Regression to Paganism: the Case of Vegetarianism

Radical vegetarianism is defined as the position of those who do not consume meat because they judge the animal life-form to be of enough worth as to not kill merely for the consumption of humans. There are of course other forms of vegetarianism, whom I do not call radical due to the object of focus being outside the subject, that means, the consumption of animals (the subject; animals) is deemed unethical or unneeded for reasons other than the essence of the animal (for example it is deemed unethical for reasons that relate to ecology). The viewpoint of those eating not eating animals out of considerations related to the essence of the animal itself requires special attention as the thoughts structuring this idea are of a peculiar nature.

The idea that animals are not to be consumed, as their death by killing for mere consumption is unethical must be related to the idea that the animal shares with the human being specific qualities that both posses. While the age-old idea animals was based upon the difference between consciousness and self-consciousness, the new idea of radical vegetarianism must be based upon different structuring principles. For St. Aquinas for example the animal was merely an instrument – to be used as he pleases – albeit there might be certain restrictions on brutality, but then still only for human reasons (the cultivation of violence against animals as an instance of violence in general that as such might also be manifested against other human beings). So for the radical vegetarian the essence of the human being is not the self-consciousness – or at least it is not its only essence, for if that was the ultimate structuring principles the animal can be killed for consumption due to its lacking that essence. For example one such structuring principles proposed by the radical vegetarian is the idea of sentience; it appears that the animal can sense, perceive or feel pain and pleasure. In relation to human choice and action that the capacity or potentiality to feel or experience pain or pleasure is of a fundamental nature to limit that which is allowed or not allowed.

At first sight this might seem an extension, or a going beyond, that which was formulated in Athens and Jerusalem; respectively by philosophy and Abrahamic religion; it is the idea that each human being has a soul and that this soul has inherent worth. This worth or intrinsic value is related to its potentiality for participating in reason or divine transcendence. This idea is not of small importance; at two different places in western history (we find eastern parallels) we find a leap in understanding as Eric Voegelin put it; the clan, or group of people is no longer its own truth but rather the abstract idea of person becomes the locus of meaning.  This happens at two moments in western history, it happens in Israel and it happens in Greece. Both religion and philosophy gain an understanding of what it means to participate in the logos; from the religious perspective as well as the philosophical. It is the understanding that rationality, reason, self-consciousness, is not merely a contingent instance; but rather it is shared by all human beings and all of us participate in this shared essence (even those for who this is merely potentiality that is unlikely to actualise).  It is the millennia old precursor to what is now called human rights; that each person has the right to live because his shares with other human beings this essence. It took human kind millions of years to gain this insight and this is not a trivial one. It is also not an easy one, as we see, ever since the origin of Abrahamic religion and philosophy there have been transgression.

This shared rationality, this participation in divine transcendence, is taken as fundamental the human experience up until the end of the middle ages. It is in modernity that the human being’s arrogance, and hunger for knowledge, seeks to exceed this fundamental insight. Radical vegetarianism is one such instance of human hubris. Radical vegetarianism throws away as a structuring principles the fundaments of natural law, the fundament of human rights, and seeks to expand it. Morality is more than this they say; it includes animal spirits as well as human souls. But to say this means expanding the structuring principles to something more than rationality and self-consciousness; more than the participation in the (divine) logos. It is the idea we can go beyond ancient philosophy as well as beyond Christianity. While this might seem noble at first; it is hubris and highly dangerous. The essence of the human being is no longer the logos, it shares an essence with the animal; but the animal kills other animals and it cannot understand why it should not do so. The animal is not a strictly delineated category such as the human being’s potentiality to logos; it is rather a vague slope of different forms of spirit, from dogs to fish to ants to plants. Nowhere is there any strict line to be drawn. The essence becomes obscured and the structuring principle becomes the topic of debate.

The killing of the ant is still allowed, the destruction of the plant is still allowed, the bacteria and virus is destroyed by our body itself! There is no structuring principles that can be used to delineate between consciousness and merely movement when the definitive structuring principles of self-consciousness is rejected. This means that this progression in morality is impossible! The progression of morality, beyond that which is found in the great leap in Athens and Jerusalem, is the essence of modernity itself. Radical vegetarianism spawned by modernity. But this radical vegetarianism constitutes not a progression in ideas; it is a regression away from the idea that the human being participates in something that is greater than its concrete individuality; the logos. The logos has become a mere accidental and unimportant element. This is the essence of paganism. That which precedes Christianity is termed paganism; as such radical vegetarianism that seeks to destroy the wisdom gained by western civilization is no less a form of paganism. The human being is no longer holy, or protected, it has become the same as a dog or a virus. The insight of Christianity and Philosophy is lost.

Advertisements

Democracy and the Demagogue by professor Jason Stanley of Yale University

Democracy and the Demagogue by professor Jason Stanley of Yale University

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/democracy-and-the-demagogue/#more-158204

“Since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, every presidential campaign has included accusations that candidates use code words so they can appeal to antidemocratic sentiments without violating what the Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg has called a “norm of racial equality.” This strategy was made explicit as early as 1981, when the Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained in a radio interview that politicians, who by around 1968 could no longer use the word “nigger” to denigrate black people, turned to abstracting the issue by talking about “forced busing,” “states’ rights” and “cutting taxes.” Such terms, he said, are “totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.” Violations of this sort have surfaced as recently as 2012, when Mitt Romney faced criticism for the claim by his campaign in South Carolina that President Obama wanted to eliminate work requirements from welfare.”

Since the Civil Rights movement the censorship has begun cracking down on hate speech; i.e. stating straightforward truths has become a faux-pas. Not allowed to talk about what is really affecting the situation, people have started commentating and addressing the symptoms, rather than the cause. But of course, as Jason points out, all people really wanted to do was say nigger, which is hate speech now. So they invented a code like ‘cut taxes’ to refer to nigger. But was it not the word’s (in this case nigger) connotation that made it hate speech? Rather than to what it referred? Since one can still refer to ‘black people’, or has that also become hate speech? So his claim appears to be complete and utter nonsense, if nigger has a racist connotation, it can only be uttered by using the word, not by using other words referring to black people; unless he wants to argue that referring to black people is itself racist.

 

“So far, the current presidential campaign has been different. A CNN/ORC poll from May 29-31 registered Donald Trump at 3 percent support. In his speech on June 16 announcing his candidacy, Trump made the following, now infamous, statement: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” The word “rapists” is in no sense code. It is far from an “abstract” reference to Mexican immigrants. Yet instead of being punished, he was rewarded. The next CNN/ORC poll, from June 26-28, had Trump at 12 percent, behind Jeb Bush (17 percent). A poll conducted July 22-25 had Trump leading the G.O.P. pack with 18 percent.”

So Trump talks straightforward truths and people like it. Yawn.

 

“On Sept. 20, the Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution. Those too are not code words; they are direct attacks on one of the country’s minority religions. In a CNN/ORC poll from Sept. 17-19, Carson had registered 14 percent, in third place, 10 points behind Trump. By the end of September, Carson’s support had risen, and his high favorability rating was not dented. [In fact, this newspaper reported today that Carson’s aides believe that his inflammatory remarks are actually helping him in the polls.] “

More truth, more win. How dare they.

 

“Liberal democratic rhetoric is supposed to unify citizens with diverse perspectives and backgrounds, and make visible previously discounted perspectives (for example, the perspective of women during the struggle for women’s right to vote). Trump’s and Carson’s comments are explicitly antidemocratic. The fact that they seem to have been rewarded — at least in immediate improvements in poll standings — confronts defenders of the American political system with two questions. There once was a facade of equal respect that required political strategists to use code words to avoid accusations of violating it. What has caused it to crack? And what are the risks for our democracy? I begin with the first.”

Saying people outside your country are rapists; is undemocratic, or so Jason says. Maybe the professor should look up who gets to decide in democratic elections in his country; I shall give you the answer: not the Mexicans outside the country. So it can hardly be an undemocratic statement – perhaps calling half your country a basket of deplorables is exactly that though – oh wait that was someone else who said that. No problem there, carry on; those brain seizures make her say all kinds of crap, nothing to see here. So Mr. Stanley is going to analyse why people prefer people speaking truth (as they perceive it, all men are prone to error) and speak in a straightforward tone to speaking code. Now he is pretending as if he liked it better when people lied. Oh right, that way the pack of liars and frauds could still win elections. Nothing gets the liberal to scream that democracy is under threat than democratic elections of which he does not like the outcome.

 

“In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison argued that the United States had to take the form of a representative democracy, in which it sought to elect leaders who best represented the values of democracy. An election campaign is supposed to present candidates seeking to show that they have the common interests of all citizens at heart.”

True statement, strange way of wording here and there though, lets give it a pass and see where it goes.

 

“Two factors have eroded the protections that representative democracy is supposed to provide. First, candidates must raise huge sums to run for office. They therefore represent the interests of their large donors. However, because it is a democracy, they must also try to make the case that they represent the common interest. They must pretend that the best interest of the multinational corporations that fund their campaigns are also the common interest.”

Indeed a huge problem, and since the second world war only one candidate was not funded by big multinational money; Trump. Hilary’s speech to Goldman and Sachs was quite telling in this way (i.e. the two-policies, public and private).

 

“Second, some voters do not share democratic values, and politicians must appeal to them as well. These voters are simply more attracted to a system that favors their own particular religion, race, gender or birth position. When large inequalities exist, the problem is aggravated: People tend to take out their resentment on groups they believe don’t share their way of life. Candidates must appeal to these voters while appearing not to flout democratic values. So many politicians use coded language to exploit resentment, in order to avoid the charge of excluding the opposing perspectives of other large groups.”

Apparently Jason is also a psychologist! So much speculation it makes my head hurt. I guess he is talking about himself; Trump won (or at the time of writing was going to win), so he does not like democracy and would rather have Trump removed? Is that what you are saying  Mr. Stanley? Anyway, speculation on human’s evil nature is boring; there is more than Hobbes, try reading a book written before 1960 (or 1650). Classic sophistry by Stanley. And for the idea he described, it’s hogwash. He’s moving away from democracy to some kind of tyrannical democracy – not all candidates are equal and can be voted for! But that is the essence of democracy! Categorise it with the other “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111” (let us see how many we can put in that basket).

 

“On top of these very real pressures to engage in insincerity, there is our media culture, which fosters extreme distrust in the political class. That a majority of Republicans think the President is a Muslim underscores its profound effects.”

A couple of paragraphs after he described how politician used to use ‘code’ to describe things he is surprised people distrust them. What exactly did you expect? But I guess there is a lot of pressure to engage in insincerity; how else is CNN going to give a positive image of you!

 

“For these reasons, our politics right now appear insincere to many voters. And they are sick of it – they crave principled, honest politicians. They want politicians to tell it like it is. And they will seek such candidates even in the absence of a clear set of values they share. But how can politicians signal that they are not hypocritical, especially when voters have grown accustomed to what seems, for both real and contrived reasons, to be a deep stratum of hypocrisy?”

To tell like it is, yes! Is that not exactly what you said Trump and Ben Carson were doing? Scroll up if your little brain cannot remember what you just wrote Mr. Stanley. Well, since Trump is quite popular, and you yourself said he was speaking without code, voters seem to be understanding it quite well! Phew, dodged a bullet there, CNN brainwash almost made people not recognise political sincerity.

 

“One way for candidates to address the widespread disgust with hypocrisy is to represent themselves as champions of democratic values. In a democratic culture, such candidates would theoretically be the most attractive. However, this is not a promising strategy in the current climate. It does not appeal to voters who reject such values. And there will be fierce competition for voters who support democratic values between candidates representing themselves as their champions. This will occur in a media environment devoted to conspiracy theories leveled against anyone claiming to represent the common interest rather than special interests. It is difficult in such a situation to represent oneself as genuinely representing the common interest.”

Complete garbage paragraph, what the fuck are you trying to say Jason, take a writing 101 class please. This is not how you present ideas to the public. Let us delve into the madness that is the psyche of our master ‘opinion writer’ so we can try to put some meaning into this verbal diarrhea. So we have on the one side those who present themselves as champions of democratic values and those who present themselves as champions of themselves. Okay… And those who say they present the common interest will have conspiracy theories thrown at them. It all seems very easy this way; we have two types of candidates, the good and the bad and the bad only like themselves! Perhaps this sentence of ‘champion of themselves’ is indeed most fitting for someone “who’ll say anything to get elected”! Let us just leave this paragraph for now, dichotomies that a two-year old could make up are no use in political analysis. But we’ll take note of your elementary categorisation when it is put to use by yourself (which is never, since half of this article goes nowhere and leaves loose ends all over the place).

 

“But there is a way a politician could appear to be honest and nonhypocritical without having to vie against other candidates pursing the same strategy: by standing for division and conflict without apology. Such a candidate might openly side with Christians over Muslims or atheists, or native-born Americans over immigrants, or whites over blacks, or the rich over the poor. In short, one could signal honesty by openly and explicitly rejecting what are presumed to be sacrosanct political values.”

He is always speaking of ‘present themselves’ ‘signal honesty’, as if all politicians ever do is signal and present themselves. What about those who just are themselves and say whatever they want to say without code, signals and representations. Perhaps this is a classic case of projection. Anyway, more theoretical hogwash that goes nowhere.

 

“Such politicians would be a breath of fresh air in a political culture that seems dominated by real and imagined hypocrisy. They would be especially compelling if they demonstrated their supposed honesty and sincerity by explicitly targeting groups that are disliked by the voters they seek to attract. Such open rejection of democratic values would be taken as political bravery, as a signal of sincerity.”

More, more, get to the point. The speculation is through the roof, I am not going to accept this many speculative steps in reasoning before you get to your point. But he does seem to be setting up the text for calling someone, who appears honest and speaks honest, a liar and a fraud. Once again, targeting people outside your country, can never be anti-democratic, they are not part of your democratic elections (unless you are planning on importing them?). “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111”

 

“The desire for politicians who are sincere explains not only the strategic value of demagoguery (and hence the campaign choices of candidates like Trump who may not in fact believe their own demagogic bombast). It also explains the desire for politicians who will not compromise or bend; that is, it explains the attraction of the “true conservatives” of the Tea Party movement. It is often said that governing is the art of compromise. But this is not a statement about governing; it is rather about the values of democracy. Legislating in the common interest means not confusing one’s own values with the common values. It requires giving equal weight to values that one does not share. But too often, commitment to this principle appears weak – a failure to stand by one’s principles.”

Values, which Jason does not like himself, are not for the common interest, all values Jason likes are for the common interest. I hope this little  hidden premise makes it more readable to y’all! Seriously, when you can think your values are sound, the majority of the voters think so and you can rationally support them in argument, there is a high chance of them actually being sound (although we are all human and prone to failure, unlike all-knowing Stanley who is always right!). And in that case defending them against lies and assault might be the right thing to do. Of course you can also rig a supreme court over time and just say fuck you to democracy and let them activists do the work. An approach well-approved by le Jason. “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111”

 

“When voters are so concerned about authenticity, it obscures the fact that commitment to the common interest is a strength, not a weakness. Such a commitment requires more strength, not less, than commitment to almost any other value one can imagine (including for example the values of one’s particular religion). It is much easier to declare that one’s own interests are all that matters. Giving equal weight to a very different perspective requires considerably more strength than simply ignoring it.”

Apparently being concerned by authenticity is a problem. Translation: “Why don’t y’all just accept them candidates we give ya, goddamn racist bigots, here have some more Bush and Clinton.” We do find another interesting insight by Jason here, apparently voters do not know themselves what is good for the community as a whole, but only for themselves. His opinions on the other hand are, of course, for the whole of the community, unlike those of hard working and honest folk. Once again weird ideas about human nature, ‘everyone is selfish except for those who share my opinion!’. “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111”

 

“Willingness to compromise is a natural expression of a commitment to equal respect. What we are seeing in both Congress and the presidential campaign is a yearning for politicians who reject commitment to the democratic value of equal respect. (This value requires particular attention to the voices of those not at the top of the social and economic ladder – the voices of the wealthy and powerful have far too long been given outsize weight in American politics.) And this brings us to our second question, about the risks to our democracy.”

The part about the wealthy and powerful is of course true and highly problematic. It is indeed time for change. Willingness to compromise or not depends entirely on the situation; if someone wants to kill 200 people you should not compromise for a number between 1 and 200, but you should keep your opinion steady on 0 and not take any compromise. When you want to talk in theoretical and abstract language, professor, then get it right. Either you talk practical and you can have some nuance and things are not that exact or your talk in abstract terms and things have to be completely sound without any counter-example. Did they not teach you at Yale? No, wait, you teach there. Hm. Not good. Anyway on to the good stuff; risks for our democracy! “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111”

 

“Since candidates who reject equal respect win office by explicitly flouting democratic values, there is no reason to think that, once in office, they will suddenly embrace them. There is no reason to think that any democratic value, such as free and fair elections, will be safe from them. We can expect such politicians to engage in undemocratic practices like voter suppression and gerrymandering, all in the service of protecting the perspectives of their voters. For this reason, one might think, a healthy democracy would ban antidemocratic speech from politics. For example, the first amendment to India’s constitution does not guarantee free speech; rather it restricts it to prevent its abuse.”

You have to win elections by gaining more than half the votes (more or less, it’s somewhat different due to electoral colleges and there being some small independent’s, but for simplicity’s sake we can say so), this means more than half of the fucking people support you, that IS democracy. Ok, so first some accusations for no reason, ironic since it’s his side that is so good at it (cf. Veritas undercover project), and second how free speech should not be free. A highly ironic thing happened as I was writing this commentary, I had to google Veritas undercover project for the previous sentence (was unsure about the exact name); I could not find it! Google censored it and I had to utilise duckduckgo to find it! I kid you not. Jason’s got his wish, there is no free speech anymore. Think about that for a second, why should a thing as Veritas project which just gives us some undercover videos, ever be censored? Ask Mr. Stanley I guess.

 

“There is however an excellent argument that it is not possible to prevent politicians in a democracy from endorsing antidemocratic attitudes. A chief value of democracy is liberty. Liberty is the freedom for all to pursue their own paths; the common interests are to be found where these diverse paths intersect. But liberty centrally includes freedom of political speech. One might legitimately wonder whether a society that bans antidemocratic speech in the political realm is genuinely a democracy. We cannot force politicians to commit to protecting democratic values by restricting their democratic freedoms, chief among them the freedom of speech.”

Blablabla, this is partly true, but it will just end up with him saying that the ones he does not like should be censored. I do not get why he is writing this, he is the one advocating  for code, he was, in the previous paragraph, the one advocating for the restriction of free speech. I guess what Mr. Stanley wants to say is that he is undemocratic?  Could you explain this better professor. “Democracy is only nice when my candidate wins!!!!!111”

 

“In Book VIII of “The Republic,” Plato is clear-eyed about these perils for democracy. He worries that a “towering despot” will inevitably rise in any democracy to exploit its freedoms and seize power by fomenting fear of some group and representing himself as the protector of the people against that fear. It is for this reason that Plato declares democracy the most likely system to end in tyranny. Plato’s prediction is most dramatically exhibited by Weimar Germany. But more mundane recent examples of his description of democracy’s breakdown and descent into tyranny exist to varying degrees in the cases of Hungary and Russia. The fragmentation of equal respect is a clear alarm for the United States. We must heed it by categorically rejecting politicians who seek to gain office by exploiting the mistaken belief that democratic values are weaknesses.”

This representation of Plato is vulgar and a complete lie. He clearly never read a full paragraph of Plato else he would not write crap like this. I cannot go into detail on Plato right now as this would far exceed this little commentary (Plato is quite authoritarian himself and despised democracy, which he ridiculed as a regime before discussing the transition to tyranny; even more so the type of insight into human nature professed by professor Stanley earlier is exactly what Plato sees as the basis of people believing in tyranny. Remember this: Stanley is the sophist, Plato is the philosopher, Trump is the average Joe, his heart is in the right place, but he’s not perfect). A professor in philosophy that writes such a paragraph on Plato should probably just resign. There was a time when not being able to summarise a paragraph of Plato would make it hard for you to take up a chair in philosophy (see the letters between Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss on Karl Popper; Voegelin tells Strauss how Popper is so poor a philosopher he would not even be able to summarize one paragraph of Plato; Strauss showed this letter to the head of the faculty and this lead to Popper not being considered for a chair in philosophy in Chicago). Times have changed.

 

Jason Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University. He is the author of several books, including, most recently, “How Propaganda Works.”

Weep, weep, as the world is crumbling in front of you. This is what you children are being taught in school. These are the professors of our time.

 

Fyi, this piece I wrote a commentary on was written by Jason in October 2015. He wrote plenty more of cringe-inducing articles afterwards, but all to no avail!

 

The Reasonableness of Borders

In an earlier post I already alluded to the importance of borders as a fundamental aspect of any healthy nation-state. There the argument was made that borders are necessary because people around the world have inherent differences (there are different races), but these differences are not exact, they are fluid. Not everyone is the same and even though different people clearly harbour different qualities and differ in psychological make-up, there is no exact line to be drawn (there will always be exceptions to the general rule and there will always be ‘in-betweens’). That is why exact borders were considered a necessity, borders are there to give an exact externalisation of the fluid spectrum of race. Today I want to discuss this topic of borders in more detail.

As we all know contemporary leftist ideology is in love with John Lennon’s globalist propaganda song that advocates for the lack of borders (yes, the instilling of the idea of the abolishment of borders goes way back to the late sixties). One people, one world, one nation, and so on. We see this again and again, every so often this idea is propagated  with regard to the refugees, with regard to the Mexicans and whatever situation that has to be tilted for our favoured globalist crowd. The general tendency is to ‘educate’ people with the idea that borders are something of the ‘old world’, something ‘ancient’, something that can be ‘overcome’, they are ‘primitive’. While for most sound-minded conservative people the fact of borders is clear and the exact theoretical fundament is of no importance in everyday life. One has to be a special kind of stupid to not understand on an intuitive level why borders are truly necessary. But here we will dig a little deeper and look for the fundament and why reason truly demands that we have strong borders and independent sovereign nations.

When we go through the history of the west we immediately see that borders were generally not as exact as the past two-hundred years, sure there has been some shifting but this is only minor compared to what the past gave us. The history of the west has been a road (with bumps and regressions of course) to the idea of strong borders as we used to have them before the globalist propaganda got widely accepted. An importance moment in the history of the west – which even contemporary academia still acknowledges in their peer-reviewed vomit – is the peace of Westphalia. The peace treaty of 1648 (or rather series of treaties) marks the end of multiple wars that raged over continental Europe. The key element of this treaty is that it decided upon the borders of continental Europe as well as formulating that all states are sovereign in their dealings (that is, every state decides for its self what it wants to do and all international dealings are based upon consensual agreement).

This document – or rather series of documents – is not an ancient piece of old-fashioned politics. No, it is one of the most reasonable things ever to be written in the political history of the west. All the different nations of Europe came together and worked out a plan that would ensure more or less peaceful living together and central in this plan is the idea that there are exact borders between states and that those states have absolute freedom in their personal dealings as long as they respect other state’s absolute freedom in their own dealings! This document ensured peace throughout western Europe, although it was not entirely successful, it did lay the groundwork for our contemporary peaceful state.

I am certain that if one went back further and investigated the most peaceful periods of the Roman Empire or other of the Greek period before that one would come to the same conclusion: periods in which the importance of borders is reflectively understood in all its truth tend to give rise to prosperous societies.

This is why African tribes deep in the black jungle are so savage – they cannot co-exist with rival tribes without bashing in their heads and eating each other (for real). They have no understanding of the necessity of positive borders. For them there is only the tribe and the tribe is the truth so everything that stands in the way of the tribe has to be eliminated. The confrontation between two tribes can always end with total genocide in the most cruel way imaginable. For them the idea of co-existing with rivals is non-existent. They have – at most –a vague sense of territory, but this is a fluid concept for them. A deeper and more rational society is development when such tribes would understand that they have to draw up borders and lines that separate them from one another (and some, even though in very primitive form, do this). They deepen their existence when they understand the importance of demarcation between tribes in a positive fashion, not when they understand that they are ‘all one people in peace’ or similar poopoo-talk. Peaceful co-existent is possible thanks to the acceptance of positive borders that differentiate between different people who both claim to be the ‘truth’, not due to dreams about one race.

This means that the mingling in the middle east, the non-acceptance of for example Assad’s sovereignty, is a regression back to the tribal life. It is the idea that we are truth and all un-truth should be eliminated at all cost. Borders are truth, borders are a necessity demanded by reason! All those advocating for one-world-globo-homo-vomit are savages who are truly unreasonable.

Art-house ugliness

Cinema is beyond doubt one of the more interesting forms of entertainment or ‘art’ that has developed over the past century. Nonetheless I must invite you to watch some ‘alternative’ films made after the seventies and then tell me how you feel after watching them. In case you haven’t watched any such film recently or would rather not indulge in this form of entertainment, no problem, I shall provide you with the answer: the feeling you would most likely feel creeping up your spine will be disgust (at least if you are a healthy sounded-minded individual living a normal and good life). This fact is certainly not due to  cinematographically deficiency. It is most likely that the ‘alternative’ movie circuit has more stunning cinematography than mainstream Hollywood productions in which cinematography consists in having average shot lengths of mere second.

The problem of Hollywood is widely discussed and shall be left untouched here (nonetheless Hollywood and the garbage it churns out is highly problematic). The feeling of disgust a reasonable person experiences after watching another masterpiece of alternative cinema is the topic of our analysis. Many alternative films try to display a more ‘real’ image of the world, they seek to tell us something true about the world around us by looking into topics such as substance abuse, poverty, adultery, rape, racism and so on. By showing us a not-so-beautiful side of the world they try to convey some truth about the world. While this is of course not wrong, sadly enough our world is ridden by many social problems that cause pain and sadness for those involved, moral depravity exists in a multitude of forms and hiding this from everyone would be a lie (and in line with Hollywood’s project).

At first glance the feeling of disgust seems easily explained, viewing moral depravity and social problems is likely to give you an uneasy feeling. Yet after careful study we can see that this is not the main reason many of you sound-minded and good-hearted individuals are experiencing this feeling of disgust after watching modern art cinema. The main reason is that moral depravity has become the new norm and normal. How does this work and what do I mean by that? Filmmakers try to show us something of the ‘true’ and ‘real’ world and seek to have access to what they consider the ‘human nature’ and in their exploration of human nature they find a dark and deep foundation that is quasi-animalistic (just look at all the movies about adultery, homosexuality and other sexual deviancies). For them the Hobbesian world-view of endless desire after glory is mixed with a progressive ideals of absolute freedom and becomes a soup of deviancy. By trying to show us something real about human nature they have reduced human nature to its animalistic aspect whilst ignoring its reasonable part. This is why a lot of alternative cinema leaves us with a feeling of disgust; they strip human existence of its most fundamental aspect: the reasonable striving for the good and the beautiful and they reduced it to mere animalistic. This reduction of the truth of human existence must leave any sound-minded individual with a feeling of disgust and emptiness.

Is it the depravity of the filmmakers themselves that lead them down this path? Or is it perhaps promoted by others exterior to the process of filmmaking who merely seek to bring about a certain (lack of) moral climate? It is most likely a mixture of multiple elements, but this problem is not merely to be observed in cinema, it is more clearly observed in art where ugliness has replaced beauty, and brutality has become the new norm. Cinema is a fascinating art-form in this respect since classic cinema (take for example even Hollywood in the forties and fifties) was still way better in balancing all these aspects (when other art-forms were already stripped of their beauty). In works of beauty classic cinema explored all the aspects of human existence, the animalistic as well as the reasonable that is the key aspect of being human. Moral faltering was considered in its full truth as a balancing, not as a an empty void of moral deprivation in which murder, theft, sexual deviancy are rampant and unhinged.

Why then is alternative cinema so popular (especially in the progressive left intellectual circles)? Because it shows a world in which their own moral faltering is considered the norm, their shortcomings are shown in full glory as the truth of human existence.

The Flux of Civilization

Different civilizations have preceded ours just as ours will precede others. The rise and fall of civilizations is – and always was – a topic that has fascinated some of the greatest thinkers. Our age is especially susceptible to this type of thought with rampant speculation running in all kinds of directions (from similarities to ancient Rome to the replacement of a people). The topic requires some nuanced thought that goes further than mere speculation (this is no way denies that much of the speculator’s thoughts are true concerns that require our attention). We shall have to look into the rise and decline of order and see what can and what cannot be done to halt this natural process.

Every civilization, that ever was and ever will be, claims to represent some kind of truth (or truths). The very existence of any civilization has to be grounded in something that is taken to be its principles (even absolute relativism as is rampant in our age can be such a foundation). This has lead to a history of the world filled with different claims to truth shaping different forms of order. While some orders might be more true than others this does not necessarily have any consequence on the life-span of any civilization. Nor does the truth of any civilization give it a right to exit (apart from its existence in truth).

Most civilizations have either been overrun from the outside by others or have been destroyed by nature itself. Not much can be done about those apart from acceptance. But what then when a people no longer wishes to prolong its very own existence and invites other forms of order to replace their own (consciously or unconsciously)? What if a people as a whole has lost touch with its own foundational principles? Can such an order be restored to its former glory and do those who see this happening before them have the obligation to jump to action in a last leap to save what is left saving?

A restoration of principle cannot be forced or imposed, but any principle can be saved for future generations. One such example has been of unimaginable importance for us as at the end of the Roman Empire early Christianity preserved the truth of the West and strengthened it for a thousand years with a wisdom that even modernity could not erase in half a millennium.

So where we stand and where we go to is unknown to us, but we can always preserve. We must not think to posses knowledge of the future, nor pretend that decline cannot happen to us. Whole civilizations have disappeared in mere decennia while others have stood against all odds due to the eager of a few men. Only by accepting the flux as it is – the rise and fall of civilizations – can one preserve.

The Burden of the West

There is a tension between the idea of superiority of legal system and respecting a country’s sovereignty. This tension is happily exploited with greatest intellectual dishonesty by progressive and leftist thinkers. We, well-educated conservative Men of the West, have a strong feeling of superiority regarding our legal system. We know (and feel) that Islam rule, tyrannical rule, tribal rule, and so on, are ill-suited instances of a legal systems. Yet on the other hand we also know that meddling in middle-eastern deserts is not only a useless endeavour, but should on the whole be avoided because it is wrong. So how can you propagate the superiority of legal system without advocating the instalment of right forms of legal system as the neo-conservatives where so glad to do (and thus bring about the globalist dream). How can you not intervene when there is a violation of human rights (quick gas some our own to gain support!).

As Leo Strauss puts it: all political action is either directed at change or at preservation; change for the better or preservation of what is already considered good (thus to stop change for the worse). This in turn leads necessarily to an idea of the good or the better since the change or preservation of political action has an aim: the improvement of the community. While this is all uncontroversial except for the most relativist and nihilist this topic is still extremely clouded on all sides (left, right and centre): how far should we go in bringing about change and how far can we go in saying we – the west – truly have the superior form of legal system (and thus state).

In short the answer can be summed up as following: yes, we in the west have by far the superior system (some form of representative democracy, a rule of law, etc.) on the other hand exporting this ideal to the sandy dunes of the middle east is an ill-suited endeavour. Neither the present political structures nor the psychological make-up of the dune-inhabitants seems suited for our legal system (or at least not right now).

This whole issue boils down the difference between political science or political philosophy and politics itself. The first is concerned with the truth and our western representative democracy with a rule of law is rather close to, or is at least a variation of, what could be considered the true political system. It is reasonable and has throughout the history of the west – ever since the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece – developed into a framework that has generated many important (political) conceptions that are necessary to maintain order in society (borders, separation of power, sovereign states, etc.).

Politics on the other hand is the everyday technical business (not the philosophical) of judging and applying measures with regard to the common good. It is a technical skill, unlike philosophy or political science which is reasoning with regard to human choice and action (the good and the bad). It is entirely possible that the common good of certain parts of the world is better off with a tyrannical rule than with (puppet) representative democracy which is every so likely to be hijacked by Islamist radicals or other variants of ‘not-real-Islam’ tyrannical head-choppers.

Only we, Men of the West, have the former, only we have developed philosophy. Only we have developed to the point of thinking rationally about the good and the right beyond the mere technical skill day to day and year to year rule. Always keep this important distinction in mind, many nowadays are glad to collapse the political (as technical skill) with political science (as the enterprise of thinking rationally on the good and the best without regard for the practical situation) in order to bring about their ‘progressive-dream-world’.

The burden of the west is to know the truth but refrain from imposing it – some of the colonists knew this and this was their ‘burden’; some of them were undoubtedly more humane than many contemporary leftist globalist who happily bombed all the secular albeit somewhat tyrannical yet prosperous sovereign nations into representative democracy IS, ISIS, ISIL…

The Struggle is Real

A while ago the God Emperor’s own daughter Ivanka came under fire by the career-bitter-bitches for writing a little something on the topic of ‘work-life balance’ as a young mother. Ivanka, correctly understanding the contemporary narrative in office-life, divulged some tips to the hoi polloi droning away in the cubicles. The topic of scrutiny was the pangs of guilt flaring up every so often during one of the long evenings of slaving away as the helpless child lay  far away from the mother. She reassured the proles that separating yourself from your very own child for more than half a day is no issue as long as you’re working on your career (yeah!).

The advice of dear Ivanka is of no importance for us now (albeit highly problematic in nature itself), instead what fascinates us right now is the response she got from like-minded(!) bitter-bitches. Instead of applauding this courageous advice they were displeased and blamed Ivanka for being privileged. She should not be giving any advice on this topic, she has an army of butlers, servants and nanny’s. How dare the white privileged blonde speak of this topic!

No, they misunderstood her, Ivanka’s struggle is real, just as real as the one experienced by any mother out there who is working in the corporate world. What she is writing about is not the organisational problem but rather the primordial feeling of guilt slipping through every now and then. Nature is asking her, or even stronger demanding her to provide for her own child in the best way she possibly can: that is by caring and loving it. Nature knows that the care of a Mexican substitute mother can never replace real love and care by one’s own blood. Blood matters, this is why in the past when aunts and grandparents took upon themselves the care for a lost or forgotten child this was not problematic (in our less advanced age dead at child-birth was sadly still a common affair). Ivanka’s problem is one every woman has who has one of her own blood populating this world.

It is highly ironic that Ivanka’s struggle might be more real than the one experienced by lesser-off mothers who are not in the higher echelons of corporate slavery. For them providing for their children might be a primary form of caring: they work to provide food for their own blood (hopefully alongside a father, who might be unable to provide enough for two now that the feminists have demanded double the amount of jobs). They are unlikely to feel the same guilt when divulging in their useless paper-shuffling at eight in the evening as it is in the service of their own offspring.

A healthy society requires motherly love, corporate slavery is but a thin substitute for the pangs of guilt coming through every now and then. Of course we do not in any way claim that all nature’s demands are inherently good (although the demand of love and care with regard to one’s child is good). Instead we have to rationally discern those demands of nature which carry inherent worth from those being damaging to the common good  of society. The demand nature makes of us with regard to motherly love is reasonable through and through and no army of shrieking feminazi’s can ever alter this fact of reason.