Comment Of The Day: “KABOOM! So It Has Come To This: The Book-Of-The-Month TV Commercial”

The recent post about Madison Avenue continuing its effort to coarsen the popular culture and society with gratuitously vulgar commercials, in this case Book-Of-The-Month Club believing that it is hilarious to fake out viewers into thinking they are watching a tampon commercial, was not one that I felt would ignite much controversy or varied comment. As is often the case, I was wrong. The essay generated several surprising threads, including a comment by prolix, controversial blog warrior Alizia, whose commentary here ranges all the way into another post, the article about a high school musical casting controversy and the school’s unethical response to it.

She also raises the question of whether Ethics Alarms should engage more frequently in meta-ethics and philosophy. One reason I selected her comment as a Comment of the Day is that I’m interested in other readers’ views on that topic, not that I’m interested in turning in that direction. My focus as an ethicist has always been practical ethics, and the posts here about grand ethics issues of the sort that have been debated to no productive end for centuries have been incidental and few. Frankly, those topics don’t interest me very much; certainly not enough to devote the blog to it. About a year ago an erudite young woman briefly submitted some provocative comments here but want to argue about competing philosophical theories. She was shocked, indignant and angered when I refused to engage, and after yelling at me for a while, left the forum.  For those seeking what she sought, I recommend going here.

Abstract and scholarly ethics have undermined the subject of ethics to the degree that it is not one  most people can tolerate or understand, effectively removing ethics from public education and general discourse, and thus undermined the goal of an ethical society as well. They are still relevant to the discussion; I just know from hard experience how philosophy tends to send normal people fleeing like the Tokyo crowds in a Godzilla movie.

Here is Alizia’s Comment of the Day on the post, KABOOM! So It Has Come To This: The Book-Of-The-Month TV Commercial:

One things I noticed and have mentioned a few times in respect to the Ethics Alarms blog and, naturally, the people who participate in it, is that it often clearly distinguishes a situation or event in which an ethical issue is brought out and then it successfully and interestingly provokes an examination of the problem or issue. Yet what I notice as well is that the issue is not brought out in a larger context. Or, the larger context is rarely explored. The reason why it is not explored is more interesting and it seems to me more important than what is allowed to be explored or what is acceptable. I can think of two instances and I will mention them.

In this present instance it is noticed that advertising is incorporating vulgarity. But it is really far more than that, at least as I see things. What is the real issue? The real issue is the pornographication of culture. It is, I think this is true, coming about because this is the sort of things you-plural have allowed to go on. It is certainly true (as I have scoldingly said) that ‘it is your generation that has allowed these levels of moral and ethical corruption to creep in’ and I think that this is a necessary stance to take. In my view, though it is not appreciated much here, ‘the pornographication of culture’ connects to sexual expression of many sorts and also extends to ‘the homosexualization of culture’.

There is an active agent, either in the business culture itself, or perhaps in academic culture, that has set in motion these pornographic processes. And just as media culture and Hollywood has gotten continuingly infected with this material (which I assume *you* find titillating and exciting and do not oppose), similarly one can now notice the insinuation of homosexuality into the culture-productions. It becomes visible, included, and influential thereby. Normalized. But behind these appearances, behind this increasing in-flux, stands something far more raw, far more brutal, far more elemental, far more powerful and influential, and that is ‘the pornographic’, a truly ugly and vile *world*. And what *you* do has world-scale ramifications.

It is a destructive infection of culture that has astounding effects and implications. But this statement, which should be understood facially as true, is not seen that way at all. Just yesterday there was an article in the NYTs that proposes courses, according to the article, to help kids to critically examine what is brought to them through pornography. But there you have the normalization of pornography and it admits that porn and all that is attendent on it is now a feature of the culture, has now been normalized.

That’s today. And what will happen, because there is no one and no force to put a stop to it, to challenge it, is that the entire process of the unleashing of sexual passion (what should it be called?) will simply and inevitably continue. This cannot be understood as a healthy process, nor can it be described as a ‘good’, and it is doubtful that there will be an upside. It will simply go on from this point into different and now-forbidden categories.

Why is this happening? Who has put it in motion? What exactly happened that has allowed this and so many of the attendant features of aberration to become manifest and powerful? If one cannot see that, describe it and understand it, what use is a local and topographical conversation about the ethics therein? There has to be a more philosophical praxis and certainly a moral one.

My other example has to do with the “Hunchback of Notre Dame” casting issue. Depending on how one frames a conversation about it, and what about it one allows to be included or excluded, the issue will be topographic and limited, or meta-cultural and meta-political. Today, also on the front page (of my iPhone in any case), there is an article that reports on the fact that “The Daily Stormer” and other web-based message boards picked up on this local Ithica event and are seeing it in a specific light. It had been discussed here on EA but very superficially. But I would suggest that the core issue is far larger and more important, and cannot really be brought out for discussion, because it deals on a very uncomfortable and discomfiting topic.

To conclude I therefor suggest that if one is to consider, really consider, an ephemeral ethical issue, one must take into consideration and allow into the discussion a great deal more than what is allowed and not only here on EA but within these sorts of conversations in all media, on all blogs and forums. I suggest that the entire conversation needs to become philosophical.

Therefor and once again I refer to a new movement within politics and culture which, as should be evident now, is gaining ground. Before it was unknown. Now its influence is being felt and noticed. The New European Right has influenced the New American Right, and this movement and the people in it are beginning to come forward in culture and to have their say about things. But in order to have this large and important conversation the confining limitations imposed on this conversation need to be be breached. The present ‘establishment’ does all in its power to restrain the conversation, to control its limits. It is easy to see: they refer to the ideas and views being explored as ‘far-right’ or ‘extreme’ (and neo-Nazi et cetera et cetera).

In order to have a really meaningful conversation about these two topics, those I just broached (and many many others), all the restraints need to be be removed through conscious choice. And when this happens, I further suggest, a meaningful battle will come out into the open. It is not one that will be without effect. It is not one that will simply be ‘pleasantly discussed’, but rather when the real conversation gets articulated one will have to take sides. And since it is, really, a meta-political struggle and civilizational struggle it will not be free of conflict and veritable enmity.

10 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Comment of the Day, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Religion and Philosophy

10 responses to “Comment Of The Day: “KABOOM! So It Has Come To This: The Book-Of-The-Month TV Commercial”

  1. At first I thought the picture of Socrates was referring not to philosophy, but to being terminally disgusted, ie “just kill me now.”

  2. Reminds me of the battle that Mary Whitehouse waged, with the BBC and other television broadcasters in England in the sixties. Reached a fever pitch when Mr Kenneth Tynan used the ‘F’ word on BBC 3 in 1965. Mary and others calling for censorship were ridiculed by the press. I also remember that those who were arguing for censorshilp of the internet said that certain issues like ‘bomb making’ should not be accessible on the internet!

  3. joed68

    Cultural Marxism:
    The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family, in order to pave the way for the State’s role as mother, father, confidant, and God. The Philosophy was proven not to Work already by Vladimir Lenin as he tried in vein to control and subjugate the people. He admitted before he died that capitalism was the only true system in which people understand how to live with each other…. Lenin knew that there were a few western Idiots who kept spreading the communist ideas long after Lenin gave up…. he called these people useful idiots as they had more emotion than brains and could be used to subvert the western states for a military takeover in the future as the citizens would already be perverted and sick and weak from poisonous ideas, decadent lusts and mindless entertainment.
    Cultural Marxism: “everything is relative man”…. “there is no truth”…. “reality is what we make of it”…. “smoke dope and drop out dude!!! “…. “we don’t need money”.. “cops are violent pigs (especially the white ones). “”Women are smarter and better than men; all men are rapists”. “get in touch with your feelings”…. “if it feels good then do it”… “she so empowered!!… you go girl!!”… “there is no god”… “Let’s burn the bible” “don’t criticize islam!!”… “you’re a bigot” “a homophobe” “you’re an agist classist pig”….. “think globally act locally”…. “save the whales.. the trees… the poor african kids!!”…. “drop out of school and rebell against your parents”…. “Dad’s are scum…. mum’s are cool”…. “go vegetarian” “the ufo’s are coming!!” …. “don’t teach kids math’s and reading, you elitist pig!!!”.. “They need to learn to build a veggie patch and learn to recycle and wear gender nuetral clothes!!!” “we can all eat other’s cuisines and enjoy each others religions from every nation in one smelting pot of peoples and get along together and intermarry”
    Politically Incorrect Guy.

    • valkygrrl

      Wow, you just took everything you don’t like and labeled anyone who disagrees as a commie. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

      • But the only way to be able to sort through all of it, is to actually understand 1) what the Frankfurt School actually argued for and why, and 2) what an actual and viable oppositional platform should be and must be.

        If one cannot do that, one will be stuck only in emoted positions.

        Therefor, it is imperative to uncover the ideas that stand behind these declarations and to make sense of them.

  4. Re: linkage between pornographication and homosexualization of culture as linked to the big corruptions.
    I really don’t see any convincing big link in that discussion, There are periods and places that have high values in those without the immediate end of the world. Ancient Greece and Rome spring to mind, but I am sure there are more. There’s a lot of Victorian feel in this, when Victorians had as much vice as ‘higher’ virtues, keeping the counter evidence in back alleys and postcards that survived. I would also appreciate if manners and discretion/’not everyone wants to know your sex life’ would make a comeback, but I don’t think those three are a linked foundation for where culture has gone bad.

    I tend to agree with some earlier SF writers in their future histories when they just call the present era something like the ‘crazy years.’ Change has been coming too fast during the last century for culture to absorb and reconcile all the implications. People are seizing on a few aspects to draw their lines in the sand and go off the rail if it doesn’t go their way or some other trend surprises them. Then they pick a new line to draw. People are following a Trump or a Sharpton because they offer a harbor they understand and want more than others. But the scope of those lines is too small.

    ‘Homosexualization’ is more evolutionary and as it is a new way to classify people and relations. It’s useful there even if it’s not your cup of tea. Pornigrafication is a symptom of other issues and changes, as it shows a lack of respect for other partners, for self, and for other listeners who don’t really give a damn that self-absorbed you thinks it makes you sexy to simulate sex for a show. That’s a lot of dissing being thrown around by porn. The former is probably here to stay, but not respecting yourself and others is poison and really signals an unhealthy culture.

  5. Jack wrote: “She also raises the question of whether Ethics Alarms should engage more frequently in meta-ethics and philosophy. One reason I selected her comment as a Comment of the Day is that I’m interested in other readers’ views on that topic, not that I’m interested in turning in that direction. My focus as an ethicist has always been practical ethics, and the posts here about grand ethics issues of the sort that have been debated to no productive end for centuries have been incidental and few. Frankly, those topics don’t interest me very much; certainly not enough to devote the blog to it. About a year ago an erudite young woman briefly submitted some provocative comments here but want to argue about competing philosophical theories. She was shocked, indignant and angered when I refused to engage, and after yelling at me for a while, left the forum. For those seeking what she sought, I recommend going here.

    “Abstract and scholarly ethics have undermined the subject of ethics to the degree that it is not one most people can tolerate or understand, effectively removing ethics from public education and general discourse, and thus undermined the goal of an ethical society as well. They are still relevant to the discussion; I just know from hard experience how philosophy tends to send normal people fleeing like the Tokyo crowds in a Godzilla movie.”

    Well, it should be obvious to all who read here, and if it isn’t I will say it again, that right now and in our present our culture is being moved and influenced by people who are operating from meta- perspectives. Be they meta-ethical or meta-social or meta-political and meta-philosophical. I am here referring to the New European Right as I have mentioned many times before. If one wished to understand, for example, someone like Richard Spencer (there are 5-6 figures I could name and not just him), and if one wished to understand why it is that there is a new political movement now making inroads in America, I suggest that it would be required to understand more of the meta-political ideas he has read and considered. Now, I fully understand that someone might respond: “I have no idea, ever, to understand anything about him or any new political movement!’ and I would not oppose that. I just don’t think it wise.

    I think Joe D, in a post here, points to a truth: Cultural Marxism is a real thing. It has had and is having great effect in our present culture. To understand it means to understand the ideas that inform it. If one does not, or if one refuses to, one will not really be able to understand much of what is going on in our present. Similarly, to oppose Cultural Marxism will require a similarly grounded oppositional position. It can only take place within ‘the world of ideas’. It just struck me: The low-level and visceral ‘argument’ of the Cultural Marxist is to scream ‘Nazi!’ in a shrill voice. But no one of them, ever, seems to have any graspt at all of what ‘conservatism’ is, and far less what traditionalism or traditional-conservatism is. And very few understand the reactionary positions of those who have been labeled ‘fascists’. But if there is no discussion allowed about the structures of ideas that inform each of these camps, how can one realistically hope to understand the ideological struggles on-going in our present?

    With this brief allusion I would suggest that it seems to me required to gain a better grasp of the ideas that underlie the struggles of our present. But about that one must say a couple of things. Someone said that what matters to Americans is the question: ‘Can the dog hunt?’ Americans don’t want to deal in theory they just want to deal in pragmatic facts. They even resist and show contempt for ‘intellectualism’. Is this a strength or is it a weakness? I would say that it had been the state of affairs when America was truly ascendent. But that ascendency is ending. What America will face now, and what Europe is now facing (though different), will test everything and demand much more comprehension of ideas and events.

    The ‘anti-intellectualism’ of Americans, though a comfortable position, is now being challenged. One added note though on this point: the battles and the struggles on-going today all seem to be expressed through emotionalism! And things get mired down in emotionalism. But underneath these emotional displays there very surely are *ideas* and struggles between ideas. These ideas need to be clarified, brought out into the open. To keep things at an emotional level just will keep things confused and chaotic. Ideas must clarify chaos. And ideas must also be brought back into ethical considerations.

    This is not about vainly engaging in complex intellectual discussions (“grand ethics issues of the sort that have been debated to no productive end for centuries ”) but working to get clear about important ideas and currents of ideas that underpin the events of our day.

    The key words you have used are ‘abstract’ and ‘scholarly’. There is nothing at all ‘abstract’ that people in our present, today, are struggling with ideas that pertain to identity, to race, to questions about civilization, to questions about democracy, to power and an infinate array of related issues and problems. And if one cannot deal intellectually in ideas about these things, the only domain left will be the emotional and the sentimental.

    Therefor, ideas have to be brought down into the tangible world and scholarly ideas made intelligible.

  6. Thanks Mrs Q for that interesting reference to ‘The Leipzig Connection’. I found a pdf version on-line (it is not a long book) and rather quickly scanned it. I found these of interest:

    “If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, and a nervous system, then one must try to educate by
    inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the “correct” response. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way: his actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, because he is a stimulus-response mechanism. According to this thinking, he is his reactions. Wundt’s thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principles of conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig, in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there) and American behavioral psychologists such as Watson and Skinner; for lobotomies and electroconvulsive therapy; for schools oriented more toward the socialization of the child than toward the development of intellect; and for the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the
    gratification of sensory desires at the expense of responsibility and achievement.
    _____

    Thorndike’s primary assumption was the same as Wundt’s: that man is an animal, that his actions are actually always reactions, and that he can be studied in the laboratory in much the same way as an animal might be studied. Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated “laws” from his research into animal behavior which he then applied to the training of teachers, who took what they had learned to every corner of the United States and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools on the basis of this new “educational” psychology.

    _____

    A New Social Order

    The Lincoln School, despite its inability to teach its students how to read and write, created broad effects on American education. Discarding the traditional course of study, it developed the core curriculum and merged the study of history, geography, and civics into what it called the “social studies.” To a generation of teachers and administrators educated at Teachers College, the Lincoln School was a model for the type of school they were to create back home. To thousands of visitors, it was a showplace for the new psychology and Progressive Education. For the Rockefeller forces, it was a demonstration of the humanitarian intentions behind the Rockefeller fortune. Yet it was not, however large, the sum of all the Progressive Education activities at Teachers College. Nor did it represent the thousands of ways in which a now-affluent Teachers College was forwarding the steady overhaul of American education. There is little in the way of change in our educational system and our society to which the professors at Teachers College didn’t apply themselves. Dewey’s disciples Harold Rugg, George S. Counts, and William H. Kilpatrick provide good examples of where Wundtian psychology was taking the teachers of our teachers.

    In the words of Rugg:

    …through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government — one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men; one that will postulate the need for scientific control and operation of
    economic activities in the interests of all people.

    Rugg proposed that this could be accomplished in three ways:

    First and foremost, the development of a new philosophy of life and education which will be fully appropriate to the new social order;

    Psychology currently constitutes the principal philosophical underpinning of our educational and, consequently, of our cultural outlook. From its largely bestial precepts major decisions in all walks of life are now made, and anyone attempting to determine the causes of a deep and lengthy national malaise must take into account psychology’s covert hegemony over the thought processes of the body politic, the body economic, and the body social. Institutionalized as “education,” it has become our largest single public expenditure at local, state, and federal levels.

    The idea that Man is an exclusively physiological entity conflicts daily with the promise of a way of life conceived for, and attainable only by, men of free will. This idea (that Man is a stimulus-response animal) and the methods it implies, has played a critical role in transforming The American Dream into a national nightmare. It has turned our homes, schools, offices, stores, and factories into the battle-grounds of World War III; the draftees drift from encounter to encounter, increasing numbers succumbing as neurotic mental and spiritual casualties. The greatest number of victims, however, is in the 5-16 year-old range, as roughly one-quarter of the population is recruited into the compulsory federal behavior clinics cosmetically known as schools.

    Those willing to decide on the basis of their own experience and observations whether they (and their children) are animals or not, and who choose not to be, must begin now to openly repudiate psychology’s stranglehold on our children’s future and awaken their neighbors from the nightmare.

  7. Since no one else is really interested, I direct this comment just to you. Hope you do not mind! It is all carried out in perfect friendliness and complete respect

    Jack writes: “She also raises the question of whether Ethics Alarms should engage more frequently in meta-ethics and philosophy. One reason I selected her comment as a Comment of the Day is that I’m interested in other readers’ views on that topic, not that I’m interested in turning in that direction. My focus as an ethicist has always been practical ethics, and the posts here about grand ethics issues of the sort that have been debated to no productive end for centuries have been incidental and few. Frankly, those topics don’t interest me very much; certainly not enough to devote the blog to it. About a year ago an erudite young woman briefly submitted some provocative comments here but want to argue about competing philosophical theories. She was shocked, indignant and angered when I refused to engage, and after yelling at me for a while, left the forum. For those seeking what she sought, I recommend going here.

    “Abstract and scholarly ethics have undermined the subject of ethics to the degree that it is not one most people can tolerate or understand, effectively removing ethics from public education and general discourse, and thus undermined the goal of an ethical society as well. They are still relevant to the discussion; I just know from hard experience how philosophy tends to send normal people fleeing like the Tokyo crowds in a Godzilla movie.

    You are wrong I think when you imagine that what she desired is to be found on a philosophy discussion site. The problem with those sorts of sites, and in comparison with yours, is that they are not situated right in the middle of ‘the culture wars’ as yours is. Your site draws out specific situations and asks for immediate and hands-on analysis. I have used the easily accessible metaphor of the Platonic Cave to allude to what I think is as issue or problem, at least as I understand it. But to bring out what I think is to bring out a critique and such critique, and perhaps especially coming from me, is unwelcome. I have said that it seems to me that your view of ethics can be said to have a limited aspect. You seem to desire to separate ethical considerations nearly absolutely from the very context in which ethics arises. You seem to cut ethical considerations out from the contextuality and try to get ethics to be free-standing. I could propose that that is just as limiting to the range of what ethics is and should be as the other pole you describe: removing ethics to an abstract realm that only can be discussed by specialists. Or removing the conversations about ethics from direct and trenchant conversations on the specific events of our day.

    Your readership, and I have to say you as well, remind me of the metaphor of the individual whose head is fastened to the seat in such a way that he cannot turn round. He can only focus on the images presented to him, to the events which transpire before him, but he has few intellectual tools, nor any intellectual desire, to understand how these images, these situations, came to be. And he cannot ‘turn round’ to understand what is producing them. And thus he cannot really understand causation. And because he cannot understand causation he cannot really act against that or those ‘causes’ and cannot formulate counter-causes. To continue in this metaphor I would say that the vision of the present that you yourself have accepts the ‘images’ of the present and takes (many) of them at face-value, with little introspection. For example I have gotten the impression over the time I have been here that you accept and support the US poltiically and existentially almost with no questioning. Your view and understanding is tied to an imago of America which, at times I must confess, seems to support almost a wartime or post-war Newsreel of Americanism. And you attract people who desire to participate in that view, or something quite like it. I get the sense that you and also *they* are sentimentally bound to certain views and understandings. But this is, I personally think, a mistake. Because it is a form of bias in operation. It is an aprioristic view.

    A more ‘philosophical’ view (and I use that word because I cannot think of another better one) means one that is open to more circumspection, Specifically about ‘the tenets of the American Civil Religion’, but then also about history and history’s interpretation. But really about all things. If one does not have access to ‘philosophical thought’, if one does not have an interest in it, if one cannot deal in those terms to some degree, well that is in my view what the metaphor of being ‘tied to the viewing chair’ means: you can see everything, even in Tecnicolor detai, but you cannot really understand what is going on and why.

    My critical position begins with the declaration that *Americans* are often, and sadly, as well-informed as a box of nails. The most powerful nation in the world, with tremendous reach and influence, and they cannot really think things through. And when they get involved in a conversation that requires critical thought, and delicacy of thinking, they often fail it completely. I am reminded of this failing even when I read (or especially when I read) contributors like Steve-in-NJ. His viewpoint and his viewstructure seems to be pulled from a list of ‘American conservative talking points’. Once you have understood and internalized the list you can easily master it. Yet it is (IMHO) a limited, limiting, predictable and ultimately non-helpful talking point list. If one’s head is fastened to one’s chair and one can only see and talk about what is in front of one, and not ‘turn around’, I suggest that one is definitely limited.

    The American Conservative, and the American Cuckservative (this word does require a special definition and I can give it), seems to have gotten caught in a rut. That is my view. This is one of the main things I have learned over the course of over two years reading what is written here quite carefully. It follows almost the pattern of a game and requires a ‘Chris’ who represents an almost mindless and mechanical inclination to the rhetoric of social justice, but one so shallow that there is almost no sense in confronting it; and then on the other side a ‘Steve-in-NJ’ to, as if in a game, comes out in full regalia to do battle. But the battle is totally predictable, and not only is it ultimately boring but it gets nowhere. I have come to see, though saying this does not win me friends, that they are essentially operating from and grounded in the same value-set. They both revolve around an implied center, an implicit center, which is (forgive me) a decidedly non-intellectual perspective. For this reason they seem to me equally susceptible to emotionalism. Sort of like in a cartoon the mouse comes out with a hammer and bangs the cat, and then the cat plans retribution.

    And neither of them have much sense at all that the whole world around them is undergoing vast shifts, the ground is shaking, people are literally freaking out. They are stuck as I say to their chair and are forced to watch the Show but do not really understand it.

    But even what I am saying, to understand it, to appreciate it, requires a meta-political perspective! You cannot form the view that I have if you are locked within the system itself, or with the head tied to the chair. You have to be able to get up and walk around and certainly to turn around the head and see the ‘projectors’.

    There are infinite levels of critique and perspective that can be brought into the conversation on Current Events in America … if the conversation is allowed to open more and if those participating in it resolve to continue in their education, their reading.

    “Abstract and scholarly ethics have undermined the subject of ethics to the degree that it is not one most people can tolerate or understand, effectively removing ethics from public education and general discourse, and thus undermined the goal of an ethical society as well.”

    As I said before the ‘error’ here, though I do very well understand what you are getting at and what also you resist and do not like. I could take as an example almost any question or issue of our day and demonstrate that it requires greater study, more philosophical material, and deeper intellectual consideration through familiarity with ‘the world of ideas’ in order to bring the issue and the topic to life, and in this sense into life.

    ‘What people can tolerate and understand’ is a troubling remark. Take for example the young activist students at Evergreen College. What can they ‘tolerate and understand’? They can tolerate and understand very little and all the readership here and a great many people see this and understand it. But if I were to say similarly, and this has to be said, it has to begin to be said, and it has to be continually said and then repeated over and over again: the Average American is a disgrace to intellect, to sound intellectual practices and traditions, is a giant emotional child, and is there on the scene of life doing harm through insisting on bringing ignorance forward in these ways, I would get onto people’s She is a Demon list.

    Yet this is what I often take away from conversations here and in other places (blogs and forums). Why if someone, or *you* or *y’all*, can see the ignorance functioning, quite powerfully, in one area and among certain people, am I not allowed to see what I see and describe it? Why must my critique be seen, and received, as if I intend to be negative or harming?

    My position has come to be that of a dedicated Eurocentric. I am convinced, and I can share my convictions in rational terms, that we very much need to restructure, rebuild, revitalize, reempower EUROPE and the Europe-derived or descended. I have not ever misdescribed by project nor my values. To be able to restructure Europe, and thus to revivify civilization, is in essence what I am concerned about and where my interest lies. I am interested in America, now and in this present, because America is swamped, confused, in a mire, in chaos, and struggling because it cannot define itself! Yes, I am definitely speaking to European Americans in case there is any question. And all this I have talked about, can talk about, and will talk about now and forever.

    The essential issue, the essential question, hinges on the individual and her relationship to herself (a bit of PC there!) If one is realy going to think in real terms about renovation of culture or the rescue of culture, one has to include spiritual, religious and philosophical matters. One has to go to the very heart of what this has meant and what it still must mean for Occidental Culture. To explore that, to understand that, requires delving into existential, philsophical, and metaphysical terms. They cannot be excluded.

    Certainly I am an annoying creature, certainly I am prolix! But I do not think it could fairly be said that I am not taking things seriously.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.