The intelligent Left and the philosophical Right.

schopenhauer

 

“Truths of the physical order may possess much external significance, but internal significance they have none. The latter is the privilege of intellectual and moral truths, which are concerned with the objectification of the will in its highest stages, whereas physical truths are concerned with it in its lowest.” – Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Who is the most interested in the effects of the status quo?  Some would call it “The Establishment”, and some would say “The Cabal”, but I believe we are beyond the need for names or titles for what we know to be something malevolent whether it is called Ingsoc or Rainbows and Puppies Inc.  And so who would we claim is at the helm of this amorphous syndicate that influences our wards and children daily?  That would depend on who you ask…

The Left preaches that our government is a token system of oppression being coat-tailed by white males in their late 60’s and 70’s, while the Right would claim animatedly that it is an organization of hostile intent with the ultimate aim of the destruction of all that is beautiful to Western civilization including European art, Christian values, law & order, and even the eventual liquidation of the European (White) man himself.

In other words, one side believes that the other is a tool of the system that they battle against on a daily basis, which then is reflected in their physical deeds no matter how benign (some extreme liberal views held by some are that white straight men oppress others just by existing and so in order to bring balance, should just choose to end their own existence for the sake of others).  So then because any physical action taken by one individual can often be perceived as the basis for feeling threatened, the very presence of some individuals can disseminate mental harm or outrage towards a group.  Why has humanity grown so tired of itself that we must create oppression out of thin air, and give position to a system of unsupervised morbid positivism?

I believe the answer lies in the dichotomous origin of how the Left and Right collect their “facts”, which they use as weaponry or tools of division and malice against their perceived threats (even as I write that I can’t help but shake my head in dismay).

It was not a typo when I titled this article the “intelligent Left and philosophical Right” as most non-liberals would not give credit enough to their leftist cousins to call them intelligent but instead intellectual (a title that does not always infer wisdom or temperance).  I on the other hand would argue that the people in the leftist world are not only intelligent, but smart.  Why would I argue this?  The same reason I would argue that democracy is inane and corrupt:  empirical knowledge is mental currency.  What does knowledge have to do with democracy?  Let me explain:

When you go to the ballot booth to cast a vote, do you do so with absolutely no knowledge of what you are voting for?  Of course not.  You fill your head (or your head is filled) with information (or misinformation) pertaining to the vote at hand, and you approach the act as someone who feels free of all pangs of conscience or guilt.  More often than not, the object that the voter has the most information about is influencing their voting hand and this causes bias or unconscious discrimination, a common consequence within a human mind which is confronted by a choice of which they have prior knowledge pertaining to the content of that single vote.

The Left comes to the voter as the member of a group, with a smug sense of satisfaction that it is the gatekeeper of moral posterity.  To a liberal voter, those with the most regard for other human beings are at the top of the pecking order, and have the pick of who carries the heaviest burden for the sake of fairness and impartiality.

I don’t believe that to be a contradiction at all either; since those who have the ability to carry more weight would be told to do so, which results in an illusion of equality and progress since those at the top do not see (or hear) Atlas begrudgingly moving the edifice ever closer to the edge of oblivion.

The Right comes to the same voter as the individual, the arbiter of fortune and economic determinism.  Platitudes about freedom and the spoils of hard work, the great American Dream!  A man’s worth is his to establish, but within a developing society there is no ceiling to his ambition and no frontier too far.  But despite the potential liberation from petty work and squabbles, the distinction of mass appeal and individual obligation was never the strong suit of conservative politics.

For decades the descent of right wing politics within American society has drawn comparisons to the decline of the Roman Empire up until it’s fragmentation into East and West.  In some ways, the dichotomy of Left vs. Right can be contrasted with the fundamental similarities between the two halves of the Empire.  Both enjoyed fairly stable economic conditioning, similar laws governing it’s people and a healthy respect for authority.  Meanwhile, within American elections, the term Leftist is synonymous with unpatriotic, anarchist and scoundrel while Right winger is thrown together with terms like Nazi, Fascist and authoritarian.  The tea leaves would probably report that the latter government is simply a breeding ground for the former.

Before I offer any explanation for the war of attrition grinding our brains into dust, I must delineate the forces arrayed on the mass-politics level, to imply that both sides have a fatal flaw in their view of themselves and also how they view their antagonist.

The Right and all of it’s constituents view Centrist politics as Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism and Free Market Conservatism, all of which are based in WASP sentiments, and also carry with them a slight Jewish contingent.  The inability of many on the Right to conserve it’s heritage within liberalism and to drive it further and further from an understanding with Centrist opinion and fundamental belief has caused a rift that threatens to radicalize components of conservative belief until liberalism itself is left abandoned and ignored.  Still, the very nature of WASP politics will probably prevent Centrist fundamentals from being held hostage either by the Left or Right as long as European values are still owed a modicum of observance.

Taking into account how the Right views itself (individuality, duty and temperance), the shifting of the political plane into a contest of will and ambition would seem to favor the strong and steadfast over the fast and agile.  Everything about conservative politics would indicate that in times of mistrust in the government decisive figures would offer the most appealing answers.  Roll back social welfare for the benefit of increased GDP, tax breaks for the most industrious or entrepreneurial citizens, increased funding for the military, and individual liberty given every opportunity to foster a generation of patriotic people who care for the land they have seen flourish under a steady hand, et cetera.

On the other hand, the Left views both the Center and the Right in almost the same regard.  This is attributed to their denial of politics that do not carry an almost cultist fervor towards a priori humanism and it’s most ideological proponent: Communism.  But what is Humanism and all of it’s tendential politics but a steady slide in one direction, not showing the slightest hint of slowing or stabilizing.

This brings us to the driving forces behind the critical theories of the Leftist Weltanshauung.

Progress is the watchword within Humanist philosophy, and there can be no real tangible progress without technological/biological experimentation and research along with the implementation of the results obtained.  The human life span in first world countries has nearly doubled in the last century, all but the most resilient diseases have been silenced, literacy is now more common than the house fly, and humanity rules the sky.  All of these advancements have been unchecked by war, famine and economic collapse and the Left does not hesitate to offer an answer as to why.  Evolution.

What could be more scientific than Evolution?  It goes against millenia of education and don’t forget about Scripture!  Evolution wasn’t nearly self-evident enough to have occurred to the likes of Aristotle, Ovid, or Constantine; and so it took a painstakingly long time to finally assert itself in an age of retrogression and Malthusian philology; when Quantity began to slowly erode the Classical foundations of Law, Philosophy, Art, Beauty & Quality.  Mass human catastrophe took precedence over future generations of bright young people (individuals with their own destiny).  The ten thousand man army became a value transposed over the individual with freedom and inner causality i.e. raison d’être.  The sacrificial nature of humanity was always theirs to reap, it was the forbidden fruit of the Masses.

Evolution became a critical theory of the progressive counter-culture which found it’s adherence in the nihilistic age of post-WWII America.  Atheism reigned supreme within the halls of academia, alongside the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School and Freudian “science”.  The tenets of the Frankfurt School weren’t necessarily classified as scientific, but they were still granted a wide audience within and without scientific communities who in turn held influence over an even greater number of young impressionable men and women. For an apt exposition on the fallacy of Critical Theory/Marxism/PC culture as a doctrine I suggest you watch this video.

But with the commandeering of human value by the (combined) forces of Marxist academics and bourgeois liberals, there came a need to balance the power structure to fit a Humanist/ philanthropic agenda.  How could the forces for “good” negotiate their lust for a utopian/Hobbesian society and the needs of the few?  For the sake of time and the possibility for discussion on a later date I would simply offer this example: This is a video recorded around the peak of the Fascist USA scare and the hysteria that Donald Trump evoked when he was shown on television on a daily basis.  In it, a Canadian professor by the name of Jordan Peterson is accosted by a Marxist idealogue about far-right people attending his lectures and other unofficial talks.  The mainstay of the Leftist student of Marx is that individual characteristics in their most basic form (I have a human appearance, voice, intelligence etc.) are taken to be property of the individual.  The reasoning behind this (I believe) is that it allows a person to retain their “rights” to individual liberties while at the same time owing their time and energy to forces without, i.e. class distinction/ unionizing, activism and of course taxes.  The video above shows an example of this philosophy; ergo the “person” speaking is arguing for “their” privileges and freedom, both of which are theirs by right as an individual and a human.  Human rights are like a weapon in the hands of a fanatical individual who does not subscribe to a code of behavior (or code of culture) they deem to be oppressive.  An individual such as this is like an army of pissed off slaves, or a traitorous revolt; no regard for what is being denied or destroyed but satisfied with having done their part to injure those who would do them justice in spite them unlocking the shackles themselves!

This altered view of humanity, from one of a “tribal” mindset or a community of individuals (WASP) to one of communities with individual characteristics (minorities, LGBT, social justice activists) became the stratum for future segregation of all identity based politics.  It would seem salient that the current structure of statistical classification and political generalizing is only helping to balkanize this trend even faster.  It will probably be a matter of time before America sees its first minority rights based political party (can you imagine a mass media broadcast political debate with an openly gay presidential candidate?).

So we have the Right wing that wishes to remain itself, not beholden to any kind of corrupting influence by another party or culture; and we have Left wing politics which is steadfast in its commitment to demarcating the axis of acceptable opinion far before Centrism (Classical Liberalism) therefore leaving any passive ideology choking on exhaust fumes.

Imagine every four years, it time to elect a new president or re-elect the same.  The engines rev up once again from both sides of the political arena; but if you could hear both engines, you would notice how different they each sound.  The sound from the left side of the track is like that of an Indy Car: loud, efficient, otherworldly.  Then you listen to the sounds of an engine on the right side of the competition grounds, the sound of a lovingly crafted custom Hot Rod: strong, impatient, belligerent.  Both cars are built to last, and built to compete.  So what rules do they each compete by?  Speed? Time? Endurance?  From a political standpoint they don’t even get to compete!  It’s because the two opposing crew chiefs are busy arguing over who gets to drive the car.  At the end of the day, the voters aren’t really voting for a person to drive a car, they are voting for what car gets to park in the driveway of the White House.

The linchpin of the Progress campaign by the Left is that new ideas are being implemented on a monthly basis, with the executive directive coming from The Cathedral.  The propagation of anti-Western sentiments and a budding technocracy have fueled a drive within American politics to be less American and more Global.  The standards of human diversity, multiculturalism and 3rd wave feminism have marked a new venture for the Left; one in which they may castigate dissenters in ways that haven’t been imagined at any time in the past.  A new organism within democratic politics had been born: Cultural Marxism.

So the stage is now set; the Old Guard (GOP) being chained to a defensive structure that is built to withstand every man-made psychological attack, but never being allowed to advance or adopt new ground from which to defend.  The Left are now freed from inquiry and personal responsibility from a nationalist standpoint, with no thoughts for what liberty and scientific progress are actually intended for- something altogether human but then more than human.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democracy: Addendum

I didn’t wish to leave a “hanging chad” so to speak about mentioning my feelings about the institution of democracy and let that be a prefacing statement to my blog.  I want to be clear that while I may criticize many of the parts of what it means to pursue democracy, I do not believe that what it stands for as a system of management is wholly beyond redemption.

The evils and sorrows of a system from a large democratic process have been written about endlessly, and I do not wish to be a part of an argument that has gone nowhere from the beginning, but I am willing to do what it takes to start heading in a direction of alternate reason and debate that provokes a sensation of pride in logic once again.

When individuals are confronted with issues of great significance and efficacy I would say that too often they allow themselves to be led astray somewhere along the path by narrow minded passion, benign neglect or paranoia.  Many philosophers of the 20th century took charge of their own fate by sacrificing a lot of what it meant to be human in order to lead the more common man upward, even if their own predicament dictated that they remained static so that the rest of humanity continued moving forward.  Ever since the many upheavals of the 20th century brought the masses a power that they had only dreamed of, the world has been heading towards a new plane of consciousness some could call the 4th dimension or even the 4th wall.  A collective consciousness has become more and more powerful following the days of mass dissemination of information and propaganda, and democracy has only made this sense sharper.

To tell a man on the street that he has the power to shape a nation’s future is only as significant as the power of the nation to shape the world.  Democracy in the United States can be classified as an entirely new beast because of its inherent ability to influence events around the world.  This nation didn’t arrive at such a responsibility overnight, but it did achieve it at a relatively faster pace than most other European governments.  Why is that?

I believe the consensus would be that the cultural role in civilization has always been to progress the interests of the human spectrum.  But that is the very paradox of human existence, that while we persist in dominating our fates and clawing at the fabric of mortality, we never run out of things to be afraid of since death and the threat of pain and suffering migrates with impartiality.  Culture is humanity’s cure for death, and religion is the capsule which contains the medicine.  Is it possible to kill a culture?  To murder posterity?  Can the collective consciousness of millions of ancestors die?

Some people would probably guess that the primal urge to procreate is an involuntary twitch against the progressive shortening of life and breath, but I would answer it another way.

Men and women are products of Fate or Providence which has bound them together with the threads of time and given them the simple command to untie themselves.  They push and pull and claw at each other, even attempting to kill the other so that the defeated could pass through and free the one left alive, but to no avail.  So they stop seeing the other as an “other” or enemy and turn the tables on fate, and another is brought into this world for fate to control.  On and on this process repeats itself until a man or woman whom Fate cannot bind is born.  A product of purely human effort and will who owes nothing to the impartial apparatus of circumstance.  These men and women rise up to champion a legacy that can create an entire people, an astounding epoch.  But men and women are still human and we are always susceptible to fallibility, which is where culture takes center stage.

Certain individuals come  into the world and see human life from another angle of the spectrum, the broad end.  Those people see a different picture than the rest of us and once they see it, it haunts them and follows them until they march into their graves like everyone else.  But they whisper to us in words they never speak and we hear parts of clues within ourselves as we learn to live as adults, while becoming a part of a society and grow old until that whisper becomes a deafening cacophony of guilt, rage and paranoia.  “Every generation blames the one before.”

Every individual who can feel the dagger of time twisting inside of their gut strives forward with only one thing to light their path.  Conscience.  But is conscience just a trick by Providence used to lead us into self-doubt?  Are we on one single path, or does Fate keep many other paths hidden from us so that our own lives are easy to predict and affect?  Culture, to put it simply, is the answer and not government or laws.  Culture gave birth, purpose and direction to government, and laws were established to uphold justice in the face of amorphous dissent.

Where a soldier or civilian might not swear fealty to a person or a government, can a person by choice not be within the culture that gave them their reasoning power and determination while preparing them for adulthood?  What about the folks who abandon the ways of their forefathers for a foreign oath that they might find just, or better than the ways before?  This is what America offers to millions around the world, trademarked and packaged in a pretty little box labeled “FREEDOM”.  Hordes of uncivilized and uneducated scoundrels pour over the pristine white picket fences surrounding Western civility and fairness, trampling the pearls of decency, liberty and modesty underfoot.  So I hope you see the problem then.  Traitors to a government, but not to the soul of the culture that raised them to act in a particular manner.

So what does this have to do with culture and its impact on American imperialism?  Today the descendants of white Western European pioneers in the United States are witnessing a war to determine what culture can affect the fate of others & vice versa.  The battlefield is the womb, the weapons are money & propaganda and the generals are never seen.

So can a culture feel pain, or become sick and diseased?  Is a culture a living entity that can determine its own path or is it tied to the fate of a community?  Cultures have certainly appeared and disappeared, recorded within the codices of history, but did they die, or simply vanish?  Did they evolve to keep from dying or is culture just a monolithic lie with multiple facets that converge with the boundaries of nations and principalities?

Multiculturalism as a program (but more like a fetus grown in a laboratory) was created to silence the echoing fears of a culture in its death throes, a lullaby meant to assuage a waking lion.  When all cultures have an equal right to exist, all cultures have an equal chance of the opposite.  The only people who have faith that the proposal of multicultural and multilingual communities work, are the people who have the most to gain and the least to lose.  If Western European culture held sway over a large portion of a society’s people, but was then forced to disembowel itself for the sake of those less fortunate or those less inclined to have the will to power, what does humanity as a whole gain?  Nothing less than a power vacuum that rips to shreds the hopes and dreams of millions of people who had faith in their own people and who gazed into the stars with clear eyes and asked “Where to next?”.  What is left in the wake of such a tragedy?

Gutless men and women who see death as an ally and life as a disease – and the cure is apathy.

 

 

Thank you for stopping by…

I think this is a big step for me; but not in a moral or circumstantial way.  I have heard many times that in order for a voice to be heard seriously and to give contemplation to someone perusing the web, that it needs to be done via blog.

Why a blog and not -say- Twitter or Facebook (which are really just quasi-blogs)?

The answer I believe is two-fold:

Confidence.  It takes a lot to consider putting your voice in a corner all by itself instead of just shouting quick remarks above the din of mass social media.  Folks who take the former route are either content with adding their voice to an indistinguishable collective of thoughts and desires, or they just want to feel like they are a part of something significant; and I understand both views.

The second part of the answer lies in the power of individualism and uniqueness.  Of course nobody wants to admit that rampant individualism is a bad thing, and that subject can be shelved for another time, but there is indeed power to be had from having a subjective value.  To have an opinion that makes someone else think alternatively is a power comparable to being a force of nature, and then to have the opportunity to make someone act alternatively is like being God.

I don’t mean to sound like some pompous sycophant when I say that someone who can write fancy words and cast a magical spell on someone is like a god or a tsunami, but I would still ask that you would think about some of the groundbreaking events that have occurred in human history due to words written by a man or woman.  Maybe you have heard of the Bible, or the Quran…  Romeo & Juliet, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Journey to the Center of the Earth…

As the name of the blog suggests, I intend for this little corner of mine to consist primarily of my own political thoughts and opinions.  I consider myself to be more of a reactionary than a revolutionary, and even less of a man of strict boundaries in a world of shifting loyalties and prejudices.

I have a core set of ideals contained deep within my gray matter that can influence my opinions & theories which have been refined and purged over the the years, and are still fluctuating- waxing and waning, etc.  The key piece of the puzzle in my own political outlook is that I question and sometimes doubt the experiment that is democracy.  I have a bitter taste in my mouth as I question the very thing that has given me the ability to speak as freely as I do now, but this is the way things are and no amount of conjecture and passive aggressiveness is going to change the way things are understood.

I know I am not the first to style themselves a reactionary and then condemn the prevailing government as fallacious, but I think there are words left to be said and so I can only try to bring them into existence.