Saturday, 20 May 2017

The Great Lie Of The Left

The great lie of the left is that they are speaking for 'us', meaning the majority, the 'ordinary' person.  This spin was used by Mussolini, and Trump. When the right say this, they are also pretending.  
The right just pretends in "we" a lot less often.  

The other nonsense of the left now is the old notion that we'd all be better off by taxing the rich. By this they now mean the uber-rich, oligarchs and multinationals.

There are at least 3 flaws in this: 

  1. Already offshore, & will move even more "offshore" if threatened by tax.
  2. The rich are better left alone by the threat of tax, as they were in the past when they felt much more obligated than now to benefit the country personally with endowments, buildings and institutes. They are simply less likely to do this with the state positioning themselves as the benefactors of the people, by taxing these people. People simply feel less obligated to personally help the homeless when the state claims to have relieved our conscience of our surrounding society.
  3. The idea shown of terrorised future of failed states with obscene Oligarchies are actually countries who had statist, socialist regimes (All of the Eastern bloc, Russia, most of Africa, most of Asia, most of South America...). That is not the situation in Europe or the U.S. where Capitalism was not banned. However damage has been done by years of statist measures, producing a class of protectionist oligarchs in its wake.

Because most people in Europe and North America haven't lived in the Eastern bloc, Russia, Africa, Asia, or South America, they don't see the damage done to these societies by past Socialism/Communism.  
They just assume the relative American recent U.S. involvement in some of these places is solely to blame, or if not, it is the legacy the old European Empire.  
The U.S. has undoubtedly been ruthlessly opportunistic; this is because these opportunities were afforded by corrupt regimes and their attendant Oligarchs, enabled by devastation wrought by Marxist regimes*. The Left in Europe don't see this is, don't see that if their anti-capitalism had any fruition whatsoever, it would disable the ability to fund anything for large amounts of people, and also the ability of free speech and any culture of criticism. Meanwhile, they live in a culture where profits are made from books, films, articles, that promote the vast bulk of critical discourse, while they deem any critique of Socialism to be allied with all the evils the world has ever known, and marginalise the relatively few intellectuals with outsider status.

After the war, it was a legitimate position of dissent to deride the western system (although they never derided the enlightenment, which is the most likely culprit for 20thC technological wars and the atom bomb). Now it is the reverse, it is a dissenting position to deride the academy, but there is even less freedom to do so than in 1945, or even 1922). This is because the academies have been shaped by the biased dialogue of complacent deconstructionism.

Besides the hypocrisy that one of the multinationals is Facebook, which the left are addicted to; the other hypocrisy is that a lot of the haute-left use tax avoidance "vehicles" themselves.  With one hand they think of nationalising rail, while on the other, disparaging the nation state as a regressive concept. Why not think about nationalising google or facebook ?

*This is not an apology for colonialism, but it is curious that genocide was comparatively rare during colonisation.
The genocide of the American Indian was done after a war of "independence".
These regimes always excuse themselves by blaming the former colonisers, ignoring the fact that they choose to model themselves almost entirely on the worst aspects of colonial rule wherever possible.

Friday, 24 March 2017

Westminster Bridge, Resignation of the Spirit

I call it murder.  Some might call it an act of terror, others an act of honour against The Great Satan.     
What do you call it ?   Corbyn was an I.R.A. sympathiser, he may of considered their atrocious acts 'the struggle'.  
Anyway the latest news was that the assailant was a 'soldier' of I.S.

Let's not wallow in media atrocity blitzkrieg.  Because if it wasn't media hyped, these acts wouldn't have a mandate to continue.  
Although this is distinctly a negative dialectic; we are still looking at religious behaviour, albeit perverted and on the gnostic end of the spectrum, purity through fire, 
and all that Cathar-sis.

Martyrdom is inspired by the relics of saints.
The appetite for this news encourages a media which, hot
as freshly pressed print - renews, inspires more mad ganja & puritan ideology-fuelled men to commit such obscene acts of 'honour'.  

But one cannot entirely blame the media. Because it is a personal shopper choice to consume films and video games involving ever increasingly high body counts, which then encourages more production of such 'media'.   If some don't seems to have appetite for such filth, and thats maybe down to the happy fact our parents weren't 'bottom feeders'.   The 'buck' has to stop with us individually, using 
our God given freedom of choice, or free will.  The fatalistic or deterministic view is a 'realist' view that what occurs is manifest and thus, destined.

Manifest destiny, that whiggish American-founding myth, escalates violence by accepting it firstly as 
not given, but made, and its why the U.S.A never solves violence in the world, only encourages more of it.  

Unfortunately, the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church also has shadows of fatalism in its concept of complete 
submission and devotion to the will of God.  In that, essentially people surrender their free will in the face of tragedy and communism.  They are all too willing to submit to the blindness of collectivism.  Asiatic Resignation, as Waugh called it. 

The triumph of the west has its locus in Roman Catholicism, not in Lutheran self-will, or Calvinist self reliance, 
which only trusts the self at the expense of everything and everybody else. 

The majestic Roman Church got the balance right: trust in God, but don't trust that you won't slink to evil, 
or that 'evil' is only external, or merely someone else's, or natures flaw.

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Spinoza Antichrist

Fichte’s system was the offspring of Kant’s divorce of sensuous from intelligible nature, with the former dictated by necessity, the latter governed by freedom.

This was Fichte and Schelling's method 
of how to separate out the original sin of Calvin's 'total depravity'​ from ergo and place it 
firmly in the bosom of nature, and with nature's interlocutor who, for the philosopher, is woman.​  

Their ideal result was the old Cartesian split, word against flesh.  

Flesh made word; Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings. Always darker, emptier, simpler.

Saturday, 7 January 2017

Union Jackass

I'm all for a Holy Roman Empire extending from Ireland to Constantinople, 
just as it did before the fall of the east in 1453.  The trouble is that 
this empire is unholy, foolish, insane, and reactionary.  
For, far from progressive, the union was an attempt to set back the clock to the 
golden days of Charlemagne.  

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Hyper normalisation

Been reading Dominic Sandbrook, and thinking about Adam Curtis.
And what has dawned on me is simple.  The contrast between
these two historians is epic.  They both make strange connections,
how the mood created something, or vice versa.
Curtis paints a grim trajectory, one where evil has origins in this and that,
and is coming to now overwhelm everything.  
Reminds me of a Jesus quote - that this is nothing new:

"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet". (Matthew 24:6)
(Unlikely that Curtis is a christian). 

Curtis's picture is one way of looking over the past, a particular perspective which is horrific. 
If you look for those things, you will have plenty.  Suffering and death exists, it is not 'wrong',
it is the condition on the earth, of life and existence. 
(Revelation says man is 'the beast' meaning he has knowledge and can create more suffering than ordinary nature)

The trouble with His view and others like it, is that it revels in these misdeeds
and errors, in 'misery porn'  which carries the bitter tinge of nihilism; there is an element
of cynicism which is something I recognize, because I have wallowed there too.  It excuses our own failures.

On the contrary, Sandbook looks at history culturally, like Kenneth Clarke,
and finds much that is positive to admire. 
It is a trope of the left (Moore, Chomsky, Geldof) to look back only at war and strife and the suffering of others, rather than the achievements of beauty that also exist, that men too have built.  Curtis only accepts and accentuates whats
gone wrong, not affirming any good.  While Roger Scruton explores what he thinks is morally awry today by examining the good things from the past - cathedrals, institutions, ethics, religion, and sees much that we can learn.   It seems as though Curtis only sees the past as entirely execrable, full of bad turns, all fallacious good intentions gone bad.

Devil's advocation:  

What is supposedly admirable is that his films compose very succinctly, and poetically 
a nightmare that drips from the news everyday, and blasts it back as a collage which overloads the emotions; which thus draws one to think just what I have thought above, as I tuck into this warm glass of Burgundian Pinot.

How wide the Safety net ?

Liberalism says that we don't have to be responsible for ourselves, 
the state will take care of the future.
Liberal economics says the same: we don't have to apply morals, 
the market will take care of the future.

Following this thought on liberal irresponsibility:

Another radical view came to me, amongst local beggars in my area -
that because of government spending, "we" have the option not to feel any direct obligations if "we" so wish.  Because the personal response is abrogated.  

When I hear lefties whinging about Tory cuts, other than the obvious front-brain plea for more welfare for the needy, is also the flipside: that "I" don't want to have to be responsible, 
"I" don't want to see paupery on the streets, "I" would like to see it dealt with by an invisible hand.  

Then I think of how it used to be, and still is, natural for a lot of Cultures to look after their own family members when they get frail and needy, where charity is intrinsically a personal, local issue, dealt with first and foremost on the ground level.  The nation state concept, with all its political machinations is clearly the result of replacing church with state; the impersonal in place of the personal; the sophisticated justification for this being that we aren't living in small tribal communities anymore.  
Maybe we should realise that we are not so atomised, that we are still in small tribes (families, colleagues, friends).

The old Catholic culture here in England provided the solution to this which incorporated the local with a larger narrative.  The keyword being culture rather than 'apparatus'.
Now we have it seems, bad compromise: local government which always defers
responsibility to big government, and big government which leaves the responsibility
to charity, church, 'activists' and local government.  
Middle class Metro elites are on the side of big government,
in that they want paupers swept out of sight, to opt, in the name of 'individuality', to disconnect from obligation (to oblige being too noble), and by reverse extension, also place the obligation for their families on the state, because the state is capable of big collective organisation.  
But despite this being true, it shouldn't extend that they have no obligation other than more taxes, which being abstract, are demonstrably avoidable.  The individualist get-out clause; because by the  very fact of this abstraction, few can always escape and leave responsibility on those left behind (the basic form of neo-liberal economic competition).  
I contend that theoretical "socialism" is really the freedom to be anti-social (example of Orwellian double-speak) and that it ends up doing the reverse of what it projects: it offloads responsibility to those who can least afford it, freeing 'elites'.
This is because socialism, or liberalism, is in fact rooted in, and enshrined by, neo-liberal economics (which lest us not forget, is the very system, according to Chomsky, which replaced Catholicism*). The rest is sheer age-old hypocrisy - "I" can own property and have privilege while nominally believing in modified forms of communism which purports to be about sharing all goods and property in common.
Otherwise known as owning the narrative.
The justification for this hypocrisy is that other people who do not call themselves socialist are getting away with it, so why shouldn't "I" ?

Arthur Penty states in an essay in "A challenge to the myth of progress" that "Men who made the accumulation of wealth their primary aim
in life where looked at askance in the Middle Ages and why trade and commerce where held in lower esteem than agriculture and craftmanship, as they were also in China until relatively recently"


Monday, 7 November 2016

Another election special

Democracy began with the splitting of one into two.
  Absolute monarchy was denounced as tyranny and 
  became a house with two sides.
  But this does not negate the fundamental principle of one, or any other
  number for that matter.  
  Parliamentarianism, or the two party system,
  is the very definition of "polarisation".

  The 'center ground' theory, which is the excuse that the 
  two party system makes for its existence, is that without 
  the two opposing sides, there can be no satisfactory, or
  regulated center.  

  This has been proven, not just this time round, to be a lump 
  of baneful, intellectually complacent tosh.