According to Upton -- and let's give her a big hand, because I'm not sure I'll be able to make it through purgatory without her steady virgilance -- "the impersonators, those who falsify the body, are related to the physical plane." She regards the monetary counterfeiters more symbolically, as relating to the falsification of values and desires, i.e., the psychic plane.
But the worst offenders -- and this has been a theme of ours since the earliest days of the blog -- are "the falsifiers of language, those who pervert meaning itself," and who, as a result, hijack and even blow up the spiritual plane, with all occupants on board.
Such offenses must come -- man being who he is and all -- but woe to the man who commits them in the name of tenure!
In that prehysteric post linked to above is a fine quote by Father Seraphim Rose:
It is corrupting to hear or read the words of men who do not believe in truth. It is yet more corrupting to receive, in place of truth, mere learning and scholarship which, if they are presented as ends in themselves, are no more than parodies of the truth they were meant to serve, no more than a facade behind which there is no substance.
They put a warning on the side of cigarette packages. How about a warning at the entrance to our liberal universities? They force us to watch those ghoulish TV commercials, like the one with the cancer victim breathing through the hole in her neck. Why not scary programs featuring demented, end-stage liberals with grotesque holes in their souls?
Oh, right. MSNBC.
The secular west, because it has lost all contact with the spiritual, is obsessed with the physical -- for example, the First Lady's preoccupation with fat people. It's not complicated. Just put down the fork and get your ass out of the sofa. Oh, and maybe get a life that has some genuine spiritual meaning and joy instead of mere fleeting animal pleasures.
Oh, right. Can't talk about that. Separation of church and plate.
But the Obamas are Christians!
Yeah, right. To plagiaphrase Don Colacho, dialogue between leftists and Christians has become possible ever since the left started to falsify Marx and Christians Christ.
Upton makes the critical point that each level of counterfeiting is successively more "collective," which makes perfect sense. Here again, falsification of language itself would be the most serious offense, because it affects everyone; it distorts "the world-view of an entire culture" (Upton).
Political correctness is just such a falsification, not because it consists of "lies" -- which would be easy enough to correct -- but because it is a much wider assault upon what is even thinkable. To combat this or that individual lie of the left is essentially to hand them a victory, because one is playing on their field of dreams and using their terms of abuse.
It is the work of an instant for the left to magically transform Tea Partiers into racists, or religious people into theocratic fascists, or citizens opposed to Public Suckler Unions into "enemies of the middle class." To even respond is to dignify the argument, for Defeating a fool humiliates us (Don Colacho's Aphorisms).
Either one understands the following, or one does not (from the precogitated bloggerel linked to above):
"The moral and intellectual pathology of the left revolves around its misuse of language. It is not so much that leftist thought consists of lies, as that it is based on a primordial Lie that causes it to enter a parallel looniverse where, even if they say something that is technically true, they do not say it because it is true, which makes all the difference. [Don Colacho: There is no worse foolishness than the truth in the mouth of a fool.]
"The primordial lie is the nullification of the covenant between language and reality, so that language is used for its effect rather than as a tool to convey truth. For the left, good language is effective language, whether it means ridiculously exaggerating the danger of heterosexual AIDS in order to increase funding, brazenly lying about George Bush supposedly lying about WMD, or blaming hurricane Katrina on Bush's environmental policies."
The point is that our present civil war between American classical liberals and the left is spiritual warfare. And the central front of this war is on the field of language. This is a war that the left cannot win, because if they win, they lose, for a human being cannot undermine language -- the Word -- without ceasing to be human. Logocide is suicide. And deicide, of course.
Because of his fidelity to truth and reality, the conservative (not Republican!) is able to clearly enunciate what he believes, without evasions, qualifications, distortions, or name changes: Limited government. Adherence to the Constitution. Rule of law. A strong defense. Traditional morality. Low taxes. Liberty. Individualism. Freedom of choice. Slack.
Conversely, the liberal is only able to discuss what he believes while in the presence of other liberals. Truth only escapes accidentally, such as in the recent NPR flap, or Obama's characterization of American citizens as bitter clingers. They cannot tell us that public sector unions are a scam to force citizens to funnel money to Democrat candidates, or that Obamacare is a trojan hearse for socialized medicine (even though many prominent liberals are on record as saying so).
While looking for something else, I stumbled upon this little gem I'd been saving from Flopping Aces, Liberal To English Translation. Sums things up nicely.
Tenured hellion shoving another human truth down the memory hole.
67 comments:
The politically-correct speech of the left strikes me as a kind of bizarre anti-poetry, which is certainly not the kind of poetry that attains toward the ineffable. On the contrary, it is an anti-poetry that supposedly attains toward reason without, of course, any silly metaphysical complication.
>>. . . the central front of this war is on the field of language. This is a war that the left cannot win, because if they win, they lose, for a human being cannot undermine language without ceasing to be human.<<
Oh yeah. To quote Chesterton: "Poetry (that is, real poetry) is sane because it floats easily on an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion . . . "
Also: "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason. "
Evil does tend to destroy itself.
A book I was reading yesterday made the important point that "Babel" is the "anti-Pentecost." The former -- which is analogous to multiculturalism and deconstruction -- horizontalizes the One into numberless fragments of speech, while the latter projects the One into diverse tongues. Big difference!
"Babel" is the "anti-Pentecost."
Oh man! I just stumbled over that the other day in my melon.
Had to do with... my son came home the other day from school excited how his English teacher said he made some good analogies explaining a book he is reading "The Road".
The boy has an interest in symbolism, I may have mentioned it. We share this interest :-) Anyway, it led to me thinking about how it was really only through symbolism and allegory that the Bible finally "spoke" to me. Spoke to me "person"ally.
Just as it is clearly not necessary for the Bible to speak to someone not inclined toward symbolism, and so on, for them to "hear" it.
I have said this before-
Political correctness is the systematic substitution of uncomfortable truths with palliative lies.
The idea behind it all seems to be, If we call a dog a cat long enough then it will no longer be a dog. Unfortunately for the progressive, dogs remain dogs, and cats cats. The only thing that is lost is the progressive's ability to distinguish one from the other.
JWM
Which is why they have to change the word when the truth catches up to it, e.g., liberal --> progressive.
I have been waging spirit war within a university for years. I could use some help.
I ask raccoons to consider re-entering universities to get graduate degrees. The real purpose is to wage spirit war; once in, the raccoon can influence students and faculty and begin to bore holes and weaken the godless materialist wall that has grown around everyone in these institutions.
We dialogue with the afflicted, and irradiate them with our atmosphere. That alone is enough to weaken the curse sometimes.
We submit papers which brazenly forward the Ineffable. We win friends by the beauty and poweer of our words.
After graduation we seek positions on faculty and propogate the New View on campus.
After years of infiltration we can seed the administration with enough of us to stage an open rebellion, and win the entire conflict.
I task someone among us to start wrting a non-fiction work "The War in Wackedemia" which shall feature riveting accounts of materialists and raccoons dialoguing and debating, or even coming to fisticuffs.
Help me help us. Come back to school and reclaim it.
The university is obsolete. So pre-Gutenberg.
Faculty Mole:
Re infiltrating Universities
At the Meetings Snowball often won over the majority by his
brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for
himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of
late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both
in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It
was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs
good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.
Just like Wisconsin.
From Animal Farm
by George Orwell.
JWM
Mole:
I'm with you bro. Where are you located?
I'm in Lima, Peru. I'm not Peruvian though I am Brazillian.
Petey, JWM, and Tapuwasi:
Thank you for your responses.
Petey, you think the university is obsolete. Sometimes I think so too however I do observe many thousands of materialists swarming here which leads me to think it is still part of the general problem as outlined by Bob.
JWM, you think there is no chance of success on campus because of the numerous braying materialist soldiers. There is some truth to that sentiment--the issue is very much in doubt.
But then, Paris 1916 was in doubt too. Look what happened.
Tapuwasi:
Thank you for your support. My location is Berkeley. I suggest you start with Lima and I'll continue my work here.
This reminds me of the perennial Japanese observation: "Perverted people and pure people often fail to communicate." Because their minds are in different places, the same words cause them to think of different things. So even if they technically speak the same language, they can't hear each other.
wv:pater (what a grotesque example,wv!)
Or what Churchill said about America and Britain: two nations separated by a common language.
"Political correctness is just such a falsification, not because it consists of "lies" -- which would be easy enough to correct -- but because it is a much wider assault upon what is even thinkable. To combat this or that individual lie of the left is essentially to hand them a victory, because one is playing on their field of dreams and using their terms of abuse."
Yep. Brings to mind Karl Pieper's 'Abuse of Language'
"The common element in all of this is the degeneration of language into an instrument of rape. It does contain violence, albeit in latent form. And precisely this is one of the lessons recognized by Plato through his own experience with the sophists of his time, a lesson he sets before us as well. This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, to, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the acts of physical violence committed by all tyrannies (concentration camps, torture), has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity. The dignity of the word, to be sure, consists in this through the word is accomplished what no other means can accomplish, namely communication based on reality. Once again it becomes evident that both areas, as has to be expected, are connected: the relationship based on mere power, and thus the most miserable decay of human interaction, stands in direct proportion to the most devastating breakdown in orientating toward reality…”
Leftist thought is an assault on reality itself, it's an attempt to remake the world in their own distorted image, and death and destruction inevitably follows in its train.
Yes! Once again Bob, your words strike a bell between my ears as you put words to thoughts or sub-thoughts I've had. I'm an easy going guy, maybe too easy going, but as far back as I can remember nothing has enraged me more than having somebody lie about me. I'm no Saint, but I'm getting to the point that I almost can't have a serious conversation with people because I want to be factually correct and it becomes too much of an effort. It almost "hurts" to lie. (Obvious BS-ing among friends is a different story.) Anyhow, back I go under my rock. God bless you for what you write here.
Re. The same part Van posted, another result of this perversion of meaning is that not only is it near fruitless to counter any of the individual lies, and not only are two different languages being spoken with the same words, but to engage in debate is quite often to lose the moment one begins. This is because where one person seeks clarity, the other has a priori tainted the terms. It is like seeking to engage an enemy, to whom you have first conceded home turf, choice of weaponry, and terms of combat.
Thus, "violent rhetoric" is to blame for the acts of a lone madman, while it is necessary to "get a little bloody" achieve the ends of the crowd. The left is well versed in the concept of taqqiyah.
"The secular west, because it has lost all contact with the spiritual, is obsessed with the physical--"
which is why I have developed a low calorie shampoo for fatheads that think my weight is any of their business.
The way to answer the intentional fool is the way that Chesterton did it, either carving out a whole new argument path or showing that the arguments presented are mutually contradictory.
There's a famous puzzle-paradox about three men who pay for hotel rooms and are given a discount after the fact--but some of the discount is stolen. In the statement of the problem, it is made to appear that the amounts don't add up. But if you state the problem using the rigorous language of algebra, you cannot make the discrepancy appear.
C. S. Lewis, in Out of the Silent Plante, used a similar device: high-sounding statements were reduced to their practical implications and revealed as threats, lies, or gibberish.
We need to keep pulling things back toward the real, at every step.
I am not sure if Leftism can ever be defeated without rejecting bourgeoisie scales of value transposed out of their proper merchant sphere into ultimate political considerations of the primal double lie (pretending it is not doing what it is doing, pretending it is the only class). A scale of values that was heroic and/or imperial could begin to resist it. Where are human rights to be found in the emergency of Life? Life is the giving up of rights and the assumption of sacrifice and duty. Human rights are a pale reflection of person-to-person reality in any case.
Or so it seems to me...
Gaghdad, are you familiar with Richard Mitchell's work? Graves of Academe, and so forth? He addresses the cravenness of language far better than anyone I've come across.
Matthew said “I am not sure if Leftism can ever be defeated without rejecting bourgeoisie scales of value transp..."
I’m not sure of what you are sure of, but leftism can only be defeated by adherence to what is real and true. Any ‘proper merchant sphere’ which claims to have values which are somehow separated from other values, from what is Good, Beautiful and True, is itself a set of leftist Potemkin values, not worth a second thought and certainly of no value whatsoever.
“A scale of values that was heroic and/or imperial" would be another set of fragmented and and faux values, also nothing more than blood worship and force, though dressed up to seem more attractive to your own preference.
“Life is the giving up of rights and the assumption of sacrifice and duty."
B. friggin’ S.
Human Life is understanding that the standard of life is our measure of value, and Our Rights are a reflection of the nature of man, God given and true, which makes Human life possible... saying they must be given up in favor of sacrifice and duty, is to mistake not only their nature, but to make sacrifice and duty concepts opposed to life, man, truth and all that is divine within them.
“Where are human rights to be found in the emergency of Life?"
Where they always are – in the very nature of Man. What could possibly be considered an emergency without them? How could ‘emergency’ have meaning without them? What... you’re concerned about people’s Right to life?... no... couldn’t be if they were somehow nowhere to be found... concerned about peoples right to be free from oppression...? No... that’d have to be out as well, wouldn’t it?
Everything is contextual, I’m not saying that particular laws (the rules for the context of normal societal behavior) won’t have to temporarily yield in emergencies; but what I am saying is that Laws exist only to serve Rights, not the other way around. In some contexts laws must be superseded by more reasonable decisions pitched to match the unusual and fluid moment, but again, that is Reasonable and Right, in the context of an emergency, ultimately serving and upholding Rights, not negating them, and Rights are most certainly not a sacrifice(as meant in your comment)... would you consider it a proper ‘duty’ to devalue and discard what is worthy and true, even life itself in favor of going on living? In service of... what exactly? Gen. Starks saying comes to mind: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils."
Don’t allow yourself to be misled by those who’d try to trick you with logic chopping (such as the obscenity of ‘life boat ethics’ (see Marc Hauser and Michael J. Sandel for prime examples of these prime candidates for “the last sector of the penultimate circle of Hell are more counterfeiters"), who try to trick you into believing that Rights are lifeless things, brittle and fixed to paper or stone, they’ll try to tempt you into admitting that since unusual situations call for ‘violating’ them, they do not exist, that ‘you must realize they are only fables and Act as needed!’ – these are worshippers of power and lies, defilers of what is Good, Beautiful and True, nothing more. They misrepresent Rights and the Law, because they haven’t known either one since they counterfeited their own souls so long ago.
Matthew, Have another read through Richard Mitchel, The Graves of Academe (an excellent book) and also Less Than Words Can Say (even better), but especially The Gift of Fire (my favorite).
(And don’t miss “The Underground Grammarian" newsletters, also free at the sight above (as are each of the books)... if you want to see a top quality mind discovering that what he’d first mistaken for a simple embarrassing nuisance, modern education, was actually a monstrous evil to be struggled against mightily with outstanding examples of humor and mockery... his newsletters are the place to witness it, month by month.)
Van -
Good parsing. And great reading suggestions. I hadn't heard of The Gift of Fire and didn't know about the current, monthly newsletters. Thanks!
"Where Christianity disappears, greed, envy, and lust invent a thousand ideologies to justify themselves." -DC
Watch out!
It is corrupting to hear or read the words of men [or women] who do not believe in truth.
Along those lines, the Anchoress talks about the affliction of Political Correctness as applied to high school wrestling, where one is not permitted to think of the ramifications of forcing teenage boys to competitively wrestle against teenage girls.
Van, Admitting that emergencies call for "fluid" restrictions on rights is tantamount to allowing irrational violations of them, at the will of the majority (most likely) and hence, banality and vulgarity.
This irrationalism is properly at the heart of Leftism, and represents a capitulation to it. How do you propose to parse it? Democracy guarantees that your more subtle, balanced and classically liberal view will go under the wheel.
Another way to put this is that classical liberals inevitably pit Order and Liberty against each other. "Order and due degrees do not with Liberty jar, but well-consist" says Milton. This is (at best) a creative tension within CL, and technology has largely undermined confidence in the balancing act. What would go away is not human value but the "human rights" political machine in its massive scale we see today. Guarantees would essentially be organic and look like they did circa (say) 1215 or 1776. To guarantee human rights is to privilege them at the expense of that which makes them work.
Again, so it seems to me...
The epithet of "blood and soil" or (worse) "fascism" will be applied to any conservative (at some point) by the Left, so it's essentially a meaningless term and shouldn't concern us, as Orwell had already realized long ago. It's fun to pin it back on them as GB does, and I used to do that, but I think there's more to gain from simply ignoring it.
Anna said " I hadn't heard of The Gift of Fire and didn't know about the current, monthly newsletters. Thanks!"
Your welcome, and the monthly newsletters are even more illuminating today than they were in his, but sadly they are no longer currently being written, I think he stopped writing them in the early 1990's, and died around 2000.
(Sorry about the line breaks there, one more time) Matthew said "Admitting that emergencies call for "fluid" restrictions on rights is tantamount to allowing irrational violations of them"
Denying that the requirements of life can't be entirely forseen, is at the heart of what leftism means. The leftist (statist might be more apt) is quite sure that it is able to foresee all possibilities, make it out and eliminate the possibility of chance... and why Experts are it's high priests. The denial of chance goes hand and hand with the denial of free will.
"...at the will of the majority (most likely)"
In a democracy, certainly.
"...and hence, banality and vulgarity."
Of course. Anytime you raise the lowest the the position of the highest, the entire structure will be inverted and flattened.
"Democracy guarantees that your more subtle, balanced and classically liberal view will go under the wheel. "
Of course it does - if it succeeds - which is why leftists have been trying to erase all references to our Republic, replacing them with democracy, for nearly two centuries. And you are proposing... what? That we knuckle under to them, renounce what makes civilization possible and become more efficient brutes ourselves?
Pass.
Matthew said "Another way to put this is that classical liberals inevitably pit Order and Liberty against each other. "
The proper way to put this, is that Classical Liberals - quite apart from leftists and those who fool themselves into thinking they are not - recognize that Prudence is the highest of the Cardinal Virtues, that understanding is necessarily fluid, as is that which it seeks to understand, and in differing contexts, differing solutions apply.
Under normal contexts, objective law derived from the purpose of upholding and defending Rights, offer sufficient guidelines for society, and even then, Judges are charged with applying those laws with prudence. Under more extreme situations of emergency, objective law understands that and allows for such instances through features such as martial law.
What Classical Liberals understand, and other's don't, is that in those situations the hierarchy remains intact, ever focused upon the actual goal of upholding the Rights inherent in Life. Such instances may require restrictions on outward actions, but the principle remains intact.
What the leftist/statist does, is counterfeit emergencies in order to do away with Rights and making laws which serve their own purposes, not that of Right Reason.
" technology has largely undermined confidence in the balancing act. "
Poppycock. Technology, industrialization, has been a convenient scapegoat since it of course brings changes in old routines (which leftists hate more than most else), but it has not undermined a thing, in and of itself. What has enabled Techonology to be cast as 'an evil', is skepticism and cynicism, which enable all goods to be gutted, stuffed and made to pose as suits the scene they wish to set, and the philosophy flowing from Descartes, Rousseau, Hume & Kant is the sewage which it intellectually possible. "I think therefore I am" makes it possible to say "Nothing can be known for certain", which makes it possible to deny Rights and Reason itself, making words tools of instigated feeling, rather than actual meaning.
Technology is what has made it possible to identify and expose the counterfiting of the leftists - without technology, the ability for people to communicate, to virtually assemble, is what has made things like the Tea Parties possible. Without computers, the internet, twitter... Obamacare would have been fully implemented before June of 2009, and much, much worse.
" I think there's more to gain from simply ignoring it."
Well, overdoing it is of course counter productive, but it shouldn't be ignored, it is always dangerous to deliberately not identify that which is essential.
Especially in your own thoughts.
And Matthew, you might want to keep in mind who Milton was 'quoting':
"So spake the Son; but Satan, with his Powers, Far was advanced on winged speed; an host Innumerable as the stars of night, Or (stars of morning) dew-drops, which the sun Impearls on every leaf and every flower. Regions they passed, the mighty regencies Of Seraphim, and Potentates, and Thrones, In their triple degrees; regions to which All thy dominion, Adam, is no more Than what this garden is to all the earth, And all the sea, from one entire globose Stretched into longitude; which having passed, At length into the limits of the north They came; and Satan to his royal seat High on a hill, far blazing, as a mount Raised on a mount, with pyramids and towers
From diamond quarries hewn, and rocks of gold;
The palace of great Lucifer, (so call
That structure in the dialect of men
Interpreted,) which not long after, he,
Affecting all equality with God,
In imitation of that mount whereon
Messiah was declared in sight of Heaven,
The Mountain of the Congregation called;
For thither he assembled all his train,
Pretending so commanded, to consult
About the great reception of their King,
Thither to come; and with calumnious art
Of counterfeited truth, thus held their ears.
Thrones! Dominations! , Princedoms! Virtue!
Powers!
If these magnifick titles yet remain
Not merely titular, since by decree
Another now hath to himself engrossed
All power, and us eclipsed under the name
Of King anointed, for whom all this haste
Of midnight-march, and hurried meeting here,
This only to consult, how we may best,
With what may be devised of honours new,
Receive him, coming to receive from us
Knee-tribute yet unpaid, prostration vile!
Too much to one! but double, how endured!
To one, and to his image now proclaimed.
But what if better counsels might erect
Our minds, and teach us to cast off this yoke?
Will ye submit your necks, and choose to bend
The supple knee? ye will not, if I trust
To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves,
Natives and sons of Heaven, possessed before
By none; and if not equal all, yet free,
Equally free; for orders and degrees
Jar not with liberty, but well consist.
Who can in reason then, or right, assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals, if in power and splendour less,
In freedom equal? or can introduce
Law and edict on us, who without law
Err not; much less for this to be our Lord,
And look for adoration, to the abuse
Of those imperial titles, which assert
Our being ordained to govern, not to serve?
Thus far his bold discourse without controul Had audience; when among the Seraphim Abdiel (than whom none with more zeal adored The Deity, and divine commands obeyed) Stood up, and in a flame of zeal severe, The current of his fury thus opposed."
Btw, here's an interesting set of essays on Milton.
wv:
what do you give the limo lib w/ everything?-
doglymmo
Well there is a lot written here about the dangers of the left but very little about working for positive change.
The Berkeley "mole" (who sounds a bit hysterical) suggests we "irradiate" leftists with our "atmosphere." (!?)
Uh, no. Nice try but no.
To carp long and hard about something without suggesting some changes is kind of "pansy" if you know what I mean.
You don't want to be like that, I am guessing.
The first thing to decide is if leftists can be re-educated (that is, made to believe in God) or whether they are intractable.
If some can be turned, research on the best way to do it (primarily via media)should be underway.
If intractable, a decision has to be made as to how to neutralize their poison.
The choices are quite broad:
Take away the organs of government (and especially security forces) from the leftist.
Deny the leftist a safe haven in the media or in education by saturating these areas with fanatical believers.
Deprive the leftist of his livelyhood via boycotts, hostile corporate takeovers, or even larceny.
Make the country so uncomfortable for the leftist, by harrassing him, that he will voluntarily emigrate somewhere else.
Make leftism illegal and deny the leftist the right to assemble or distribute literature.
So, you get the picture. There is room here for creative people to get started on the project of making American a "leftistfree" country where only the Godly abide.
I am proposing that we abandon the language of human rights, and try to recover the super-human context that generated it.
Milton gave the devil all the good lines, and the proper response to Satan speaking truth is "Yes, BUT..." not "but you're Satan". That is part of the problem with conservatives right now.
Matthew said "I am proposing that we abandon the language of human rights, and try to recover the super-human context that generated it."
Matthew, if you're not careful, you'll in the same company with organization man and Neitzche, both as far leftist as it gets.
And don't confuse the popularized 'Human Rights' (or the frenchie 'the rights of man') with Natural Rights - as different as left and right.
Well, I thought the post was about spiritual warfare, but all it does is praise the deviants for their ingenuity.
We can do better than that.
Each of us can take on 10,000 of them. That's the math. We individually are 10,000 times stronger than each leftist materialist metrosexual bleeding heart pro-choice goth pierced nipple tea-sucking zombie. Believe it.
And we are right to abandon the rhetoric of human rights and fall back on natural rights, as Van suggests.
The leftist has forfeited his natural rights and now has no protection from us.
We can be as merciless, as cruel, and as fiendish as the fiends themselves, and we should do just that.
Org. man, you can stop writing your asinine comments, wack job.
We should not stoop to their level.
We have to just put with them. They are very numerous and they keep multiplying anyway
Van,I agree with most of what you say, but object most strongly to this earlier comment, which is (I consider) typical of the conservative mindset (which I should understand fairly well).
Van said:
"Everything is contextual, I’m not saying that particular laws (the rules for the context of normal societal behavior) won’t have to temporarily yield in emergencies; but what I am saying is that Laws exist only to serve Rights, not the other way around. In some contexts laws must be superseded by more reasonable decisions pitched to match the unusual and fluid moment, but again, that is Reasonable and Right, in the context of an emergency, ultimately serving and upholding Rights, not negating them, and Rights are most certainly not a sacrifice(as meant in your comment)... would you consider it a proper ‘duty’ to devalue and discard what is worthy and true, even life itself in favor of going on living?"
You have here juxtaposed Rights and Law, and also (in some fashion) Life itself. This would be fine, for purposes of illustration and instruction, but the overall conservative project doesn't seem to involve re-integrating them, except at a radically individualistic level that rarely strays into political or metaphysical "speculation". Christianity is entirely based on paradoxes and ascents based on paradox, at least in theory (if the Incarnation and Trinity are any indication).
Individuals are not going to be able to make much headway, except as individuals, without drawing on the collective resources, which you discard under the nomen of "blood and power". This is residual Leftist thought, and I don't believe it is productive. The alternatives are not Nietzsche (or Hitler), modern liberalism, and classical liberalism. Again, that is how our opponents have essentially framed it, and they have portrayed classical liberalism as hopelessly obsolete. Which it largely is. Unfortunately.
Matthew said “This would be fine, for purposes of illustration and instruction, but the overall conservative project doesn't seem to involve re-integrating them, except at a radically individualistic level that rarely strays into political or metaphysical "speculation". “
If you’re a fan of Hobbes, then I’m wasting my time here, if not, I’ll say that if you mean by ‘radically individualistic level’ something along the lines of libertarianism (especially the Murray Rothbard variety), they are short sighted (mostly their vision seems to end at the mirror they’re admiring) and no part of what I have in mind.
“Individuals are not going to be able to make much headway, except as individuals, without drawing on the collective resources, which you discard under the nomen of "blood and power".”
There is a vast difference between individuals uniting in society, with Law as the accepted judgment of Reason making their community possible, and ‘collective resources’, let alone “blood and power”. (Btw, have you read the last few posts here?)
“This is residual Leftist thought, and I don't believe it is productive. The alternatives are not Nietzsche (or Hitler), modern liberalism, and classical liberalism. “
If you are talking about anything I’ve said, or what Gagdad has posted, you’ve no idea what you are talking about.
“... they have portrayed classical liberalism as hopelessly obsolete. Which it largely is. Unfortunately.”
If what you think you understand is based on some variation of Leo Strauss or Oswald Spengler, then you should just go take your seat with the other leftists, I’m sure they’ve got more than enough faux-right Hobbesian chairs ready and waiting.
(Uh-oh, some comments were deleted, will try again)Matthew said "I agree with most of what you say, but object most strongly to this earlier comment, which is (I consider) typical of the conservative mindset (which I should understand fairly well). "
Hmm. Well, other than maybe Burke, I'd be curious to know who it is you think what I've said might sound 'typical' of? Other than perhaps Calvin Coolidge, I'm not aware of any conservative in the last century living up to sounding like a Classical Liberal, let alone me.
"You have here juxtaposed Rights and Law, and also (in some fashion) Life itself."
Yeah... there's a reason for that. Probably the briefest I've managed to respond to such a comment, is in this post Dehumanism: The Mystical World of the New Atheists, or if you've got a few days to blow reading, the set of posts that fall under Justice (keep clicking 'Older posts' when you get to the bottom).
But in lieu of me letting my fingers get their evenings exercise, I'll let Cicero hit the highlights for me, from his "TREATISE ON THE LAWS.: BOOK I. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Laws [51 BC]”.
“But if justice consists in submission to written laws and national customs, and if, as the Epicureans persist in affirming, every thing must be measured by utility alone, he who wishes to find an occasion of breaking such laws and customs, will be sure to discover it. So that real justice remains powerless if not supported by nature, and this pretended justice is overturned by that very utility which they call its foundation.
But this is not all. If nature does not ratify law, all the virtues lose their sway. What becomes of generosity, patriotism, or friendship? Where should we find the desire of benefitting our neighbours, or the gratitude that acknowledges kindness? For all these virtues proceed from our natural inclination to love and cherish our associates. This is the true basis of justice, and without this, not only the mutual charities of men, but the religious services of the gods, would become obsolete; for these are preserved, as I imagine, rather by the natural sympathy which subsists between divine and human beings, than by mere fear and timidity.
If the will of the people, the decrees of the senate, the adjudications of magistrates, were sufficient to establish justice, the only question would be how to gain suffrages, and to win over the votes of the majority, in order that corruption and spoliation, and the falsification of wills, should become lawful. But if the opinions and suffrages of foolish men had sufficient weight to outbalance the nature of things, might they not determine among them, that what is essentially bad and pernicious should henceforth pass for good and beneficial? Or why should not a law able to enforce injustice, take the place of equity? Would not this same law be able to change evil into good, and good into evil?..."
(annoying blogger break)
(cont)
"...As far as we are concerned, we have no other rule capable of distinguishing between a good or a bad law, than our natural conscience and reason. These, however, enable us to separate justice from injustice, and to discriminate between the honest and the scandalous. For common sense has impressed in our minds the first principles of things, and has given us a general acquaintance with them, by which we connect with Virtue every honourable and excellent quality, and with Vice all that is abominable and disgraceful.
Now we must entirely take leave of our senses, ere we can suppose that law and justice have no foundation in nature, and rely merely on the transient opinions of men.”
With some minor quibbles on the reliability of common sense (if uninformed, sense is the least common thing to be produced by it), I think that doesn’t do a bad job of tying the strands together.
Van said...
"...the monthly newsletters are even more illuminating today than they were in his, but sadly they are no longer currently being written, I think he stopped writing them in the early 1990's, and died around 2000."
Ah... Oops. I misunderstood the word "are" with the phrase "month by month". It makes sense though, as I'm pretty sure I knew he passed away. [Wikipedia says... April 26, 1929 – December 27, 2002.]
I am thrilled about the monthly newsletters. Somehow I don't doubt that they are even more illuminating now.
I glanced at the link--they start the year I was born!
Van, I hope you are right, but am obligated to assume you are wrong. But I genuinely hope that I am wrong.
However, the Common Sense political philosophy that Americans have such an affinity for is not merely not my cup of tea, but is increasingly strained and inadequate for the crisis which has been manufactured in the State here. Again, I hope and pray I am mistaken, and that the unwritten constitution and the written constitution holds.
There is prudence, yes (and attendant common sense), and I loved John Adams (HBO) but even Adams was an advocate of mixed government.
I think there are higher virtues than even prudence, especially given circumstances. Fortitude and temperance on its scale, for example. Wisdom? Divine wisdom? Saintliness? Moralistic ethics is what gave us the Helpy-Helperton, Mother Hen,eternal Progress State to begin with (or at least made it compatible with the American public).
Maybe we're just arguing over details, but I sense that yourself and other conservatives believe that it is sufficient to take the battle to them by common sense and the American tradition. A sort of humanism, if you will, although suffused with goodness.
Taparelli (see John Rao's website) is perhaps a thinker I could share basic affinities with, although Burke is halfway inspired. Burke seemed to think that reflection necessarily undermined tradition, and he seemed to have preferred custom to even tradition. I have my doubts about him.
Matthew said “However, the Common Sense political philosophy that Americans have such an affinity for is not merely not my cup of tea, but is increasingly strained and inadequate for the crisis which has been manufactured in the State here. Again, I hope and pray I am mistaken, and that the unwritten constitution and the written constitution holds.”
The value of common sense is very contextual, which I pointed out in a post a year ago, ”What would the Founders do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!”
I’m not particularly optimistic about how things will turn out here, but I am far more optimistic than I was just three years ago.
Three years ago if I mentioned the name John Jay, I would have received a blank stare, if I mentioned the Federalist Papers the subject would be quickly changed. Today, if I mention John Jay, there’s a remarkably good chance they’ll say something like “Jay... jay... isn’t he one of those guys who wrote the Federalist Papers with Hamilton & Madison? Have you read any of those?” It is a remarkable turn around, people are, on their own, getting themselves informed, they are discovering, on their own, how idiotic the common sense ideas they agreed with so with recently, actually were.
I’ve helped put on, or put on, several 12 week courses on “The Five Thousand Year Leap”, and many of the people are realizing it is only an introduction, and are seeking out and getting more information on their own.
And they are talking with their friends who still hold, or are beginning to question their common sense ideas.
Common people, uninformed, can and do make horrific decisions based upon common sense; but people who have informed themselves to, and past, the point where they realize there is much relevant knowledge they still don’t have, are capable of the most brilliant and practical ideas and actions – which seem to them to be... common sense. Many of our Founding Fathers were just such people.
(argghh size limit break)
(cont)
The race now is against the clock, and without technology I’d say we were doomed to fail, but with it, all the wisdom of the ages is available and accessible with just a couple clicks... it just takes people with enough common sense to realize they need to pursue it.
What I do know, is that America, our Constitution, cannot, and will not, serve a people who do not understand it, respect it, and demand that it be followed. Jefferson said “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” , but the constitution is mere paper without the people understanding and demanding it be respected, without that, leviathan will be unleashed. Period. Education (not schooling, Education) is our only hope, and there is no short cut through the use of power, to save liberty. America can be destroyed by those who ‘love it’ just as easily as by those who hate it.
“Burke seemed to think that reflection necessarily undermined tradition, and he seemed to have preferred custom to even tradition. I have my doubts about him.”
That’s a view which is easily made of Burke, and ironically typically an under informed common sense one. Burke, who made some of the deepest ruminations of his day, and I’m not talking about only politics, was an extremely knowledgeable person who knew that “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, that those possessed of only a little knowledge of something, tend to make the most ignorant, and often dangerous, suggestions – based upon common sense. He also knew that tradition, ones born of the English system, Common Law, etc, tend to be based upon the very best decisions of the wisest amongst them, and validated and passed on by the best in each succeeding generation... decisions which ignorant, uninformed twerps puffed up with common sense tend to dismiss as ‘old hat’. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind.
Personally I believe that nearly anyone is capable of reasonably wise and knowledgeable decisions... provided they have quite a bit more than ‘a little knowledge’ of the subject at hand. People really should keep in mind though, that to a number of respected and high placed officials, Hitler’s ovens seemed a ‘common sense’ solution to the problem at hand.
Matthew said “There is prudence, yes (and attendant common sense), and I loved John Adams (HBO) but even Adams was an advocate of mixed government.”
I loved "John Adams” (David McCullough), even more than that, I love John Adams ( John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. “).
“I think there are higher virtues than even prudence, especially given circumstances. Fortitude and temperance on its scale, for example. Wisdom? Divine wisdom? Saintliness? Moralistic ethics is what gave us the Helpy-Helperton...”
The Cardinal Virtues are:
1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Fortitude
4. Temperance
The attempt to scramble their hierarchy will snuff them out altogether, and that is how we wound up with 'helpy helperton', prohibition, and all the rest - the leftist (of the Left or Right) may speak about the Virtues, but there is nothing virtuous in their ideas, let alone morality.
"... I sense that yourself and other conservatives..."
(Ok, sorry, I'm beginning to get creeped out. I call myself a 'Conservative' only when I don't have the time or space to explain what is meant by Classical Liberal, and I add 'Classical' only because it takes to long to explain the difference between Liberal and the proregressive progladyte leftist. In this place, Raccoon will do.))
"... believe that it is sufficient to take the battle to them by common sense and the American tradition. A sort of humanism, if you will, although suffused with goodness."
I'm not interested in what is 'sufficient', only in what will be effective. The hard answer is that there is no easy answer, there is no short cut possible. You cannot mandate or impose liberty, it has to be understood and accepted. The only possible exceptions in all of history would be post WWII Japan and Germany... but I think with the "Social Democrats" you can see how well that's worked in Germany, and Japan's situation is little different.
It's said that 'But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.' , said by John Adams actually, who should have (and did) known better, but it would have been impolitic at the time for him to note that the only people to have done so, were the British, through their 'Glorious Revolution' which threw out King James out and restored English Liberties (lost again, true, but it took a couple centuries). The Glorious Revolution, as with the American Revolution, was accomplished in the hearts and minds of the people, through coffee house discussions, pamphlets and broadsides.
Once the people had Educated themselves, those in power discovered that they had none. James was smart enough to realize that and skedaddled (appropriately, to France), George needed a bit of prodding, but the result was the same, and the result came about only because the cause was the same: Education IS Revolution, and the only revolution which can amount to anything more than trading one thug for another.
To think it can be accomplished any other way, is incredibly naive… and very much a result of ‘common sense’.
(sigh) Comments dropped again.
Something I should know about?
The proper government is an oligarchy of the spiritually infallible, ruled over by a god-man figure.
The constitution is a stop-gap which will eventually have to be replaced.
Secular governments are the best we can do as long as the god-man is not here among us, but when he comes we will go to the other.
All problems should evaporate like dew on the grass on a hot spring day.
Heh.
Apropos the post, it's literally unthinkable to this guy that what is, is - that his beloved Won could be waging war. But the blame must be placed: it's the women.
The comments, they do re-appear-O... thanks Cuz.
Btw, I said "I'm not interested in what is 'sufficient', only in what will be effective.", it should be assumed that 'effective' is impossible to be effective, if it is isn't also, and first, Good.
But the blog... it disappear-o.
My blog, Blogodidact, seems to have been removed... anyone run into this before?
wv:mocke
That's not nice at all.
Van, I don't have the time for a blogger marathon in the comments section; if you want to continue the discussion, I'd be happy to do so via email - feel free to contact. You are welcome to quote anything I say publicly, but I'd prefer a better venue than blocked quotable paragraphs allow.
It is difficult to have a discussion if you question my good faith to the extent you've done so far. I understand that is part of the INternet medium (something you are overly sanguine about). How about discussing the issue of
"Whose Law"?
I admit I don't have the answers yet, but I am pretty sure that the Natural Law tradition as transmitted via conservatism in America is dead. No one regrets that more than myself.
Having read all of Burke's orations on the Revolution in France several times, I think it is cavalier of you to assume I am taking an amateurish approach. C. Lasch framed my current view on Burke in his "True & Only Heaven: Progress and His Critics".
I'd enjoy a more gentlemanly discussion, having relished being a "man of torrents" for far too long. It's your business if that creeps you out or not.
Matthew said "It is difficult to have a discussion if you question my good faith to the extent you've done so far."
I'm a bit puzzled by that, yes I do question what I can see of your conclusions and what seems to be your council (though that hasn't been clear yet), I do think some of what you've said here is wrong, but I don't think your lying or malicious at all and I don't question your good faith.
"... I am pretty sure that the Natural Law tradition as transmitted via conservatism in America is dead. No one regrets that more than myself. "
Natural Law is dead in wackademia, that's obvious, and with most of those who have power, but in the activities I'm involved in with the Tea Party in the St. Louis area, I'm continually seeing first hand that it is NOT dead among the formerly silent people.
Will that be enough...? History would say no, but we'll see.
"Burke's orations on the Revolution in France"
Yes, and I think you have to look beyond those to get a full picture of him, such as his more philosophical works beyond the dust up with Rousseau & co. I won't bother with a link, since blogger seems to be playing havoc with it at the moment, but Gutenberg dot org has his full "The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke" Vol 1-12, especially Vol 1 - this was not a mind that feared intellectual curiosity, only rash superficialities, such as Rousseau.
"I'd enjoy a more gentlemanly discussion..."
Well, I always enjoy intelligent opposition, especially when someone can show me where I'm in error, if you'd like to carry it on by email, that'd be fine by me... I don't think it would make sense to forward any parts of it here, but there's the possibility it could influence a post or two on my site - assuming I recover it - but I don't think it would be anything ungentlemanly.
"It's your business if that creeps you out or not."
That may not have been the best choice of words on my part, but the manner you seem to be using 'conservative', the manner you attribute to Burke, doesn't fit with what I have in mind.
I assume your email is somewhere on your site? I'll have a look, thanks.
Van, re. your blog someone may have made a complaint that you've violated the terms of service. I've heard of that happening, and generally once the complaint is made the blog gets yanked without a fair trial. Which is why, if you like your content, it's good to have it backed up, as Ben can attest. Blogs can go poof rather suddenly, especially the free ones. If you own your own domain, there's a little more autonomy.
You've probably already seen it, but just in case there's a link that might get you on track to getting it back here. I hope you are able to get it back!
Well, I'll have to look further at Burke. He did famously say that those who persist in opposing for so long what seems to be a decree of Providence would be not only wrong, but perverse. A sop for the new order...
Holler at me. I don't think you're "wrong" or persecuting me, I am just not sure that conservatives (or whatever you want to call them) should fall into the habits of Internet debate (preaching to myself here as well).
wv says: sparnit
Sparin' it?
Julie, yes I'm in the 'support cue'... not a cheery place. Looks like there were a number of blogs deleted today, but I didn't receive any notice or complaint... just poof.
Like a bonehead, I haven't backed it up recently... and I've got a sinking feeling that my backup's are on my Vista laptop which hasn't been able to boot up since downloading a handy dandy helpful service pack form Microsoft the week before.
Not a happy camper here.
I might have copied it to my external drive, will be hunting it up if this isn't resolved.
Just a real sick feeling in the stomach... which kind of caught me by surprise as well.
And thanks Anna.
wv says: concr
Concur.
Matthew, I have a question, I was looking through the email comments this morning and something puzzles me.
How do you suppose 'Esther' made your last comment of 3/20/2011 09:29:00, two minutes before you did, at 3/20/2011 09:27:00?
Was that like... psychic... telepostakenisis type stuff?
And did she, or you, delete it so yours could remain?
Not that I'm questioning your gentlemanly behavior or anything, just a question.
Btw, neither you nor Esther have an email address posted that I can see... so not having that psychictelepostakenisis-ish stuff myself, I'm not quite sure how to email you.
Curious.
Van, I'm guessing Matthew simply shares a computer with a family member named Esther who has a different Blogger account, with which he accidentally made the first comment. It happens. Bob did the same thing with Mrs. G's account last week.
Could be... as I say, just a question.
Yup. Sorry bout that.
cathasach71854@gmail.com
The point is that our present civil war between American classical liberals and the left is spiritual warfare. And the central front of this war is on the field of language.
Today's prime example: "White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action'"
‘kinetic military action’
ugh.
Been rumaging around in my Richard Mitchel The Proud Walkers, from the ‘Leaning Tower of Babel’. That book is also a goodie:
"...The proper work of the wise is surprisingly often nothing more than providing the rest of us with exactly the right words. So it is that new ways of understanding come forth, for understanding is the making of statements, and statements about statements. In one happy phrase, Thoreau has made the fine and unexpected distinction between Mother Tongue, a concept so familiar that we usually don't stop to think about what we might take it to mean, and the unfamiliar Farther Tongue, which has always been lurking in the possibilities of language. Thinking, after all, is nothing more than rummaging about in the possibilities of language. And the thinker is one who regularly answers the question that ordinarily puts an end to thought: What more can I say?
Accordingly, we have gone rummaging through back issues looking for examples through which we might understand that "artificial or father tongue." It was easy. We quickly found these three:
"The findings suggest that psychosexuality constructs of agency/communion can be meaningfully operationalized to reflect the degree of psychosexuality integration, with different modes of manifestations and different correlates of interpersonal behavior associated with various levels on the integration continuum.
The multiple issues raised suggests that a particular type of structure and composition…is required. Thus, the accomplishment of the aforementioned aims require that the meeting be from a more comprehensive perspective.
Linguistics has become a magic word in language instruction of today. Vigorous activity …has stretched linguistics beyond…esoteric enclaves…and brought it cascading down through the high school and elementary grades."
The first of those passages is the prissy pirouette of the practiced posture-master. Ah, what skills. How prettily he prances from the operationalization of constructs to the reflection of the degree of integration, and gracefully glides on into modes of manifestation and correlates associated with levels on the continuum. Ah, how smart he must be. And how professional. How proud of him his mother must be, although probably not, we'd be willing to wager, nearly as proud of him as he is of himself. The attribute that always leaks out of such writing is that supposed virtue that educationists have chosen, ignoring logic in the service of sentimentality, as both a requisite to education and its best reward--Self-esteem.
The voice of that passage, however, is not just the voice of self-esteem. It is the voice of a man full of self-esteem. It is the pompous voice of self-awarded authority, the voice of command, the mighty voice from "above," in which no decent human should speak. It is Father Tongue...."
BTW, my blog's back up. Woo-hoo!
Ugh. Hope the previous comment re-appearo's.
wv:ackpap
Well said.
Yea Van, good to know recovery occurred!
Thanks for that Father Tongue quote from Mitchell. (I saw it in email :) Funny you put that up for just this very morning I was reading Walden…..
Iowahawk is on a roll with KineticMilitaryAction:
http://twitter.com/#!/iowahawkblog
Post a Comment