Comment Of The Day #2: “Back To The Bigoted Baker: It’s Complicated…More Than I Thought”

This the second of the Comments of the Day on the post about the Great Cake Controversy; a third arrived last night, which will appear shortly. It was authored by the always provocative Mrs. Q—you can tell because she always uses ampersands. I used to turn them back into “and,” and then decided that this was a signature feature.

The three Comments of the Day on this topic are as different as they could be. I detest the Colorado baker controversy, because three people could have and should have avoided the whole thing, saved a lot of time, money, and ink, and just exhibited some empathy and proportion rather than avoiding the Golden Rule so emphatically. I detest it, but it certainly is a rich ethics subject.

Here is Mrs. Q’s  Comment of the Day on the post Back To The Bigoted Baker: It’s Complicated…More Than I Thought:

When my wife & I were looking for wedding rings we stopped at a place where the owner after talking to us went on a strange rant about some NFL player who came out gay. The owner went so far as to physically mimic kissing another guy in telling his story, and shivering with wide toothed disgust at the thought. He didn’t say he wouldn’t sell us a ring, but obviously we didn’t want one from his store & the feeling was mutual.

We could have gone on Yelp and given the store a bad review or complain to someone who could “go after” him politically, but at the end of the day our relationship didn’t (doesn’t) need others affirmation. We were certainly hurt – not by his thoughts but the manner in which he shared his thoughts. Yet we picked our proverbial battle and let it go. Why? because we too are Christian and know no one person can ever really give us what we need. Hurt feelings can be gotten over and forgiveness heals wounds far faster than enacting revenge because someone doesn’t agree with us or what we do.

We have to ask what will be next. I don’t believe suddenly we’ll see “No Homo’s Allowed” signs on shops. And ultimately that’s not what I believe this case is about. Also I’m not convinced that these bakers are bigots either. Instead I suspect what this case is ultimately about religion and thought police. Orthodox Muslims having to make non-Halal foods, Jewish deli’s selling pork, Christians making Satanic themed confections. I’d rather see a few victim-minded SJW’s get butt-hurt than force others to sign off on what are ultimately another persons *private* beliefs. Forcing business owners to think as we wish sets a dangerous precedent while walking away from a shop not being affirmed only requires one to find another place to go. And honestly it’s fairly easy to find smug leftist affirmation at businesses. Yes…even in small towns too.

If love is really love than that means we love our enemies and don’t force them to be like us and hide behind press hungry lawyers and the ACLU to do it. We have patience and use the power of the free market to spend money at places that *appear* to be ideologically similar and we LIVE OUR OWN LIVES.

The cake shop didn’t pursue a lawsuit, the gays did and they did it I believe out of spite, revenge, and a desire for control. The cake shop didn’t ruin their wedding, the litigious couple ruined their own by believing they must be affirmed by these people. If that’s their version of love, I’d take a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop long before I attended a wedding of any couple that acted like that. Honesty and integrity matter more than identity politics (to me) and ultimately if a wedding is about identity politics than it’s clear love isn’t so much about love after all.

24 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Arts & Entertainment, Business & Commercial, Character, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Etiquette and manners, Family, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, Love, Rights, Romance and Relationships

24 responses to “Comment Of The Day #2: “Back To The Bigoted Baker: It’s Complicated…More Than I Thought”

  1. Linda

    Mrs. Q is far ahead of the cake baker, the jeweler, and the couple who sued the baker in her Christian maturity. Sadly, we look to the Supreme Court to rule on goodness and mercy instead of looking to the author of both . Perhaps we need another King Solomon. Thank you Mrs. Q for you wonderfully worded post.

  2. Very nice, those involved are too extremist. (I really wish a moderate party would rise) I also feel sure God is more saddened by their extremism than approving.

  3. “The cake shop didn’t pursue a lawsuit, the gays did and they did it I believe out of spite, revenge, and a desire for control. The cake shop didn’t ruin their wedding, the litigious couple ruined their own by believing they must be affirmed by these people. If that’s their version of love, I’d take a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop long before I attended a wedding of any couple that acted like that. Honesty and integrity matter more than identity politics (to me) and ultimately if a wedding is about identity politics than it’s clear love isn’t so much about love after all.”

    Thank you, Mrs. Q. You put into clear, concise words what I have been trying to articulate for a long time.

    jvb

    • Matthew B

      I can’t say it’s true for this case, but in several other examples blowing things out of proportion on social media has been a big cause of escalation. It is a topic that both sides are very passionate about and it spreads like wildfire on both sides. Things start escalating as countless people start taking digs at both sides. Pretty soon you end up with a hounding of both parties by opposing sides that severely disrupts both sides’ lives.

  4. Pennagain

    May you and your wife have a long, happy, & satisfying marriage.

  5. Wayne

    Mrs. Q, I think that you are one of the brighter commentators on this blog. Of course a wedding is supposed to be about love, not revenge for “being disrespected”. The gay couple in their narcissistic pursuit of getting their way have created problems for what I can tell is a nice Christian man. Btw, some day I hope that I have the opportunity to meet you and your spouse.

  6. Matthew B

    Great comment, I thought is was definitely worthy when I read it yesterday.

    Segwaying off your mentioning Muslims: I’ve never understood liberals cognitive dissonance about Muslims. On one side liberals recognize Muslims as a persecuted minority and want to beat Christians over the head about the discrimination Muslims face. On the other hand, Christian conservatives can’t hold a candle to conservative Muslims on many topics. Christians don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, in much of the middle east, the best treatment gays get is a beheading. There is also a huge difference in the treatment of women, and so on.

  7. Great post, lady Q! We need more common sense these days, like you wrote about.

  8. Marie Dowd: “Very nice, those involved are too extremist. (I really wish a moderate party would rise) I also feel sure God is more saddened by their extremism than approving.”

    Mrs. Q: “The cake shop didn’t pursue a lawsuit, the gays did and they did it I believe out of spite, revenge, and a desire for control. The cake shop didn’t ruin their wedding, the litigious couple ruined their own by believing they must be affirmed by these people. If that’s their version of love, I’d take a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop long before I attended a wedding of any couple that acted like that. Honesty and integrity matter more than identity politics (to me) and ultimately if a wedding is about identity politics than it’s clear love isn’t so much about love after all.”

    Please excuse my presence here. I determined long ago what was quite obvious: my opinions and ideas are unwelcome within the space of this blog and, by extension, within a specific and dominant current within (in this case American) thinking. I represent a radical shift, a disruptive agent, and when I use this plural I mean, of course, the New Radical Right.

    I admit to struggling to define *you* and also that such effort to define is a critical effort and, in its way, an affronting act. To come to terms with *you, to understand *you*, one requires a comprehension of ‘the entire atmosphere of mind’ that informs *you*. This is difficult and in no sense easy. This is not merely an ethical analyticial work but a philosophical one and also a religious one. By religious I mean *existential* and pertaining to fundamental ways that meaning & value are understood and expressed. There are intimate and inseparable ties between myth, religion and philosophy, even when, as it appears, these appear not to function, not to be present, not to be operative and determining, or not to intrude and have influence. In fact they do. They always do, and they always will.

    Curiously, I first noticed Marie Dowd’s declaration. It is a declaration. And it reflects a certain theological perspective which is obvious and ever-present within, even, modern professional theology. The essence is that human feeling takes precedence and sentiment is projected onto *God* and made to seem sensible, correct, and ‘good’. Therefor, God looks down with his sentimental eye on the embittered homosexuals in their epic battle against the artful baker and, sighing, wishes that ‘they’d all just get along’. However, and in fact, this is a travesty of theological thinking. Theological thinking, that is Thomistic thinking, is very rigorous and demanding thinking and is thinking that is non-sentimental, non-emotional. True theology, and it could be said to be totally necessary in philosophical thinking and many other domains of thinking, should be carried out without the intrusion of emotions and emotional-desires. Put another way, when the emotional self, and the desire-body, intrude into the higher levels of thought, and certainly into theology, one witnesses the perversion of 1) good, upstanding thinking, and 2) a given theological system of thought.

    In our hyper-liberal present, and among those whose minds have become infected with emotionalism and sentimentalism, the strict focus on idea is weakened in favor of what one desires in a given, contingent, moment. The analogy is a child and his desire and the attitude of an adult in the fact of it. The child cannot ever be allowed to achieve his will, not when a responsible adult is present, yet as it happens Our Present (I will push forward the obvious analogy I am making without belaboring the extended description which, in my view, is unnecessary and the meaning which should be obvious), in our present it is the Child’s Will, in combination with the female will, which has become dominant and decisive. What baby wants, baby gets. What the desirous appetite screams for, it sets out to get. This defines, more or less, an entire social movement with a descernable history. That is to say one can trace it through the various decades of the 20th century in American culture. Obviously, I allude to *seduction* in the larger, metaphysical sense, and as well to a metaphysical agent that seduces. I have gathered that many who write on this blog, wonderful, nice and au current as they seem, will struggle to understand what is being said here. The American, overall, is a powerful, wealthy agent but, often, comes our in demonstrable anti-intellectualism. They want what they want and they force their way to it, despite any obstacle and, if there is a dollar to be gained, will justify any *perversion* in the light of material gain. This is one aspect of the ascendency of ‘appetite’ out of the ‘desire-body’.

    In order to understand a theological position as-against homosexuality, one would have to understand the theological and theoretical argument. But that is an avenue more and more closed off as the desire-body asserts itself within the domain of the mind and of reason. What one does not wish to hear, one closes one’s ears to hearing. And what is *said* appears backward, regressive, retrograde and in a hop skip and jump: as evil. Anyone reading what I write, right now, has already (likely) concluded that I am going to soon define an ‘evil’ position (eveil, that is, seen from the hyper-liberal appetite-perspective: what baby wants, baby will get or there will be a tantrm of Epic Dimension).

    The baker, likely quite imperfectly and even perhaps with notes of self-contradiction, is defending a Principle. And this principle, if I perceive correctly, is a theological and a metaphysical one. You will have to have 1) understood it and 2) agreed with it as an a priori in order for it to have made sense and in order for you to desire to live your life, and even to stake your life (the backdrop of Christian perception is the reality of martyrdom after all) on living in accord with the Principle. But today, and among 99% of those who write on this Blog, this Principle is rejected. What rejects it? Is it pure, solid, reasoned intellectual thought and the conclusions from that? Or is it that minds have become perverted and they cannot – they will not! – think cleanly and clearly? The issue here brought to the fore is PROFOUND and this problem, I sugest, defines the culture-war battles which, I observe, are not smooting out but are moving to a point of open civil conflict. These shifts in *thinking*: that is, how thought is carried out and what are the elements of thought, the criteria of valuation, is really what is at stake. We on the Radical Right, as you know, see ourselves as ‘defending Europe’ at a civilizational level (and of course you all are at least slightly aware how this hinges into questions of race and all the rest – and much more too!).

    Therefor, when I look in on this discussion I do not see a *discussion* but rather some mushy-brained people who emote through their thinking. What is expressed here reduces to sentiment and the sentimental. You just don’t want to be mean to the fags (or the lesbies as the case may be). You canot take any solid, reasoned, intellectual position … because you don’t have one! But that is a symptom of a far larger problem: the infection of rational thought by vague emotionalism. But this emotionalism, and the fact of the power in the desire-body, results in the destruction of defined value. By desire the values, hitherto defined intellectually, are subverted. And you have no desire to see the consequences, but only to justify your immediate choices through ephemeral sentiment. By what you want in the contingent moment. Absent of critical evaluation of the consequences of the faggification of the culture (excuse the vulgarism, I say it with a note of humor!) You see, you do not care. You are not interested in nor concerned for *consequences*, just like the child who wants what he wants when he wants it. This aplies to so many different things, not just the sexual identity issue.

    I certainly do understand that *you* will react to what I say and you will retort that, indeed, you are defining values, and you will even say that you are defining an higher value, indeed a more Christian value (if to such things you are oriented). You are surely within your rights to do so and don’t need me to give permission.

    But the fact of the matter, as I have come to understand it, is that behind permissiveness and restrictiveness in respect to the sponsoring of homosexuality as a culture-wide practice, and with its many concomitants, there is a group of very important Principles that cannot be brushed aside under the effect of emotionalism and sentimentailty. Yet it is exactly this that has happened and is happening. The more that the theological, or the metaphysical issue, is looked into, and the more that it is understood, the more (in my own case) I see the need to preserve the Principle and resist the *behavior* (as it were).

    • Alizia: Your host does not view you as unwelcome, Alizia. Your comments are civil and passionate, as well as sincere. That they are not mainstream for the most part makes them more valuable and interesting, not less.

      Nobody who is candid and puts the time in to publish a comment here is unwelcome or needs to apologize. I’ve seen too much demonizing of too many people and positions by the self-righteous and the censorious, and I am more in awe of the wisdom of the First Amendment than ever.

      • Thank you very much for your affirmation. I admit to being paranoid. 😉

        • Chris

          Alizia,

          Since you have established in your comment that you are so much better at constructing a logical, intellectual and emotion-free argument, please provide one for your view that homosexuality is unethical. I have read your comment twice and I see no such argument; all you have done is proclaim that everyone else here is less logical than you. Jack thinks that is “civil,” but it is not.

          • I am more tolerant than you imagine since —- and I have said this —- I think that homosexuality will always exist and thus there is really not alternative but to tolerate it.

            What I oppose is the social shift, or the social-doctrine shift, that allows homosexual marriage to the same status as heterosexual union. I further have issues with the cultural processes that *sell* homosexuality as an optional lifestyle. I have mentioned numbers of times the book by two homosexual activists called ‘After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s’ as the sort of text-book or game plan that has been pursued to normalize gay culture. There are various elements in this that concern me: One is public relations and propaganda used as a tool in social engineering. The second has to do with what some have called ‘the marketing of evil’, and this extends, for me, far beyond sexuality and sexual politics right to the heart of a core American industry: arms manufacture and a culture of death related to it. But it does not stop at that. I have mentioned the work of E Michael Jones and his view that sexuality has been used in the culture wars and that this use has ties to intelligence agencies and mass manipulation. I am inclined to understand that there is likely truth in this assertion, and this doubles around again to the issue of ‘social engineering’, advertising, public relations and propaganda campaigns. I must say that I see the undermining of Christian and Catholic culture and mores in this country as being brought about through deliberate effort. The seduction of a people allows for them to be easier manipulated, and sexual seduction is the more powerful seductive method. So, as you can see, I relate all this back to deliberate processes and to ‘the marketing of evil’. I am also inclined, or have been inclined, to notice that so-called Cultural Marxism, and Communist-Marxist activism employs sexual seduction to weaken people, to weaken or break social bonds, and I believe at least in some degree that E Michael Jones is correct when he sees homosexual activism as a sort of vanguard for oligarchic control and assertion (manipulation and domination).

            All of these elements function together in complex ways and it is certainly hard to sort them all through.

            My perspective on homosexuality as a ‘life-style choice’ is bound up with my understanding of Catholic philosophy. I have written about this in some recent posts to EC. You could read them if you wish. From that perspective, which I admit to being abstract and also ideal (and you and I have already gone over this element at other times) homosexual unions cannot be productive, child-bearing unions. There cannot ever (really) be a culture and civilizations constructed on a homosexual foundation. Therefor, and because of this, I say that homosexuality should be discouraged, not encouraged. Downplayed, not sold. Discreetly avoided, not pushed to the forefront.

            To illustrate ‘unethicalness’ or ‘immorality’ when considering homosexuality I suppose one would have to focus on the most obvious images such as gay districts, gay bars and sex-clubs and the underground —- perverse —- aspect of it. I think it will always have that tinge even when it is normalized and aculturated. The acts and the ‘life-style’ in the most general sense are contrary to what is natural and in that sense ‘productive’ and, as I have said a number of times (though I accept that you and others don’t and won’t see it like this) sodomy is, rather obviously, metaphysically and physically unsound and, frankly, repellant.

            And though I might say all these things, and understand that there are reasonable points in all of it, I do clearly grasp that others, even many others, do not see it as I (or we) see it. I do not have some sort of ‘alternative’ to offer to someone who is genuinely homosexual, and I do not think I could see it is a ‘disease’ to which one could submit to treatment.

            I am similarly opposed to abuses of sexuality by heterosexuals, or the over-sexualization of culture, and the markeing of sex, and the use of sex and as a social and political manipulation tool among heteros as I am to the encouragement of homosexual practices. The issue turns on rather fundamental definitions of the purpose and value or our life on earth and in this manifestation (our existence in manifestation I mean).

            I hope it is obvious that I see the hyper-liberalization of culture, and the specific evidences of this, in a larger context of social, cultural, moral and civilizational degeneration. And because I am interested in defining first what this is and how it has come about, and then what can arrest it and reverse it, I am compelled to focus on this issue and many others that are related to it. I do not have a complete, articulated program, but am attempting to bring one together. I am not alone in this I must add. One reason I say this is because, over the next 5-10 and 10-50 years I believe that we will live through a large shift back toward traditional understandings of values. Hyper-liberalism is now being challenged and tens of thousands and indeed many millions of people are beginning to consider alternatives to it.

            • Chris

              homosexual unions cannot be productive, child-bearing unions.

              Neither can my heterosexual one.

              So you can take your implication that only child-bearing unions should be considered marriage and shove it. You don’t even believe this, or you would oppose infertile heterosexuals marrying to; it is, again, a smokescreen for your bigotry.

              • I try to provide for you the inner logic of the Catholic position. I am not exactly sure if this is the Christian (Protestant) angle as well.

                I think you repeated this semi-argument in another thread, too? It is quite easy to counter-propose to it:

                If one accepts that non-productive and non-generative homosexual unions are not to be condoned and encouraged, or even that this is one of the prime reasons for that opposition (it is the main one, not the only one), one only has to point out that the great majority of heterosexual unions will, indeed, produce babies.

                But no percentage or proportion of homosexual unions will produce babies.

                Among heterosexuals, yes it is true, some may be infertile. Or have an afflicted fertility making it more difficult to conceive. Yet Catholicism, or Catholic mythology if you will, recognizes that in seemingly unfertile relationships there is always the possibility of the extraordinary. For example Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist. (In fact Elizabeth is the saintly patron of childbirth).

                The refutation to your argument is obviously here, but I accept that you will not see it, because you do not wish to see it. You really should avoid all argument within these categories because your pro position for homosexual union has nothing to do with whether they produce children. To understand the *internal logic* of your views will require a careful analysis of postmodernist hyper-liberal positions. I suggest that your views, henid-like though they may be, are derivatives from extreme egalitarian arguments. I also assume that since you have no notion of God, or sacred hierarchy, that you cannot see matromony as being a ‘sacred union’ and the joining together of two persons within a santifying ritual. You would not recognize an ‘angelic bond’ as it were.

                Similarly, you would not be able to recognize or understand, say, Holy Mass, nor grasp the meaning of comulgation (communion). You would refer to the *metaphysics* said to operate there as illogical ‘magic’. So, I would point out to you that your position —- post-Christian within an American context —- is a very interesting, if also quite strange, aspect of trends and evolutions of metaphysical and existential description. And then suddenly —- shazzam! —- there you appear on history’s horizon and within the American context. You are an operator of your understanding, and you insist that your values (anti-values from one perspective) are the *true* ones and the ones that must have ascendency.

                But on what is based this adamantine certainty? Because that is what I most notice in hyper-liberal progressive agents: they come into any discussion as if they are Knights ordained by the Creator Himself. This is why I have encouraged you to better understand your own culturally Christian matrix, and that of a whole generation of Americans. You are religious activists in certain notable regards who carry shields and blazons in what seems a Divine Quest for Righteousness.

                It is a strange —- really! —- transvaluation of values.

                I think your use of the word ‘bigotry’ is interesting. Yet it really has no weight or power. I have positions on things and ideas about things that have come about through research and study. My ideas can be expressed through sound, structured argument. But to call someone a ‘bigot’ is no argument at all. It is not a term of proper discourse nor intellectual exchange. Obviously, you use it as a shaming tool and it is part of emoted argument as I call it. But overall this is what defines your positions: you assert certain values and positions that are popular and condemn those that are out of accord with your views. I think that there is a shallowness in your convictions and the reason I think this is because you as a social phenomenon and outcome have been engineered through PR campaigns (to encapsulate it within one term). You do not really have intellectual bases or concrete philosophical (or religious) positions, just emotionalistic and sentimentalistic declarations.

                For the time being, yes, you (plural) have a great deal of power. But cracks have appeared in this edifice. The shrill, hysterical caterwauling (heh heh, just noticed this word in another post!) of the left-establishment will continue on for a good long while, and they will stop at little to see their enemies harmed, but the counter-movement will continue to gather force through strong definition of idea.

                A David to your Goliath, as it were! 😉

  9. Well done and congratulations!

  10. For what it’s worth, and I know you have a different grading scale, Jack, but I think for Commenter of the Year award, you should pull a Time magazine move and nominate the collective body of commenters (about a dozen or so) who don’t comment as often as those of us who are neurotically addicted to commenting, but when they do, they are well thought out.

    In that list I’d include at a minimum:
    Mrs. Q

    Ryan Hawkins

    Emily

    La Sylphide

    Brenda Pawlowski (which I think would comment MORE, but she was unfairly harangued one time in a very disproportionate manner by another commenter)

    Spartan (which is only in this list because she’s reduced her contributions from “prolific” to “very occasional”)

    Alizia Tyler

    Isaac

    Inquiring Mind

    Eternal Optometrist

    Red Pill Ethics

    and all the others who I’ve unfairly forgotten in my rush to get back to work focus.

    • In retrospect this is probably a horrible recommendation, because it relies on grading on a continuum that axes several commenters who comment very often and of high quality (like Extradimensional Cephalopod), but too often to be the occasional commenter who produces high quality work.

      So never mind.

      • I am very appreciative that you included my name there. I was completely surprised. I am frankly in a terrible conflict because I know that the areas I think in are definitely not supported by common opinion.

        I really want to thank you, and also to thank Jack, for extending to me at the least the permission to voice my ideas.

        • When you don’t push silly notions like Holocaust Denial your comments demonstrate that you’ve put thought into your views and attempted to logically pursue them to a conclusion…you never seem to get to a conclusion or if you do, you don’t ever seem to communicate that conclusion to anyone.

          I think you do a good job expositing on the notion that EVERYTHING is ultimately a clash of world views and that Worldviews are Communicated by institutions and that those institutions must always be investigated for what world view they are pushing and if the method they push it is honest or not.

          I don’t think most of your assessments are accurate, but you are accurate that those forces exist and are often/could be nefarious.

          I think you waste too much time hemming and hawing about “what questions ought to be asked” “why they ought to be asked” “who is best equipped to ask them” “who has asked them” “how they should be worded” “what should we even be asking questions about”…

          And spend literally no time trying to answer any of them.

          But again, that doesn’t mean you aren’t thinking about and richly communicating your thought processes in what seem to be quality and thought provoking tomes. (minus the pro-Nazi crap)

          • I have registered your opinions that touch on that particularly hot topic. I understand what you are saying and why you say it. Though I am inclined, and could easily, bring out an answer to your comments, I am obliged not to, for those reasons which were detailed by Jack. But I want you to know that I read your comment without prejudice and I understand it.

            Your comments on ‘worldview’ I also take into consideration, yet I would not have phrased it like that, at least not today. I say ‘today’ because I feel I am gaining at least some ground in understanding.

            As to the comment about hemming and hawing, about ‘questions to be asked’, etc. I honestly have to differ with you. I think that arriving at the proper questions is the larger part of the battle. As to answers, I mean in the grand sense, I think it should be understood that even the most thorough philosophers, like Plato, leave one in inconclusiveness.

            But importantly I must acknowledge that I am an improper fit for this particular blog, given my larger and general interests. It is not a philosophy-oriented blog, but (I attempt to encapsulate it) one that is essentially about jurisprudence. I mean, the law of the land as it has been decided and as the laws are defined.

            ‘Ethics’ is then defined, tacitly and expressly, as the willingness to play by the rules established by law. The ethical citizen is the one who understands the law and obeys it. The unethical one turns against established law. (If I am mistaken here I’d benefit hearing your opinion).

            Which is to say social convention is the standard. And social convention that is always shifting and morphing with no defined center or base. Thus the ethics of today are evolutions from those of 10 years ago or 100 years ago. And by definition the ‘ethics’ of a culture, and definitely in a speeded-up present, will shift almost from day to day.

            For me, the question always arises: Where is the universal standard? How can that be defined? You see, I tend to see Jack’s orientation as being weak in this particular sense, because it seems to me tied to the contingent moment, to democratic will, and not to some defined high standard. But in my own case, that is personally, I have had no choice but to attempt to locate, in myself or in metaphysical space, the standard from which morality and ethics arise. I can tell you that this is now and has always been very much a part of all Occidental processes.

            The aspect of this that is most relevant, to me, has to do with European Renewal. That is, a movement in ideas which seeks to rediscover ‘Europe’ (this is an ideal term of course) and to achieve social and also spiritual renewal. I suppose you and others don’t like to hear it described as such, and when it is you don’t believe it, but the New Right and the New Traditionalists are engaging in this discussion. Essentially, I am motivated by that idealism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s