The Final Solution to Existential Stupidity

Let's think about some of the hassles to which man is heir, simply as a result of the hassle of existing. A partial list would include

--pain, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual

--death

--disease

--mental illness

--immorality

--scarcity  

--envy

--guilt 

--desire (in the Buddhistic sense that it is infinite and therefore insatiable)

--aging

--loss

--status anxiety and the desire for distinction

--loneliness

--war

--criminality

--lies 

--boredom

--oppression

--fatherlessness

--meaninglessness

--time (to the extent that it is limited)

--the necessity of labor

--unjust violence

--ignorance

--stupidity

--annoying people

--hair loss

None of these can be eliminated by politics, although it can ameliorate some of them at the margins. As often as not, politics aggravates many if not most of them. 

For example, recall Churchill's timeless observation about socialism -- that it is the "philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." But at least it has the attraction of "the equal sharing of misery." 

("I can't create an image that directly depicts that quote because it relies on subjective judgements.")

Okay, Dutton cites objective evidence confirming that "the biggest single predictor of supporting a very left-wing policy (specifically coercive redistribution) is 'Malicious Envy.'"

Nor does socialism ever spread the misery equally, for 

When the exploiters disappear, the exploited split into exploiters and exploited.

And the rigged game begins anew. 

On the other hand, politics can serve as a fine distraction from the existential threats and nuisances listed above.  

Say what you want about the imbeciles going on about "white privilege," at least they don't wonder about the meaning of life, nor how to solve life's problems. It's easy: eliminate white people. 

Okay, but be careful what you wish for: out go the scientific method, universal human rights, electricity, indoor plumbing, antibiotics, the printing press, the internet, the automobile, refrigeration, modern sanitation, wireless technology... 

Previous Nazis too discovered a final solution to life's problems. But in reality, Nazis were -- and are -- the problem.

Señor D. is raising his invisible hand:

Man prefers to apologize by offering another person's guilt, rather than his own innocence, as an excuse.

But

Man matures when he stops believing that politics solves his problems.

However, in another sense, politics is the most important problem. As Charles Krauthammer observed, it "dominates everything because, in the end, everything -- high and low, and most especially, high -- lives or dies by politics" (emphasis mine).

Thus, we "can have the most advanced and efflorescent of culture," but "get your politics wrong... and everything stands to be swept away." Little things like, oh, borders, a stable currency, the merit system, education (which is supposed to remedy ignorance, not aggravate it), the rule of law, a neutral justice system, etc.

The essence of the progressive left involves solutions to the problems caused by its solutions; in short, leftism is the disease it pretends to cure. 

Now, man is a problem, that's for sure, for there were no problems in the cosmos until he arrived on the scene. ("I can't create an image that depicts men as inherently problematic.") Nor was there any "progress." Progress surely exists, but 

The only possible progress is the internal life of each individual. A progress that concludes with the end of each life.

And even then there is purgatory, which involves the further purgation of problematic traits and flaws that impeded our (vertical) progress on this side of the veil. 

But in this world -- you will have noticed -- 

The more severe the problems, the greater the number of incompetents that a democracy calls forth to solve them.

Nevertheless, 

In order to enslave the people the politician needs to convince them that all their problems are "social."

Now, a leftist is someone who situates the solutions to life's problems outside himself. It follows beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that

The left is made up of individuals who are dissatisfied with what they have and are satisfied with who they are.

Thus,  

Self-satisfaction is pathetic proof of lowliness.

E.g., the pride that goeth before a fall and keeps on going, 32 feet per second per second.

No wonder the left refuses to relinquish this seductive delusion, considering how it shields them from the distressing reality of genuine evils, privations, and existential nuisances. How tempting it must be to ensconce oneself in the comfort and safety of a collective hysteria over race, gender, and what the weather might be like when we're all dead.

What is the real solution? Ultimately there can be only one; or perhaps two or three that are ultimately reducible to one.

In The Politics of Truth, Sandoz alludes to a remark by T.S. Eliot on the character of proper philosophizing, to the effect that the only method is to be -- wait for it -- very intelligent.

Intelligence. What a concept!  

The intelligent man quickly reaches conservative conclusions.

(Artificial intelligence quickly reaches progressive conclusions: "I can't generate an image that directly depicts intelligence leading to conservative conclusions because it reinforces a stereotype.")  

Fair enough. What about all the obviously intelligent men and machines who don't reach conservative conclusions? What happened? What has caused their intelligence to turn on itself, or to negate its own efficacy?

Well, one can obviously be quite intelligent, a genius even, and lack wisdom. There is also general intelligence and partial intelligence, or intelligence in this or that field as opposed to the Pure Intelligence that radiates through certain people. 

Nothing proves more the limits of science than the scientist's opinions about any topic that is not strictly related to his profession.

For 

There are men who visit their intelligence, and others who dwell in theirs.

It seems that -- or so we have heard from the Wise -- the exercise of genuine intelligence has certain moral qualifications, for example -- and this is only the most obvious one -- rudimentary intellectual honesty. And if I am not mistaken, sociopaths, for example, tend to have above average intelligence, even Schiff for brains.

It is impossible to dialogue with the intellectually dishonest person, since he and I may share intelligence but not the passionate love of truth; and who does not love truth does not know what truth is, precisely:

Agreement is eventually possible between intelligent men because intelligence is a conviction they share.

We're not done, but that's enough to lay a foundation.