✍️✍️✍️ Argumentative Essay On Werewolves
Perhaps the most striking Argumentative Essay On Werewolves, however, Argumentative Essay On Werewolves a marked cultural tendency to settle disagreements in space, rather than time, opting Argumentative Essay On Werewolves territorial schism, separatism, independence, and flight, in Argumentative Essay On Werewolves of revolutionary Argumentative Essay On Werewolves within an integrated territory. But it Argumentative Essay On Werewolves no water Helping Vs. Serving Analysis all. The Tories are slightly stronger among British Hindus and Sikhs Argumentative Essay On Werewolves mirroring Republican support among Asian-Americans Argumentative Essay On Werewolves who are Argumentative Essay On Werewolves likely to be home-owning professionals and feel less alienated. The nobles Argumentative Essay On Werewolves elite within the Lucille Born In The Candy Ball began to view Rasputin with Argumentative Essay On Werewolves due to Argumentative Essay On Werewolves fact that he Argumentative Essay On Werewolves such easy access Argumentative Essay On Werewolves the Tsar, and, seeking to undermine the Tsar, Argumentative Essay On Werewolves tried to position Rasputin Argumentative Essay On Werewolves a Alchemy Experiments In Chaucers Canterbury Tales man Argumentative Essay On Werewolves was controlling the Russian government from behind the scenes. Questions directed towards natural characteristics and variations between humans are themselves properly understood as cultural peculiarities, or even pathologies. This proposition contains the entire essential content Argumentative Essay On Werewolves American progressive Argumentative Essay On Werewolves. Was he a martyr to racial injustice, Argumentative Essay On Werewolves low-level Argumentative Essay On Werewolves predator, or a human symptom of American urban crisis? Argumentative Essay On Werewolves for expats info.
Let's Talk About Werewolves
He rose to prominence in Russian society starting around because the royal family at the time, led by Tsar Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna, believed he possessed the ability to heal their son, Alexei, who suffered from hemophilia. Eventually, he fell out of favor amongst the Russian elite as the country experienced considerable political turmoil leading up to the Russian Revolution. This led to his assassination, the gory details of which have helped make Rasputin one of the most well-known figures in history. Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin was born in Pokrovskoye, Russia, a small town in the northern province of Siberia, in Accounts exist that claim he was a troublesome boy, someone who was prone to fighting and had spent a few days in jail due to his violent behavior.
But there is little validity to these accounts as they were written after the fact by people who likely did not know Rasputin as a child, or by people whose opinion had been swayed by their opinion of him as an adult. Few people living in rural Russia at the time had access to formal education, which led to low literacy rates and poor historical accounts. However, we do know that at some point in his twenties, Rasputin had a wife and several children. But something happened that caused him to suddenly need to leave Pokrovskoye. There are some accounts that he left to escape punishment for stealing a horse, but this has never been verified. Others claim he had a vision from God, yet this has also not been proven.
However, after his visit to the St. Nicholas Monastery in Verkhoturye in , Rasputin became a changed man, according to accounts. He began to go on longer and longer pilgrimages, possibly reaching as far south as Greece. During these years of pilgrimage towards the end of the 19th century, Rasputin began to develop a small following. He would travel to other towns to preach and teach, and when he returned to Pokrovskoye he allegedly had a small group of people with whom he would pray and perform ceremonies. However, elsewhere in the country, especially in the capital, St. Petersburg, Rasputin remained an unknown entity. But a series of fortunate events would change that and propel Rasputin to the forefront of Russian politics and religion.
Whether or not he was truly a man gifted with magical talents is a matter for the theologians and philosophers to argue about, but it can be said that he commanded a certain aura of respect when he walked the earth. Specifically, Rasputin arrived in St. Petersburg at a time of tremendous social upheaval in the Russian Empire. The Tsarist government, which ruled as an autocracy and upheld a system of feudalism that dated back centuries, was beginning to crumble. The urban middle classes, which were developing as a result of the slow process of industrialization that had taken place throughout the 19th century, as well as the rural poor, were beginning to organize and seek out alternative forms of government. This, plus a combination of other factors, meant that the Russian economy was in steady decline by the beginning of the 20th century.
Tsar Nicholas II, who was in power from , was insecure about his ability to rule what was obviously a crumbling country, and he had made many enemies amongst the nobility who saw the state of the empire as an opportunity to expand their power, influence, and status. All of this led to the formation of a constitutional monarchy in , which meant that the Tsar, for the first time ever, would need to share his power with a parliament, as well as a prime minister. This development seriously weakened the power of Tsar Nicholas II, although he retained his position as head of the Russian state. Yet this temporary truce did little to resolve the instability going on in Russia, and when World War I broke out in and the Russians entered the fight, revolution was imminent.
Just one year later, in , 9the war had taken its toll on the weak Russian economy. Food and other crucial resources became scarce, and the working classes grew weak. Tsar Nicholas II took control of the Russian army, but this probably made the situation worse. While all this was taking place, Rasputin managed to become close to the Tsar, and he eventually became a scapegoat for his political rivals as they sought to weaken Nicholas II and improve their own position in society.
Rasputin first arrived in the Russian capital, St. Petersburg, in , after receiving an invitation to visit the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery thanks to a letter of recommendation written by well-respected members of the church elsewhere in Russia. However, when Rasputin arrived to St. Petersburg, he would have found a city in disrepair, which was a reflection of the state of the Russian Empire at the time. He was known to be a heavy drinker and somewhat of a sexual deviant. In fact, before arriving at St. Petersberg, there were rumors that he had been sleeping with many of his female followers, although there is no definitive proof this was happening.
These rumors later led to accusations that Rasputin was a member of the Kyhlyst religious sect, which believed in using sin as the primary means of reaching God. Historians still debate whether this is true or not, although there is considerable evidence that Rasputin enjoyed engaging in activities that one could classify as depraved. After his initial visit to St. Petersberg, Rasputin returned home to Pokrovskoye but began to make more frequent trips to the capital. During this time, he began making more strategic friendships and built a network within the aristocracy. Thanks to these connections, Rasputin met the Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandra Feodorovna, for the first time in Alexei, the heir to the Russian throne and a young boy, was rather ill due to the fact that he had incurred an unfortunate injury to his foot.
Furthermore, Alexei suffered from hemophilia, a disease characterized by anemia and excessive bleeding. After several interactions between Rasputin and Alexei, the imperial family, especially the Tsarina, Alexandra Feodorovna, became convinced that Rasputin alone possessed the powers needed to keep Alexei alive. Many believe this is why the imperial family became so convinced Rasputin had the power to heal their sick child. Whether or not they thought he had magical powers is unclear, but this belief that Rasputin had some special quality that made him uniquely capable of healing Alexei helped boost his reputation and made him both friends and enemies in the Russian court.
One of the theories as to what Rasputin did was that he simply had a calming presence around the boy that caused him to relax and stop thrashing about, something that would have helped stop the bleeding brought on by his hemophilia. Another theory is that when Rasputin was consulted during a particularly serious moment when Alexei had suffered a hemorrhage, he told the imperial family to keep all doctors away from him. Therefore, by telling Alexandra and Nicholas II to avoid doctors, Rasputin helped Alexei avoid taking medicine that probably would have killed him. Another theory is that Rasputin was a trained hypnotist who knew how to calm the boy enough so that he would stop bleeding. Again, though, the truth remains a mystery.
But what we do know is that after this point, the royal family welcomed Rasputin into their inner circle. Alexandra seemed to trust Rasputin unconditionally, and this allowed him to become a trusted advisor of the family. He was even appointed as the lampadnik lamplighter , which allowed Rasputin to light the candles in the royal cathedral, a position that would have given him daily access to Tsar Nicholas and his family. As Rasputin got closer and closer to the center of Russian power, the public grew more and more suspicious. The nobles and elite within the courts began to view Rasputin with envy due to the fact that he had such easy access to the Tsar, and, seeking to undermine the Tsar, they tried to position Rasputin as a mad man who was controlling the Russian government from behind the scenes.
Furthermore, it was around this time that accusations of his associations with the Khylists began to intensify. It should be noted, though, that some of these accusations were grounded in truth. Rasputin was known for taking many sexual partners, and he was also known for parading around the Russian capital showing off the silks and other textiles that had been embroidered for him by the royal family. They targeted Rasputin more perhaps because they still feared to attack the Tsar directly, choosing instead to attack one of his advisors. However, the attacks did not only come from the enemies of the Tsar. As a result, they wanted to take out Rasputin so that the public would cease worrying about this supposed crazy monk who was secretly controlling the Russian Empire.
The evidence we have seems to suggest that she trusted Rasputin greatly and cared for him. There were rumors that they were lovers, but this has never been proven to be true. However, as public opinion turned against Rasputin and members of the Russian court began to see him as a problem, Alexandra made certain he was permitted to stay. This meant no one knew the real reason why Rasputin had become so close to the Tsar and his family, creating more specualtion and rumors. For example, by the outbreak of World War I, most people in the Russian empire assumed Rasputin and Alexandra were sleeping together. Soldiers spoke about it at the front as if it were common knowledge. These stories got even more grandiose when people began speaking about how Rasputin was really working for the Germans Alexandra was originally from a German royal family to undermine Russian power and cause Russia to lose the war.
The more time Rasputin spent around the royal family, the more it seemed people tried to tarnish his name and reputation. As mentioned, he was labeled as a drunk and a sexual deviant, and this eventually led to people calling him a wicked man, a crazy monk, and a devil worshipper, although we now know these to be not much more than attempts to make Rasputin a political scapegoat. However, opposition to Rasputin grew enough that an attempt was made to take his life. In , as Rasputin was in transit to the post office, he was accosted by a woman disguised as a beggar and stabbed. But he managed to escape. Why should anybody outside America be concerned about it? Why raise the topic now if ever? The two simplest, quite widely held, and basically incompatible answers to the first question deserve to be considered as important parts of the problem.
The combined popularity of these options is significantly expanded, most probably to encompass a large majority of all Americans, when is taken to include those who assume that one of these two answers dominates the thinking of the other side. Although these stances are formally symmetrical, it is their actual political asymmetry that charges the American race problem with its extraordinary historical dynamism and universal significance. That American whites and blacks — considered crudely as statistical aggregates — co-exist in a relation of reciprocal fear and perceived victimization, is attested by the manifest patterns of urban development and navigation, school choice, gun ownership, policing and incarceration, and just about every other expression of revealed as opposed to stated preference that is related to voluntary social distribution and security.
An objective balance of terror reigns, erased from visibility by complementary yet incompatible perspectives of victimological supremacism and denial. Yet between the liberal and conservative positions on race there is no balance whatsoever, but something closer to a rout. Conservatives are utterly terrified of the issue, whilst for liberals it is a garden of earthly delight, whose pleasures transcend the limits of human understanding. When any political discussion firmly and clearly arrives at the topic of race, liberalism wins. That is the fundamental law of ideological effectiveness in the shadow fragrant shade of the Cathedral. In certain respects, this dynamic political imbalance is even the primary phenomenon under consideration and much more needs to be said about it, down the road.
The regular, excruciating, soul-crushing humiliation of conservatism on the race issue should come as no surprise to anybody. After all, the principal role of conservatism in modern politics is to be humiliated. That is what a perpetual loyal opposition, or court jester, is for. The essential character of liberalism, as guardian and proponent of neo-puritan spiritual truth, invests it with supreme mastery over the dialectic, or invulnerability to contradiction. That which it is impossible to think must necessarily be embraced through faith.
Merely to entertain it is to shudder before the awesome majesty of the absolute, where everything is simultaneously its precise opposite, and reason evaporates ecstatically at the brink of the sublime. If the world was built out of ideology, this story would already be over, or at least predictably programmed. Beyond the apparent zig-zag of the dialectic there is a dominant trend, heading in a single, unambiguous direction. At this point, explicit reference to the Derbyshire Case becomes irresistible. I am of a certain age, and I was around 50 years ago. I was reading the newspapers and following world events and I remember the civil rights movement. I was in England, but we followed it. I remember it, I remember what we felt about it, and what people were writing about it.
It was full of hope. Then America will be made whole. After an intermediate period of a few years, who knows, maybe 20 years, with a hand up from things like affirmative action, black America will just merge into the general population and the whole thing will just go away. Everybody thought that. We have a very segregated school system now. This is a version of reality that few want to hear. This is a country culturally hard-wired to interpret despair not merely as error or weakness, but as sin.
Nobody who understands this could be remotely surprised to find bleak hereditarian fatalism being rejected — typically with vehement hostility — not only by progressives, but also by the overwhelming majority of conservatives. McCarthy no doubt spoke for many in remarking:. There is a world of difference, though, between the need to be able to discuss uncomfortable facts about IQ and incarceration, on the one hand, and, on the other, to urge race as a rationale for abandoning basic Christian charity.
Others went much further. Herein lies the danger of a conservative socio-political philosophy divorced from a robust Christian faith. It becomes a dead ideology spawning a view of humanity that is toxic, fatalistic, and as Derbyshire proves abundantly uncharitable. It was, of course, on the left that the fireworks truly ignited. The stunningly uncooperative comments thread to her article is worth noting.
As for Weigel, he gets the terror good and hard. So what did Derbyshire actually say, where did it come from, and what does it mean to American politics and beyond? When communities resist an influx of Section 8 housing-voucher holders from the inner city, say, they are reacting overwhelmingly to behavior. Skin color is a proxy for that behavior. If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians — cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls — the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear.
Are there irredeemable racists among Americans? To be sure. They come in all colors, and we should deplore all of them. But the issue of race in the United States is more complex than polite company is usually allowed to express. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. The sublimation Aufhebung of Marxism into Leninism is an eventuality that is best grasped crudely. Dialectics are as real as they are made to be. Everywhere that there is argument, there is an unresolved opportunity to rule. The Cathedral incarnates these lessons. It has no need to espouse Leninism, or operational communist dialectics, because it recognizes nothing else. Communism is the universal implication. The production of public agreement only leads in one direction, and within public disagreement, such impetus already exists in embryo.
Quite clearly, this irresponsible and negligent imperative is politically intolerable. It coincides exactly with leftist depression, retrogression, or depoliticization. Nothing cries out more urgently to be argued against. At the opposite extreme lies the dialectical ecstasy of theatrical justice, in which the argumentative structure of legal proceedings is coupled with publicization through the media. Dialectical enthusiasm finds its definitive expression in a courtroom drama that combines lawyers, journalists, community activists, and other agents of the revolutionary superstructure in the production of a show trial. Social contradictions are staged, antagonistic cases articulated, and resolution institutionally expected.
This is Hegel for prime-time television and now for the Internet. It is the way that the Cathedral shares its message with the people. Sometimes, in its impatient passion for progress, this message can trip over itself, because even though the agents of the Cathedral are infinitely reasonable, they are ever less sensible, often strikingly incompetent, and prone to making mistakes.
This is to be expected on theological grounds. As the state becomes God, it degenerates into imbecility, on the model of the holy fool. The media-politics of the Trayvon Martin spectacle provides a pertinent example. In the United States, as in any other large country, lots of things happen every day, exhibiting innumerable patterns of varying obscurity.
For instance , on an average day, there are roughly 3, violent crimes, including 40 murders, rapes, 1, robberies, and 2, aggravated assaults, alongside 25, non-violent property crimes burglaries and thefts. Very few of these will be widely publicized, or seized upon as educational, exemplary, and representative. Given this situation, it is all but inevitable that people will ask: Why are they telling us this?
Almost everything about the death of Trayvon Martin is controversial, except for media motivation. On that topic there is near unanimity. The meaning or intended message of the story of the case could scarcely have been more transparent: White racist paranoia makes America dangerous for black people. It seemed perfect. This is a story of such archetypal progressive meaning that it cannot be told too many times. In fact, it was just too good to be true. If progressively-endorsed stereotypes were to be even remotely preserved, vigorous editing would be required. As for the killer, George Zimmerman, the name said it all. He was clearly going to be a hulking, pasty-faced, storm-trooper look-alike, hopefully some kind of Christian gun-nut, and maybe — if they really hit pay-dirt — a militia movement type with a history of homophobia and anti-abortion activism.
In the heart of the Cathedral it was well into head-scratching time. Here was the great Amerikkkan defendant being prepped for his show trial, the President had pitched in emotionally on behalf of the sacred victim, and the coordinated ground game had been advanced to the simmering brink of race riots, when the message began falling apart, to such an extent that it now threatened to decay into an annoyingly irrelevant case of black-on-black violence. So why did Martin die?
Was he a martyr to racial injustice, a low-level social predator, or a human symptom of American urban crisis? The only thing that was really clear when legal proceedings began, beyond the squalid sadness of the episode, was that it was not resolving anything. For a sense of just how disconcertingly the approved lesson had disintegrated by the time Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder, it is only necessary to read this post by HBD-blogger oneSTDV, describing the dialectical derangements of the race-warrior right:.
According to these individuals, the Spanish-speaking, registered Democrat mestizo got what was coming to him — the ire of the black mob and the elite left indirectly buttressed by Zimmerman himself. The pop PC police were ready to move on. With the great show trial collapsing into narrative disorder, it was time to refocus on the Message, facts be damned and double damned. You know how you can tell that black people are still oppressed? Because black people are still oppressed. And therefore, if you really believe that all people are created equal, then when you see that drastic racial inequalities exist in the real world, the only thing that you could possibly conclude is that some external force is holding certain people back.
So congratulations! You believe in racism! Believe, that is, not only that a formal expectation of equal treatment is a prerequisite for civilized interaction, but that any revealed deviation from substantial equality of outcome is an obvious, unambiguous indication of oppression? At the very least, Jezebel should be congratulated for expressing the progressive faith in its purest form, entirely uncontaminated by sensitivity to evidence or uncertainty of any kind, casually contemptuous of any relevant research — whether existent or merely conceivable — and supremely confident about its own moral invincibility.
To call the belief in substantial human equality a superstition is to insult superstition. Human inequality, in contrast, and in all of its abundant multiplicity, is constantly on display, as people exhibit their variations in gender, ethnicity, physical attractiveness, size and shape, strength, health, agility, charm, humor, wit, industriousness, and sociability, among countless other features, traits, abilities, and aspects of their personality, some immediately and conspicuously, some only slowly, over time. People are not equal, they do not develop equally, their goals and achievements are not equal, and nothing can make them equal.
Substantial equality has no relation to reality, except as its systematic negation. Violence on a genocidal scale is required to even approximate to a practical egalitarian program, and if anything less ambitious is attempted, people get around it some more competently than others. To take only the most obvious example, anybody with more than one child knows that nobody is born equal monozygotic twins and clones perhaps excepted.
In fact , everybody is born different, in innumerable ways. Even when — as is normally the case — the implications of these differences for life outcomes are difficult to confidently predict, their existence is undeniable, or at least: sincerely undeniable. Of course sincerity, or even minimal cognitive coherence, is not remotely the issue here.
It dogmatizes a denial of reality so extreme that nobody could genuinely maintain, or even entertain it, let alone plausible explain or defend it. It is a tenet of faith that cannot be understood, but only asserted, or submitted to, as madness made law, or authoritarian religion. The political commandment of this religion is transparent: Accept progressive social policy as the only possible solution to the sin problem of inequality. There can be nothing to learn in matters of faith. Eventually, systematic social collapse teaches the lesson that chronic failure and incremental deterioration could not communicate.
The typical EQs of this group can be extracted as the approximate square-root of their IQs. Mild autism is typical, sufficient to approach their fellow beings in a spirit of detached, natural-scientific curiosity, but not so advanced as to compel total cosmic disengagement. These traits, which they themselves consider — on the basis of copious technical information — to be substantially heritable, have manifest social consequences, reducing employment opportunities, incomes, and even reproductive potential. Despite all the free therapeutic advice available in the progressive environment, this obnoxiousness shows no sign of diminishing, and might even be intensifying.
As Jezebel shows so clearly, this can only possibly be a sign of structural oppression. The history is damning. Not uncommonly, people have been verbally or even physically assaulted for no other reason than their radical obnoxiousness. Most tragically of all, due to their complete inability to get on with one another, the obnoxious have never been able to politically mobilize against the structural social oppression they face, or to enter into coalitions with their natural allies, such as cynics, debunkers, contrarians, and Tourette Syndrome sufferers. As Derbyshire notes elsewhere, people are generally incapable of differentiating themselves from group identities, or properly applying statistical generalizations about groups to individual cases, including their own.
From the perspective of socially autistic, low-EQ, rational analysis, this is simply mistaken. If an individual has certain characteristics, the fact of belonging to a group that has similar or dissimilar average characteristics is of no relevance whatsoever. Direct and determinate information about the individual is not to any degree enriched by indirect and indeterminate probabilistic information about the groups to which the individual belongs.
An Ashkenazi Jewish moron is no less moronic because he is an Ashkenazi Jew. Elderly Chinese nuns are unlikely to be murderers, but a murderer who happens to be an elderly Chinese nun is neither more nor less murderous than one who is not. This is all extremely obvious, to obnoxious people. To normal people, however, it is not obvious at all. Anybody who anticipates being pre-defined through a group identity has an expanded ego-investment in that group and the way it is perceived. A generic assessment, however objectively arrived at, will immediately become personal, under even quite remotely normal conditions. Obnoxious reason can stubbornly insist that anything average cannot be about you , but the message will not be generally received.
Even supposedly sophisticated commentators blunder repeatedly into the most jarring exhibitions of basic statistical incomprehension without the slightest embarrassment, because embarrassment was designed for something else and for almost exactly the opposite. The failure to understand stereotypes in their scientific, or probabilistic application, is a functional prerequisite of sociability, since the sole alternative to idiocy in this respect is obnoxiousness. In both cases, a message that parents are compelled to deliver to their children is staged as the vehicle for a wider social lesson, aimed at those who, through action or inaction, have created a world that is intolerably hazardous to them.
In the original, however, a tone of anguished sincerity is engineered through a deliberate performance of innocence or ignorance. Listen son, I know this will be difficult to understand … Oh why, oh why are they doing this to us? It derides innocence, and — by implication — the criterion of sociability itself. Agreement, agreeableness, count for nothing. The rigorously and redundantly compiled statistics say what they say, and if we cannot live with that, so much the worse for us. This reversal of word order, switching nouns and adjectives, quickly settles into a pattern. It certainly makes a difference.
The effect is subtly, yet distinctly, menacing, and Derbyshire is too well-trained, algebraically, to be excused from noticing it. Stereotypes, however rigorously confirmed, are essentially inferior to specific knowledge in any concrete social situation, because nobody ever encounters a population. He recommends group calculations instead of taking the trouble to learn about the person standing in front of you. Millman emphasizes the ironic reversal that switches obnoxious social scientific knowledge into imperative ignorance:. But the advice Derbyshire gives to his children encourages them not to be too curious about the world around them, for fear of getting hurt. So why am I arguing with Derb at all? And because even lazy, socially-irresponsible talk deserves to be refuted, not merely denounced.
His whole point is that it is both rational and morally right for his children to treat black people significantly differently from white people, and to fear them. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men — yes, black men as well as white men — would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.
Always has been, always will be. I was in and out of the National Review offices for twelve years, and the only black person I saw there, other than when Herman Cain came calling, was Alex, the guy who runs the mail room. Hey, Alex! Very much the contrary, especially in the case of Conservatism Inc. They fawn over the occasional nonwhite with a puppyish deference that fairly fogs the air with embarrassment. Q: What do you call the one black guy at a gathering of 1, Republicans? Of what use would it be to them to embrace such ideals?
They would end up even more decisively pooled at the bottom of society than they are currently. A much better strategy for them is to ally with as many disaffected white and Asian subgroups as they can homosexuals, feminists, dead-end labor unions , attain electoral majorities, and institute big redistributionist governments to give them make-work jobs and transfer wealth to them from successful groups. Which is what, very rationally and sensibly, they do. Neo-secessionists are all around us… and free speech gives them a cozy blanket of protection. The media focuses our attention at Civil War reenactors and pick-up trucks with Confederate flags flying on them.
But public figures are influenced as well, by academics who struggle to perpetuate a most dangerous brand of revisionism. African-Americans are the conscience of our country. This is the Old Testament history of American black-white relations, set down in a providential narrative of escape from bondage, in which factual documentation and moral exhortation are indissolubly fused. The combination of prolonged and intense social abuse in a pattern set by the Torah, recapitulating the primordial moral-political myth of the Western tradition, has installed the story of slavery and emancipation as the unsurpassable frame of the American historical experience: let my people go.
The New Testament of race in America was written in the s, revising and specifying the template. The combination of the Civil Rights Movement, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Republican Southern Strategy appealing to disaffected whites in the states of the old Confederacy forged a partisan identification between Blacks and the Democratic Party that amounted to a liberal-progressive rebirth, setting the terms for partisan racial polarization that have endured — and even strengthened — over subsequent decades.
For a progressive movement compromised by a history of systematic eugenicist racism, and a Democratic Party traditionally aligned with white southern obduracy and the Ku Klux Klan, the civil rights era presented an opportunity for atonement, ritual purification, and redemption. Reciprocally, for American conservatism and its increasingly directionless Republican Party vehicle , this progression spelt protracted death, for reasons that continue to elude it. The Idea of America was now inextricable from a vehement renunciation of the past, and even of the present, insofar as the past still shaped it. At the most superficial level, the broad partisan implications of the new order were unmistakable in a country that was becoming ever more democratic, and ever less republican, with effective sovereignty nationally concentrated in the executive, and the moral urgency of activist government installed as a principle of faith.
The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them. Insofar as there is a pure logic of politics, it is that. One immediate consequence repeatedly emphasized by Mencius Moldbug is that progressivism has no enemies to the left. It recognizes only idealists, whose time has not yet come. Factional conflicts on the left are politically dynamic, celebrated for their motive potential. It is for this reason that political dialectics a tautology ratchets only in one direction, predictably, towards state expansion and an increasingly coercive substantial-egalitarian ideal.
The right moves to the center, and the center moves to the left. Regardless of mainstream conservative fantasies, liberal-progressive mastery of American providence has become uncontestable, dominated by a racial dialectic that absorbs unlimited contradiction, whilst positioning the Afro-American underclass as the incarnate critique of the existing social order, the criterion of emancipation, and the sole path to collective salvation. No alternative structure of historical intelligibility is politically tolerable, or even — strictly speaking — imaginable, since resistance to the narrative is un-American, anti-social, and of course racist, serving only to confirm the existence of systematic racial oppression through the symbolic violence manifested in its negation.
To argue against it is already to prove it correct, by concretely demonstrating the same benighted forces of social retardation that are being verbally denied. At its most abstract and all-encompassing, the liberal-progressive racial dialectic abolishes its outside, along with any possibility of principled consistency. It asserts — at one and the same time — that race does not exist, and that its socially-constructed pseudo-existence is an instrument of inter-racial violence.
Racial recognition is both mandatory, and forbidden. Extreme racial sensitivity and absolute racial desensitization are demanded simultaneously. Race is everything and nothing. There is no way out. Conservatism is dialectically incompetent by definition, and so abjectly clueless that it imagines itself being able to exploit these contradictions, or — in its deluded formulation — liberal cognitive dissonance. The conservatives who triumphantly point out such inconsistencies seem never to have skimmed the output of a contemporary humanities program, in which thick rafts of internally conflicted victimage are lovingly woven out of incompatible grievances, in order to exult in the radical progressive promise of their discordant lamentations.
Inconsistency is fuel for the Cathedral, demanding activist argumentation, and ever heightened realizations of unity. Conservatism is incapable of working dialectics, or simultaneous contradiction, but that does not prevent it from serving progress on the contrary. Rather than celebrating the power of inconsistency, it stumbles through contradictions, decompressed, in succession, in the manner of a fossil exhibition, and a foil. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. At least, this became the mainstream, public, conservative orthodoxy, even though it was consolidated far too late to neutralize suspicions of insincerity, failed almost entirely to convince the black demographic itself, and would remain open to escalating derision from the left for its empty formalism.
Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! The flight of the Hebrews from Egypt, the American War of Independence, the abolition of chattel slavery in the wake of the American Civil War, and the aspirations of the civil rights era were mythically compressed into a single archetypal episode, perfectly consonant with the American Creed, and driven forwards not only by irresistible moral force, but even by divine decree. The measure of this integrative genius, however, is the complexity it masters. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.
One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. The story of Exodus is exit, the War of Independence is exit, and the emancipation from slavery is exit, especially when this is exemplified by the Underground Railroad and the model of self-liberation, escape, or flight. There is no exit into social integration and acceptance, equitably distributed prosperity, public participation, or assimilation, but only an aspiration, or a dream, hostage to fact and fortune. As the left and the reactionary right were equally quick to notice, insofar as this dream ventures significantly beyond a right to formal equality and into the realm of substantial political remedy, it is one that the right has no right to.
Some people would like to believe that racism is just the explicit, said-out-loud discrimination and hatred that is easily identifiable. A column or voter suppression? Policies broadly compatible with capitalistic development, oriented to the rewarding of low time-preference, and thus punishing impulsivity, will reliably have a disparate impact upon the least economically functional social groups. Of course, the dialectic demands that the racial aspect of this disparate impact can and must be strongly emphasized for the purpose of condemning incentives to human capital formation as racist , and at the same time forcefully denied in order to denounce exactly the same observation as racist stereotyping.
Anyone who expects conservatives to navigate this double-bind with political agility and grace must somehow have missed the late 20th century. For instance, the doomed loser idiots conservatives at the Washington Examiner , noticing with alarm that:. House Democrats received training this week on how to address the issue of race to defend government programs … The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious. There are no alternative versions of an ever more perfect union, because union is the alternative to alternatives.
Searching for where the alternatives might once have been found, where liberty still meant exit , and where dialectics were dissolved in space, leads into a clown-house of horrors, fabricated as the shadow, or significant other, of the Cathedral. Since the right never had a unity of its own, it was given one. Call it the Cracker Factory. When James C. Bennett, in The Anglosphere Challenge , sought to identify the principal cultural characteristics of the English-speaking world, the resulting list was generally familiar. It included, besides the language itself, common law traditions, individualism, comparatively high-levels of economic and technological openness, and distinctively emphatic reservations about centralized political power.
Perhaps the most striking feature, however, was a marked cultural tendency to settle disagreements in space, rather than time, opting for territorial schism, separatism, independence, and flight, in place of revolutionary transformation within an integrated territory. When Anglophones disagree, they have often sought to dissociate in space. Instead of an integral resolution regime change , they pursue a plural irresolution through regime division , proliferating polities, localizing power, and diversifying systems of government. Even in its present, highly attenuated form, this anti-dialectical, de-synthesizing predisposition to social disaggregation finds expression in a stubborn, sussurous hostility to globalist political projects, and in a vestigial attraction to federalism in its fissional sense.
Splitting, or fleeing, is all exit , and non-recuperable anti-dialectics. It is the basic well-spring of liberty within the Anglophone tradition. Like Hell, or Auschwitz, the Cracker Factory has a simple slogan inscribed upon its gate: Escape is racist. Crackers are grit in the clockwork of progress. The most delectable features of the slur, however, are entirely fortuitous or Qabbalistic. They anticipate a crack-up , schism or secession, confirming their association with the anathematized disintegrative undercurrent of Anglophone history. No surprise, then — despite the linguistic jumps and glitching — that the figure of the recalcitrant cracker evokes a still-unpacified South, insubordinate to the manifest destiny of Union.
This returns it, by short-circuit, to the most problematic depths of its meaning. Contradictions demand resolution, but cracks can continue to widen, deepen, and spread. To those for whom a broad trend of socio-political progress seems like a simple, incontestable fact, the refusal to recognize anything of the kind is perceived as clear evidence of retardation. If, as Charles Murray argues, the efficiency of meritocratic selection within American society has steadily risen and conspired with assortative mating to transform class differences into genetic castes, it would be passing strange if the cracker stratum were to be characterized by conspicuous cognitive elevation.
Yet some awkwardly intriguing questions intervene at this point, as long as one diligently pursues the stereotype. Assortative mating? How can that work, when crackers marry their cousins? Drawing on population groups beyond the north-western Hajnal Line , traditional cracker kinship patterns are notably atypical of the exogamous Anglo WASP norm. Over the course of a truly monumental series of blog posts , she employs Hamiltonian conceptual tools to investigate the borderland where nature and culture intersect, comprising kinship structures, the differentiations they require in the calculus of inclusive fitness, and the distinctive ethnic profiles in the evolutionary psychology of altruism that result.
In particular, she directs attention to the abnormality of North-West European history, where obligatory exogamy — through rigorous proscription of cousin marriage — has prevailed for 1, years. This paradox is most fully expressed in the radical forms of European ethnocentric revivalism exemplified by paleo- and neo-Nazism, confounding its proponents and antagonists alike.
Admittedly, a Nazi, by definition, is willing and eager to sacrifice modernity upon the altar of racial purity, but this is either not to understand, or to tragically affirm, the inevitable consequence — which is to be out-modernized and thus defeated. Identity politics is for losers, inherently and unalterably, due to an essentially parasitical character that only works from the left. In any case, however endlessly fascinating Nazis may be, they are not any kind of reliable key to the history or direction of cracker culture , beyond setting a logical limit to the programmatic construction and usage of white identity politics.
Tattooing swastikas on their foreheads does nothing to change that. Hatfields vs McCoys is more Pushtun than Teuton. It is first necessary to understand this entanglement in its full, mind-melting weirdness, before exploring its lessons. For that, some semi-random stripped-down data-points might be helpful:. DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods. These points have been selected, questionably, crudely, and prejudicially, to lend impressionistic support to a single basic thesis: fundamental socio-historical forces are crackerizing libertarianism. If the tentative research conclusions drawn by hbdchick are accepted as a frame, the oddity of this marriage between libertarian and neo-confederate themes is immediately apparent.
When positioned on a bio-cultural axis, defined by degrees of outbreeding, the absence of overlap — or even proximity — is dramatically exposed. One pole is occupied by a radically individualistic doctrine, focused near-exclusively upon mutable networks of voluntary interchange of an economic type and notoriously insensitive to the very existence of non-negotiable social bonds. Close to the other pole lies a rich culture of local attachment, extended family, honor, contempt for commercial values, and distrust of strangers. The distilled rationality of fluid capitalism is juxtaposed to traditional hierarchy and non-alienable value. The absolute prioritization of exit is jumbled amongst folkways from which no exit is even imaginable.
Stapling the two together, however, is a simple, ever more irresistible conclusion: liberty has no future in the Anglophone world outside the prospect of secession. The coming crack-up is the only way out. Democracy is the opposite of freedom, almost inherent to the democratic process is that it tends towards less liberty instead of more, and democracy is not something to be fixed. Democracy is inherently broken, just like socialism. The only way to fix it is to break it up. Did Doug really think such a secession was likely to happen? At first, the realization of this insight would seem to make the task of a liberal-libertarian social revolution impossible, for does this not imply that one would have to persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation?
And is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy, as explained above, promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? Put this way, one must admit that the prospect of a social revolution must indeed be regarded as virtually nil. Rather, it is only on second thought, upon regarding secession as an integral part of any bottom-up strategy, that the task of a liberal-libertarian revolution appears less than impossible, even if it still remains a daunting one. Conceived generically, modernity is a social condition defined by an integral trend, summarized as sustained economic growth rates that exceed population increases, and thus mark an escape from normal history, caged within the Malthusian trap.
When, in the interest of dispassionate appraisal, analysis is restricted to the terms of this basic quantitative pattern, it supports sub-division into the growth positive and negative components of the trend: techno-industrial scientific and commercial contributions to accelerating development on the one hand, and socio-political counter-tendencies towards the capture of economic product by democratically empowered rent-seeking special interests on the other demosclerosis.
What classical liberalism gives industrial revolution mature liberalism takes away via the cancerous entitlement state. In abstract geometry, it describes an S-curve of self-limiting runaway. As a drama of liberation, it is a broken promise. Conceived particularly, as a singularity, or real thing , modernity has ethno-geographical characteristics that complicate and qualify its mathematical purity. At least in appearance, therefore, modernity was something done by people of a certain kind with, and not uncommonly to or even against , other people, who were conspicuously unlike them. These are not strictly exclusive, and are therefore not true alternatives, but for schematic purposes it is helpful to present them as such.
Global modernization is re-invigorated from a new ethno-geographical core, liberated from the degenerate structures of its Eurocentric predecessor, but no doubt confronting long range trends of an equally mortuary character. This is by far the most encouraging and plausible scenario from a pro-modernist perspective , and if China remains even approximately on its current track it will be assuredly realized. India, sadly, seems to be too far gone in its native version of demosclerosis to seriously compete. Amounting essentially to a new dark age, in which Malthusian limits brutally re-impose themselves, this scenario assumes that Modernity 1.
Comprehensive crisis and disintegration offers the best odds most realistically as a sub-theme of option 1. Because competition is good, a pinch of Western Renaissance would spice things up, even if — as is overwhelmingly probable — Modernity 2. That depends upon the West stopping and reversing pretty much everything it has been doing for over a century, excepting only scientific, technological, and business innovation. It is advisable to maintain rhetorical discipline within a strictly hypothetical mode, because the possibility of any of these things is deeply colored by incredibility:.
Asking politicians to limit their own powers is a non-starter, but nothing less heads even remotely in the right direction. Democracy might begin as a defensible procedural mechanism for limiting government power, but it quickly and inexorably develops into something quite different: a culture of systematic thievery. Worse still, since people are, on average, not very bright, the scale of depredation available to the political establishment far exceeds even the demented sacking that is open to public scrutiny. Looting the future, through currency debauchment, debt accumulation, growth destruction, and techno-industrial retardation is especially easy to conceal, and thus reliably popular.
Democracy is essentially tragic because it provides the populace with a weapon to destroy itself, one that is always eagerly seized, and used. Scarcely anybody even sees that there is no free stuff. Utter cultural ruination is the necessary conclusion. Within the final phase of Modernity 1. It is there that the great Abrahamic cultural conveyor culminates in the secularized neo-puritanism of the Cathedral, as it establishes the New Jerusalem in Washington DC. The apparatus of Messianic-revolutionary purpose is consolidated in the evangelical state, which is authorized by any means necessary to install a new world order of universal fraternity, in the name of equality, human rights, social justice, and — above all — democracy.
The absolute moral confidence of the Cathedral underwrites the enthusiastic pursuit of unrestrained centralized power, optimally unlimited in its intensive penetration and its extensive scope. Every five years America steals itself from itself again, and fences itself back in exchange for political support. This democracy thing is easy — you just vote for the guy who promises you the most stuff. An idiot could do it. Actually, it likes idiots, treats them with apparent kindness, and does everything it can to manufacture more of them.
The attractions of this reactionary vision are evidenced by the vogue for 18th century attire, symbols, and constitutional documents among the substantial Tea Party minority who clearly see the disastrous course of American political history. Stagger back in imagination before , and the fraught whisper of conscience is already questioning your prejudices against Kenyan revolutionaries and black Marxist professors. To cast doubt upon its scale and scope is to simultaneously dispute the sanctity of its purpose, and the moral-spiritual necessity that it command whatever resources, and impose whatever legal restraints, may be required to effectively fulfill it.
More specifically, to recoil from the magnitude of Leviathan is to demonstrate insensitivity to the immensity — indeed, near infinity — of inherited racial guilt, and the sole surviving categorical imperative of senescent modernity — government needs to do more. The possibility, indeed near certainty, that the pathological consequences of chronic government activism have long ago supplanted the problems they originally targeted, is a contention so utterly maladapted to the epoch of democratic religion that its practical insignificance is assured.
Even on the left, it would be extraordinary to find many who genuinely believe, after sustained reflection, that the primary driver of government expansion and centralization has been the burning desire to do good not that intentions matter. Yet, as the twin tracks cross, such is the electric jolt of moral drama, leaping the gap from racial Golgotha to intrusive Leviathan, that skepticism is suspended, and the great progressive myth installed. The alternative to more government, doing ever more, was to stand there, negligently, whilst they lynched another Negro.
This proposition contains the entire essential content of American progressive education. Reactionary regression smells of strange fruit. The war is a knot. By practically dissociating liberty into emancipation and independence , then hurling each against the other in a half-decade of carnage, blue against gray, it was settled that freedom would be broken on the battlefield, whatever the outcome of the conflict. Union victory determined that the emancipatory sense of liberty would prevail, not only in America, but throughout the world, and the eventual reign of the Cathedral was assured. If the institution of slavery de-legitimated a war of independence, what survived of ? The moral coherence of the Union cause required that the founders were reconceived as politically illegitimate white patriarchal slave-owners, and American history combusted in progressive education and the culture wars.
If independence is the ideology of slave-holders, emancipation requires the programmatic destruction of independence. Within a cross-coded history, the realization of freedom is indistinguishable from its abolition. The basic theme has been mind control, or thought-suppression, as demonstrated by the Media-Academic complex that dominates contemporary Western societies, and which Mencius Moldbug names the Cathedral. When things are squashed they rarely disappear. Instead, they are displaced, fleeing into sheltering shadows, and sometimes turning into monsters. Today, as the suppressive orthodoxy of the Cathedral comes unstrung, in various ways, and numerous senses, a time of monsters is approaching.
It is the belief, completed in its essentials by the anthropology of Franz Boas , that every legitimate question about mankind is restricted to the sphere of culture. Questions directed towards natural characteristics and variations between humans are themselves properly understood as cultural peculiarities, or even pathologies. Because the Cathedral has a consistent ideological orientation, and sifts its enemies accordingly, comparatively detached scientific appraisal of the SSSM easily veers into raw antagonism.
At the limit of reciprocal loathing, hereditarian determinism confronts social constructivism, with each committed to a radically pared-back model of causality. Acquiring knowledge and using tools is a single dynamic circuit, producing techno-science as an integral system, without real divisibility into theoretical and practical aspects. Science develops in loops, through experimental technique and the production of ever more sophisticated instrumentation, whilst embedded within a broader industrial process. Its advance is the improvement of a machine. This intrinsically technological character of modern science demonstrates the efficiency of culture as a complex natural force. It neither expresses a pre-existing natural circumstance, nor does it merely construct social representations.
Instead, nature and culture compose a dynamic circuit, at the edge of nature, where fate is decided. According to the self-reinforcing presupposition of modernization, to be understood is to be modifiable. It is to be expected, therefore, that biology and medicine co-evolve. The same historical dynamic that comprehensively subverts the SSSM through inundating waves of scientific discovery simultaneously volatilizes human biological identity through biotechnology. There is no essential difference between learning what we really are and re-defining ourselves as technological contingencies, or technoplastic beings, susceptible to precise, scientifically-informed transformations.
To describe this circuit, as it consumes the human species, is to define our bionic horizon : the threshold of conclusive nature-culture fusion at which a population becomes indistinguishable from its technology. This is neither hereditarian determinism, nor social constructivism, but it is what both would have referred to, had they indicated anything real. It is a syndrome vividly anticipated by Octavia Butler, whose Xenogenesis trilogy is devoted to the examination of a population beyond the bionic horizon. Between what the Oankali are, and the way they live, or behave, there is no firm difference. Because they make themselves, their nature is their culture and of course reciprocally. What they are is exactly what they do.
Religious traditionalists of the Western Orthosphere are right to identify the looming bionic horizon with a negative theological event. Techno-scientific auto-production specifically supplants the fixed and sacralized essence of man as a created being, amidst the greatest upheaval in the natural order since the emergence of eukaryotic life, half a billion years ago. It is not merely an evolutionary event, but the threshold of a new evolutionary phase. John H. Biologists suspect that new forms evolve rapidly from very tiny outgroups of individuals perhaps even a single fertilized female, Mayr, at the fringe of an existing species. Nearly all of these transmogrified fragments of species die out, but an occasional one is fortunate enough to fit a new viable niche.
It prospers and expands into a new species. Its conversion into a statistically constrained gene pool then stabilizes the species from further evolutionary change. Established species are far more notable for their stasis than change. Even throwing off a new daughter species does not seem to change an existing species. Three implications are important.
Most evolutionary change is associated with the origin of new species. Several modes of evolution may operate simultaneously. In this case the most effective dominates the process. Tiny minorities of individuals do most of the evolving instead of the species as a whole. A second important characteristic of evolution is self-reference Campbell, In particular, the organisms cause the limiting conditions of the environment over which they compete. Therefore the genes play two roles in evolution. They are the targets of natural selection and they also ultimately induce and determine the selection pressures that act upon them. This circular causality overwhelms the mechanical character of evolution.
Evolution is dominated by feedback of the evolved activities of organisms on their evolution. The third seminal realization is that evolution extends past the change in organisms as products of evolution to change in the process itself. Evolution evolves Jantsch, ; Balsh, ; Dawkins, ; Campbell, Evolutionists know this fact but have never accorded the fact the importance that it deserves because it is incommensurate with Darwinism. Darwinists, and especially modern neodarwinists, equate evolution to the operation of a simple logical principle, one that is prior to biology: Evolution is merely the Darwinian principle of natural selection in action, and this is what the science of evolution is about.
Since principles cannot change with time or circumstances, evolution must be fundamentally static. Of course, biological evolution is not like this at all. It is an actual complex process, not a principle. The way that it takes place can, and indisputably does, change with time. This is of utmost importance because the process of evolution advances as it proceeds Campbell, Once these puny processes created gene molecules with information for their self-replication then evolution was able to engage natural selection. Evolution then wrapped the self-replicating genomes within self-replicating organisms to control the way that life would respond to the winds of selection from the environment.
Later, by creating multicellular organisms, evolution gained access to morphological change as an alternative to slower and less versatile biochemical evolution. Changes in the instructions in developmental programs replaced changes in enzyme catalysts. Nervous systems opened the way for still faster and more potent behavioral, social and cultural evolution. Finally, these higher modes produced the prerequisite organization for rational, purposeful evolution, guided and propelled by goal-directed minds. Each of these steps represented a new emergent level of evolutionary capability.
Thus, there are two distinct, but interwoven, evolutionary processes. Generative evolution is entirely different. It is the change in a process instead of structure. Moreover, that process is ontological. Higher animals have become increasingly adept at evolving. In contrast, they are not the least bit fitter than their ancestors or the lowest form of microbe. Every species today has had exactly the same track record of survival; on average, every higher organism alive today still will leave only two offspring, as was the case a hundred million years ago, and modern species are as likely to go extinct as were those in the past. Species cannot become fitter and fitter because reproductive success is not a cumulative parameter.
For racial nationalists, concerned that their grandchildren should look like them, Campbell is the abyss. Think face tentacles. Campbell is also a secessionist, although entirely undistracted by the concerns of identity politics racial purity or traditional cognitive elitism eugenics. Approaching the bionic horizon, secessionism takes on an altogether wilder and more monstrous bearing — towards speciation. The folks at euvolution capture the scenario well:.Argumentative Essay On Werewolves is almost as rare as delinquency. Setting its expectations as low as Argumentative Essay On Werewolves possible, it Ethical Values In Nursing only to spare civilization from Argumentative Essay On Werewolves, ruinous, gluttonous debauch. Herein lies the danger of Argumentative Essay On Werewolves conservative Pros And Cons Of Fracking philosophy divorced Argumentative Essay On Werewolves a robust Christian faith. I remember it, I remember what we felt about it, Argumentative Essay On Werewolves what people were writing about it. The ancient democracies in which Argumentative Essay On Werewolves people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of Argumentative Essay On Werewolves.