Anthropomorphization: Ward & Executioner, Prt 3 [Coda]

In the previous installment of this millipedesque series I attempted to examine the ways that innate pattern seeking can lead to philosophies which are either distanced from human-valuing (whether proportionally or in sum-total) such as certain Christian-influenced strains of right-leaning esoteric naturalism (Man is insignificant to Mother Earth) or outright opposed to them such as Greenpeace Envirocrats (Man is detrimental/antithetical to Mother Earth).

Though I roundly criticized the reactionary notion of GNON (though it is highly useful) and the progressive notion of “Enviromental Human Impact-Reduction” (which is similarly useful but more dangerous) I would like to make clear that I am not possessed of that most singular desire to burn things for the sake thereof. One might recall one of those pin-striped, botoxed GOP’ers who, grinning like a hyena and adjusting the Israeli lapel, will proudly declare, “I’ll buy a jeep if I want. I’ll drive it as much as I want. I’ll use as much fuel as I want. Why? Because that’s freedom.”

This ideology, silly as it is (and yes, I gave a purposefully hyperbolic example), actually exists and is, of a absolute certainty, more oft to be found in those members of the GOP and their sympathizers who hold as gospel the collective works of Ayn Rand and believe Bernie Sanders to be literally insane (he isn’t, his ideas are just bad). This kind of thinking is basically, “Because I can, I shalt.” It’s low, low time-horizons but hell, it’s damned patriotic.

Nor am I unconcerned about the environment. Indeed, it axiomatically follows that without a stable and life-conducive environment human life would not be possible and as such there are few things in the long-term that are more important (provided one cares about Man’s continued existence). Where I differ from the shamanistic Envirocrats is that I am primarily concerned with the propensity of a environment to contribute to human survival and flourishing. In short I want environments that are good for Man whereas Greenpeacers generally prefer environments that are good unto themselves. Naturally, this makes little sense and to illustrate this let us consider a world that is filled with nothing but trees and grass; is there such a thing as the good in such a world? It seems highly unlikely given that trees are not possessed of any discernible cognizance and even if it were discovered that they were in fact cognizant a further question would need be plied – to what degree? To a degree equal to our own sophistication, to that of a dogs, a dolphin’s? I think not.

We could go further and take life out of it altogether for the sake of simplicity just to drive home the point. Let us consider a world all of rocks and water, proto-earth – is there a good or a way in which The Environment could be improved or degraded? No. There would be no conscious agent to impart meaning and meaning is lost in the death of the witness. A world without a witness is a world without meaning (which one might remark in passing, is the great tragedy of God – a article on that another time).

Therefore, we should place our primary concern upon human flourishing as the highest priority and not seek to live in some kind of hippy-dippy “harmony” with nature such that our concerns and “Her” concerns are equally taken into consideration. “She” hasn’t any. “She” just is.

The Hierarchical Heresy

Hierarchy.

The word has become something of a prelude to incantations of aspirations for lofty empire and personal mastery among the contemporary dissident-right. Discerning ears will oft hear the rightist cry of, “We need strong leadership!” Yet, seemingly invariably, once a leader steps up to the plate (or is merely proffered by others as a viable option) he will be roundly denounced for all manner of “reasons” which are all too often inherently unreasonable and, perhaps worse, unprincipled.

Consider the case of Florida attorney, Thelemite and right-wing Libertarian, Augustus Sol Invictus (Austin Gillespie) who was blithely undercut by his own party who scathingly condemned him for ostentation, wackiness, “radicalism” as well as a general lack of respectability. Nevermind that he was the most stalwartly libertarian or the most clearly transformative candidate, touting a message of political insurrection and the right of the people to defend themselves from the pestiferous tyranny of government oversight even if it meant outright war (a melodramatic but definitively Libertarian talking point – consider this not from your own political position but from that of a libertarian), nevermind also that he hit almost all the libertarian talking points, shrinking government, cutting taxes, protecting the environment, personal liberty, the NAP and so on – none of that mattered because he sacrificed a goat. Despite the fact that Invictus’ sacrifice was in no objectively measurable way different from eating some roasted goat dish at any given Mediterranean restaurant he was roundly condemned all the same. Not for leadership qualities, not for legal reasons, but because he was considered to be “too extreme.”

Let us turn our attention to another more stark example within the Libertarian Party, that of the presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico. One of the central tenets of the current iteration of Libertarianism within the United States is that the government should not have any say in what a given individual does outside of enforcing the law (sometimes with minor exceptions in relation to transitory processes leading out of existing ‘tyrannical’ government intrusion). Gary Johnson, however, believed that the government was perfectly within its rights to intervene in privately owned business affairs – specifically in regards to upholding “civil rights.” This issue came to the fore during one of the rather amusingly theatrical Libertarian Presidential debates hosted by John Stossel, the be-mustached token-atheist and doctrinal Libertarian host of FOX New’s Stossel.

During the debate the relatively unknown but extremely popular (within Libertarian circles) candidate, Austin Petersen declared that Johnson wasn’t a true Libertarian because, were he elected, he would utilize the government to ensure that businesses weren’t discriminating against their customers for religious reasons. Johnson attempted to respond, stating that, “Discrimination on the basis of religion is a Black Hole!” but was curtly cut-off by Peterson who demanded an answer to the question, “Should Jewish bakers be legally forced to bake Nazi wedding cakes?” Johnson responded with an emphatic, “Yes,” and shortly thereafter went on to win the Libertarian Party nomination for the Presidential Race which everyone knew he would most certainly lose (just in case you have taken up residence upon the seabed – he did).

Now, what to make of all this? Well, the first thing that needs be noted is that regardless of your opinions regarding Libertarianism (mine are admittedly low) or the Libertarian Party, Austin Petersen was perfectly correct when he said that Johnson was not a true Libertarian, if True Libertarian means one who holds to every major precept of party doctrine. However, his civil rights policy of legal enforcement as regards “discrimination prevention” the candidate was in flagrant violation of party policy. Johnson was effectively a nominal Democrat who loved the idea of mass migration and hasheesh. Never you mind the other failings of the candidate, such as his ignorance of the situation in Aleppo, his strange outbursts of rage (specifically in regards to any who dared use the phrase “illegal immigrant”) or his inability to name even a single foreign political leader.

Any of the other candidates were better for the party by the party’s own standards and yet they chose Johnson. One might rightly ask why bother maintaining party policy if it is not adhered to? All of this reveals a fundamental inversion of hierarchy within the Libertarian Party. Perceived affability, eccentricity and marijuana-affinity are deemed qualifying leadership qualities – a drive towards marketability rather than character. Instability is mistaken for righteous indignation. Dizzying ignorance is mistaken for “being one of the people – just a regular Joe.” He doesn’t have time to study stuffy nonsense like general geography – he’s got doobies to burn and Coors to swill! Don’t be so hard on him, he might not be able to point out Aleppo on a map or name a single foreign leader but he’s one of us – the people.

The latter remark is one of the most telling and is a virus which permeates throughout the whole of America’s cultural politik – the idea that what is most desirable in any given candidate is that they be plebeian. This is an understandable notion (though not a desirable one), after all, what rightly vigorous, self-respecting and upright man really wants to admit that one’s leaders are above him in any capacity. Man’s ego recoils at the very notion! Its the cranial whispering of the aspiring alpha – that is, most men – “Dash the throne til I sit upon it!” Here it is instructive to cast the cry back into that great and whispering dark, “But what if the crown doesn’t fit?!”

Naturally, the crown rarely fits as a quick cast-back through the caverns of one’s memory palace will assuredly reveal. After all, when one seeks out a car mechanic one is, by the very action itself, admitting in no uncertain terms that as regards mechanical repair the seeker is second rate – else ways one would fix one’s own car. This is axiomatic. As has been previously noted this is primarily (though not solely) due to ego’s interference in the logical faculties – the cult of individualism is also here at play. There is then a great and pressing need for a return to “knowing’s one’s place,” a cruel sounding edict but one which is essential to a properly ordered and highly functioning grouping. If you are incapable of rallying your brethren and your neighbor isn’t then, in terms of leadership, he is manifestly and objectively better than you just as a Democratic candidate who advocates for Monarchy is a manifestly and objectively poor Democrat or how a Libertarian who adheres to government coercion is manifestly more poorly qualified than one who does not.

One should not be afraid to say, “He is better than thee,” so long as one is humble enough to say, “He is better than me.”