When men refer to existence as “absurd,” they have thoroughly ignored existence as man is able see it.
Existence may appear absurd to those who have rejected all forms of internal structure. Internal structure stems of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is not only the key to all advanced civilization, but to all immaterial values, which over and over again prove themselves more valuable than any material object.
Our post-modern dildocracy, with all its hedonism, cannot deny its misery. Just as most hedonistic philosophers were unable to deny their misery, the dullest of men lose themselves to it completely. For most western men, life has no meaning. Life has no purpose. They feel useless in a world built on uselessness. Nothing has meaning, no true function. Context is fantasy to them.
There are few things in this world stupider than a single ant. They are incredibly simplistic machines. For example, a leaf-cutter ant will cut leaves and bring them back to the colony. That’s about it. If a forest fire happens to break out while the ant is cutting leaves, the ant will burn to death cutting leaves. It won’t stop cutting leaves, because that’s basically all its genetic coding has programmed it to do. It doesn’t have a program for dealing with a forest fire, so it continues cutting leaves until it is incinerated. You wouldn’t expect much from a species like this, and yet an entire colony of ants is capable of producing heating and cooling systems, agriculture, raising livestock, producing medication (antibiotics) and even owning slaves. Despite only having a couple hundred-thousand neurons apiece (we have about 85 billion), get enough of these guys together and they can accomplish things even a single human cannot. How much more then could humans accomplish in great enough numbers? Reach the moon? Create the internet? Design shoes that light up when you walk? Trivial. The truly miraculous thing man has done is alter his own nature.
Today’s subject comes from townhall.com.
Starting with the opening lines of the article, we are shown precisely why the modern conservative is so thoroughly hopeless:
College classrooms are supposed to be politically neutral, not indoctrination centers for liberalism. Yet, we have conservative parents who save money for decades to send their children to universities that teach everything conservatives believe is wrong.
(I would’ve attended to this sooner, but at the time I was quite preoccupied with Life Beyond The Keyboard.)
To begin with I think the former author is conflating some concepts and muddying the waters with a few terms here. To believe in the existence of a doorknob in your hand is quite different than believing in the existence of a supernatural God that sent His Only Begotten Son to die for your sins. The human mind doesn’t regard the abstractness of metaphysics the same way it processes the material “reality” of physical objects.
This is the really interesting bit though:
“People think in terms of the supernatural, humans are fundamentally and inevitably religious creatures.
The return to totem and supernatural worship occurs because to consistently worship yourself above all else is to actively oppose all other concepts and beings in reality, to be incapable of having any real place in a human society.”
If the preservation of the collective is the ultimate goal of The Right; The degeneration of the individual is the goal of The Left. Feminists channel individualism when they say that they shouldn’t have to live under the rules of Patriarchy for the sake of others, whilst those who call themselves “Child-Free” say they shouldn’t have to produce/raise kids for the sake of others. This desire for independence, almost always leads to totality.
Individualism quite frankly cannot be a functional principle for any civilization. Civilizations requires a stoic sacrifice for the greater good. Monogamy is a great example of this, after all most people at one point in their lives thought that monogamy was a scam. Why have a long term, conflicting relationship exclusively with one person, when you can have multiple, no-string relationships? Isn’t that the dream of every aspiring PUA? Why make the sacrifice of being with one person, if it means you’re going to live a boring life full of nagging and an aging woman, when you could be living the rock star lifestyle?
“The question libertarians just can’t answer.”
Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even *I* show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is *this* obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.
I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.
Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.
Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.
Among my supposed “fellow travelers,” one finds a recurrent theme: the cultural/economic system known as “Capitalism” is almost universally considered an ideal means toward achieving true human progress.
Some theorists venerate Capitalism as a culmination of human action, the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though sometimes amoral and conflicting, system for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the dopey and/or murderous “public sector” and often succeeding in competitions of wits with their peers (and little else).
With the rise of Democracy, the identification of Capitalism with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense, such as “Everything you love you owe to capitalism.” The useful collective term “individual” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the Capitalistic realities of a Postmodern West, a Geist without a Zeit.
A society which tolerates licentiousness and decadence will rot. Although it seems to work alright for some, a wild and crazy personal life does not make for a good societal model. Some people can handle drugs, most cannot. The same goes for homosexuality, multiculturalism, and feminism. These things are not good in general. They are not for mass consumption.
Secular social conservatism is about recognizing “human nature,” and by that I mean the average human’s biological tendencies. Sure there are outliers who can be functional, productive, and socially well-adjusted while simultaneously leading lives of filth and vulgarity, but that simply can’t work on a macro scale. Most people aren’t built that way.
Let’s start with the gays. The gay agenda has destruction written all over it. The fagification of the Western world looks like a foregone conclusion, but let’s go ahead and make the case against it now while we’re still somewhat free to do it… for posterity’s sake. Eventually detractors of the gay agenda will be entirely silenced, ushered into prisons where they will be subjected to — you guessed it — buttrape.
Once upon a time…
There was man, and there was woman. Two different beings, separate and unequal. From their differences arose conflict, and born from that conflict: passion.
In time, their passions intermingled, and the two beings found that this combination was to both of their advantages. Society blossomed from there.
A greater, prior age would have called this process “dialectical,” but most today would use the term “love.” This derivation of meaning is an unfortunate reflection of an era without reflection. We will get to that shortly.
If there is one thing you ever take from my writings, let it be this: creation can only be birthed from passion, and passion can only ever exist through conflict.