷亘 鬲賵賯毓賶 賮乇睾賲 丕賳 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 丕丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 賮賶 賲毓馗賲賴丕 鬲兀鬲賶 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱毓賱賱 賵丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賵丕賱睾丕賷丕鬲 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賱鬲乇丕亘胤 丕賱丕 丕賳賶 賱賲 丕乇賶 賮賷賴丕 賲丕 賷囟賷賮 丕賱賶 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲賶 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賮賶 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賵丕賳亘 賵賱賲 丕噩丿 賰匕賱賰 賲丕 賷亘賴乇賳賶 賲賳 鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱丕 丕賱賯賱賷賱 . 睾賷乇 丕賳 賴賳丕賰 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲 丕賱乇卅賷爻賷丞 賮賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 賰鬲氐賵賷乇 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱丿賷賳賶 賰毓賳氐乇 兀爻丕爻賷 賱賮賴賲 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 禺賱丕賱 賮鬲乇丞 丨賰賲 丕賱賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞 亘賲噩丕賱爻 丕賱丕乇賴丕亘 賵丕賱鬲賶 賯丕丿賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵丕賱乇亘賵亘賷賵賳 賵匕賵賶 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 亘賱 賵丕賱賲鬲賳丕賯囟丞 賵賱賰賳賴賲 賷噩鬲賲毓賵賳 毓賱賶 賲亘丕丿賶亍 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱孬賵乇賷丞 賵丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賰丞 賵賴賶 賲氐丕賱丨 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賵賲鬲卮丕亘賰丞 . 丕賱丕 丕賳 賱賵亘賵賳 賷賵丨丿 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲 鬲丨鬲 賲賮賴賵賲 丿賷賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丿賵賳 丕賳 賷賵囟丨 亘丕賱賮毓賱 賲丕 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丿賷賳 .
丕賲丕 丕賱爻亘亘 丕賱孬丕賳賶 賮賴賵 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 丕賱爻賷卅丞 賵丕賱鬲賶 鬲噩毓賱 賮賴賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 氐毓亘丕 丨鬲賶 毓賱賶 丕賱賲賱賲 亘兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賵賴賶 鬲乇噩賲丞 賱丕 鬲噩毓賱 賮賯胤 丕賱賳氐 毓爻賷乇丕 毓賱賶 丕賱賮賴賲 亘賱 丕賳賴丕 賰匕賱賰 鬲丨鬲賵賶 毓賱賶 兀爻賲丕亍 禺丕氐丞 亘賴丕 賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵賮鬲乇丕鬲 賵卮賴賵乇 賲鬲賮賯 毓賱賶 鬲爻賲賷鬲賴丕 賲爻亘賯丕賸 賮賮鬲乇丞 丨賰賲 丕賱廿乇賴丕亘 賷爻賲賷賴丕 丿賵乇 丕賱賴賵賱 . 賵丨賰賵賲丞 丕賱廿丿丕乇丞 鬲購匕賰乇 亘廿爻賲 丕賱丿賷乇賰鬲賵丕乇 丕賲丕 兀賳 丕乇賶 兀爻賲丕亍 卮賴賵乇 丕賱鬲賯賵賷賲 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賲鬲乇噩賲丞 亘卮賰賱 賲禺丕賱賮 毓賳 賳胤賯賴丕 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶 賮賴賵 賲丕 賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 丕爻鬲爻賷睾賴 賵毓賱賶 丕賱賯丕乇賶亍 丕賳 賷孬丕亘乇 丨鬲賶 賷賮賴賲 丕賱賲賯氐賵丿 亘丕賱卮賴賵乇 賲賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲賶 丨丿孬鬲 賮賷賴丕 賵兀爻賲丕亍 亘毓囟 丕賱丨賰賵賲丕鬲 賲賳 賮鬲乇丕鬲 丨賰賲賴丕 賵丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 賲賳 兀賮毓丕賱賴丕 賵賲賳丕氐亘賴丕 賵賰賱 賲丕 兀賯賵賱賴 廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘賲孬丕亘丞 賲兀爻丕丞 賱賯丕乇卅 噩賷丿 毓賳 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 賮賴賵 賯丿 賷禺賱胤 賴匕賴 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 賵賯丿 賷噩毓賱 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賷馗賳 丕賳賴 賱賲 賷賱賲 亘賰賱 兀丨丿丕孬 賵卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱孬賵乇丞 丕賱賮乇賳爻賷丞 亘賱 賵丨鬲賶 兀爻賲丕亍 卮賴賵乇 鬲賯賵賷賲賴丕 丕賱丕孬賳賶 毓卮乇 丕賱鬲賶 丕噩賴丿 賳賮爻賴 賯亘賱 匕賱賰 賮賶 丨賮馗賴丕 賱賷爻鬲賵毓亘 鬲爻賱爻賱 兀丨丿丕孬 賴匕賴 丕賱孬賵乇丞 .
Displaying 1 - 30 of 140 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.