As we descend yet further into the darkosphere, it’s as difficult to know what to say as it was last time. There’s no point to revisit our woes, as you all know what they have been, will be, and are: and the liberal swearbloggers catalogue them better and with more venom than we can summon up in our busy-ness.
Let’s take some comfort in something though. The forces of the Enemy Class remain just as evil, and just as imbued with purposeful and wicked intent as they were yesterday, and last week, and last year, and even before that. So, we know where we are, and all’s right after all: the coping classes are still targeted by the moochers and slairs and GramscoFabiaNazis, for their ability to fund their overlordness and pretend-philanthropy, itself built on a stolen, corrupted and plausible mirror of ordinary people’s real charitable feelings for others. Nothing’s changed, has it. 2009 and we are no further forward.
Now, I remember, many many, many, oh so many years ago, when Tony Blair, that great serpent, where is he now (?) talked loudly about “the Forces of Conservatism” and how awful and threatening these were, to a rapturous audience of lobotomo-lanternized watchers of the Wireless Tele Vision, at some conference somewhere.
It’s interesting that, although such a groundswell of anger and indignation seems to have been now detected, against the machinations of these shysters, no violent protest – justified though it might even be – is forthcoming. All sensible humans know it would be counterproductive and would only play into the hands of the Enemy Class. Even Leila Deen or whatever she’s called only threw green custard at the Lord Of Misrule, nothing worse (thank goodness.) And then she even walked away.
Although the Enemy Class gains power daily, over the minutiae of everyone’s lives, yet it lacks self-awareness, a sense of humour, humanity and perspective – although not a perverse logic. And so we hope that it can proceed to dig its own grave unassisted.
Our Easter Message comes down to this: human civilisation will stand or fall to the extent that it recognises Man’s exercise of Free Will, which as we said before is biblical in origin. We have in the end to agree that libertarian ideas and morality did not spring, fully-formed, out of nowhere, out of some formless void. We are libertarians because we specifically elevate Mankind, and a specific conscious individual morality, as being the state people ought to aspire to. Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Allende and Pol Pot and the various Kims and Saddams and Castro-body-doubles rejected that route. The oceans of blood, and the mountains of sorrow, which these buggers have brought forth on the world, are witness to how well their alternatives truly have gone down.
Some of us libertarians are religious in a traditional sense, and some are not: religion is not the point. But if libertarianism is based on anything (and as I said it did not just spring out of the earth fully-formed – as if “in one mighty bound man was free!”) then it is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, the Gospels, and the Ten Commandments. If it was possible for it to do that, then it would have happened centuries or even millennia ago. It appeared, and eventually reached a state of concreteness, with a body of literature and some public adherents, in post-Rennaissance Judeo-Christian civilisations only. There are no major publicly-promoted libertarian archives and publishers in, say Mecca, or Peking, or PyongYang, or Havana (a regressor-civilisation) (yet.)
If Man has Free Will, then libertarianism is the least immoral way to live, in a society where there are more than about seven people. If he has not, then the slairs and moochers and GramscoFabiaNazis are right, and so we all ought to be directed in all things by those who “Know Best What Is Good For Us”. All we have really to do is decide where we stand.
Generally to be young is to be an ass, it’s a pity youth is wasted on these kids! It follows that “free will” for anyone in the full reek of biological and social young male-or femalehood is a mere bagatelle. Still, even though we may bore them to tears with it, it is necessary to talk to the young about this, and to talk and to talk. The teachings about it after all are for middle and old age, and so the concept must be sown in at least a corner of the minds of the young. This can be done either as an intellectual factor, or more commonly implanted through emotional religious experience. Sometimes to plunge a whole generation into war and ruin is the only way of getting it into the minds of the critical minority of an era. For anything like freedom of choice to “kick in,” however, first of all a certain amount of success and guilt, failure and resentment must be acquired, through the animal tasks of breeding and money and so forth, and the various sorts of cheating necessary to get at both the copulation and the cash. Outer life in other words has to be built up in all of its beguiling and malevolent ambiguity. Getting ones share of this “working capital” of second thoughts about my life so to speak is the duty I owed to the first half of life. It is then a matter of “free will” only at the point I may choose to take stock of myself, try to make some amends where needed and, perhaps, to change parts of my way of living henceforward. Not all are capable even remotely of this. For them it is far better to cling to the good old Democrat or Republican Party, or whatever the family religion was, of one’s youth, as well as all of the old dietary habits and smoking and so on, no matter how “bad.” After all, to the extent we are out bodies, those bodies have their “individual” fate too and nothibng is more repellent than the one who is healthy because of cowardcie and fear of sickness, paiond and death. An enormous infantility in fact hides behind lots of our ideas of the “good.” I would say that now in my “baby boom” when more than ever are living to get old and be in the way, the amount of actual wisdom is much diluted among the statistical throngs of now senectuous idiots. All that is important in love, then, is that when the time comes, those who are meant to freely take moral responsibility for themselves will have long since received the necessary information about freedom, “free will” and ethical behavior, all of that in their youth. This is why we have to drone and drone and drone to /all/ of our young, so the ones who can consciously benefit (and who will thereby benefit all the others in their atmosphere) at the end of life will be sure to have the information. This is not so much about an amuck as it is about an aristocratical idea of /the individual/. Needless to say, at least half of all the real work of the World is done by people no one ever heard of on Tee Vee, quiet people meditating and “praying” and above all creating new values for the future, all in private. And, perhaps in the majority of cases with these inward workers, not even one word gets said lifelong about it to even one other. That is obviously because what in the last analysis cannot yet be talked about doesn’t “need” to be jabbered over. Liberty, in closing, must be taught in youth as an “absolute” fact, if only so that at the end of life it is available as a real courtesy, not least to the real behind the scenes workers. Part of being free when young must be to be taught that indeed you are being taken care of all of the time in a host of ways, all long-term, most of these necessarily secret, and none having to do with your physical immediate cash, existence and other possessions and obsessions. Taking care of all these are /your/ most important job as youngsters. And it is perhaps this self-reliant gift of freedom from interference and pestering that is the great gift of good manners and real love to the old I. This is perhaps all “I” really can for “you,” ever, leave the hot soup and bread on the stoop and scram!
Two-fingered typing by a seven-and-a-half watt (!) bulb hath its spelling perils. Anyway, The Buddies helped Grampa get about half the little stand of hay sown today, it’s darn near eight and I’m off to read aloud about Curious George and Pippi Longstocking. Good Night!
All the great Abrahamic religions are fundamentally flawed by being based on “Revelation” (‘G*d chose one or two people to carry and deliver His great Message to all of Mankind by woefully inadequate means to a tiny fraction of the World’s population in an obscure and obsolete minority language’). The other great error is to portray G*d as vengeful, punitive, violent, oppressive (i.e. G*d as an agent of Social Control — to Hell with all that…).
I always found this woefully inept and inadequate es an explication of Truth: Truth is not ‘self-evident’ — it is, as Anaxagoras so wisely said, “not self-evident, but is buried within the deep.”
I like Jung’s ideas of Universal Archetypes and the unpretentious ‘matter-of-factness’ of Taoism: day-to-day, I follow so many of the ways of Ancient Greece, the real cradle of Western Civilization.
Sumeria and the Fertile Crescent were perhaps the cradle of human life; all the Biblical legends are in fact allusions to Sumerian mythology, and thus very far indeed from the truth.
Religions are Mankind’s earliest efforts at Cosmology — where we came from, why we’re here and where we’re going. Efforts at codification by Social Control adepts have brought us to the edge of the Abyss…
Popper says this:”There are two kinds of religion — one is sane; the other, not.
One says “Dominate, or prostrate yourself.”
Whereas the sane one says: “Always remember that Men are not Gods; but never forget that each has a Divine Spark.”
To paraphrase JRR Tolkien:
“We are all Divine Sparks of the Flame Imperishable.”
It has to be said though, that The Bible is a powerful and resonant book. Consider the beginning of the Book of Genesis, and judged on the merits it isn’t a bad explanation of how the Earth was formed and how Humankind came about, considering it was written thousands of years ago.
To me, The Bible is a book of God Philosophy, wrtten by many over the course of time, with Jesus Christ as its foremost philosopher. The God it mentions exists because we, despite all our achievements so far, don’t know why we’re here, or who put us here, or what the intention is, other than to ascribe these things to God. Those within The Bible sought this God out, and they philosophised on how Humankind should know and interact with God.
Happy Easter All.
I do so like it when we all discuss these things!
Libertarians are too often too self-absorbed: in things like computing for example, or ways of Saving the World.
Yerp, actually we _do_ know how to save the world, as things turn out!
And re Bodwyn’s comments upstairs….
they’d stand as real posts they would, them!