Fundamental Principles to be documented within our constitution

[Anonymous]

#1368

First and foremost, I’d like to begin by saying that, whilst essential, a constitution will not guarantee success in our ventures. A successful brotherhood will be forged more through friendship, action and commitment than by words and theological/philosophical discussion.

Central to the battle that waits ahead of us, and highly relevant to the trouble times that it is our lot to live through, are the following words; Belief, Knowledge, Truth. It is the interplay between, and incorrect use of these words that troubles our people to greatly. Let’s start with the villain.

Beliefs
Beliefs are trifling. There are people in this world that claim to belief they are in fact, otherkins. Whether they are genuine or not it is hard to tell. Some white people believe they are black. Some men believe they are women. Our beliefs are the product of our values and experiences. Some people value charity and have never experienced living in a Muslim ghetto in Luton and thus believe in open borders for Syrian refugees. Some people value charity but have seen Muslim ghettos and thus believe in closed borders. Some people value racial purity and thus believe in closed borders but for entirely different reasons.

In a world of 7 billion people and as many different beliefs, we are lost. We have no community and no cohesive social contract. Beliefs are effective at signally what a man presently believes in, but not much else. And besides, beliefs change. I almost agree with the line in the constitution “For where mere Belief is elevated above Knowledge, the individual soon lacks belief in freedom itself”. I’m not sure about the word “Freedom”. I think maybe “…conviction in society itself” is better. The society where beliefs > knowledge is the post-modernist society. It is hell.

Truth
No idea. There seems to be truth in mathematics but not much else. There also seems to be a social proof in that the Eskimos’ have 20 words for snow but we only have one word for Truth. My point is that we aren’t taking it very seriously and don’t really need it to be able to function (unlike snow for the Eskimos). Truth seems to be very hard to define and is very often misused when people should be using either ‘fact’ or ‘knowledge’.

Knowledge
Very important, especially now. If there is a concrete form of knowledge in the world, we can build upon it. There are three forms of knowledge. Divine Revelation, a Prior and a Posteriori. The first is perhaps dying out and I’ve notice that many Christians seem to pick and choose the divine knowledge revealed to them as it suits. Also, what was previously known divinely has been refuted by science. The second is flawed and cannot be relied upon to give society a platform as at its limits, reason is flawed (see Kant). The final form seems the only way to create new knowledge and is the foundations of The Red Pill.

a Posteriori knowledge requires knowledge to be derived from observation and experience. ie Girls in nightclubs prefer bad-boys.

The constitution states “The individual through the acquisition of Knowledge is the locus of salvation, and thus must be the centre of sovereignty”. The first bit I agree with. The individual is capable of acquiring knowledge by living an active life. A society that lives actively and has millions of experiences can create silos of knowledge ie Female hypergamy is known to create a pressure on men to be bad boys. Thus we can be our own salvation if we continue to acquire knowledge this way ie based on experience, female hypergamy is going to create the type of men that will kill us all (bad-boys). When the individual is sovereign, he or she is what determines what is known ie girls like bad-boys. When what is sovereign is not the individual (maybe feminism or schools or the media) then we end up with false knowledge ie girls like nice guys so just be yourself. Sovereignty outside of the individual is The Blue Pill.

Conclusion

For my part, I consent to the inclusion of the following statements within the constitution:

“The individual through the acquisition of Knowledge is the locus of salvation, and thus must be the centre of sovereignty”. I consent to this because the individual’s experiences and observations seem to be the only scalable source of knowledge around which we all may consent to a social contract.

“For where mere Belief is elevated above Knowledge, the individual soon lacks conviction in a tolerable life within a society that can by happy”

“In order to aid the salvation of all individuals, each must become a sovereign among sovereigns”. A slave that is forced to have experiences that the master desires of him can be coerced into having knowledge that the master contrives him to have. Every man must be sovereign. This includes being drugs free, working, self-sufficient and healthy.

[Anonymous]

#1384

Alright gents

Per today’s meetup, here’s what we discussed, plus some further thoughts I’ve had:
1. Strict adherence to an ideology will probably cause division and acrimony. For that reason, let’s avoid making the constitution too ideology-based.
2. However, at an informal level, we should welcome ideological debates, as a method for sharpening our own debating skills or challenging cherished notions that we hold.
3. For the purposes of vetting new members, we still need to have some means of ensuring they are a good fit for the group.
4. The 3 main things we thought would be good to filter out undesirables have been suggested as:
(A) rejection of cultural Marxism and all that it entails (feminism, socialism).
(B) supremacy of the traditional family unit
(C) acknowledgment of the general benefits of traditional Christian values in society
5. Perhaps not everyone will be fully aware of all aspects of cultural Marxism, but so long as they understand the big ones, that’s OK.
6. A 4th point for filtering candidates and the constitution would be an understanding that not all members come from the same ideological background, and that we expressly wish to avoid this causing division
7. At the same time, we are aware of the tendency of the tendency of institutions to ‘slide left’, and we expressly want to prevent this from occurring.
8. The constitution must reflect that we are first and foremost a ‘brotherhood’, seeking to assist and support each other in an increasingly insane world.
9. Political activism is extremely important to give us tangible goals, but is secondary to the brotherhood concept.

Please all contribute.

[Anonymous]

#1385

Hi all. I’m sorry I stuffed up and was late for the meeting, especially as I was meant to talk to you about Zim/SA + this constitution stuff that has come up.

My intention in putting the constitution together was to create trust between us so that we could put our differences aside and help each other grow and act together. I sensed at the first meeting that there were not different factions, but different temperaments. If I’m the only one feeling this please tell me.

But there were traditionalists, conservatives, Christians, atheists, individualistic and collectivistic types. So there’s a fair bit of opposition, but I thought we could make it far less dichotomous. I have no problem with differences, but people seemed a bit hesitant. Can I do this, say that, etc under the group banner. The 2nd meeting to me seemed like a lot of going over the first, obviously I can’t say anything about today. I hoped that if we could put differences aside we’d focus on what we have in common and there’d be more action and less arguing over our various politics. Obviously I failed big time and just added fuel to the fire. So I reckon we scrap the constitution I’ve written, and somebody will eventually put something together that is more straight forward.

In that spirit I was wondering whether there was anyone in the group not too concerned about anonymity who’d like to make some video content? Maybe something bi-weekly that we could post on PT’s and YouTube. I think conversation/video comes across better than writing – writing gives me the shits! Let me know if you’re keen! We might have to put in to get some gear etc. Maybe even start off as a podcast.

Nonetheless Carl offered genuine criticisms, so I owe it to do my best to answer them. Take them only as food for thought – consider the constitution fucked off. See [responses] below:

Hi Craig

I have to say that you and I think quite differently! [proof that we’re not in a cult -good!] I appreciate the effort you’ve put into the constitution, but I have to say there are several areas where I disagree, and others where I think we should have a bit more definition and clarity.

In essence, the disagreement lies in how much we choose to let Enlightenment concepts influence the group. [I’m almost certain that the Enlightenment came out of Christianity. David mentioned “The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilisation” by Vishal Mangalwadi at an Aus Cons meeting. It’s the best thing I’ve come across on the subject – but there’s plenty on the internet that takes the same tone. I’m pro-modernism. If you wrote an anti-modernism piece on the website, I’d maybe write a critical comment at the bottom – at worst I’d write a pro-modernism piece. Would that be acceptable to those who are anti-modernism? Would I have to explain myself, and to whom? This is what the constitution aims to address. Because, despite the group having rather a lot in common, it is far from monolithic – we have to address our differences in some manner, there’s no way around it. If I am to be held to an anti-modernism view then I’ll have to be on my way. If we can compromise with each other I’ll stick about no matter how much I disagree with people. I’ll stick around for what we agree on.]

For example, the idea that ‘all men are created equal’. Is this really true? [under the law, certainly – hence criminals] I have doubts – and even if people were created equal (i.e. equal at birth), after a few years of childhood, without doubt  any equality between persons no longer exists at all. [not in outcome, but in opportunity – how people exercise their free will, affects their and only their outcomes – they have free will just like anyone else. They can only try to blame their shortcomings on lack of free will – reality won’t have it!]

What is meant by a ‘more perfect Freedom’? [well Australia is more free than Canada (“islamophobia” is a hate crime there). Australia is far from “perfectly free” – it/we can do better] What are the blessings of Liberty? [do you eat bread? The fact that you can get a good loaf of bread for $4 is a miracle – the machinery used to grow the crops was incrementally improved year by year, model by model, and represents only part of an interconnected and unbroken stretch of freedom going back 200+ years. There’s a reason 3 employees can grow 7000ha of wheat in WA, whereas it’d take 50+ employees to grow a similar crop in Zimbabwe (that’s 50 Zims sharing the wages of 3 Aussies – during hyperinflation farm workers were only earning the equivalent of USD30/month – we had to grow food for our own labour force). The difference is productive capacity which can only be gained by increment, and which requires freedom for people to make the sacrifice. Also, isn’t the PT’s a blessing? Maybe freedom is an abstract concept if you’re born into it. But I feel free when I do such mundane things as walk along a cycle track – freedom is a very real, very concrete concept to me.] And what is the benefit of pursuing ‘greater Liberty’? [getting a good loaf of bread for $3 – prosperity, community, opportunity…it’s endless. If we help elect somebody to parliament we’ll have greater liberty. Do you want to celebrate Australia Day, or are you cool with ‘invasion day’? Do you want your kids going to school the way it currently is – socialised education? ‘Safe schools’? The benefits are truly endless.]

Are freedoms ‘inalienable’ in the true sense of the word, or are they just an invention of modern philosophers? [an invention? Christ no! You can put me in jail for speaking my mind, you’ll never rid me of my mind – the point isn’t that a dictator can’t put you in jail, he can! – the point is that you cannot make people happy/content to be living under a dictatorship, even one that’s ‘trying’ it’s absolute best to be benevolent.] The idea of ‘consent of the governed’ is very much an Enlightenment concept [“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?], and the idea of the social contract is not without its detractors. Shouldn’t we test this idea before adopting it? [this has got nothing to do with ‘the social contract’ or Rousseau – haven’t read him because I gathered that he believed people existed in a utopian natural state in the past – so nah to him. The US is the test. It’s constitution is the oldest still in use today. The US is a superior freedom to Britain or anything in the commonwealth. Although it’s such a complexity that I’m willing to have people try change my tune.]

What is meant by ‘salvation’ [depression would be a lack of salvation, great satisfaction in being alive the opposite] and personal sovereignty? [you get to make your own decisions, so long as they don’t prevent me from making my own decisions, and then we each bear the weight of the consequences. If we each have free will, then we each get different consequences. When I dropped out of uni there wasn’t a single friend or family member who approved – that’s sovereignty, but if I done fucked up, it’s my cross to bear.] If the ‘Consent of his sovereign peers’ cannot be obtained (e.g. SJW’s), do we resort to violence? [no, law enforcement will get you. The fact that law enforcement is failing somewhat in Berkley for example, means we need to win greater Liberty.] In which case, how can the SJW still be said to have individual sovereignty? [nihilism (no salvation) if law abiding, law enforcement/justice if not. Lefties tend to be sad wankers – literally! If somebody can’t convince themselves that life is fuckin’ great, then what chance do others have?]

Why is Modernism acceptable? [what did you type this on? Not anything that came out of the Muslim world for sure.] Modernism is generally considered [I know you think it is, generally I’m not sure people agree. Maybe it’s the people you know who agree?] to be an era where culture and society rebelled against tradition, simply for the sake of it [depends on how wide your category for modernism is – if you include Rousseau/the French Revolution, then yes. I don’t like loose categories because you then have to accept that a man can be a women because gender is fluid, but you’re then also not allowed to treat him like a man (because gender is fluid) – and then chaos breaks out! A lot of modern figures not only worked within tradition, but strengthened it against secular pseudo intellectuals. What’s more is far more efficiently than theological types quoting the Bible could’ve done!] It sought to change the status quo and find different ways of doing things [yeah the cunts – why don’t I get to harvest wheat with a sickle!], not because they were better, but simply because they were novel. Modernism is the essence of the mindless ‘progressivism’ that we see today. [surely it has more to do with post-modernism? no? Lot’s of folks who were born into freedom and prosperity, and through free will choose to be anti-religion, then anti-capitalism, then anti-law and order, thus anti-you and me. They’ve never even heard of Foucault – but they’ll holler if somebody quotes him. (+ they’ll boo if you quote JS Mill/Locke and other proper modern figures) That’s just psychology – and we can and should try to improve the cultural environment. I think the question is how modern presuppositions can support pre-modern presuppositions (and visa versa), and contrast them with their post-modern equivalents. e.g. on human nature; modern = we are tabula rasa and have free will + pre-modern = we are subject to God’s will and have original sin (which I’d say are both true to some extent, and thus not a dichotomy as appears on the surface) VS post-modern social construction (BLM bullshit for example). Consider this fact…every successful entrepreneur failed 7 times on average before their success – yes you have free will, you can start 8 businesses, AND you can’t force others to accept you as a success because you have original sin (ignorance/lack of knowledge) to overcome. VS some social construction justification of claiming entitlement to welfare/reparations]

Finally, I feel the constitution has too much focus on the individual [this is a dichotomy interpretation. Individualism/collectivism can be, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either or – hence consent based collectives, or individuals voluntarily working together – the PT’s are an example]. We are trying to form a brotherhood [why would individualism stop this? – I think it would strengthen the brotherhood.], and sometimes, the rights of the individual must be subservient to the rights of the brotherhood. [if I and others choose to work with you, does that make us totally subservient, or only to a degree? I refuse to be totally subservient to anyone – I won’t do something I don’t believe in, nor would I want to put somebody else in that situation. Plus, if what I’m doing is so great, why would I need people to be totally subservient? Businesses don’t even need their employees to be totally subservient – quit if you want.]. Great cities and nations were built by the sacrifice of many, for the benefit of their fellows and for those that followed [why must everything be monocausal? Why can’t I do things for a dozen and one reasons that separately don’t matter, but together mean the world. Why can’t I do what’s good for me, for my family, for my community, for my city and country? What sort of things are we going to be doing that are only good for others? I don’t believe that people are purely altruistic. Altruism comes about because we can stop thinking about ourselves – we’ve got enough, now we’d like to help others not so fortunate]. But this individualist tone seem too…cold. It has too much of capitalism and self-interest [maybe you’ve bought into the ‘inequality’ narrative. Say my employer ‘only’ pays me 50K and spends 800K on a new harvester. Inequality? Maybe, but who benefits? The farmer? Sure, his cost side is improved = better margins. Me? Sure – easier to drive/air con on a hot day. People who eat bread? Definitely. People who own machinery construction businesses? People who work there? We all benefit from capitalism. You, your family, your workers, your customers, your suppliers, everyone. Pretty altruistic I’d say. Sure there is a disparity between the labour share and capital share of output. But that disparity also exists between the shares of input. Marx was wrong – labour gets it’s fair share of the surplus value produced. It’s only cold depending on how you understand it.]

So I would want to iron out all these questions before we proceed with a constitution. The devil is in the details, as they say. And once we’ve got a constitution, we’re pretty much stuck with it, so there’s no need to rush things. [agreed as stated above]

I don’t intend this to be taken harshly, but I’ve no doubt that you’ll be fine with the criticism.[likewise] What do you think?

[Anonymous]

#1387

My turn again.

The constitution should proceed, but slowly. We should keep talking about all this as some of us have to get through it.

Modernism *Long Sigh*. Christianity could not explain everything well enough and then someone looked through a telescope and saw a moon revolving around Jupiter. In that moment The West stood on the brink of annihilation via skepticism & pyrrhonism. Luckily, Decartes said “I think therefore I am” and then we were able to avoid Nihilism but Modernism was formed. The great men tried to answer all life’s questions by two methods, Empiricism and Rationalism. The Rational approach was an abject failure and might still be an utter calamity, we don’t know yet. Empiricism still seems a viable option.

Craig, I strongly urge you to digest Kant’s Critic of Pure Reason before you commit wholly to modernism. Kant himself believes that modernism is doomed and cannot exist without practical experience to keep it in check. It very possible that the Enlightenment will never provide us with a meaningful existence and make truth an impossibility. I think the rest of this conversation is best had in person. The bottom line is, Modernism happened and we have to deal with it’s failures and success now.

On that point, the Enlightenment gave us many many great things (medicine, steam engines etc). Islam is an example of a civilisation that hasn’t had it’s Enlightenment and they are so technologically backward. They either have to have their revolution or avoid it altogether. I’m worried about Pre-Enlightenment values. Sounds a little too close to Witch Burning to me. However, it must be said that St Thomas of Aquinas and St Augustine were great thinkers too. Maybe we could have made the steam engine without The Enlightenment. Again I stress that this is academic. The Enlightenment happened and we are all stuck with making sense of the by-products.

The individualism conversation is another hard one. I, like Craig, will never submit to any ruler. If I choose to do something it is because I have chosen it. I don’t understand how their can be crime/sin/honour/guilt/shame without this principle. Similarly, I can choose to place the needs of the whole before the needs of the part. But this is still an individual choice.

My only rational for rights goes like this. Even if a tyrannical ruler has me executed, I can walk to the gallows with my head held high. As long as I maintain my own mental sovereignty and sense of self nothing can ever stop my from holding my head high. I don’t have a rational where my own fleeting opinion isn’t my highest authority, but I think Christians do. I would like to think that I have enough virtue that I now no longer act on fleeting opinions and have learnt to act in accordance with traditional teachings, but only because I think it is a good idea, no because of any higher authority.

Totally up for a podcast/youtube channel.

[Anonymous]

#1390

Haha, yup this is real getting into the weeds stuff! It’s good! I haven’t read Kant, but I totally agree with the sentiment that you need experience to keep reason in check. I’ve just downloaded Kant’s book on my Kindle, and seen that it’s 250,000 words so I’ll need to feel an urge to get into the weeds as much as that. From what I’ve picked up via analog mentions, is that Kant was brilliant. The trouble with great writers is that they’re the most widely misunderstood, and I can’t hold an idea responsible for the people who claim to understand it. I’ve seen extremely postmodern (communist party member) types use him to justify their stance, because he showed that ‘we cannot know truth’. Then I’ve seen Jung illustrate what he meant, and that he would hate to be associated with the people who associate with him and his ideas. It’s the same with Nietzsche.

I use both rationality/reason and experience/empiricism – don’t see how one excludes the other. When deciding what actions to take in life you have to use reason/rationality. Once you take action however, all you can do is observe – because your mental representation is now up against reality. You can use reason to decide to start a business. Once reality is involved, and say your business isn’t a success, you have to incorporate that empirical ‘data’ into your representation/worldview. You’d be an absolute fool not to. So I see it more as one step with reason, the next with experience…one foot after the other we grow. That’s basically fiction writing where the protagonist learns (experience) and acts (reason), one after the other, and grows as a person, defeating the antagonist. The old ‘a story walks on two legs’.

Representative government, federalism, civil society, etc. are not only ideas – they’re manifest in reality. I’ve come to understand them, and appreciate their manifestation through both my critical faculties and my lived experience. I don’t make plans for my plans like I used to when I was younger. I maintain the bandwidth to take the next step. If you have layers of plans, each assuming the success of the previous, then you’re just compounding an error that will be there because we’re merely human.

Representative government can be explained with reason and can be experienced as it exists – it can be contrasted with non-representative governments. Individualism simply protects the Truth so that the protagonists among us can turn it into knowledge and manifest into in reality – to our collective benefit. If you do not protect the Truth, you have no capitalism, no representative government, no West. Whether you are a protagonist or a beneficiary depends upon how you exercise your free will.

St Thomas of Aquinas and St Augustine are without a doubt, great thinkers. I don’t see a need to choose between theological knowledge or ‘modern’ knowledge – in fact I don’t think they occupy the same ‘space’. I’m more interested in seeing if I can acquire and use both forms as adequately as possible. What’s the point of mysticism without realism? Or realism without mysticism? They are each far more meaningful together than they are kept seperate. We can never be sure that we know the whole truth, but we can be sure that we know some of the truth – and we experience it as heightened life satisfaction or happiness or whatever you’d like to call it.

[Anonymous]

#1396

My 2 cents.
One point that should have been should have been raised is that for us to be really traditionalists, we have to be prepared to state that we defend the right of Australia’s founding people to remain the dominate demographic. A white Australia.

I do not believe that that you can have a traditional society without the people who created it. All the beliefs, customs and culture that I want to preserve come from white people. This is where conservatives have failed. They have not conserved the people with their principles. Without the people, everything else is meaningless.

I reject the idea that if you just keep to conservative principles, a traditional white society can be maintained. If the majority became ethnic Chinese or African then Australia would look more like a Chinese or African country then traditional Australian.

So multiculturalism and diversity must be rejected. Equality too must also be rejected for in order to maintain a white majority. People must be rejected on the colour of their skin, that is their race, not the content of their character.

Because if my white children are to have a future in this country they must be part of the majority. I think the example of Rhodesia shows that institutions and principles will always fail when up against blood.

Now I understand that some of the members may have non white partners or may not be pure white themselves. I don’t think that matters. What does matter is a commitment to a white majority and white privilege. Non whites must be discriminated against in order to demonstrate that they will remain eternal outsiders and their presence is unwelcome.

In doing so we show out commitment to preserving the country that my ancestors fought for and making sure my children get in turn what I was able to inherit from my parents.

[Anonymous]

#1400

Hey Ultraright.
I know what you’re saying, but please bear in mind that what you’re saying is going to be shocking to the more liberal members… Perhaps spend a bit more time easing us into these concepts! 🙂

We needs to distinguish between actual reality and pie-in-the-sky idealism. Sure, if we still lived in the 50’s, ‘white Australian’ could be a proper political stance with real ramifications. Today, it’s meaningless, unless you want to advocate killing, neutering or deporting those non-whites who are already here. I’m sure you’re not for that. If you did, you’d be advocating for a breach of faith with people who people who legitimately settled here in the expectation that they would be accepted as part of society.

The best, realistic policy one could adopt today is a stance of ‘only white immigration allowed’. That will essentially mitigate your concerns, but won’t solve them.

But we must accept that white Australia is already dead and gone, it cannot be retrieved. I agree: this is unfortunate and was a mistake. But it’s too late now.

[Anonymous]

#1401

Banjo, regarding the video content, that’s an excellent idea. Myself, though, I think I should remain anonymous for my job. I think it’s a good project, but will be a lot of work. (My wife used to do makeup videos and she always complained about how many hours it took to edit).

I enjoyed reading your response, and afterliberalism’s. There’s too much to write here in one post, so I’m keeping this as short as I can. I reckon this’ll be great stuff for chatting about in person though. I don’t want you to think that the constitution is good for nothing but the bin. My questions were made in the hope that either I’ll learn something from you; or you’ll learn something from me. In the end, we’re seeking to increase knowledge. More importantly, we’ve all got the same goals, and we should avoid letting differing ideologies divide us. Perhaps I’m a bit of a hypocrite, given my initial email response was rather ideology-based, but now I’m saying ‘let’s not talk about ideology!’

Since you haven’t objected to removing strong ideological notions from the constitution, I’ll assume this discussion is, as AL noted, purely academic. Also, to address your concern about people being expected to hold certain views (such as pre-modernism): of course I would not condone that; in fact I encourage contrary views. My thoughts are just me fumbling in the dark trying to make sense of things, and I always look for enlightening from others. But there must be certain views that we can all agree on 100%, otherwise what’s the point of the brotherhood? Finding out what those views are is the hard part, but I think we’re on the right track by avoiding too much ideology.

I herewith present my thoughts for critique:

I agree that the Enlightenment was superficially a product of Christianity, but there’s more to it than that (which I’m not going into right now). But I disagree that the Enlightenment and Christianity have much in relation to each other. The invention of the printing press advanced the Enlightenment, and also greatly assisted the Protestants against the Catholics. It’s all a tangled mess and I don’t understand it. It seems the many scientific advancements during the Enlightenment led people to view the natural world in purely scientific terms. This led some to try to explain more abstract concepts (e.g. economics, morality and epistemology) in scientific terms also, viz Enlightenment philosophy. How successful the philosophers were depends on the parameters you apply. Again, not going into this right now, but consider that today’s social engineering is a product of the belief that human nature can be explained in scientific terms, and that scientific solutions can solve our woes.

What do you mean by Modernism, exactly? I’m also not sure how AL defines it. It seems you’re linking (equating?) modernism, liberty and technological advance (i.e. affordable bread). I’m no expert, but I do not equate modernism with technological advance. There were technological advances before modernism, and the idea that Christianity and science are at odds is completely false (another issue where I won’t go into detail here). Nor do I equate modernism with Enlightenment philosophy, although Kant is considered by some to be the father of Modernism. Modernism, as I understand it, was a cultural idea, and was more so a product of scientific advancement rather than vice versa. Here’s my high-level take on modernism and postmodernism:
– Traditionalism: a particular set of rules (Catholic tradition, J S Bach (considered a ‘mathematical’ composer), Boticelli)
– Modernism: “those old rules suck, let’s invent new rules” (French Revolution, Jazz, Picasso’s cubism).
– Postmodernism: there are no rules (sexual liberation, John Cage’s 4’33” (please have a listen to this delightful piece), and that stupid cactus sculpture in Perth’ CBD)

With each stage, objectivity is replaced with increasing subjectivity. In hindsight, we can now see why it is so troublesome to distinguish modernism from postmodernism, as one will inevitably lead to the other.

Instead of using the words ‘sexual liberation’ in my above example, I could have written ‘Anarchy’, as this would be a better fit with the timeline of Catholic to French Revolution to Anarchy. But complete sexual liberation is a subset of ‘perfect freedom’, and perfect freedom is Anarchy. Freedom, in the political sense (as distinct from the true sense), only works when people have inbuilt self-discipline. When self-discipline disappears – as we see today – government steps in to fill the vacuum and thus becomes a tyranny. So we find it necessary to qualify ‘perfect freedom’ so as to avoid tyranny. Therefore in the end, everyone is subservient to something. If men insist on perfect freedom they will end up with a tyranny. But if men will serve self-discipline, they will enjoy greater – though not perfect – liberty. Everyone has a master: the only thing you may choose is to what that master will be. That, in my opinion, is the sole ‘human right’ that truly exists; which is also the right to walk up to the gallows with your head held high. Whatever your ideas about reality, these will guide your decisions, and thus you are subservient to your own conception about reality. If we as a brotherhood adopt an ideology, we become subservient to it, and that ideology thence joins a hierarchy of authorities that guide our individual lives.

Perfect freedom creates a typical postmodern paradox. Postmodernism says ‘nothing is true’, thereby contradicting itself by making a truth-statement. Similarly, perfect freedom means that all individuals are free to do what they want, including limiting the freedom of others, thereby denying the principle of perfect freedom. The typical response is “we want perfect freedom so long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of others”. Yet by making even one exception to the ideal, it ceases to be perfect freedom, and thenceforward becomes a qualified freedom, set arbitrarily on the basis of power. What do I mean by this? You can only expect to have this kind of qualified liberty for so long as you have the power to enforce it. If we live in a democratic society, it’s only because the majority agree to it. Yet if someone comes along with their ‘personal sovereignty’ (e.g. Muslims) and they also have a lot of power (population), what do we do if they choose to exercise that power in curtailing our personal sovereignty (jihad)? You can bitch and complain about ‘rights’, but it’s meaningless when the other party has all the power and you have no means of enforcing those rights. So what do we do to prevent this from happening? We make sure that we are the ones with all the power to enforce our ideas. This necessarily limits the personal sovereignty of others. Therefore, personal sovereignty cannot be a value of ours. Even the Enlightenment freedoms require violence to function (this actually agrees with Christianity: the threat of eternal ‘violence’), because when people who violently oppose freedom come to our country, violence can be our only response.

And where, then, does liberty end? Should it have a limit? Consider the Invasion Day issue you brought up. Wouldn’t changing ‘Australia Day’ to ‘Invasion Day’ be a form of liberty for the Aboriginals? And if you vote ‘No’, is this not a form of dictatorship (tyranny of the majority) against gays? If we don’t agree with these liberal policies, why have we chosen to draw the line thusly; and what right to we have to impose this line upon society as a whole? Once again, it’s got nothing to do with rights: it’s all about power.

It seems we’re getting stuck on the nature of rights ‘in reality’ vis a vis ‘in law’. That is why I ask if it is really true that ‘all men are created equal’. Is it true because a piece of paper says so; or would it be true even if that piece of paper didn’t exist? If you go with the latter option, I would then ask you why you think this is so (not to be a, but I think you’d need to answer using evolutionary concepts…).

[Author]

Posts