Unspeakable Truths and Unimaginable Quips

Back when I was a lad, words were still used to describe reality. This was before they were used to deny truth, distort reality, and rewrite history. Same with young Frithjof, who

grew up at a time when one could still say, without blushing on account of its naivety, that two and two make four; when words still had a meaning and said what they meant to say; when one could conform to the laws of elementary logic or of common sense... in short when there were still points of reference in the intellectual arsenal of men.

Good times. But "I can't generate images of that. Try asking me to generate images of something else."

We get it, Bob. Reality exists, and can only exist, in the great In Between depicted to the right: in the quasi-infinite space between subject and object, immanence and transcendence.

Life is a bewilderness adventure, an exodeus, an expansion into the veridical frontier, a careful documentation of our ignorance, multi-undisciplinary circumnavelgazing, perfect nonsense, ad gnoseam. Move on. 

Okay, then, how about this old interview with Sr. Dávila  about the righteous and mostly peaceful BLM insurrection? Now that things have cooled off a bit, we can assess whether the Aphorist is virtually omniscient or just a little scient. 

In fact, perhaps they might also shed light on the the nationwide Hitler Youth protests going on currently.

(*Surprisingly*, Gemini *cannot* generate images for most of these. But we already knew which side google is on.)

These are more than riots, they're a revolution!

Revolutions do not solve any problem other than the economic problem of their leaders.

True, the leaders of BLM became real estate moguls and vice presidents. But surely you acknowledge racial injustice?

In order to enslave a group of people the politician must only convince them that all their problems are a consequence of racism, sexism, or class.

Wait -- you don't want social justice?

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

I get it. You don't want The People to be liberated.

For a couple of centuries, “to liberate man” has meant to facilitate mob behavior.

But Americans -- Democrats at any rate -- have every right to petition their government and air their grievances!

It is customary to proclaim rights in order to be able to violate duties.

I get it. You just don't tolerate People Who Don't Look Like You.

Unlimited tolerance is nothing more than a hypocritical way of giving up.

But I heard the mayors of Minneapolis and Atlanta criticize the rioters.

The smile with which the pig hears the one who criticizes the mud!

These aren't mobs, they're courageously standing up for minority rights!

Minorities that become majorities continue to believe they are brave.

Unity Now! Together we're stronger!

The revolutionary is ultimately an individual who does not dare to rob by himself.

What about muh rights 'n stuff?

In order to corrupt the individual it is enough to teach him to call his personal desires rights and the rights of others abuses.

But life is unfair! The world owes me a living!

We only know how to carry ourselves with decency in front of the world when we know that we are owed nothing. Without the pained grimace of a frustrated creditor.

It is simplistic to characterize the conduct of the protesters in negative and judgmental terms. One man's looting is another man's retail therapy.

The arguments with which we justify our conduct tend to be more stupid than the conduct itself.

It's not arson -- it's the sacred fire of freedom and justice!

Activism burns without giving light.

Don't you think it was wise for our Democrat mayors to give the rioters space to blow off steam?

No one grants humanity certain extreme liberties except someone indifferent to its fate.

One thing I don't get -- why do they burn down their own cities and businesses?

The liberal is capable of sacrificing even his interests to his resentment.

And cleaning up after these peaceful protests is going to cost billions.

Every “liberator” finally passes on the bill.

So, what do you say is really going on here?

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.

You don't think they're frightened?

The frightened liberal is a bloodthirsty animal.

But if this isn't really about the police, who's to blame for urban squalor and unrest?

With the generosity of his program does the liberal console himself for the magnitude of the catastrophes it produces.

Any final thoughts?

Our civilization is a baroque palace invaded by a disheveled mob.