In keeping with our theme that everything is stupid, we could substitute "political party" for religion in the following observation by Schuon vis-a-vis big box (or exoteric) religion:
[Politics] addresses itself a priori to what is capable of "stirring" to action the will of the average man; it could not address the intelligence in an immediate manner, for, precisely, it is not the intelligence that gives impetus... to the average or ordinary man, thus to the majority.
Credit where it is due: making college accessible to every "intelligence" has not only nullified intelligence but elevated unintelligence to the point that the state recognizes stupidity is an officially protected class. And stupid people may be stupid, but they are smart enough to realize they need the state -- Big Mother -- to take care of them.
Z Man has the receipts, does the math, and shows his work:
The main reason there is no solution at the ballot box is demographics. The people in charge are quickly replacing the old white population with a new, vibrant and diverse population that naturally prefers managerialism. The tens of millions of new Americans love their managers more than they love life itself. In elections, they look for the candidates and the party that promises to take care of them. This institutional lock on the system will be clear in the coming election (https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=29590).
Above Schuon alludes to what it is that stirs a person to action, i.e., tickles the will. Again, to say that for the majority it is not "intellect" is....
Well, it's obvious to you and me, but here again, thanks to Satan's effective ground game in the media-academia complex, we are ruled by a managerial class that is utterly convinced of its intellectual superiority, and that lives under the mass delusion that the fashionable nonsense of the hivemind is somehow "knowledge."
In reality it is not merely false, since it is anti-knowledge, i.e., not just contrary but contradictory. As we said a few posts back about negative IQ, to affirm that a man can be a woman, or that climate change is an "existential crisis," or that children should be exposed to perverts, or that Brandon is in possession of his marbles, is not just "un-" but "anti-" reality.
Now, what is man and what is knowledge, anyway? Man, of course, is the doublewise trailer trash, the Being Who Knows (Homo sapiens sapiens), but that's not only circular but more than a bit self-flattering, no? And presumptuous, because who said this glorified primate knows the first thing about reality?
I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that man's essence may be reduced to three modalities, and that these three may be situated on the vertical axis, meaning that each is capable of transcendence, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. First the three modes, which are 1) intelligence, 2) will, and 3) sentiment.
Each of these corresponds to its own proper object, which is to say, the true, good, and beautiful, respectively, and the three taken together constitute the Real. Therefore, for example, a good intellect and a bad will can't really go together -- in other words "intellectual dishonesty" is intellectual sin, properly speaking.
Ah, but there are loopholes. For in order to be guilty, one must have full knowledge and deliberate consent of the will, in other words, the matter must involve a voluntary choice (not compelled or coerced in any way) and not be a consequence of bad information or invincible ignorance.
Must we really forgive them for they know not what they do? Or is there a loophole in the loophole? Remind me to answer that tomorrow, because the clock is running out.
As we said, each of our three modes may be situated vertically, hence our transcendence and objectivity. For example, an intelligence incapable of objectivity would no longer be intelligent, likewise a morality incapable of seeing the other fellow's point of view. Therefore, knowledge and morality are either adequations or they are nothing. Same with beauty.
"So how," you might ask, "does the left get away with it?" In other words, how do they manage to combine the absurdity of an absolute relativism with the tyranny of absolute conformity and compliance? I guess because the velvet glove of relativism always evokes and hides the iron fist of totalitarianism.
1 comment:
For example, an intelligence incapable of objectivity would no longer be intelligent
We've had a rather vivid living example of that this weekend. Literally delusional former neighbor has returned, insisting that the house which has changed hands twice since she lived there is in fact still hers. Literally shouting at the kids, "Get out of my house!"
On the one hand, credit where it is due, her nuttiness when she lived here is part of the reason the neighborhood is so friendly (everyone had to deal with her at one time or another). On the other, nobody knows what to do with this situation unless she escalates to doing something criminal, which she is canny enough to avoid. So, intelligent, but also profoundly not.
Post a Comment