That unpleasant moment when "principles" you were supporting ~strictly~ because "of the principle of the thing" and pointedly not because of the convenient manner in which they worked upon a restricted set of circumstances decide to move on to another set of circumstances and work consistently but against your (inconsistent) preference. The only thing to do is look away.
Remember how Orwell did not really wish to see that nazi = soviet = "democratic" socialist, so he didn't look ? Or that other time when he didn't wish to see that Empire=Good, Orwell=insufficient and so he... didn't look ? How about that time when Mises wanted feudalism to be bad and it wasn't, so he had to look away ? Or that other time when Christos Ballas wanted killing to be always bad so couldn't look at Joe Stack ? Well... I have another one.
From Taboos Are The Ways Christians Try To Control Us :
What did Epstein do wrong? Incest and infidelity. He did both, right? What's happened in the press? The incest's severity has completely erased the infidelity. At no time does Epstein have to confront the internal guilt of infidelity, because he's battling an incest charge. I don't mean publicly-- I mean privately, he never faces himself about infidelity, only incest.
Now incest-- terrible, we all agree, but should the law really be monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults? Of course not. "Incest is wrong," I might say, "but we have no business policing it." What just happened there is that "Epstein" has managed to get me to partially support him. I may hate him, but irrelevant- "he" interprets my partial support as part of a global judgment of him, and thus has mitigated his guilt by converting it to shame, and the shame is lessened because some people are partially supportive.
I realize that HE didn't do this on purpose or consciously (though his lawyer is), and HE does not care about my support. But it happened nonetheless. That's the whole point of the media's involvement, our generational solution to the problem of guilt. This is what we will all be doing, the internet as confessional and for the remission of sins. Whether we do it on purpose or not, once a private guilt that (should) gnaw at you gets exposed as a public shame, and the public/whatever newspaper you have at your disposal/your facebook friends/etc start taking sides, that internal guilt is obliterated. Epstein still has to deal with the shame and social and legal repercussions, but not guilt.
What's the result? The result for Epstein isn't my interest, it's his life and it's not my right to keep his guilt alive for him. But now, FOR SURE, incest is no longer a taboo, it is no longer a matter of guilt, but of shame. Everyone is free to decide whether they can take the shame; everyone has become a Nietzschean superman, deciding for themselves if there are any taboos. Which, of course they were always free to do-- but they had the good sense not to try. Now it is possible to ask "am I free to have consensual sex with my adult daughter?" -- which, of course, you are free to do, and which, of course, you are never free to do. It's that simple.
So, you understand, postmodernity's way of getting rid of the taboo as a mechanism and instead rely on the connected society for support is no good, because REASONS!
Not even a year earlier, in "My daughter deserved to die for falling in love" :
Though I doubt anyone in this country would sympthize with this nut, there is a certain deference to the notion that some cultures have honor killings, as if that is sufficient explanation; as if merely abandoning that practice will solve the problem.
But what really is going on here? We can try to frame it in terms more real to us: pretend this is a Jewish family and the British soldier is a Nazi. Let's add that the Nazis have already killed this man's brother, and raped his sister; let's say that the Nazis even did this right there in front of the 16 year old girl-- yet she still falls in love with the Nazi soldier.
In this context, we can better understand the anger, the betrayal, the incredulity-- "how the hell could you...!!!" But none of this explains why he killed her.
Really ? None of that explains why he killed her ? And what pray tell should he have done, defeated the taboo in the postmodern fashions of his adoptive society, and went on to complain to the newspaper ? Maybe it doesn't explain why he killed her because what he should have done is bring her on Jerry Springer ?
Yes, it is true that the unwarranted abundance of the postwar years coupled with a runaway pile of ideological nonsense as to the importance and value of the individual per sei has created a large group of would-be baronets and smalltime "lords" who now can't find the supporting cast they needii, can't find any reason to reproduceiii and generally can't motivate themselves to do anything.
Time to look away. There's slavery here, there's education = beatings here, there's "if you've never caned your wife not only you're not a good person, but you're actually a miserable whelp whose failure to contribute to the education of society is ruining society for everyone", there's a standing moral imperative to murder agents of your government, let alone an absolute interdiction in paying any tax, and so on and so forth.
Aren't you glad you looked away ? Forget those "principle" things - they're for sociopaths. The sort of people who put abstract concepts above the people themselves.
- This is what "humanism" means, and why it's a problem : that it takes the exceptional humans and pretends the entire herd is equal to them, in utter contempt of reality. This nonsense has then to be supported at great economic expense, which is WHY ecological problems are a result of "humanism" not (as it'd like to pretend) of capitalism. Capital does not waste, nor does it break the environment, unless it is held by rampant idiots (="humanists") who aim to misuse it to defend their nonsensical ideology. Yes "capitalist" London was a mess in 1800, but the difference between it and Lombardy cca 1400 is NOT that they weren't both capitalist - they were - but that they weren't both "humanist". They weren't. [↩]
- Such as lawyers and other ex-liberal professions, such as serfs and peons, such as so on. [↩]
- Here's a hint : you want the elite men to reproduce. They, broadly speaking, can't be bothered, as being elite by definition means you'll have better things to do than watch your genes regress to the mean. Consequently an entire oppressive structure had to be constructed, where the majority of people were ground face down in the dirt specifically and for no other reason than to give the elite men a reason to sire offspring : their property had to be inherited.
By the time "dignity of man" and the rest of the "humanist" delusions take hold, you find yourself stuck in the situation where each man that exists, EACH ONE, needs a dozen or more serfs to perpetuate his own existence. That don't exist. For as long as China wanted to play along in the collective (and anonymous!) role of coolie the charade could be maintained, but once that ends (and heroic efforts of their Communist party notwithstanding, it will eventually end), we either find some aliens to be "all the people but the lead character" in the "humanist" soap opera, or else satisfy ourselves with Ziri & The NPCs. In which later case... guess what ? Yeah, that's right, lots and lots of Hi Res porn and no pregnancies. (Ever met one of those nuts that "can't get it up unless it's hi def" ? Ever wondered wtf ? This is wtf.). [↩]
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Ah, I love a good bedtime story at the Discomfort Inn.
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Lol. We live to serve!