Tuesday, May 15, 2018
From Extreme Virtue-as-Vice to Extreme Vice-as-Virtue: The Pathway to the Fall of the West
Therefore, even though it’s necessary for people to be as good as possible, we mustn’t be perfectionist in our expectations and execution. There must be leeway for failings and mistakes, a chance for redemption and improvement. Also, even good people are still animals and, as such, always under the temptation to deviate from the straight and narrow path of virtue. They need to blow off steam at times and even get a bit wild. The wild-animal side of us will always be there, just like a well-trained dog remains an animal and feels the urge to run wild and free once in a while.
This is why theocracies and ideocracies don’t make ideal societies. Theocracies may be committed to God and the Holy Truth. And its leaders may stress piety and sanctimony. And the masses may go along or pretend to. But man cannot know the mind of God. Sacred texts serve as guide but can’t ascertain what God wants us to do at every moment. There are innumerable ways to interpret God and sacred texts. Also, if we were to follow certain texts to the letter, it may well lead to our demise. Imagine what would happen if the West decided to truly live by the letter of Christianity, "Turn the other cheek" and all that. Also, crazy people can believe they have a special rapport with God. A crazy person is dangerous enough but when claiming to be the spokesman of God, all the more dangerous. More often than not, people just project their wishes onto God and then say God told them so-and-so. And we know from Televangelists that there is no shortage of charlatans and lunatics who use religion to turn people into suckers or fellow looneys.
Also, even if all the leaders and all the people of a theocracy may be good, decent, and virtuous, much of human progress comes not from virtue but from violations of norms. In other words, we must give Devil his due in stoking our egos, greed, vanity, and narcissism to seek further, strive harder, reach higher, and push it to the limit. So many of the great feats of mankind couldn’t have been achieved without hubris, greed, obsession, and/or megalomania.
Indeed, even religious prophets had something of the madman. Hubris is self-defeating in the end, but the reason why the West achieved more than other civilizations is it made greater room for egoism of the individual for whom enough was never enough(in fame, fortune, knowledge, discovery, and/or daring). Trying to climb Mt. Everest may have been foolish and egotistical, but someone did it because of the sheer audacity to do the impossible. Same with going to the Moon. So, there is a Faustian side to human progress, something that tends to be suppressed by theocracies that stress piety and humility before the Great Truth.
There is also the problem of violence and cruelty in theocracies and ideocracies. Being intolerant in their insistence on virtue, they tend to be brutal in suppressing dissenters, dissidents, and deviants. People who are perceived to be ‘different’ aren’t deemed only wrong or incorrect but evil or wicked. Therefore, so many people were burnt at the stake as witches. So many people were stoned to death for blasphemy. So many people were sent to the Gulag or shot in the head. Or they were made to sit through grueling sessions of re-education that was like mental torture. All such may have been done in the name of virtue(and sincerely too), but the sheer intolerance made for a repressive and fearful social order. Also, because such orders favor mediocrities who stick to dogma, there develops a pathological hatred for anyone who exhibits individual streak or spark. People who think or act differently are hated not only for being incorrect or impious but for having the audacity and daring to step away from the herd and assert his self-worth. Such courage makes the rest of the herd look craven and cowardly, and therefore, the man of daring is attacked not only for heresy but for heart. A repressive social order creates a community of cowards. But cowards don’t want to admit to their cowardice, which masquerades as collective conviction. And when a man of real courage comes forth and speaks otherwise, the cowards are triggered by his nerves and cooperate to silence and break him, not least to win approval from their masters. As such, a society committed to extreme virtue could actually turn into an inadvertent world of vice.
Therefore, even though virtue is to be valued, we don’t need a Virtutopia or Virtuocracy. People need to be more-or-less virtuous, and society must be governed by men of some virtue, but we can’t expect heaven on earth. We mustn’t be perfectionist with humanity, and we have to allow for differences, deviance, and even failings. Of course, society must stress virtue and use all its institutions, from family to education to government, to maintain a world of virtue. But society mustn’t expect heaven-on-earth of humble saints ruled by angelic sage-kings.
Now, what are the virtues and truths that make for a good society? Virtues warn against excesses of our natures. Everything good can become bad when pushed to excess. Appreciation of food, a necessity for survival and health, can turn into gluttony. The joys of sex can turn into out-of-control lust than basis for marriage and family. (Billy Boy Clinton is a classic example of a man unmade by excessive lust.) Even industriousness can turn into a kind of sickness, as with workaholic Ebenezer Scrooge. Even saintliness can become a vice-of-sorts. Surely, a man who is overly generous and selfless will be exploited by others. And being so busy giving to and living for others, he will never have a family for himself or have the urge to defend his own people and culture. This is why Christianity is a problematic religion. If not for the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, His excessive selfless devotion to mankind could be seen almost as a vice that did more harm than good. Christianity as a practiced religion is workable only because Jesus is said to be the Son of God, so He could go all the way in being perfect in virtue. However, it would be foolish for most of us to try to be like Him because we are not the Son of God and will just get whupped real bad without the resurrection and all that stuff. This is why it is said Jesus died for our sins. He did what we can’t be expected to do because we are not the Messiah. Most likely, we’ll end up like the guy in the Luis Bunuel film NAZARIN.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that Jesus’ message was NOT about saving the World or Humanity as a collective. Rather, it was about saving souls, and souls are individual possessions. Each person has his or her own soul, and each soul can be saved only on the individual level. Your people cannot be blessed or saved as a collective. You can’t ride on the good qualities of your people, just like you are not to be condemned by the bad qualities of your people. When it comes to Christian salvation, you must open up your own heart. Just because most people in your community are deemed good by God and will go to Heaven, it doesn't mean YOU get to hop on some collective magic carpet ride. The question is, "has your individual soul made a sincere effort to be nearer to God?"
For non-believers like most people on the Neo-Fascist Nationalist Humanist movement, it’s neither here nor there because we don’t believe in the godly and spiritual. Still, for those who do consider themselves as Christians on basis of faith, belief, or conviction — those with conviction may not literally believe in the Christian mythology but embrace what Jesus and Disciples stood for — , they need to remind themselves that Christianity was never meant to be about saving the world or humanity. Souls can only be saved on the individual level. It’s like what Jesus said to the crucified persons next to Him. They were all in the same boat. All crushed by the Romans. But Jesus offered salvation to the repentant but not to the repugnant. The problem with current Christianity is it goes for collective blessing and redemption. So, because blacks were slaves in the past, they are supposed to be holy as a collective. Christianity doesn’t work that way. You could have suffered a lot, but if you’re a lout and punk, you will not be saved. Indeed, Jesus was a very pessimistic figure and didn’t think highly of humanity and the world. He didn’t think either could be saved in its entirety or as a collective. The only thing that could be saved were individual souls that would repent. He would be the spiritual ark that would save them from the flood of puss and take them to Heaven. At any rate, the faithful can believe Jesus had such power because He is the Son of God. But even the most devoted Christian would be stupid to try to be like Jesus because he would get his ass whupped and that'd be that.
Anyway, let me try to illustrate why Moderate but Firm defense of Virtue with Tolerance for Vice is better than Extreme Virtue but then how the worst thing is Extreme Vice, especially when it pushes itself as the New Virtue. Consider the following options:
1. Extreme Virtue with zero tolerance of Vice. Theoretically, this sounds like the best possible world. An Eden where there is no evil. After all, what is wrong with a world where there is only good and no evil? The problem is we live in reality, not in theory. We heard of Eden and other Golden Ages in religions and mythologies, but we never saw one in reality. If there is to be Eden, there has to be an all-knowing God. We can conceive of such a Being, but we are not Him. And we can never know what He really wants and intends for us. Only God can create Eden or some utopia. Also, even the Bible says that man, being what he is, ruined Eden. And in Buddhism, it is said that the 'perfect' world in which Siddhartha grew up was just an illusion.
So, we can’t have Eden or utopia. We can work towards the Better but we don’t know what perfection is. Also, good people can be filled with doubt, whereas bad people can be full of conviction, like in the poem "The Second Coming" by Y. W. Yeats. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Now, putting aside the possibility that the satanic can pose itself as angelic, let’s assume the world is to be ruled with an iron-fist by the best and the brightest. Let’s say these people are genuinely intelligent, good-hearted, fair-minded, morally serious, courageous, and filled with integrity. Why shouldn’t such people have total control and use draconian means in favor of virtue against vice? But even genuinely good people are not all-knowing. They too could make mistakes. Even the most brilliant minds cannot foresee the future or understand the full consequences of their actions that seem good and sound at the moment. If the sincerely virtuous stick to the tried-and-true, society will never change and make progress. It will not grow. If the sincerely virtuous are so sure of their reforms, there’s the danger of radicalism. Robespierre was a sincere revolutionary, a man of true integrity and courage. But in the end, he was blinded by his own virtue. His virtue turned into hubris.
It may well be that many of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionaries were sincere men of virtue who sought to transform Iran into a Republic of Virtue in tune with Allah’s wisdom and in opposition to the soulless and materialistic West. Surely, there were among them many men of courage who’d survived persecution and torture. But the righteousness of virtue can easily turn into self-righteousness, and it can blind people to other views and perspectives that, if not equal in value, are nevertheless of some value.
Many communist revolutionaries of Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba were men of sincere commitment to the revolution and the creation of the New Man. And they truly believed that Marxism provided the template for creating a new classless order in which all humans would be equal in value and virtue. But in the end, the moral spartanism of communism turned into a prison of body, mind, and soul.
This is why even most Muslims don’t want to live in a Muslim theocracy. And even most Christians don’t want to live in a Christian theocracy. In the end, Theocracies are not ruled by God but by men who claim to speak for God. But some of these Men of God turn out to be corrupt and cynical. Others turn out to be kooky, like the current Pope. Some turn out to be sincere in conviction and seriousness, but that leads to self-righteousness that turns into an iron-fist. Who wants to live in a world ruled by Martin Luther or John Calvin? They were sincere men, but their hearts beat like hammers.
2. Moderate but Firm Virtue but with Tolerance for Vice. This formula sums up the Bourgeois West of the late 19th century and much of the 20th century. This was the basis for Liberal Democracies or Enlightened autocracies. Such an order has a general sense of The Good. Centrality of family, respect for tradition, respect for religion, acceptance of progress based on science and facts, respect for responsible use of reason, admiration for creative talent, appreciation of manners and good habits, meritocracy & Rule of Law, need for duty & diligence, and freedom + responsibility for one’s freedom. This Order of Virtue didn’t claim to have ALL the answers or The Truth. It didn’t claim to speak for God. But based on tradition, reason, caution, and experimentation, it had a general sense of the Good as opposed to the Bad.
And yet, because we don’t know All the Good and All the Bad, it was willing to be tolerant of new attitudes and modes of behavior that may seem ‘bad’ at the moment but might prove to be good or have some worth later. After all, if the History of Art teaches us anything, it’s that the contemporaries often failed to appreciate the seminal works of their time. The most famous example may be Vincent van Gogh, though this idea has been corrupted of late, what with every atrocious and untalented hack being praised to heaven as someone ahead of his or her time(which is total nonsense since much of the Art World is nothing but a hype machine). Because even the most intelligent, well-meaning, and well-intentioned elites can’t know everything about everything, it would be foolish for them to decide what is ACCEPTABLE and what is NOT. They may pass judgement but shouldn’t have the power to say certain expressions should be banned. They could be right at most times, but there is the odd chance that they could be wrong. What they see as ‘vice’ may actually be a new kind of virtue or, even if not a virtue, a thing of some value. The works of Picasso can’t be said to add to moral or social virtue of a civilization but they do have value as works of originality and genius and, as such, add something of value to civilization.
Also, in a liberal democracy, we must accept the fact that some people have different orientations, and we should take a live-and-let-live attitude AS LONG AS people keep it personal and private. So, if homos want to bugger one another or if Paul Johnson the historian wants to be spanked in the ass by a dominatrix, it’s not my business. Or if guys want to get together and drink too much and act the fool over a weekend, let them... as long as they are mindful not to cause harm to others.
3. The Rise of Vice and Tolerance of Virtue. This is very problematic and increasingly became the mode of the West beginning in the late 1960s, culminating in the 1990s. We went from the Bourgeois Order to the Boomer Disorder. There is some good things to be said about the boomers and counterculture. They found their parents to be overly materialistic & ‘plastic’. Flush with new prosperity following WWII, too many of the ‘Greatest Generation’ folks focused on keeping up with the Joneses. It’s like the upper-middle class folks in THE GRADUATE and THE SWIMMER. Naturally, young people wanted to say NO to ‘plastic’ and YES to authenticity. But their mode of self-discovery got enmeshed with indulgence with too much sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, like with the daughter in PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, the forerunner of THE EXORCIST.
The defining culture of the Boomer generation was Rock Music steeped in reckless hedonism, leering sexuality, youthful exuberance as middle finger to maturity & responsibility, and cool-centrism that favored style over substance, the image over the thing itself, and the instant over longevity. Thus, Vice pushed Virtue to the sidelines. After all, Vice is cool whereas Virtue is square. The nihilistic Eastwood of Spaghetti Westerns and amoral & suave James Bond of 007 movies were cooler than Classic Westerns and other Hollywood Classics steeped in moralism. (If moralism lived on, it was in anointing blacks, Jews, and later homos as new sacred icons.)
Even so, Vice didn’t take the place of Virtue. It was still understood that Vice should not be confused with Virtue. It was just that Vice was a lot cooler. It’s why the young kid wants to follow the egotistical libertine band in ALMOST FAMOUS. His mother might be right about the negative influence of Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll, but THAT happens to be central cultural mode of the kid and his friends(as is the case with the high schoolers in DAZED AND CONFUSED by Richard Linklater). There’s no greater failing among these boys and gals than being ‘square’ and ‘lame’. But even though Vice was prized as more fun-and-cool than Virtue, there was still a grudging respect for Virtue and Tradition. The Counterculture may have cooked up JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, a Rock opera version of the Gospels, but Jesus was still the ‘superstar’ of Truth, not John Lennon or Mick Jagger.
4. Vice as the New Virtue and the Intolerance of True Virtue.
The Age we live in is truly sick and degenerate. Over-emphasis on Vice is bad enough. Still, a world of sinners conscious of their fallen-ness is still a world that knows the difference between virtue and vice. In such a world, degenerate gamblers in Las Vegas, at the very least, know they are indulging in vice. But imagine a world where gambling is seen not so much as regulated vice but the New Virtue, one that even provides ‘historical justice’ for American Indians and ‘rejuvenates’ local economies. Imagine a world where the supposedly conservative political party depends on donations from a casino mogul, someone like the loathsome Sheldon Adelson. Imagine a world where pornography isn’t merely tolerated as popular Vice but as the New Virtue of female empowerment? And maybe prostitution too(though pornography is essentially videotaped vicarious-prostitution). Imagine a world where homosexuality isn’t merely tolerated as a sexual deviance of those born with weird sexual predilections but something wondrous, miraculous, and rainbow-like, indeed something so glorious that children must be acculturated to adore and admire homos and trannies from the youngest possible age. Imagine a world where it’s perfectly wonderful for people to emotionally(and even intellectually) grow up backwards, becoming less mature and more infantile with each passing year. So, we often find women in their 30s and 40s with pink-or-green hair, tattoos, and piercings acting dumber and sillier than when they were 10 or 12. A world where people emerge from colleges looking, feeling, and acting more childish than when they entered. After all, PC infantilizes the mind. Imagine a world where women baring their breasts, buttocks, and vaginas in public is justified and championed on grounds of liberation, emancipation, and progress when it’s just mentally deranged women acting worse than apes.
Such is a world far worse than the Counterculture world of boomers, an experimental moment of excitement and uncertainty and transition. In the 60s and early 70s, there were many contending ‘schools’, and none of them had gained the power of Political Correctness. Also, much of the Vice unleashed by the 60s was defended as relatively harmless vice. The argument was that most people were not saints and even saints had flaws. So, just as utopia is impossible, so is virtutopia. Also, the idealized images of Americana, such as LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and FATHER KNOWS BEST, were TV fantasies and didn’t reflect the reality that was far darker and more complex. So, the idea was that people should develop a live-and-let-live way. Be more tolerant, even of vices and flaws in people.
But our world is radically different from the BAD-NEWS-BEARS culture of tolerance(and slovenliness) of the 70s. Ours is an era when so many people are convinced that Vice is the New Virtue. Having been inculcated thus by PC and Pop Culture, we live in a world where people believe in ‘gay marriage’ as a quasi-spiritual triumph and pretend that BLM garbage has moral value as the New Civil Rights Movement. At the very least, when black riots exploded in the 60s, even Liberals understood blacks had gone bonkers. Even as they continued to feel sympathy for blacks, they knew that those burning down cities weren’t just innocent babes. The Radical Chic infatuation that lent support to Black Panthers and other radical groups was seen as foolhardy by most Liberals, and the Democratic Party was deeply divided on the race issue. But fast forward to today, and BLM is a totally manufactured lie, a ‘Hate Hoax’ on a massive scale. And yet, the Mass Media, Academia, and the Government pretended as if it is some tremendous moral movement. (This is especially disingenuous since the reason for tougher policing in big cities was the globo-proggy-yuppie desire to revitalize urban areas by clamping down on black crime.)
As for Jewish Vice-as-Virtue, it is the queen bee of them all. Jews control the media and pushed the BLM narrative. Jews have also been most responsible for the elevation of Homomania as a neo-religion, a form of Satanic-Jewish-christianity or SJC. It was part of their design to destroy Christianity as the predominant cultural and moral value system of the West. To Jews, Christianity will forever mean "goyim stole our God thanks to renegade Jesus and Paul" and "goyim, armed with God and Jesus, feel more ‘evolved’ and righteous than us Jews." The New Testament says the Son of God was killed by Jews, and He was resurrected. This is why Jews at Google will NOT acknowledge Easter, but they will run theme after theme about homos, trannies, and the like. Queertianity or Satanic-Jewish-christianity(SJC) is owned and controlled by Jews, and that is why anyone who comes under its sway becomes the tools of Jews. This way, God comes to belong only to Jews whereas dumb goyim are led to worship the holy homo anus. Now, there are Jews who also sincerely believe in Homomania and don’t care about real religions, but the REAL REASON why so many rich and powerful Jews got behind Homomania was its likely effect on goyim, especially white Christian goyim. If those dumb goyim could be made to worship holy homo anus or Bruce Jenner’s penis-as-vagina more than God and Jesus, then they’ve been stripped of moral pride. After all, Homomania has no moral depth and relies solely on hype and hysteria. Remove all that Wall-Street-Las-Vegas-Hollywood-Silicon-Valley financing, and Homomania will collapse overnight because there is nothing there, nothing that is real or meaningful. It’s the delirious make-believe that what homos do with one another has equal biological or moral value as what men and women do in acts of Real Sex. Homomania would have us believe that homo fecal penetration is worthy of being associated with the rainbow and of serving as the basis for ‘marriage’. It is not about tolerance of homosexuals(and even trannies) but celebration, elevation, and deification of homos and trannies as holy angels. This is why proggy parents want their kids to be led by homos in Boy Scouts or spend time in kindergarten and pre-school with trannies. They believe their children will be blessed by 'angels'. This is why so many people feel better about themselves if they can claim to have a ‘gay’ friend(or a black or Jewish friend).
Since homos and trannies aren’t merely to be tolerated but sanctified, anyone who says NO to Homomania is deemed a heretic and to be destroyed. Thus, a decent, moral, and courageous baker who will not make a ‘gay wedding cake’ will be targeted, demeaned, dehumanized, fined, and bankrupted. Those who gleefully call for such a person’s destruction aren't secular libertarians motivated by ‘equal treatment under the law’ but rabid & virulent crazed neo-religious types whose faith is Homomania. For them, a decent and moral baker who won’t cave to the degeneracy of ‘gay marriage’ is a heretic, witch, and devilish monster who must be burned at the stake. Their foaming-at-the-mouth and lunatic rage cannot be explained in terms of legal matter or rational argument. They are true-believing fanatics who, being empty souls devoid of genuine morality and faith, have had their spiritual vacuum filled with degeneracy-fitted-with-angel-wings. Sick souls gravitate toward degeneracy, but even sick souls long for some kind of meaning and validation. So, nothing is more appealing to such people than vice-as-virtue. This way, the sick souls can wallow in vice and degeneracy while, at the same time, believing themselves to be morally and spiritually superior to those who refuse to come onboard and must therefore be stoned or burned at the stake in ritualized PC madness.
A world where Vice is more prevalent than Virtue is bad enough, but a world that mistakes Vice as New Virtue and wages war on Virtue as the New Vice is a truly demented one. It is the one we are living in because the world is controlled by the West that is under the power of EOJ or the Empire of Judea. We are living in a world where the Lie is the New Truth.
Imagine a game of 2 + 2. We all know that 2 + 2 = 4. An excessively virtuous world of 2 + 2 = 4 would force all people to adhere to the truth that 2 + 2 = 4... or else. Such a world would be virtuous but not very free. After all, even if 2 + 2 = 5 is false, why shouldn’t people have the freedom to say what is wrong? Shouldn’t freedom tolerate falsehood? Also, how can society move beyond 2 + 2 = 4 IF people are made to fear being wrong in their calculations. Progress in mathematics, like in everything else, came about through many mistakes, trial-and-error, and theorems that failed. If an order excessively insists on the truth of 2 + 2 = 4, people will fear being wrong, and that will make for a dull, fearful, and less experimental society. While many calculations other than 2 + 2 = 4 may be wrong, some might lead to new possibilities that arrive at greater formulas.
Now, imagine a society that tolerates a mistake like 2 + 2 = 5. The calculation is plainly wrong, but a free society should tolerate mistakes and even falsehoods AS LONG AS those with the truth can rebut and correct the lies and delusions. So, a world where people can say 2 + 2 = 5, 2 + 2 = 10, 2 + 2 = 100, 2 + 2 = 900, and etc. is indeed a free society. It would still maintain the truth of 2 + 2 = 4, but it would allow for people to make mistakes or say something ludicrous for the sake of freedom. So, if you want to say 2 + 2 = 1,000,000, so be it. It’d be fantastical, but fantasy can be fun... like James Bond falling out of an airplane but somehow managing to land safely on a yacht with a woman in a bikini.
But then, imagine a world that has come to accept 2 + 2 = 5 as a Holy Formula. It cannot be challenged or questioned because anyone who does so shall be denounced and/or destroyed as a five-o-phobe, a ‘hateful’ 4-ist, or ‘intolerant’ 4-centrist. So, even people who know that 2 + 2 = 4 dare not voice their views and remain mum while the powers-that-be in media, academia, entertainment, and government instill so many minds that 2 + 2 = 5 = rainbow = happy faces = coolness = holiness. This is truly a kind of hell. Not only has falsehood been tolerated but elevated to the status of New Holy Truth. Since the sacred hates the profane, the New Sacred Formula of 2 + 2 = 5 cannot tolerate the Formula of 2 + 2 = 4 that, as long as it is allowed to be muttered, could challenge and discredit the falsehood of 2 + 2 = 5.