Servile Minds

Success measured solely or primarily in economic terms is servile and base.  To train for such success is to train for a life with no real end.  Education for economic success is myopic at best and servile at worst.  Its great men manipulate money, and though often wealthy, leave no legacy worthy of memory.  To compete for employment is to compete for indentured servitude--and can create only servile minds.  What of cultural achievement?  What of literary accomplishment?  What of a free mind and liberal life?  The vastly wealthy have been an historical lesson in the dubious value of the remunerative life.

Aphorisms Are Okay

Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms, and I find them convenient. 

To organize a boycott seems wantonly cruel.  It is manifestly more merciful simply to kill a man with whom one disagrees.  It may even be noble.  But to alienate, humiliate, and attempt to starve a man over a philosophical disagreement betrays a base, narrow, and truly vindictive soul. 

Why I Am Over 9/11 (And Why You Should Be Too)

Normally, I would have lost interest in an idea by this time of day.  Unfortunately, I have been bombarded today with 9/11 reminders and tributes in the clothing choices of folks on the street, beer commercials, Internet sites and football games.  So, I must declare:  I am over 9/11.

Like everyone else, I was stirred by the events on the day they happened.  Yes, I remember where I was when I heard that the second plane hit the South Tower, and I was close enough to the Pentagon to have conceivably seen smoke rising.  My first emotion was a desire for vengeance, or rather as I was more pious at the time, a desire for justice.  I was deluded enough to believe this was an echo of the Crusades and of the Muslim invasions of Europe.  9/11?  That was basically the same date as the lifting of the Siege of Vienna on September 12th, 1693.  The infidel was rising again.

Initially, I think, the US responded well.  Our populations flocked to churches.  We cheered the firefighters and police.  We boasted of unconquered hearts aboard Flight 93.  We demanded bin Laden from the Taliban, and when they balked, we overthrew them and besieged Al Qaeda in Tora Bora.  We nearly captured bin Laden within months of the attack, and had that happened we would have demonstrated that no country, individual or organization ought ever to dare attack the American homeland. 

However, shortly after that day the words "nine, eleven" had been transformed into a wergild to goad Americans into the most sickening abuses, the most pusillanimous behaviors, and most foolish wars.

Here we are ten years later:  Al Qaeda is smashed, Osama bin Laden is dead, the Taliban is out of power, we have suffered no terrorist attacks since that day, and the "attempts" at attacks have been laughable.  Yet, the specter of 9/11 is still presented to frighten us into more wars and into renouncing more freedoms.  And 9/11 has been the pretext for sickening endeavors by the United States.

We were lead to war in Iraq under the pretext of preventing Saddam Hussein from sharing his weapons of mass destruction with terrorist agents who would leave mushroom clouds over American cities.  A needless obsession with 9/11 lead many astray to support such unfounded conjectures.  More prudent minds who noted that Saddam Hussein was a rational actor who didn't even possess WMDs were ignored, and were later pilloried as unpatriotic for their failure to support an unjustified invasion.  This war has not seen its conclusion, but has witnessed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, thousands of US soldiers killed and wounded, half of Iraq's Christian population having fled their homeland, European allies alienated, trillions of dollars wasted.  And when the pretext of 9/11 wasn't enough, the spreading of democracy shored up the argument.

9/11 lead Americans to accept government encroachments and the loss of freedoms.  The federal government swelled with intelligence agencies and a new federal Department.of Homeland Security.  The American populace swallowed the Patriot Act and surrendered privacy rights under its surveillance provisions.  Of course, fear-mongers saved the Act from sunsetting by invoking the memory of September 11th.  We now accept fondling by TSA agents as a matter of course.  Love of security has eclipsed a love of freedom.

So, to quote Lenin, what it to be done?  I suggest that starting tomorrow we all forget 9/11.  We will be arguably safer ignoring 9/11 than letting its memory entangle us more deeply in Middle Eastern conflicts.  Though we should learn from history lest we repeat it, if there was a lesson to be learned by this event in our history, it has been entirely missed by our government.  Have the authorities analyzed the real motivation of the hijackers?  It is less likely  to have been 72 houris in Paradise than repeated outrages in their homelands:  US support for repressive regimes, unreflected support for every military action undertaken by Israel (our ally) and the disregard for Palestinians, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, military bases in Kuwait, the first war in Iraq with all its attendant civilian casualties. The argument that 9/11 was blowback has been strongly made elsewhere.

To the objection of insensitivity to the families and friends of those who were killed that day, I respect their right to remember and commemorate.  They should mourn privately or corporately as victims of other disasters--like Oklahoma City, the USS Cole, Columbine, and so on--do.  Their sorrow should not be exploited to entice us to torture our enemies or imitate our adversaries, as happened at Abu Ghraib.  And we as a nation should not even start down that road with endless commemorations that tend to coincide with endless wars. 

Never forget?  It has never been more necessary to move on.

Observations from Louis-Gabriel-Amboise de Bonald

On Nobility

The account of nobility, or a noble class of citizens, relays a remarkably different account than one finds in other authors speaking on the subject.  I have Nietzsche and that school of thought in mind.  There nobility is the transformation of the warrior caste into an aristocracy resultant upon the utter conquest of another people.  The warriors divide spoils and turn populations into slaves, establish estates, reap the benefit of the land and laborers, and eventually form a leisured class.  This leisured class regards with odium manual labor, and therefore avoids it, leaving it to slaves.  Rather the nobility engages in liberal endeavors and develops culture--from which eventually arise cultural achievements.  Fundamentally, the good of the noble class and the common/lower/slave class are at odds, and the upper preys upon the lower. 

Bonald, however, offers a markedly contrasting view.  Nobility is essentially a body of families perpetually available for service to the monarch.  Possessed of independent fortunes, these families have been elevated to noble status.  They have surmounted the need of acquiring wealth, and thereafter, these families abstain from private monetary enterprise.  They are oriented to matters of public concern, and ergo, the nobility occupies offices in the judiciary or in the military.  No noble may enter into private contract, as this jeopardizes his availability for public service. Even common families may enter the nobility when they have secured independent fortunes, though such ennobling is rare.

The independent wealth, the prohibition against private enterprise, and hereditary permanence of the nobility foster a healthy sense of disinterestedness in this class.  The pursuit of monetary gain is beneath them, even though it remains necessary to the common class and the survival of the state.  Priviledge is not leveraged for financial gain, as this is forbidden, and attention is turned to the acquisition of honor, through office or military exploit.  This disinterestedness is further enhanced because the monarchy (the next highest station in the state) is closed to the nobility, as it is held by heredity.

This sort of nobility does not manifest a master-slave dichotomy.  The nobility is priviledged, but it also at the service of the king.  It is but one of three equal estates.  Its members while not subject to common laws and courts, are directly subject to the king, and may rewarded or punished directly by him.  The king defers regarding the commons to their own tribunals. 

Also, this sort of nobility is not plutocratic.  Its wealth is anchored to immovable property, and is therefore by nature limited.  Any given man may only hold so much land, whereas possession of money admits of no limits. 

There is also a notable focus upon family, as opposed to individuals, in this account.  The state is conceived of not as a collection of individuals bestowing their individual sovereignty upon a single powerful individual for the preservation of public peace, but rather as a collection of families.  These families are descended from a first family.  Families expand and develop into groupings of families, or tribes, with a father or elder who arbitrates and upon whom authority rests.  Apart from some sort of authority, community is not possible and all descends into chaos.  Monarchy is a reflection and fulfillment of the family, as a paternal authority over many tribes and families.  The nobility itself is a collection of families.  The honor of a family is at stake in the deeds of an individual.

This is a remarkable account of the state which does not obscure the natural inequality amongst men, but rather understands how each part has right and duties, the proper performance of which leads to harmony in the state and a common shared good. 

Sonnet

A riddle will disclose mine heart's chief love:
The Tree whose fruit was set at Summer's close,
And through the frost the burden to rip'n strove,
When flow'r as yet no bud will dare to pose,
And hidden stream though swollen no, to burst
Its bound and dam to throw, like mar'ner cast
Ashore, brought forth her fruit (and this the First),
Upon dry land, yet trial's by no means past.
This tiny Olive then to cure 'neath eyes
Maternal did bett'r wax and seldom wane,
While half-ten moons conceived were born i'the skies,
And flourish, for sure affection's ne'er in vain:
      My Little One and too my Only One,
      These Two as long as all my days shall run.

A Right-Wing Defense of NPR

Many on the Right will complain of the left-leaning slant of National Public Radio.  Many will also decry the use of millions of dollars in federal funds to subsidize NPR.  The conclusion that is come to is that NPR should be defunded and left to wither away.  If it cannot sustain itself like other radio stations, then the people do not want it.  However, I propose that such a view would be a mistake, and that NPR can and should be defended from Right-Wing/Anti-Egalitarian point of view. 

How so?  First of all, I am not the only one on the alternative right who listens to NPR and enjoys it.  As well we should.  The programming is fundamentally intellectual, generally high-brow, and informative.  It is, therefore, somewhat aristocratic--or at least, enjoyment of it suggests aristocratic tastes.  Yes, of course, one is occasionally treated to ridiculously leftist points of view.  I was annoyed at the tale of Miriam Moskawitz.  Yet, the reporting generally gives a left-leaning account, a touch of counter argument, then perhaps finishes up inconclusively, in the middle, or toward the left. An intelligent rightist can sort, benefit, and enjoy with out too much mental labor.




Moreover, NPR is the only radio type of its kind (save Classical music stations), and there is no higher-taste alternative.  FM stations are sodden with low-brow humor, shock, sex, and the mundane.  They are created to appeal to those of lower tastes, who enjoy the sensual and the titilating.  AM talk radio invites one to listen to neo-con shills, the occasional silly leftist, Protestant ministers of varying intelligence, and sports.  Not one is exists for the stimulation of the mind--a particular enjoyment that is possible through breeding and/or cultivation.  The first two seek to incite passions, the third has limited appeal and one subject matter, and the latter is mindless entertainment (though entertainment all the same).  So whither might educated listeners otherwise go?


It should be further noted that all of these other sorts of radio are paid for with advertising dollars.  Advertising dollars are invested for the sake of producing sales dollars.  Advertisers are smart, and they know that titilating and base entertainment will produce the widest audience, and the best return.  Ergo, this sort of radio prospers.  Mass appeal produces results of the lowest common denomenator.  NPR appeals to the few, who are of higher tastes and intellect generally.  Alas, loftier projects are never the result of investment by the masses.  They require patronage from a higher class or a government subsidy.  The mass democracy of the US precludes the existence of the former, leaving the latter as the only option.

So in a laudable endeavor, the intellectual few take from the nation as a whole in order to create radio for those with few possessed of higher tastes.  There is nothing unfitting about the higher taking from the lower to create something which is to the benefit of all, though the lower usually don't participate.  A culture is worthwhile only when it can produce the good, the true, and the beautiful, and such a culture must be fought for by the higher class.

Of course, I do not agree with Libertarians the least amount of government is best, and that the government has no right subsidizing radio.  The history of Western Civilization is a history of great leaders, noble laws, and magnificent dynasties.  Government "interference" here is fully justified. 

I do intend to take up objections concerning satellite radio and podcasts.  The former are paid for by the listener and is hardly ubiquitous; the latter is too small for concern. 

So those on the Right who call for the demise of NPR are misled by either Error of the Market, which ignores that the mass market produces only the base (And who wants a base nation in the end?); or they needlessly fear the Progressive content, which can be removed as the chaff from the wheat. 

A Blog Reborn

Amicus Platonis died an abandoned creature of juvenile mind. It was standing proof that I could neither write nor focus on worthwhile topics. It merely hinted at the possibility that I could think.

Studium Scribendi is the phoenix rising from the ashes of Plato's friend. I hope to sharpen my dull mind with fitting zeal for writing.

Five years have passed since I have bothered to post, but hopefully I will have a sense of discipline to write at least something daily. I desire to grow into a man of letters. Heaven knows I read enough, but whether I bother to ruminate, contemplate, and respond to what I read is another matter.

Here is chance to begin to emulate those whom I most admire.