Month: July 2012

This was written over two thousand years ago, in Ecclesiastes, which is one of the few books of the Bible I have read in full more than once.  I carried it with me for a time, as I did the Art of War, and read it whenever I had down time.

I was thinking about this: what is new, really, in our modern world? Conflict?  Mass distraction?  Large masses of stupid people being led by their greed to their dooms by cynical or insane demagogues?  What about the possibility of mass extinction, or enslavement?

My suggestion would be that the several calamities which befell the Jewish people were every bit as traumatic as would the subjugation of the United States be to us.  And there have been many extinctions of entire peoples.  One example: when the Jews retook Israel, they were told by God to put the inhabitants of a number of cities “to the ban”.  This means they killed every many, woman, and child.  Slaughter to the last person.  A whole community, gone, dead, rotting above or below ground.

And yes, our modern means of making people mean are psychologically sophisticated, but do they really consist in anything but the making of other people objects, and the making of the individual’s social order the sum of all good?  Did they not know how to do that 2,000 years ago?  Of course they did.  Even a superficial reading of history makes this clear.

Mass distractions: is there a qualitatively important difference between watching TV and going to a bullfight, which itself is a relic of the Roman Coliseum contests of various sorts?  Or take a soccer match.  In many cases over the years, the fans have become involved to the points of their literal deaths.

I worry.  I worry about the future of our nation and world.  Yet, the world I confront is not really fundamentally that different than the world’s that confronted Socrates, Jesus, and the  Buddha.

“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are, and do it now”: this is a good motto, although likely not exactly what Teddy Roosevelt said.  How can any of us ever be wise enough to see the entirety of the consequences of our actions?  How can any of us be stupid enough to fail to realize that human life rises and falls regularly, and always has?

For whatever reason, this thought comforts me.

Mediocrity does not like to be challenged.  I have long talked of how much I like the coaching and life philosophy of John Wooden, as expressed in his book “Wooden”. 

Although it may not have been in that book, I remember him saying somewhere that his goal was to beat his best opponents on their best days.  He didn’t want to win: he wanted to play flawlessly, and he always felt he needed the best competition to do that.

Ask yourself: how often do you open yourself to critical scrutiny?  How often do you risk embarrassment in trying something new?  How often do you seek out the best at what they do, study them, then challenge them?  These are all very useful activities. 

If you are not seeking out challenges, I think I could say as the converse, you ARE mediocre.

This, in my view, is what Christ meant when he said “I came not to bring peace, but a sword.”  Obviously, he did not carry a sword.  What he carried was a willingness to challenge smug complacency.  And he would not have needed to be the son of God to know that would generate a violent backlash.

With regard to my last post, I want to emphasize the feeling was not self pity, helplessness, or even anger.  It was just a moment–taken rarely enough–when I was able to feel a completely different world, one with generalized well being, in which violence was unnecessary because everyone was capable both of empathy and of providing for themselves; a world in which people did not avoid the bad, in which fear was not stronger than love, but one in which people sought out and regularly found the good.

I want to be clear: the difference between what I term Goodness and leftism, or what I term Cultural Sadeism is that the first believes in moral progress, and the second does not.  The first believes that the spiritual is practical, and the second believes, functionally, in nothing but destruction.

Leftism is often called utopianism.  It is not.  It is not a sincere belief in things that could be but are not.  If it were, it would be practical.  It is, rather, a despairing creed which believes instead that utopia–a world where perfectly moral human beings interact freely and in happiness–is IMpossible, and which therefore seeks the moral destruction of mankind in the mistaken belief that is merely carrying out nature’s orders, in reducing the spirit to the material.

Have to run.  That was about what I had to say, but not quite as well as I wanted to say it.

Postscript/Edit: the root of Leftism is the belief that life has no meaning.  The entire point of meaning is that it creates form and identity in the process of chosen work, chosen pain, and resulting joys.  People without meaning need physical binding, physical constraint, physical pain imposed from outside.  They have no reason otherwise to undergo it willingly.  This is why the intuitive sense that there is something malignant about sadomasochism (I heard a radio ad, by the way, today, in which a local sex toy store advertised “50 shades” of pleasure, presumably connoting that they sell handcuffs and other bondage gear; this ad was on the radio station my oldest teenager listens to, in the middle of the day) is in my view quite correct, even if over the short term the effects appear pleasurable in a perverse way, and benign.

I woke up this morning feeling not maudlin, but I think the word is disappointed.  I thought about it, and feel that in a just world, something like me short piece on Goodness would be posted on every newspaper in America.  I say this not to brag, not because I think I’m all that, but for a much simpler reason: in a just world, in a good world, people would seek out, be hungry for, all that is good and light and beautiful.  They would reject all that is dark, ugly and violent.  They would seek harmony, poetry, connection.

Look at our mass culture.  It is possible to find the good, but only after sifting through nearly everything else.  Look at the headlines in any newspaper, and you will find someone disagreeing someone else, where NEITHER person really has the courage of convictions won through a hard and honest self reflective process, or who possesses the character to change their minds with new facts.  What you seem are vain, self serving, largely stupid people nitter-nattering around about something close to nothing.

Tried to post this on this article, but can’t get logged on.  I have no idea who blocks me–there are plenty of Piece Of Shit leftists out there, who lack in principle what they possess in computer skill–but whatever the cause is, it happens regularly.

I think we need to call this what it is: an attack on organized religion.  Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all view homosexuality as sinful.  At issue here is whether or not people can voice in public their view that the Bible is more important to them than political correctness. 

At issue is not whether or not their views are valid, either.  What is at issue is their right to express them without a violent backlash intended to suppress dissent, and over time to work to build a uniform society without any moral codes outside of those expressed by the State or self appointed ideological leaders.

It is no exaggeration to say we are fighting Fascism.  Think about this: what is the defining characteristic of the military?  Conformity.  There are ranks, but everyone has a common behavioral code.  And fascism is just applying a military mindset to the society at large.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Given this, the demand for conformity without any provision for the negotiation of cultural differences is formally fascist.

I recently invented what I am calling the Niemoller Principle, which states that rights to do not disappear all at once.  They disappear gradually.  Here, what is effectively at stake is the right to be a sincere Christian in public.

“Latest shooting in Colorado revives old debate about the role violence in media plays in the declining mental health of our youth.”

We KNOW, with certainty, that long term exposure to violence in media breeds reduced empathy, increased rates of depression, and measurable increases across populations in actual violence.

Why the FUCK is Obama spending money on anti-smoking campaigns?  Yes, I know he plans to have everybody on the payroll, uh, welfare role, no, on his SUPREMELY AWESOME free healthcare plan.

But surely people already know cigarettes increase cancer and heart disease rates?  What is NOT generally known is what social science has found out about growing up with violence.

Case in point: it is a terrible tragedy that a six year old was killed at the Batman movie.  But why was she there in the first place?  I see people taking kids too young to talk to PG-13 movies.  This is ludicrous.

A few weeks ago, I modified Niemoeller’s famous quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

as

First they banned laws against abortion
and I didn’t speak out because I was fine with that.

Then they came for drugs,
and I didn’t speak out because I was just an alcoholic.

Then they came for my soda,
and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t drink soda.

Then they came for my coffee,
and without coffee I can’t function.

It was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek, but as I ponder it, it is actually prescient.  In Niemoeller’s formulation they came first for the non-Nazi socialists, but what had to precede that?  Is there not a lengthy process of the eradication of rights required to “come” for anyone?  

You have to have secret police who accept in principle the propriety of taking people whose only “crimes” are political. 

You have to have confiscated people’s guns.

You have to have a court system, or at least a processing system, where these people are taken.

And most of all, you have to have a frightened populace that views silence as vastly safer than speaking out. You have to have developed some method of shutting people up.  This can be actual violence, but for social control social violence is normally vastly preferred.  What happened in Hitler’s Germany, for example, if you did not have a copy of Mein Kampf in a prominent place in your home?

And as far as the Jews and Trade Unionists (or gypsies, or homosexuals, or handicapped), were their rights not progressively constrained over a period of many years?  The first anti-Jewish laws were passed in perhaps 1935, and they did not start officially “disappearing” Jews until roughly 1940.

But before that, the property rights of Jews were restricted.  Their speech rights were restricted.  Their freedom of movement was restricted.

So in some respects Niemoeller is betraying a profound mediocrity of intelligence, or perhaps an understandable lack of moral courage, when he pretends he was surprised that after all the violations of basic rights that the worst did in fact happen.

EVERYONE’S RIGHTS MATTER.

The essence of the brouhaha about Chick-Fil-A is this: does the right still exist publicly to denounce homosexuality as wrong?  Yes or no?  This man has that right, and the Left is doing everything within its power to punish him with violence.  From my perspective, this is SA–Hitler’s professional hooligans that he used to take power–behavior.  It is thuggish, undignified, unprincipled, and unnecessary.

To be clear, this man is not supporting any restrictions on the activities of homosexuals.  What he is saying is that he does not support gay marriage.  Homosexuality is specifically prohibited in the Bible (which is to say, for Christians, Jews, and Muslims), and this man is a Christian.  Why does he not have the freedom of his beliefs?  He is not out picketing anyone.  He is donating money to causes he believes in, just as his opponents are free to do.

But they want to label him as evil.

What I want to be clear about is that egalitarianism has no content.  It has no principles but equality.  This means that all religions–based as they are on the principle that all people are different morally–must be rejected not just due to atheism (the doctrine that man and matter are equal)–but structurally.  That, or they must be diluted to the point where no actual differentiating features remain.

The end is, must be, cannot be other than, perfect conformity.  But conformity to what?  Who is to decide the meaning of life, when all meanings not associated with perfect conformity have been rejected?  Individuals cannot, since individuals may differ in the relative capacities, and of course conclusions.  This would lead to diversity.

No: the conformity must be in relation to an all-powerful government.  And it will not matter much what the content of the daily cause is, just that it is communicated, and obedience compelled, then eventually willingly undertaken.

In my own view, there is no substantial difference between the goal of silencing Dan Cathy and working directly for the implementation of a Fascist government.  I will no doubt be misunderstood by some on this, but that is my view.  I have been making these cases for a long time, in particular my essay on what I call Cultural Sadeism.

The net, for me, is this: true Liberalism is about compromise.  It is about persons of differing views tolerating one another, not infrequently avoiding one another, and when necessary negotiating in good faith their differences.  Force has nothing to do with it.

 

 

I periodically delude myself into thinking that rational debate with leftists is possible.  It is not.  As I define the matter, a “leftist” is someone who no longer cares about the consequences of the policies they advocate.  This means the policies are beyond question, and since in all cases they are counterproductive policies–if the goal is the amelioration of human suffering–this logically means that they cannot be discussed, or the tenuous meaning system of the people involved will implode, with all the loss of faith and purpose that entails.  Their rigidity is a necessary outcome of the fragility of their worldview.

This does not mean that there are not people who self-define as “liberals” who can be reasoned with.  These people plainly exist.

Goodness is taking pleasure in the success and well being of others.  Evil is taking pleasure in their failures and misery.

No person who claims to be good, who claims to want what is best for
his or her fellow humans, can fail on an enduring basis to regularly
examine his own first assumptions, and fail to care about the actual
outcomes of his actions.

No idea can be beyond scrutiny.  Ideas which have merit will always
become stronger in the sunlight, and those which are wrong, will more
easily be cast away once retrieved from the shadows.

No debate takes place here.  Ideas are asserted, and dissenters are
banned.  Given my presuppositions, then, this place is either not good
or actively evil.  It is abundantly obvious that many here quite enjoy
doing their best to torment anyone with whom they disagree, and whose
moral rectitude seemingly rests upon their perfect conformity to
everyone else here.  Everyone else here, of course, defines their very
presence as evidence of their profound humanitarianism and goodwill.

I first observed these things on the part of the left long ago.  How,
for example, could Lenin claim that he was on the side of the workers,
and yet demand more of his workers than any Capitalist ever did?  They
worked longer, harder, for less money, in less safe conditions and
risked the gulags for the slightest infractions.  Yet, they were told it
was a “Workers Utopia”.

Once principle becomes disentangled from reality testing, there are
no crimes which are not possible.  All manner of violence becomes
synonymous with virtue.  On his own account Robespierre believed mass
beheadings were something close to the essence of Goodness.

I had hoped to raise awareness of a very important issue, but
seemingly made the error of getting myself CLASSIFIED as an Unwanted
Other in an environment of radical intolerance.  That task, then, will
not bear fruit, and the sufferings associated with the grotesque
thievery that fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve enable,
will continue, and no doubt get worse in coming years.

And, of course, provided you can blame Ideological Others–whose
efforts to defend themselves will not be tolerated on this site, meaning
success in this enterprise is a given–then not one of you will suffer
the slightest pain of the guilt you WOULD feel if you cared in the
slightest about the difference between truth and falsehood.

Is it not interesting that, on all accounts, illegal Mexican labor–and the legal children they produce–work to push down the wages of Americans who were born here?  Isn’t it interesting that the incomes of ordinary Americans are suppressed by means of the taxes they have to pay to support people who did not come here legally?  And isn’t it interesting that Barack Obama claims to care about ordinary Americans, yet he is ratifying all of this loss of income on the part of ordinary Americans in favor of people born elsewhere, and who already had a country?

Leftism is about power, period.  It has NOTHING to do with helping anyone.  There are rulers and tools. 

Quick point: is it not interesting that, 40 years or so after the beginnings of the Women’s Liberation movement, that what ordinary, middle class women are reading in DROVES is overt sadomasochistic pornography, in which the woman is tied up, beaten, and who knows what else?

Socialism–egalitarianism–is about the destruction of culture, which is to say the capacity for shared moral differentiation, and identity outside of conformity to behavioral norms you neither originate nor choose.