The Real Intersectionality (of Vertical and Horizontal)

What does the subject under discussion -- prerogatives of the human state -- have to do with the news of the day? In a way, we are always asking this question, because there are principles and there is the world, and our life -- or "historical time" -- consists of their intersection, i.e., inner and outer, vertical and horizontal, absolute and relative, music and geometry.

Vis-a-vis our political system, there are horizontal aspects such as democracy and rule of law, and vertical aspects such as freedom of thought and speech, the sanctity of human life, and the spiritual telos of human actualization (AKA "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").

Now, the ultimate purpose of the horizontal aspects is to preserve the vertical; the horizontal must converge upon the vertical, or it is neutral at best. And neutrality inevitably sinks beneath itself, as we see in the EU, where a purely enclosed horizontality has successfully eliminated all verticality. Which is what makes the Muslim conquest so easy. They cannot be bribed with horizontal promises, but will gladly use horizontal means for their own (lower) vertical ends.

I remember when then defense secretary Rumsfeld was condemned by the usual suspects for the banal observation (about the rebuilding of Iraq) that democracy was overrated, and not nearly as important as civil rights and the rule of law -- i.e., a stable liberal order.

It should be obvious to any properly catechized American that (for example) a monarchy with robust civil rights would be far preferable to a democracy in which our rights may come and go, depending upon the whim of the majority. After all, Venezuela is a democracy, just as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her election fair and square.

It would be nice if Cortez came packaged with the following consumer warning: In democratic elections it is decided who it is licit to legally oppress (Dávila).

Speaking of solid gold irony clad aphorisms, the following is so simple that even a journalist or political scientist might be able understand it: Either the man has rights, or the people are sovereign.

Either man has certain vertical prerogatives, or the hominid hive is sovereign. Man or antman.

And what is a socialist but someone who will use the vertical to destroy the vertical with vague and seductive appeals such as "the dignity of man," or "justice for working families," or "helping our neighbors"? In short, the progressive will use freedom to deny freedom, when the whole point of the system (in its horizontal aspect) is to preserve human prerogatives such as liberty.

What really disappoints me is that a bartender could be so stupid, but maybe standards have fallen since the days I frequented such establishments. But anyone whose livelihood depends on exploiting drunks should know that When the exploiters disappear, the exploited split into exploiters and exploited.

How did Bernie Sanders go from living in a tree to being a multi-millionaire, with no actual job in between? Why, the same way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will go from bartender to baron in a few short years if not weeks (book deal in 3-2-1). Never mind that

The only man who should speak of wealth or power is one who did not extend his hand when they were within his reach. But don't wait for Bernie or Alexandria to discontinue the ire and brimstone sermons on wealth and power. They're too damn lucrative. Liberals have principles, but no leftist allows these to interfere with making a living off the rubes and exploiting envy for cash and other valuable prizes.

Before returning the Prerogatives, a few more Aphorisms, because they're just too good, even though we've mentioned many of them before:

“Social justice” is the term for claiming anything to which we do not have a right.

Here again, it is a faux-vertical appeal that permits one to steal in good conscience. Indeed, what is socialism but the philosophy of the guilt of others? Once someone's guilt is established, then it's only a matter of determining the punishment. For example, progressive racists proclaim us guilty of White Privilege. We sit here in limbo, awaiting our sentence.

Perez is what, 28 years old? I remember when I was 28. It might be the last time I was stupid enough to know how to solve the nation's problems, although some symptoms persisted for a number of years thereafter. But certainty in the service of ignorance isn't just a Real Thing, but the usual thing. Who is humble enough to proudly proclaim his ignorance? Therefore,

Each day I less expect to meet someone who does not nurse the certainty of knowing how the world’s ills could be cured. You will have noticed that such individuals are barred from ever appearing on television, where only certitude is permitted.

And yet As long as we can respond without hesitating we do not know the subject. For example, the absolute apex of my knowledge of human psychology was when I was handed my Ph.D. in 1988. No hesitation at all! But now I scarcely know where to begin.

There's a picture of Maxine Waters next to this aphorism:

When one does not concede to the leftist all that he demands, he proclaims himself the victim of an institutional violence that is licit to repel with physical violence.

And this one goes precisely to the left's collective meltdown about the Supreme Court:

For the left the constitution is a shameful attack on the sovereignty of the people.

In other words, it is a vertical constraint on blind horizontality.

By the way, how is a progressive idea like suicide? Both are permanent solutions to temporary problems.

I was about to say "back to our prerogatives" but we're out of time. We'll leave off with this observation by Schuon, that man "possesses a subjectivity not closed in on itself, but open onto others and unto Heaven." This is the "religious instinct," or you could just call it vertical openness. And again, Job One of the left is to shut this down, barricade the roads, and enclose us in horizontality.