Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • Democrat-Run Cities: The Case for Letting them Burn to the Ground

    Marc Thiessen presents, without endorsing, the case for allowing the social experiment in lawlessness to proceed:

    Trump declared that enough is enough and that he and Attorney General William P. Barr will soon unveil a plan to “to straighten things out.” But maybe he shouldn’t. The genius of our federal system is that states and localities serve as what the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called laboratories of democracy that can “try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Right now, many of America’s cities are conducting social experiments in lawlessness, showing the rest of the country what happens when local leaders join calls to “defund the police” and cower in the face of violence.

    There is an argument for just letting those experiments play out. After all, we are told elections have consequences. Well, the people in those cities voted for weak Democratic mayors and city council members. Maybe if they experience the consequences of incompetent Democratic leadership, they’ll do what New Yorkers did in the 1990s and vote in tough-on-crime Republicans to restore law and order.

    Or they can move. As Milton Friedman explained in “Capitalism and Freedom,” the beauty of our system of dispersed power is that, “if I do not like what my local community does … I can move to another local community. … If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations.” In recent years, growing numbers of Americans quit high-tax blue states such as California for low-tax red states like Texas. If disastrous fiscal policies can spark this kind of migration, maybe disastrous policing policies will do the same.

    Of course, the counterargument is: What about the people in Portland, Seattle and other cities where violence is out of hand who did not vote for feckless Democrats? Why should they be subjected to violence? Moreover, although wealthier residents may be able to pick up and leave, the poorer citizens of these cities who depend on social assistance and public housing don’t have the resources to do so. And what about small business owners who have poured their life savings into enterprises that have been looted and vandalized? If they pick up and leave, they lose everything.

    It’s unfair to leave these Americans defenseless. And it’s arguably the president’s responsibility to do something about it.

    When I consult my inner Black Shirt, I am inclined to favor a massive and merciless Federal crackdown on the enemies of civilization.  Criminals are emboldened when they get away with their crimes. Priceless artifacts of our cultural heritage are being destroyed before our eyes, and it will only get worse if the miscreants aren't stopped with whatever brutality is necessary.  But then I remind myself of the articles I have written favoring federalism. Let the fools in blue states and leftist-dominated cities run their social experiments!  Amendment X of the U. S. Constitution:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

    It's a nice little political aporia we've got going here. States rights? Or Big Daddy applying the rod of discipline to the likes of morons such as Lori 'I need a haircut'  Lightfoot (Chicago), Jenny 'Summer of Love' Durkan (Seattle), and Comrade Bozo de Blasio (New Dork City), to mention just three.

    But in the end we must look to our own health, well-being, and virtue. The Founders understood that it is the virtue of the people that is the ultimate support of the Republic. What can an individual do? Speak out, if you can muster the civil courage to do so in the teeth of the vicious anti-free-speech cancel-cultural Left. Vote, but never for any Democrat. And don't throw away your vote on unelectable third-party losertarian jokers. Defund or rather don't fund the Left, including the Roman Catholic Church and almost all universities. Vote with your feet and with your wallet. Lay in a righteous supply of tools of survival. Home-school your children. Build vast hard-copy libraries to keep high culture safe from the barbarians. Buy gold and that other precious metal, Pb.

    Look to the future, both here below, and beyond time's horizon.  Hope for the best; prepare for the worst. Be of good cheer and keep yourself in shape in mind and body. Long live the Republic!


  • The Self-Reliant Don’t Snivel

    Louis L’Amour, Education of a Wandering Man, Bantam, 1989, p. 180:

    Times were often very rough for me but I can honestly say that I never felt abused or put-upon. I never felt, as some have, that I deserved special treatment from life, and I do not recall ever complaining that things were not better. Often I wished they were, and often found myself wishing for some sudden windfall that would enable me to stop wandering and working and settle down to simply writing. Yet it was necessary to be realistic. Nothing of the kind was likely to happen, and of course, nothing did.

    I never found any money; I never won any prizes; I was never helped by anyone, aside from an occasional encouraging word – and those I valued. No fellowships or grants came my way, because I was not eligible for any and in no position to get anything of the sort. I never expected it to be easy.

    It is very difficult these days to explain the classic American value of self-reliance to 'liberals,' especially that species thereof known as the 'snowflake.'   Not understanding it, they mock it, as if one were exhorting people to pull themselves up by their own boot straps, which, of course, is impossible.

    Sometimes we need the help of others. When we do, we should not be ashamed to ask for it. The self-reliant, however, seek the help of others only after they have exhausted their own resources. 

    I am slightly embarrassed to say something so obvious. But in these times of national melt-down, when the miasma of mass delusion overspreads the land, the obvious needs to be stated and repeated.

    L'Amour whisky


  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: Carmelita, Juanita, and the Wicked Felina

    Warren Zevon, Carmelita Stay clear of heroin and Pioneer chicken, both.

    Flying Burrito Brothers, Juanita. Lyrics:

    'No  affection' were the words that stuck on my mind
    When she walked out on me for the very last time.
    Oh mama sweet mama can you tell me what to say?
    I don't know what I've done to be treated this way.

    In a cold dirty room that's where I found myself
    With a bottle of wine and some pills off the shelf.
    Oh mama sweet mama can you tell me what to say?
    I don't know what I've done and I'm feeling so ashamed.

    Then an angel appeared she was just 17
    In a dirty old gown (town?) with a conscience so clean
    Oh mama sweet mama can you tell me what to say?
    She's brought back the life that I once threw away.

    Delightfully ambiguous:  Is Juanita the girl who walked out or the one who saved him?  Or both?

    Marty Robbins, El Paso.  "Cradled by two loving arms that I'll die for/One little kiss and Felina, good-bye."

    Bonus cut: Devil Woman


  • Christianity and Politics

    The Christian who sees politics with worldly eyes must support Donald J. Trump. The Christian who doesn't must withdraw from the fight and turn the other cheek even if it means getting slaughtered, just as Jesus allowed himself to be slaughtered. But the apolitical Christians won't be slaughtered right away. They will first have to endure the destruction of Christian culture, a process that is proceeding apace right before our eyes.  Statues are being toppled, and churches destroyed, some of them ancient and of great historical significance. Ever hear of Junipero Serra and the San Gabriel Mission?  After they have demolished monuments and memorials and desecrated  churches,  destructive leftists will begin changing place names. Ever hear of a town called 'Santa Barbara'? I am just scratching the surface.  Fill in the details for yourself.  Is anything safe from the raging nihilists of the Left? Cemeteries? It's happening, and more is coming. Or are you in denial?

    To Christians such as David French who oppose Trump, I pose a simple question:

    What do you propose that we do politically to put a stop to this destruction of Christian and indeed Western, heritage and civilization?

    I don't doubt the sincerity and good intentions of French, and Mona Charen, and any number of other Never Trumpers, but they clearly don't have a practical plan. Starting up yet another 'conservative' publication such The Bulwark is just more yap-and-scribble. The Democrats are now a hard-Left party and their 'leader,' that 'good Catholic' Joe Biden, is but a puppet.  (He is all in on abortion on demand and, horribile dictu,  he reversed himself on the Hyde Amendment!) Do the Never Trumpers  have an electable candidate to rival Trump? Not by a long shot.

    So what is the plan ladies and gentlemen? Do you propose that we wait for  for the 'true conservative' to come along?  If he ever shows up it will be too late.  A practical man deals with the situation at hand as best he can with what he's got. He does not let the best become the enemy of the good. He does not seek perfection in an imperfect world. Trump is all we've got.  Show me I'm wrong.

    I would guess that David and Mona and the other boys and girls of the yap-and-scribble brigade are not keen on hot civil war. But that could be in the cards: guns and ammo are flying off the shelves.  The patience of the people has an expiration date. A lot of us don't approve of the erasure of history and heritage by leftist scum.  And we don't cotton to the abdication of those to whom we entrust the preservation of civil order.

    I grew up just a few miles from the 249-year-old San Gabriel Mission:

    San Gabriel Mission


  • Intellectual Hygiene Matters!

    Didn't I tell you to be skeptical? Motorcycle fatality counted as Covid-19 death.

    Elementary point of logic: if an F is counted as a G, it does not follow that the F in question is a G.


  • Why There Has to be Hell

    Here is an amateur theological speculation.

    Suppose a rebellious nature such as Bertrand Russell or Jean-Paul Sartre or Christopher Hitchens finds himself in the divine presence and yet continues to refuse to acknowledge reality, which includes the rebel's creature status.  Hitchens, or whoever, continues to assert himself madly with Luciferian pride and egomania against the Source of all being, truth, intelligibility, personhood, and value, making of himself an absolute when there can be only one Absolute.

    How could such a rebel be admitted into divine fellowship, or even into a purgatorial condition preparatory to divine fellowship? No God worth his salt could allow such a thing.

    There has to be hell for rebels who freely choose it.  Allowance must be made for the rebels and their shouting of the eternal No!


  • A Theory of Hell

    The spiritually immature have spiritually immature conceptions of man and God, heaven and hell. If you think of man as just a physical being, then, if you think of God at all, you will most likely think of him as a physical being, as a sort of Man Writ Large, or Big Guy in the Sky. This will lead either to a childish form of theism (God as Big Daddy, supplier of material needs, wish-fulfiller) or to a form of atheism of the Edward Abbey 'No angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon' variety.

    Something similar is true of conceptions of heaven and hell. The materially minded will develop crass conceptions. Popular Islam's notion of paradise as an endless disporting with 72 black-eyed virgins, as a doing there all the carnal things one is forbidden here, is as theologically hopeless as is a Christian fundamentalist's notion of hell as fire and brimstone.

    I suggest the following as closer to the theological reality of hell where hell is permanent separation, recognized as such, from one's absolute good, recognized as such.

    To be in hell is to be in a perpetual state of enslavement to one's vices, knowing that one is enslaved, unable to derive genuine satisfaction from them, unable to get free, and knowing that there is true happiness that will remain forever out of reach. Hell not as a state of pain but of endless unsatisfying and unsatisfied pleasure. A state of unending gluttony for example, or of ceaseless sexual  promiscuity. A state of permanent entrapment in a fool's paradise –  think of an infernal counterpart of Las Vegas — in which one is constantly lusting after food and drink and money and sex, but is never satisfied. The fire of desire endless and unfulfilled, but with the clear understanding that one is indeed a fool, and entrapped, and cut off permanently from a genuine happiness that one knows exists.


  • Animal and Spirit

    Yesterday morning I reviewed our quarterly statements and calculated our net worth. I then turned to Alphonsus Liguori, Preparation for Death, and re-read underlined passages as a fitting prelude to a 75-minute session on the black mat.

    It is appropriate  for an animal to concern itself with material things; it is also appropriate for a spirit to meditate on the ultimate nullity of all material things.

    Foolish it is to ignore either.


  • What We are Up Against

    It helps to know the enemy and not be as naive as a Mona Charen. Despite her manifold lovelinesses and virtues, Charen is a useful idiot for the Left and a useless idiot for us. (She is what I call a 'topical idiot'; she is obviously not a total idiot. And while I am abusing her to some extent, my abuse is for her own good, grounded as it is in fact and in a concern for her mental clarity.)

    Never-Trumpers, who are mostly journalists and lawyers, and have never built anything, allow themselves to become unhinged and distracted by Trump the inarticulate builder and political interloper, by his foibles and fatuities, his ungrammatical tweets, his exaggerations, sexual peccadillos, and what all else. And so they cannot see who the real enemy is.  They cannot see the threat to their own way of life and to the set of values which they espouse but are impotent to conserve.

    At the same time, these yap-and-scribble quislings and quibblers, these cruise-ship 'conservatives' who succeed in conserving nothing except their status and salaries, propose no candidate who could do better than Trump.  They are impotent nay-sayers and obstructionists. A pox be upon them, and their dwellings and cruise ships and seminar rooms and all their works and days, and their progeny, intellectual and loin-driven, unto the seventh generation.

    Please study the following from Powerline.

    Whitey One

    Whitey Two

     


  • Mona Charen, Bari Weiss, and Political Equivalentism

    Are we engaged in a truth-seeking debate with our political opponents, or are these opponents enemies with whom we are at war? For some time now, I have been heading in the latter direction.   Von Clausewitz held that war is politics pursued by other means. But what could be called the Converse Clausewitz principle holds equally: politics is war pursued by other means. See Politics as Polemics.

    Given that we conservatives are at war with the Left, what are we to say about those who hover above the fray and refuse to take sides? They are the political equivalentists, or near-equivalentists, who strive after an objective, non-partisan view and find fault with both sides.  What are are we to say about that sweet old lady, Mona Charen, whom I have followed sympathetically for years?

    The story of Bari Weiss’s tense parting with the Times will doubtless provide several days’ worth of fodder for the right. Weiss will become, for a while, a right-wing pin-up—symbol of the dangerous cancel culture that Democrats want to impose on the whole nation. Andrew Sullivan announced on the same day that he is leaving New York magazine. Coming on the heels of other prominent departures from progressive standard bearers, the scent of purges is in the air.

    But the right has no credibility on this. If the left is woke, the right is bespoke—it has become tailored around one person. Look at conservative publications and search for Trump critics. They are thin on the ground. National Review parted ways with David French and Jonah Goldberg. The Wall Street Journal lost Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. Fox News staffed up with fulsome Trump enthusiasts, but dispensed with George Will’s services.

    This narrowing of the American mind is making everyone dumber and nastier. Debate is practically dead. What Bari Weiss stands for is the individual conscience attempting to evaluate issues fairly. She stands for dispassionate analysis in a world that increasingly favors zealotry and intolerance. That’s why her fate matters.

    Charen is as naive as Sam Harris. She's a silly goose of a Never-Trumper living in the past.  Yes, my dear, debate is dead.  But why is that? It is because debate is impossible with those who, out of contempt for them, refuse to satisfy the elementary requirements of debate which include belief in the existence of truth and respect for logic and language.

    It is utter folly to suppose that there is moral-political equivalence between Right and Left.  People like Charen, the bootless Max Boot, the vapid Bill Kristol, the foolish David French, the effete George Will and plenty of others have allowed their mindless hatred of gate-crasher Trump the man and his style to unhinge them.

    In the end, Mona Charen, with all her good intentions is a chump, a useful idiot for them, a useless idiot for us.  Her conciliatory attitude won't save her from cancellation. 

     

    Mona Charen

    Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a contributor to The Bulwark, and host of The Bulwark’s Beg to Differ podcast.

  • Politics as Polemics: The Converse Clausewitz Principle

    Would that I could avoid this political stuff.  But I cannot in good conscience retreat into my inner citadel and let my country and its Western heritage be destroyed — the country that makes it possible for me to cultivate the garden of solitude, retreat into my inner citadel, and pursue pure theory for its own sake.

    Political discourse is unavoidably polemical. The zoon politikon must needs be a zoon polemikon. 'Polemical’ is from the Greek polemos, war, strife. According to Heraclitus of Ephesus, strife is the father of all: polemos panton men pater esti . . . (Fr. 53) I don't know about the 'all,' but strife  is certainly at the root of politics.  Politics is polemical because it is a form of warfare: the point is to defeat the opponent and remove him from power, whether or not one can rationally persuade him of what one takes to be the truth. It is practical rather than theoretical in that the aim is to implement what one takes to be the truth rather than contemplate it.  What one takes to be the truth: that is the problem in a nutshell.  Conservatives and leftists disagree fundamentally and non-negotiably.  There is no common ground left, and if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

    Implementation of what one takes to be the truth, however, requires that one get one’s hands on the levers of power. Von Clausewitz held that war is politics pursued by other means. But what could be called the Converse Clausewitz principle holds equally: politics is war pursued by other means.

    David Horowitz, commenting on "Politics is war conducted by other means," writes:

    In political warfare you do not just fight to prevail in an argument, but rather to destroy the enemy's fighting ability.  Republicans often seem to regard political combats as they would a debate before the Oxford Political Union, as though winning depended on rational arguments and carefully articulated principles.  But the audience of politics is not made up of Oxford dons, and the rules are entirely different.

    You have only thirty seconds to make your point.  Even if you had time to develop an argument, the audience you need to reach (the undecided and those in the middle who are not paying much attention) would not get it.  Your words would go over some of their heads and the rest would not even hear them (or quickly forget) amidst the bustle and pressure of everyday life.  Worse, while you are making your argument the other side has already painted you as a mean-spirited, borderline racist controlled by religious zealots, securely in the pockets of the rich.  Nobody who sees you in this way is going to listen to you in any case.  You are politically dead.

    Politics is war.  Don't forget it. ("The Art of Political War" in Left Illusions: An 
    Intellectual Odyssey
     Spence 2003, pp. 349-350)


  • On Engagement with Females: The Anti-Biden Rule

    With the exception of wives, sisters, and girlfriends, accept and return hugs, but don't initiate them. A gentleman is cognizant of the power differential between the sexes, and does not impose himself physically or psychologically.  And while the scent of a woman can can carry a powerful erotic charge, a gentleman does not creep up like Creepy Joe to sniff a woman's hair or any other part of her anatomy.

    Being an old man does not confer carte blanche in this regard. Mild sexual aggression in the young man is perhaps tolerable, but few things are more digusting than a dirty old man.  You would have your doubts about a young man not on the make; but the old man, the made man, having attained a modicum of maturity, is more appropriately concerned with the impression he will soon be making on his Maker.

    "You spent your life chasing women as your summum bonum? Well then, I shall grant you your heart's desire: for all eternity you shall chase women!"

    Related: A Theory of Hell


  • Morally Culpable Political Ignorance

    Is there such a thing?

    Is Sanders the Socialist morally culpable for being wrong? Or is he merely wrong? Perhaps he is neither. Perhaps he is mad. The mad do the same thing over and over again in the hope that next time it will be different.


  • Money, Happiness, and Conditiones Sine Quibus Non

    Money can't buy happiness. What it can buy are the conditions without which happiness is impossible.

    Thus spoke the Sage of the Superstitions.


  • Love and Money

    Don't say that money is the root of all evil. That's just silly. Say something that is true:

    The inordinate love of money is the root of SOME evils.

    Point proven in Radix Omnium Malorum

    ………………………………..

    Addendum (7/17). Claude Boisson sends the following:

    As you already know, your interpretation is exactly that of some careful Greek scholars for the sentence in 1 Timothy 6:10 

    (more…)



Latest Comments


  1. Bill, One final complicating observation: The pacifist interpretation of Matt 5:38-42 has been contested in light of Lk 22: 36-38…

  2. The Kant-Swedenborg relation is more complicated than I thought. https://philarchive.org/archive/THOTRO-12

  3. Ed, Just now read the two topmost articles on your Substack. I’m a Kant scholar of sorts and I recall…

  4. Hi Ed, Thanks for dropping by my new cyber pad. I like your phrase, “chic ennui.” It supplies part of…

  5. Very well put: “phenomenologists of suburban hanky-panky, auto dealerships, and such.” In my student years reading Updike and Cheever was…

  6. Bill, I have been looking further into Matt 5: 38-42 and particularly how best to understand the verb antistēnai [to…

  7. Bill and Steven, I profited from what each of you has to say about Matt 5: 38-42, but I think…

  8. Hi Bill Addis’ Nietzsche’s Ontology is readily available on Amazon, Ebay and Abebooks for about US$50-60 https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=addis&ch_sort=t&cm_sp=sort-_-SRP-_-Results&ds=30&dym=on&rollup=on&sortby=17&tn=Nietzsche%27s%20Ontology

  9. It’s unbelievable that people who work with the law are among the ranks of the most sophists, demagogues, and irrational…



Categories



Philosophy Weblogs



Other Websites