Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:06 | #

Very suggestive article. It has got me thinking. Western liberalism as the “religion of the end of suffering” is a brilliant insight. I’ve never heard it described in quite those terms. I myself have long thought of racial egalitarianism as both the defining feature of modern liberalism, as well as the clear eschatological disciple of and replacement for mostly defunct Marxist revolutionism. It is, indeed, the characteristic species of utopianism of our age, as clear a Christian heresy as communism, but vastly more dangerous. Communism was so awful that, past the initial fervor of revolution, it could only be maintained through brute terror. Multiculturalism is materially and physically just tolerable enough that it only ever generates resistance to yesterday’s outrage, while today’s insinuates itself silently into our midst, an ever newer ‘normal’.

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:33 | #

Good insights PF.

The belief is that suffering is unnecessary…

Hold this thought for a moment.

A natural question arises in my mind, “Why is suffering unnecessary on the left’s understanding?”  The answer, I think, is that the left believes that the only things that prevent us from healing the world and bringing an end to suffering are those structures from our Western past (e.g. biological, national, religious, linguistic, cultural) that naturally divide and distinguish us from each other along with the rest of mankind, which is why Lennon famously invited us to imagine a world without all these things.  It is hoped that when these things are gone there will be no more war and exploitation; the peoples of the world will finally be able to enjoy the abundance of their labor in relative peace and harmony.

Of course, it is a false hope.  The structures that come to us from the past are not arbitrary and cannot be dismissed as being arbitrary without doing serious violence to our civilization.  You cannot simply maintain and expand upon the fruit of the past while rejecting the substance of the past.

In contrast, the right seeks to accept the past and work within its structures and energies in the there and now.  This idea that we can fundamentally reject the past as being absurd and unacceptable is, at the very least, a distinguishing feature of the left if not a primary one.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:57 | #

“Why is suffering unnecessary on the left’s understanding?” The answer, I think, is that the left believes that the only [my emphasis] things that prevent us from healing the world and bringing an end to suffering are those structures from our Western past (e.g. biological, national, religious, linguistic, cultural) that naturally divide and distinguish us from each other along with the rest of mankind, which is why Lennon famously invited us to imagine a world without all these things.  It is hoped that when these things are gone there will be no more war and exploitation; the peoples of the world will finally be able to enjoy the abundance of their labor in relative peace and harmony. (notus)

It’s only the wingnuts who think this - the crazies on the Furthest Left. Most liberals are not so (reverse) ethnocentric. They simply have a jejune understanding of the world (eg, they believe in Wars on Poverty, Illiteracy, Body Odor, etc), as well as excessive faith in the meliorist potential of collective (esp governmental) action.

Posted by Retew on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:23 | #

Just a few thoughts here.

I’ve seen this insight before, by Alan Harrington in his book “Psychopaths.”; “Bourgeois culture has been designed to avoid pain!” The person who uttered that (a young college-educated guy called Arnie) was fascinated by and made a fetish of casual violence.

For those who would nod in affirmation to this, how many of you refuse a local anaesthetic when you have dental work done?
I had gastritis for five years in my 20s, and I found out about suffering then (and also when had appendicitis and peritonitis earlier). Painkillers are a force for good in the world IMO.

My view is a Buddhist one; there is right suffering (best described as the pain of growth) and useless suffering. We suffer unavoidably as we grow old, for example; the late Joe Sobran once said that old age is like adolescence in that your body keeps giving you unpleasant surprises.

Being an only child, I’ve also had to learn (and am still learning, from time to time) that the world doesn’t revolve around me; there was suffering involved in that too. Most of life’s lessons do involve suffering, including giving up your boyhood dreams; I’m not likely to be picked to be the next James Bond at my stage of life, become Prime Minister, make a million (or more since a million isn’t what it used to be), win a Nobel Prize, run a large international company etc..We learn to think realistically about our lives and their prospects, and there is pain in that too.

Useless suffering is that due to cruelty or stupidity, and that is what liberals want to see eradicated. Few of them IMO think all suffering can be eliminated.

Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:13 | #

Retew,

I appreciate your qualification of the thesis. Among other interesting things you said this:

My view is a Buddhist one; there is right suffering (best described as the pain of growth) and useless suffering.

Good. The question presumes that we have the ability to parse each circumstance and ascertain what constitutes ‘growth’.

Needless to say, death of a human being for lack of adaptedness is also ‘growth’, just not of himself, but of the group whose genetic material he elsewise would have contributed to. The group ‘grows’ into a greater immunity from whatever it was that killed him. This is the ‘lesson’ we learned from winters in the North. In this case, a wider perspective than that of the individual is taken.

But the perspective that thinks it can parse useless from useful believes we can foresee the future trajectory of our evolution enough to know which supra-individualist growth lessons are needed and which are not.

The heart-appeals that sometimes attach to this argument, or even body-appeals in your case (e.g., would you accept anaesthetic?) are self-evident in the answer they aim at and will attain. Of course the heart will choose relief of suffering (except in an enemy) and the body will choose relief of pain. No need to even ask.

I favor the supra-individualist perspective from which apparently socially useless suffering can be affirmed, because it frees us from the enslavement to these proximate perspectives of do-you-want-broccoli-or-a-cookie, and allows us to glimpse ourselves for a moment with the damned indifference with which nature, in fact, sees us. It allows us to understand that so-called useless suffering does, in fact, also have a meaning, just one that we are too constrained in time and knowledge to properly ‘suss’.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:48 | #

If we are going to consider this question from the Buddhist standpoint, we can profitably begin at the beginning.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:27 | #

Why evade the thrust of the First Noble Truth? Life is suffering.

Life doesn’t contain suffering. Life doesn’t entail suffering. Life IS suffering.

There’s only one question you should to be asking yourself: “Do I want to Suffer?”

Well do ya, punks?

Posted by PF on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:07 | #

Retew also wrote:

Useless suffering is that due to cruelty or stupidity, and that is what liberals want to see eradicated. Few of them IMO think all suffering can be eliminated.

Another point to make here is that, when granted the use of the logic employed by this argument, most human beings are going to invalidate their own immediate suffering - i.e. judge it to be unnecessary. So while we are arrogating to ourselves the ability, as intelligent men of insight, to judge one piece of suffering from another, we must remember that every human being who is given this priviledge will behave in a similar way, i.e. favoring their own proximate perspective over anything larger that is difficult to apprehend.

The teenager will find his suffering at the hands of his peer group unnecessary - chock full of lessons though that be. The social malcontent will find his suffering unnecessary. The hungry welfare-recipient will find his suffering unnecessary. The girl with an eating disorder will find her suffering unnecessary. At the extreme, a rich kid who is having a bad day will find his suffering unnecessary.

It may appear to us that, since we the men of MR have learned the lessons of a fair portion of suffering, that we are in a position to adjudicate useless from useful. My point is that there is no one on earth who does not feel themselves similarly entitled. The suspicion also lingers that the suffering we upbraid is the suffering whose lesson we are too small to learn. This is the case for all the aforementioned people, I do not see why the same wouldnt apply to us.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:30 | #

There’s only one question you should to be asking yourself: “Do I want to Suffer?”

Oops. I got the question wrong. It doesn’t matter, whether or not, you want to suffer. It’s not an option.

The real question is “Are ya sufferin’, punk?”

‘Cause if you’re not, then you’re not reading this post.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:50 | #

Retew,

The removal of suffering, like the removal of discrimination, voids the cost of maladaptive choices.  Humanity, in order to exist, must inhabit a cost-environment.

Posted by JImmy Marr on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:31 | #

‘Cause if you’re not, then you’re not reading this post.

We invite you, then, to join us in aural suffering @ http://majorityrights.com/index.php/radio/index

Posted by Daggoo on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:27 | #

We invite you, then, to join us in aural suffering @ http://majorityrights.com/index.php/radio/index

Indeed, few “vectors of suffering” better than MR Radio are known to me.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:47 | #

Hail Vectory!

Posted by Daggoo on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:18 | #

WHAT PARE.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:45 | #

I like to think of it less as the end of suffering, and more as the death of tragedy.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:43 | #

Now that is an interesting point. The idea that the ending of suffering is a “spiritual” motivation for some leftist-minded people seems highly probable, and disturbing.
As life tends to have substantially more sorrow than joy, the pursuit of a sorrow-free world ensures an unending hunt for “justice”, thus ensuring the unending reign of liberalism.

The only thing I find odd is the suggestion that Germany isn’t part of The West.
.
.
.
.
As for Pink….., they were always a lefty band. Then again, aren’t they all?

....

Posted by Derp on Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:25 | #

Here’s a question, how does this “religion” propose to end “unnecessary suffering?”

American Neo-Conservatives propose the spreading of “Universal Democracy” and the American model to the rest of the world, while progressives on the other hand rely on multiculturalism and contact theory as means of breaking down the “them vs us” way of thinking.

Two sides of the same coin, both equally destructive.

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:05 | #

All rational ideologies—religious and secular—declare they are for a better world, for less suffering, for a more meaningful existence of humans on Earth. They take different paths to it. (Notus_Wind notes the leftist delusions about how to end suffering).

No rational ideology declares itself “in favor of the expansion of suffering”.

Modern leftist-liberals want to end suffering, but so did the National-Socialists. It is the realm of extreme Jewish paranoia and/or black-propaganda to say the National-Socialists were “in favor of expanding suffering” in a general sense.

The real question is how to go about creating a more meaningful world. Abolishing all distinctions within the human race is not the right way, at all.

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:37 | #

I quote here a comment from PF some days before the entry. It makes the final point of the entry more sharply (I feel):

Posted by PF on October 02, 2010, 08:29 PM | link

You can’t help but feel sometimes like a prince - I mean this with near total seriousness, by the way - when you realize that everyone around you is braced in a constant gesture of subtle apology towards the world, and yet you are not.

You are entirely free from that burden - a burden most aren’t aware that they carry.

And the freedom from burden consisted in this: that I, we, WNs, were aware in the distribution of our sympathies. The rest of the white world (those who swallowed the pill) opened the spigot of their sympathy indiscriminantly - a dying child, a suffering old man, be they of whatever tribal affiliation whatsoever, one’s heart was open to them. Not mine. [...] Not being whorish with your heart-caring was the wisdom we received (from somewhere). [...]

Put another way:
Freedom from political-correctness is freedom itself… All else is window-dressing.

Posted by Bob on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:27 | #

PLEASURE ... when it good for the Race;

PAIN ... if it is good for the Race;

SURVIVAL ... Whatever it takes!

14 Bob

Posted by Hurrr on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:41 | #

If one has the power to eliminate the source of suffering then doesn’t that make suffering unnecessary?

If suffering comes from inequality, separation, differences, divisiveness, etc… due to race, religion, culture, group identity (them vs us), etc…, and if we have the power to eliminate all those things via globalization, multiculturalism, miscegenation then race, religion, culture and identity are - by definition - sources of unnecessary suffering - pointless and anachronistic.

Basically, any type of perceived suffering or injustice which is deemed changeable or curable is deemed unnecessary. However, this perceived power to eliminate or at least reduce suffering is subject to the belief that man has the power as well as the moral obligation to eliminate those things which he perceives to be suffering or at least the cause of suffering.

So in my opinion, it’s all about power - power to reshape the world according into what certain people want it to be.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:38 | #

GW wrote:

Neither of these men regarded themselves as heroes then or after.  Or barbarians or warriors or men of prey.  They were lovers.  They loved and served their people, and they looked after their mates.  And though they saw heroism about them, and though they knew they might have to sacrifice themselves in the course of their duty - something hundreds of bomber pilots did as they held their stricken kites steady for the crew to bale out - yet they never needed a truckload of palingenesis pumped into the scrotum to go out and get the job done.

They would have despised your nonsense.  They would have told you that they never met a man who fitted your description.  They would have said that, on the contrary, heroism lies in the humble and the unassuming.

The truly religious aren’t looking for brownie points, so calling them “fucking” is multiplying a large number against 0.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:23 | #

Nietzsche said that after euroman lost Christianity, he would go searching for other things.

He also wrote:

259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is—namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;—but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal—it takes place in every healthy aristocracy—must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy—not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES, and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploiting character” is to be absent—that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life—Granting that as a theory this is a novelty—as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

Posted by Wanderer on Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:10 | #

RE James Bowery, where exactly did Guessedworker write the powerful words you quote there? I cannot locate it.

Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:25 | #

Nevermind, I’ve found it.
It’s in the very-popular Heidegger thread.

Replying to this:

Neo-Nietzsche:
I am on the offense, like a good Roman of the old school (Titus comes to mind).  Thus slavery is a good institution, as is imperial aggression a good practice, in my universe.  So I stand down to no accusation of having endorsed, as I do, the “evils” of the past

GW wrote:

Guessedworker:
[My ancestors] would have despised your nonsense.  They would have told you that they never met a man who fitted your description.  They would have said that, on the contrary, heroism lies in the humble and the unassuming.

An unqualified statement of “imperial aggression is good” is to me the height of nihilism. The OP in this thread leans in that direction too, as James Bowery hints at.

Posted by Top on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 08:06 | #

When leftists declare that they want to end suffering I think it is the wrong approach to say: “suffering is necessary”, or “suffering will never end”, or “suffering is part of a spiritual existence”, etc.  It just doesn’t really translate into any form of propaganda - I mean communication - that the masses can latch onto.  The leftists talk about the end of suffering in order to gain moral high-ground - they are not really that serious about it - only the suckers amongst them internalize it.  By arguing against their utopian ideas we are acting within their frame and they can paint us an evil bogeymen. 

I find one of the weakest areas of the right/patriots is that for some reason many choose to act within the frame of what the left/outsiders set out for them.  The key is to re-frame all of left’s positions.  My strategy for debating the topic of suffering is to say something “isn’t it ironic that the ones who proclaimed the most benefits for humankind caused the most suffering in the 20th century?”  Then I quote numbers killed by Soviets/Chinese and often compare to Nazi Germany (which I try to paint as socialist, non-conservative with certain crowds).  Another way I try to reframe Multiculturalism specifically is to constantly attack it as an evil set of actions that will actually increase suffering for everyone.  Saying things like Multiculturalism has never worked anywhere throughout history, or something like “isn’t it ironic that Europe experienced the greatest prolonged peace and prosperity when every ethnic group was separated into their own countries (post WW2) and the only country that waged war on the continent was the most Multicultural one?”

When dealing with the masses it is not necessary to convince them, only to demonstrate that we are what’s best for them so that they do not move against us reflexively.  The real fight is fought amongst a small segment of the population - unfortunately where the outsiders are most mobilized.  The way I look at it, everything goes in cycles, and things will swing back eventually.

Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:10 | #

Top wrote:
...[Multiculturalism] as an evil set of actions that will actually increase suffering for everyone.

An excellent line of argument.

The problem is, what is the alternative?

You don’t ultimately gain [many] people with the stick, you gain them with the carrot. Am I wrong?

Posted by Rusty on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:04 | #

Nice article, thank you.  Suffering indicates that somewhere in the chain of events and the thinking therein there is “sin,” id est, a mistake against the universe and the intention of the creator.  When a bleeding heart only addresses the symptom (symptom) and ignores the error (sin) then the error is likely to continue and increase.

Posted by Rusty on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:06 | #

Nice article, thank you.  Suffering indicates that somewhere in the chain of events and the thinking therein there is “sin,” id est, a mistake against the universe and the intention of the creator.  When a bleeding heart only addresses the suffering (symptom) and ignores the error (sin) then the error is likely to continue and increase.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 04:04 | #

These old hippy lefties occasionally get bitten by their own inflatable pig,

The Anti-Defamation League is criticizing what it says is the dark side of Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters, claiming imagery the British rock icon used in his latest tour is anti-Semitic.

Waters, a longtime vocal critic of Israel, takes aim at the Jewish nation’s West Bank security fence during a segment of his 2010-2011 “The Wall Live” tour by using imagery associated with stereotypes about Jews and money, ADL officials say.

During Waters’ recent performances of “Goodbye Blue Sky,” an animated scene has projected images of planes dropping bombs in the shape of Jewish stars of David, followed by dollar signs—an “outrageous” juxtaposition, according to Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/09/28/anti-semitic-imagery-used-roger-waters-tour-group-claims/

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:13 | #

If leftists gave a damn about suffering, then jamming millions of non-whites (natural victims) into close proximity with millions of whites (inherently racist, and irredeemable exploiters and oppressors of non-whites) would give them pause.  But they don’t even stop long enough to ask the question.  If you bring up the question, they ignore it.  I’ve been posing it to them for years, thousands of leftist eyeballs have fallen on this question and never one response.

I’m at the point where I can’t take seriously assessments of leftism that take leftism seriously.  There’s no logic, no ideology, no argument, no debate, no system; it’s a guy with a megaphone and a narrative.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:39 | #

Svi,

Perhaps you are asking about the wrong party.  They don’t give a fuck about the diverse.  They are wholly obsessed with the, of course, irremedial sin of their own kind.  That’s us, btw, and we have to be forced to accept “the other” so that “sin” is burnt out of us.

Leftism has become standard Judaistic millenarianism, courtesy of the niches in liberal thought which Jewish intellectuals could and did fill.

You still won’t get an answer to the killer question (which, you will well recall, is the one that begins “Do white people have the same right ...).  At best you will get told we are all immigrants/Africans, or RDNE or “race is a social construct”.  All of it untrue, all of it unimportant to them, actually, because they just want to get the racism out of themselves and push it on to somebody else.  Jewish propaganda and culture war has dragged them into Room 101.  All they can say is “Do it to Julia!”

Posted by Frank on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:49 | #

I’m wary of what greatness is assumed to be, but the world would be a far better place were Europeans to mind their own business (eg. meddle less in Africa).

I’m not sure we’ve actually improved the world and that it wouldn’t be better off had Europeans simply kept their technology to themselves and merely traded for global resources, minus some of the colonialism.

The issue of our day is and will be until this world’s end: will each social structure choose suicide or not? With technology, this is a very dangerous question: our Heidegger beings might soon more than ever be entirely erased and forgotten.

On a mostly unrelated topic, I thought I’d post this by Evola (whose ideals incidentally I don’t share in full):

“One should consider, then, that “paganism” is a fundamentally tendentious and artificial concept that scarcely corresponds to the historical reality of what the pre-Christian world always was in its normal manifestations, apart from a few decadent elements and aspects that derived from the degenerate remains of older cultures.

Once we are clear about this, we come today to a paradoxical realization: that this imaginary paganism that never existed, but was invented by Christian apologists, is now serving as the starting-point for certain so-called pagan circles, and is thus threatening for the first time in history to become a reality—no more and no less than that.”

-

I haven’t been reading much of the site lately, I haven’t been following anything on the Internet lately, but I was linked recently to a Prozium v. Johnson battle thread.

I want to add to Prozium’s defence that: before his breakdown, as I recall, The Monitor and I were assaulting him with religious arguments, tearing him from his own box (which we all possess). That’s enough to drive anyone over the edge. I dunno if I’m partly responsible for his breakdown, but anyway he might find that of use to his defence. Regarding his idea hopping: we all flirt with ideas before ultimately rejecting them. What matters is where one ends his journey and its net result, not where and how varied the paths are that he’s walked.

I often disagree with Prozium, but like others I humbly and respectfully hope he has an overall positive impact towards my own desires: to defend my people as they are and to defend Creation as it is. I haven’t been following his writings, nor most anyone’s, though.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:25 | #

PF writes: “In reality, it’s just a surplus that came to us from successfully exploiting the inventions of our 0.001%ers.”

-

I’m holding a cup of tea. Is my hand holding the cup, or am I holding the cup? In my mind the cup is held by me.

I mean that as a metaphor: A nation mayn’t “exploit” its top 0.001%ers because they are a part of the nation.

We each have our box. My box says individuals are parts of social structures, the nation being one of the most important. There’s no “rational” view, no objective Zen box.

-

I like the Pink Floyd quote btw - they’ve been immensely influential. Dougie MacLean is a favourite of mine, though no where near as big:

And the little ones they must walk on walk on
The little ones must walk on walk on
It has no reason it has no tense or time
It’s human treason and has no sense or rhyme
But when everything has gone
The little ones must walk on

I think what “has no reason it has no tense or time” is the nation and continuance of life in general after one society has ended and a new one arises (or restores itself).

It’s confusing because here he seems to say the treason itself has no sense either, reason isn’t a part of patriotism nor treason: “It’s human treason and has no sense or rhyme”.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:32 | #

Actually, those lyrics aren’t confusing. He’s purposely contrasting the patriotism which has “no tense or time” and the treason which “has no sense or rhyme”. A social structure has a sense and a rhyme, just no reason. The treason itself, liberalism, is merely the suicide of the West. It will create nothing; it can only destroy, only be part of the rot.

Apologies for going off topic a tad, and yea technology and even eugenics (if set within limits) could certainly serve the nation’s happiness and endurance.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:07 | #

I should have read all of what you’d written first. So you are still taking the view from the group and not from the individual…

This could be seen as a flux rather than a growth in the long term of things:

The group ‘grows’ into a greater immunity from whatever it was that killed him.

So, perhaps I still agree with you and thus have nothing really to say in reply…

I could add this:

CC often speaks, or used to speak, of how wonderful the world would be if dominated by enlightened Nordics who could preserve the biocultural heritage of the world. I noticed in the Prozium thread though a comment by him of breeding a race of god men, possibly meaning he now favours this rather than preservation…

Anyway, technology in the hands of those unworthy… Imagine not only Homer’s “clanless, lawless, hearthless man”*  with great power but imagine too La Raza with control over a large part of the US nuclear arsenal.

We can’t put the genie back into the bottle now that it’s out. We’ve seen how brutal Chinese and Cambodian atheism can be under Mao and Pol Pot, though too our own communists were nearly as bad. And we’ve watched as Africa bathes in blood with only a fraction of such power.

Great power requires guardians to shackle it.
-

“A clanless, lawless, hearthless man is he that loveth dread strife among his own folk.”