What's In A Name?

An issue that seems to keep rising up to the top of the putrid news cycle is the artificial "problem" of gender-neutral pronouns.  A tiny but extremely noisy group of individuals, aided and abetted by a media agenda that seeks to destroy Western culture, demands that we use the pronouns of their preference when speaking to them.

This rubbish is so insane that I feel compelled to address it from a linguistic perspective.

To be clear, "sex" is a biological designation, and "gender" is a linguistic function.  People and animals do not have "genders," only the language we use does.  People and animals have "sexes," and 99% of humans have one or the other of "male" and "female," while the English language uses three "genders": masculine, feminine and neuter.

Of the European languages, English is the least gendered.  They are divided into two primary groups, the Romance and the Germanic.  English is a hybrid of the two, plus ancient Norse, which falls outside the two dominant groups present today.  Both Romance and Germanic languages have gendered nouns, which affects the articles, adjectives and pronouns used with them.  Romance languages have two (masculine and feminine), and Germanic have three (masculine, feminine and neuter).

When I use an adjective with a gendered noun, I must decline it to match the gender of the noun.  In the same way, if I substitute a pronoun for a gendered noun, I must choose the appropriate gender for the noun.  In French, "the war" is "she", while in German, it is "he".  In English, "the war" is "it".  It has no gender at all.  In fact, in English we use the neuter "it" for anything that does not have a sex.

The gender of a noun has little or nothing to do with our perceptions and assumptions of which "sex" the noun is generally associated with.  For instance, "the war" is a feminine noun in Romance languages (la guerra in Spanish), and a masculine noun in German (der Krieg).  "The house" is neuter in German (das Haus) and feminine in French (la maison).  Notice in both cases, the article changes to match the noun's gender, while in English it is always the same: the.

English does not have gendered nouns, although we sometimes assign genders to some objects.  In common usage, a ship is sometimes referred to as "she," and dogs are often referred to as "he" regardless of the actual sex of the animal.  Human babies are generally referred to as "it," a genderless pronoun, until we know the sex of the child, as in, "You're pregnant?! Do you know what it is yet?"

Let's take a moment to review the English pronouns, since many readers probably don't remember their grade school classes, though we use them all the time without thinking about it.

First, we have "singular" and "plural" pronouns - obviously depends on the number of nouns referred to.  Then we have three "persons": first, second and third.  Thus, a matrix of English pronouns looks like this:

The reader will notice that when I address someone directly, I use the pronoun "you".  Strictly speaking, this is the formal variant, but the informal "thou" has fallen into disuse over the last century, and "ye" which is the plural form, also no longer in general use.

In any case, when I address someone directly, any of the pronoun choices I have do not reference any gender - they are completely and totally genderless.  "You," "thou" and "ye" do not imply or connote gender in any way, nor can I infer a gender if I don't know who "you" refers to.  Thus, when I speak to someone and use "you" in my speech, I say nothing about that person's gender or sex, and the only possible option I have is to add "all" to specify a plural object.  The fact that I can use "you" to refer to a group proves that it is all-inclusive and genderless.

When I speak about someone to a third party, I now have a number of options, two of which reference gender, and the other two being completely neutral, or neuter.  I can use "he" when I perceive the subject/object to have masculine gender, and "she" when feminine.  In both cases, it is the perception of the speaker, and the speaker's choice, which gender or none will be used.  When I refer to a baby as "it," I indicate that I do not know the sex of the child.  When I refer to unsexed or inanimate objects, "it" is used to indicate that the thing is not human, or is not living at all.

The underappreciated pronoun "one" indicates a general reference to a human being whose sex is unknown or not important to the predicate.  For example, "When one visits Paris, one must see the Eiffel Tower."

In some English dialects, particularly in Ireland and western England, "your one" is frequently used to reference a third person whose sex is a given (both speaker and listener know it), or is unknown, or is unimportant.

Now, to address the ridiculous assertion by a tiny but vocal group of individuals who wish to change an entire language to suit their political goals.

English, and most European languages are based on the fact that there are only two sexes among human beings - and in fact most higher forms of life on Earth - male and female.  These designations are NOT genders, they are sexes, of which there are only two.  It takes one female and one male to create a third person.  There are no other options.  Any other variants are unable to reproduce.  Thus, there are only two sexes.

In language, I use "he" or "she" to refer to a third person because 99% of all human beings are either male or female.  There is a very tiny number of individuals who are born with both or neither sex, and they are usually unable to reproduce and will often choose a sex to publicly display to others for the purpose of fitting in to the general culture.  These individuals are called hermaphrodites and represent about 0.05%, or about 1 in 2,000 births globally.

As to the argument about which pronoun I should use for an individual, the point is moot.  When I speak directly to you, I use the pronoun "you," which is entirely genderless.  When I speak about you to a third person, which pronoun I use is frankly none of your business.  I will choose a pronoun based on my perceptions and opinions, and which is mutually understood to refer to you.  Since I am not speaking to you, you have no say in which pronoun I choose, since that matter is entirely between me and the one listening to me.  You have no moral right to try to modify my language - it falls solidly under free speech - and I have no moral obligation to use language that you choose for me.

Thus, when I speak to you, I always use non-gendered pronouns, whether you are an individual or group.  When I speak to a third person, the only concern you have is whether my speech is slanderous, but you have no right to modify my speech a priori.  Your only concern is whether my speech has harmed your person or reputation, in which case you are welcome to prove such harm in a court of law and ask for restitution.

If your feelings are hurt by my choice of pronouns to refer to you, this is entirely your problem and does not concern me.  If I start to edit my language to ensure that no one's feelings are hurt, then I quickly reach the point of not being able to communicate at all, since there is always someone who will take offence at just about anything I say.

Furthermore, your feelings are not tangible or quantifiable by any metric.  You can claim your feelings are hurt, but I have no way to objectively verify that statement.  You may be saying such a thing to manipulate me and do not genuinely feel such emotions.  I may choose to modify my language in your presence as a matter of social politeness, but I am under no moral obligation to do so.

The entire argument concerning pronouns flies in the face of thousands of years of linguistic evolution and centuries of legal advancements, primarily free speech.  Any law which attempts to abridge my superseding and unalienable right to free speech is prima facie immoral and untenable.  I choose my pronouns based on grammatical norms, intended meaning, and the right to choose whichever pronoun I want for any given person, place or thing.

The only viable solution in the English language, for those for whom this is a vital concern, is to use "it" or "one" for third-person singular pronouns.    Trying to force change on a language is a Sisyphean task, since language comes from the roots up, not from the branch down.  Furthermore, it violates every moral and legal precedent in Western law.

Referring to another person as "your one" is a viable option.  It is completely gender-neutral and has a long history in the common use of the language.  Additionally, "your one" does not have the emotional and connotative baggage that "it" does, since "it" is sometimes used in a pejorative manner.

"They" is frequently used in common speech when one wishes to hide the number and/or gender of a noun, but it quickly gets confusing in complex sentences.

The primary agenda behind this artificial issue is the destruction of an organic culture.  Language and culture are inextricably linked to each other.  By destroying one, you destroy both.  The issue of gendered pronouns and related attempts to artificially alter language is designed to destroy cohesive culture.  It is one of the fundamental tools posited by George Orwell to erase the past and control minds.

If a culture's language is sufficiently modified, then the people will no longer be able to read and understand literature.  Once the literature is meaningless, then the people have no way to access and understand the lessons our forebears committed to writing to teach us what they learned.

Gendered language is only one of many fronts in the Culture War, but it is a vital one.  If we acquiesce in this battle, then dozens of other fronts will open and a key bit of ground will have been lost.  We must reject this argument with prejudice and never allow any group, no matter what the grievance, to forcefully modify our language.  Language is our bond to the past and our key to the future, and that is precisely what this battle is about: erasing the past and controlling the future.

The Real Identity Politics

At more or less the same time, I have discovered a YouTube channel and a movement that I truly respect.

The YouTube channel is Lauren Southern, and it begs the question, why are all the hot babes on the good side?  Lauren says what every sane person should be thinking.  She takes on the tough topics and is unafraid to go there, challenging all the sacred cows of the Post-Modernist Marxists, confronting them with camera and microphone at the ready.

Lauren Southern introduced me to a group that is quickly rising in my esteem.  The group is called Génération Identitaire, or Generation Identity, and they are literally putting it all on the line to defend history and culture from Neo-Fascist invasion and governmental collusion.

Lauren's passionate report on the willful destruction of New Orleans landmarks made me weep for the loss of history, while at the same time enraged me.  Her on-the-spot reports from Paris just before the election brought me images and reports that the StreetMeat Media will not ever show us.

And of course her report on Generation Identity filled me with hope that a younger generation will not roll over and allow Western civilization to be destroyed.

This young woman has more moxy than most of the men I have ever known.  She is of the right age, intelligence and temperament to inspire the generation that mine left dangling in the wind.  It inspires me to watch her videos.

When I watch Generation Identity in action, I remember fondly my days as an activist with the Texas secessionist movement.  I was ridiculed and dismissed and even had my former life destroyed by a political system dead set on destroying my cultural heritage.  I spent many hours in jail, as well as driving all over the countryside to deliver and listen to speeches.

I was often accused of being a racist because of my activities, but were forced to eat their words when they realized I was married to an Apache-Latina, spoke multiple languages, and had traveled to dozens of countries - not as a tourist, but as someone genuinely interested in the history and culture.

It makes me misty-eyed to see these young folks training, fighting and taking action, while us old farts sit around and grouse.

When I rail against Islam, it is not the real Islam that named most of the visible stars in the northern hemisphere, or gave the world algebra, or bequeathed the world a rich heritage of art and architecture.  The Islam I rail against is a perverted form of rigid fundamentalist dogmas that has gotten loose - an unintended consequence of Western powers who saw it as a weapon.  It is anti-art, anti-philosophy and anti-reason.  It is fascistically dogmatic and unyielding in its error.

It is no different than the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, with its destruction of "pagan" temples, pogroms against science and Holy Inquisitions, and even in our own age supported Nazism.

Real tolerance and real diversity means that every culture has the intrinsic right to a space where it can grow on its own, or die of its own folly.  Good, bad or indifferent, though, every culture and must be allowed to grow, dominate, merge, or die off as the organic structure that it is.

What we are seeing, though, is artificial mixing that is catalyzing a war to be used as a distraction for a particular agenda.  This cultural war - a world war if you like - is part of the classic Hegelian Dialectic: create a problem and install a chosen solution by controlling the discourse.  As the poles calcify, the outcome becomes inevitable, since the destroyers of culture are relentless, and the defenders of culture have no choice but to answer with equal force.

Since one side cannot talk and the other side cannot listen, the inevitable result must be all-out war.  At the end of that war, whatever the final result, those with the agenda will say we must do something to stop these wars, and oh by the way, here's our pre-formulated plan to do just that.  Rest assured that the Final Solution will be just as abhorrent as the war itself, though perhaps less chaotic and bloody.

Individuals like Lauren Southern and groups like Generation Identity are likely the West's last-ditch effort to stop the march to war and the destruction of history and culture.  The open questions are, is it in time, and is it enough?  It depends a lot on who listens and how well they can remain focused on the real goal.

As is often the result, people like Lauren are bought off by the corporate interests and groups like GI are infiltrated and steered the wrong direction.  Let us hope and pray that they have the integrity, strength and will to stay on the Path, and more importantly, that others will join them in the fight.

The most important tools they, and we have at our disposal are books.  We must read the ancient foundations of our civilization and take the lessons of those before us to heart.  It is not the first time our civilization has faced these challenges, nor will it be the last, but it is the challenge we have in front of us.  It is incumbent on Muslims, Christians, Atheists, and everyone else, to see where we have been before choosing where we will go.

Imprisoned By Freedom

You want to know why I hate "Identity Politics"?

Well of course you do, that's why you keep coming back here to listen to my incoherent rants and raves.  God bless your eternal hope and persistence.

Anyway, this form of hysterical mass insanity called "Identity Politics," that's where we were...

The stated goal of Identity Politics (IP, so I don't have to keep writing it) is to beat everyone with sticks and force them into group-think circles where everyone constantly reinforces the same stupid ideas to the point of reductio ad absurdum.  It also seeks to increase tolerance by forcing everyone to be the same, so there are no differences to argue about, as long as you only believe what some brain-dead basement dwelling, YouToob filthing numbnut wants you to believe - assuming you can make any sense out of the incoherent, illogical ramblings.  Also, the IPers want to classify everyone as a victim so that they can be defended against...oh, I don't know, how about Evil While Males (gotta have an enemy).

In a nutshell (a highly appropriate expression in this case), IPers want to be everyone's overprotective stage mother.  They want to create a victim out of you, wheel you out on stage for the applause, then toss you off a cliff.  The whole theater is so absurd as to make Ionesco roll over in his mausoleum.

The IPers hate adulthood, hate anyone who takes personal responsibility, and especially hates anyone who forms an independent thought without checking the Political Correctness Dictionary first.  In other words, part of the mass insanity is Hallucinating Feminists 3.0, who vehemently deny their own X-X genes exist and detest anyone who looks and behaves like a woman so that they can be overprotective mother to the world.  Such delicious juxtaposing irony.

Another fine bit of lunacy is the grotesquely fat and ugly males (I avoid the term "men" in this case) who sit in their overprotective mother's basement and troll online commenters in the hopes of drawing the attention of a dominating Hallucinating Feminist 3.0, for a little self-abusing video hot chat.  These idiots are victims of their own idiocy whose undeveloped psyches crave mental punishment by similarly deprived virtual dominatrices in order to derive some small portion of approval from someone, no matter how horrific and shrill they look and sound.

The foul-smelling, unsocialized boobs what to place everyone in ever-shinking circles of defined behavior or decoration, until ultimately we are left with seven billion kindergartners who are powerless to help themselves, much less anyone else.

Once upon a time, we had legal systems that applied equally to all humans, regardless of any other factor: rape, assault, theft, murder, etc. were equal crimes against everyone.  We once also believed that everyone was free to go about their business - assuming they didn't injure anyone else by it - and if you didn't agree, you could mount a reasonable argument, change the channel, walk away, or not attend.

Now we have increasingly narrower laws that single out people for "special" protection.  Never mind the chilling resemblance to Nazi "special treatment," this is inherently racist, sexist and segregationist - AND THE IPers ARE PROMOTING IT!  Yes, you read the right.  The very people claiming to be all=tolerant and all-inclusive are the very ones creating smaller and smaller boundaries for everyone...and using the legal systems to do it.

This, ladies and gentlemen, I present as proof-positive that the IPers are freaking insane.

We are, as a society, faced with a large group of overprotected mental midgets whose experience with the real world is limited to waddling down to the nearest university - not for education, but to receive scripts so they chant in unison, bang pots in unison and scream obscenities in unison.  This is the very definition of infantile behavior, which seeks to emulate others so as not to appear individual or step outside the playground rules.

This kind of behavior is what pre-highschoolers did before they had the tools to express themselves in complete sentences or appreciate uniqueness.  We should recall the burning need to "belong" to a group and the social imperative to ridicule other groups to make us feel more important.  We also should recall that upon maturity, these activities seem so unimportant and even silly.  As adults, we learn to leave people the hell alone and form bonds with a variety of people in order to expand our range of knowledge and influence.

We must also admit that we created these idiots.  We allowed entitlement and self-esteem to become rampant rallying cries.  We kept our children in protective boxes - now called "safe zones" - to protect these children from media-induced fears of "crime", "drugs" and "danger"/  I put all those in quotes, because for most of us, those feared things never existed.  They were manufactured phantoms that we should have been mature enough to dismiss.

To be fair, the techniques and theories of people like Edward Bernays are highly effective and work amazingly well on the unsuspecting mind.  Our guilt lies in the fact that we, as mature and hopefully educated adults, left our minds unguarded.  We allowed the media to seep into our deepest nightmares and scare us into submission, fightening us into inaction and silence.

Yes, a great amount of fault lies with the media masters, but we must accept that we were primed to receive the messages uncritically.  Walter Cronkite could never speak a false word, and no one bothered to check his facts.

It is the utmost irony that at the very moment we have a powerful tool like the internet at our fingertips, we have become the most passive and accepting of mental manipulation.  Granted, many of us are awake to the siren song of the media, but millions more are not, and the IPers are the most vulnerable.  They have no tools for critical thinking, having spent their lives being inundated with condoms on bananas, Global Warming and other horrific lies.

These grown children have been taught to regurgitate information, not analyze it.  They have been taught that every utterance of "authority" is the Absolute Truth.  They have been taught that cognitive dissonance is a normal way of being.  They have, in fact, been isolated by their own minds.  In other words, they are like a child with a chain saw.  They have an incredible powerful, dangerous and destructive tool and no one has shown them how to use it properly.

So here we are, with thousands of noisy, undisciplined children for whom the media is like a Big Mac - looks good in the picture, satisfies an urge and has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Can they be saved?  Judging by China's Lost Generation, a similar politically-motivated social phenomenon, the answer is a discouraging NO.  Sure, some will rescue themselves by possessing superior metal faculties, or even by accident, but for the most part, these children in adult bodies will burden society for several generations to come (assuming the problem is corrected soon).  The IPer's feelings of superiority, entitlement and self-absorption are set in place and only extraordinary effort on the part of the individual will cure it.  It is nearly impossible to get someone to realize an error when they have been indoctrinated to deny their own senses and self-preservation.

The one satisfaction is that if these sad, lonely people ever manage to breed, their children will perforce reject their sensibilities, as all children naturally do.  The children will seek alternatives to the constant harping and haranguing of their parents and, with a bit of luck, find a much more sensible Universe waiting for them.

The Grand Cock Fight

It seems that the majority of people hollering about diversity have no idea what it is.  The concept of open borders and racial quotas and stuffing as many different kinds of people in a room as allowed by fire code is NOT diversity.  If you are someone who believes it is, then hang on, you are about to get an education.

Diversity means a variety, a range, a set of different things.  Mom's vegetable medley is not diversity, the ingredients are diverse.  Once they are mixed into a lump, they are not longer diverse, but part of a new whole.  Diversity is not forcing all different kinds of people to live together and like each other.  That is social engineering.

Not that we know what diversity is NOT, let's look at what it really is, and see why all this whining and chest-beating over "diversity" is completely wrong.

If I try to force you to live with 20 people from other cultures, I am not practicing diversity.  I am trying to create a homogeneity from diverse subjects.  When people talk about forcing one group to accept another, they are actually being the complete opposite of diverse.

Diversity is when you allow people to live apart in their own cultures and with their own kind.  When you support and encourage people to be different, you are being diverse.  Real diversity is enjoying and relishing the differences.

Synthesis is when you pour a variety of things or people into a confined space and make them adopts each other's characteristics, so that a new whole emerges that is not equal to the sum of the parts.

Forcing Germans to accept Muslim neighbors is not diversity.  Diversity is leaving the Germans and the Muslims alone and allowing them to have their own separate identities and cultures.  A German no more wants to have the local mosque hollering at all hours of the day, mutilate their children's genitals and eliminate dogs, any more than a Muslim wants to wear liederhosen, eat pork sausage and do the chicken dance.  These are incompatible cultures, and the truly diverse person recognizes and celebrates the incompatibilities.

The whole idea that we all have to live together and get along is ludicrous.  Why?  What point does it serve?  If I don't like pork sausages, I move somewhere that doesn't have them, or I shut up and let the local folks enjoy their dinners.  You do not move into someone else's culture and immediately force them to accommodate your tastes.

This wrong-headed "diversity" movement is creating more problems than it could ever solve.  When cultures are left alone and folks can live however they want in their lands, everyone is happy and leaves everyone else alone.

When incompatible cultures are forced together and the local culture is told at the point of a gun that it must accommodate the invading culture, no matter how distasteful, then one is creating a recipe for war.  Anyone who reads history knows that.

However, diversity is not what the elites want.  They don't care whether Germans and Muslims can live in harmony and peace.  That's not what they want.  They want chaos, terror and hate, because there's profit in it.

In the world, there are three basic types of people: natives who are a product of a culture, tourists who want to sample foreign culture, and travelers who immerse themselves in foreign culture.  What all three have in common is that they perceive "My" culture and "Their" culture, and at the end of the day they can go "Home" to a culture that is distinctly their own.

THAT is diversity.

The thing that is called "diversity" by certain groups today denies on basic principle that is the basis of peace and harmony: Home.  It denies me the right to go someplace where I can be with people like me   It is denial of a fundamental right of human beings to call one group "us" and another group "them."

The ultimate goal of the "diversity" nuts is to create a synthesis of all peoples and cultures, so there is no longer an "us" and "them."  We all look, act, eat, worship, talk, and live the same, so no one is "above" or "below" another.  Little do they know that this is an unachievable goal.

I have lived in many places and with many cultures.  The one thing I have found everywhere is that everyone needs someone to shit on.  It is a fact of human nature and it ain't gonna change any time soon.  Every single person on Earth defines themselves as being better than this one, but worse than that one.

Even if the entire world looked alike and had all the same things, people would find something that separated them from someone else.  I don't care how idealistic or hopeful you are, it will not change the human condition.

In Indonesia, where everyone has brown skin, dark eyes and black hair, they define each other on character traits of groups, on clothing styles, on architecture, on location, on food.  To an observer, you would think everyone would be happy because they all look alike and live on islands, but that is definitely not the case.  There is no homogeneity here, no matter how similar folks may seem to a third party.

There is no way in hell the "diversity" movement, as it is currently defined, will ever succeed.  There are only three possible outcomes: the outsider assimilates, the host culture is assimilated, or a synthetic new culture is created.  In none of these cases can diversity be said to have succeeded.

New York City is a perfect example of "diversity."  Neighborhoods, even only a couple of blocks square, take on the culture of the people who live there.  There's a Greek area, an Italian area, a Russian area, and a Jewish area.  Within those areas, there are native restaurants and shops, the native language is spoken, and gangs form as a kind of native law enforcement.  This is the result of "diversity."  None of them get along, and peace is only maintained by each group respecting the territory of the others, and having their own respected in return.

"Diversity" is a fantasy.  It's a Utopian pipe-dream of everyone living together, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  And it has one defining feature: it fails every time it is tried.  It is not how people are wired.  We are cheetahs whose spots are set and will never change.  The spots will never become stripes, no matter how much it is decreed from on high.

It is clear, at least to me, that there is a group of elites who find it suitable to thrust all these cultures into one arena.  Like oil and water, they will never mix, and ultimately the cultures will clash violently until the proverbial last man stands.

Perhaps that's the goal: get us all to eradicate each other so that the elites are the last remaining culture, and they win by default while having "clean" hands.

It's like a grand cock fight.  The two bantams battle to the death, while the spectators bet on which will win.  Ultimately, the cocks lose and the spectators win, no matter how you slice it.

I prefer real diversity.

Metaphysically Conjoined Twins

What are culture and morality?  The definitions of these two concepts have vexed philosophers and theologians for most of recorded history.  For a great many centuries, they were consigned to the realms of the secular and theorlogical, respectively.  Yet, they were inextricably united in the whole that we commonly call civilization.

At one time, the civil and theological powers were bound together, with one reinforcing the other.  In many cases, they were the same force, as in the millennium where the Roman Church ruled the throne, or even today were Shyaria has surfaced among certain political forces, so that secular and religious authority cannot be isolated.

As a species, we seem to have arrived at a unique nexus in history.  Largely beginning with the Protestant Reformation and into the Enlightenment Period (for Western culture, at least), a process was begun to separate the conjoined twins of culture and morals that is having profound consequences now 500 years later.  In the case of then and now, the upheaval is predicated on new forms of communication, and the resulting loss of control by the elite classes, the Priesthood, if you will.

Indeed, we must call them the Priesthood.  “They” is too vague and undefined.  What we are dealing with is a group of elites, who for centuries have wielded the combined swords of culture and morals.  Having watched their authority erode from the time of Gutenberg until now, we know from documents such as the 29 Protocols that this Priesthood is trying to reset society.  By creating a ‘culture’ where anything goes and there seem to be no rules or authority at all, the Priesthood is trying to bring civilization to its knees to use the opportunity to re-establish their wide-ranging controls over humanity. 

We are witnessing this deconstruction right now.  The crumbling secular structures of government, police powers, religion, education, and so forth, is leading inevitably towards a moment of catharsis in which we will collectively cry out for some authority to step in and save us from ourselves.  Enter the currently deposed Priesthood, who have sought to regain their former status as rulers and arbitrators since the moment we unwashed masses were able to own and read a copy of Gutenberg’s Bible.

Since the Enlightenment, Western culture has strived to locate a moral code and authority in Nature.  By taking the moral authority away from monarchs and religious institutions, they were forced to find some new force in Nature that established and enforced a set of Universal Morals.  The secular Western states and legal systems began to evolve as moral arbiters, legislating what God once declared through secret revelations to religious authorities.

In other words, the Priesthood was deposed from their central role of wielding cultural, secular and financial power over all aspects of life.  They were replaced by Jeffersonian concepts of Universal Equality and Sufferage, though the realization of those ideals is still evolving.

In some cases, moral authority was bestowed on society’s institutions by Nature’s God – a sort of amorphous and non-sectarian power.  In other cases, such as Soviet Communism, all religious authority was to be purged and a moral code was to be forced on society by a central authority, whose job it was to become obsolete and fade away.  Still others, such as Japan, Thailand and Britain, maintain a monarch invested with both secular and religious authority, though of necessity, the role of the monarch has been elevated to a point where they have almost no day-to-day control, due to their lofty natures.

In some cases, such as Russia, there is a swing back to a more central role of the Church in secular affairs, in the person of Putin and his cronies.  In the US and Indonesia, there are many voices proclaiming that those countries were founded on religious authority, though those voices are very wrong.  The mistake comes in not understanding what a republic is, and how a republic seeks to establish a core set of “rights” (a modern replacement for morals) that cannot be undone or modified by the governmental power.

In concept, these “rights” are to be upheld and enforced by all society.  Every member agrees that these “rights” are bestowed by some higher authority than government (undefined).  In practice, though, “rights” are malleable and mutable.  They are subject to changing moral standards.  They have become much closer to “privileges” than “rights”.  A perfect example is the “right” to bear arms, or the “right” to free speech.  Almost as fast as those “rights” are declared, people begin finding occasions when they are seemingly inappropriate, and so immediately begin the process of creating “privileges” out of “inalienable rights”.

Since the Enlightenment, we have found ourselves trying to define Universal Morality.  Is there indeed a set of rules that apply in all times and places?  We claim that it is wrong to kill, but almost in the same breath call self-defense an important exception to that rule.  We claim it is always wrong to steal, yet in the very next paragraph authorize taxes and civil forfeiture. 

In other words, cut loose from the religious authority, morality becomes a kind of contrast ratio, where a a sliding scale occasionally brings certain “rights” into view, while others fall outside the framework.  Relativism takes over and suddenly morality becomes defined by each and every individual’s circumstance and context.  What makes this unacceptable, though, is the fact that one can be punished in the future for a moral choice in the past that was within the framework then, but is not now.  This retroactive feature of the moral ration of relativism is what places us at the nexus, where we find ourselves now.

In other words, it is immoral for someone to torture and kill without some kind of socially defined process, unless you wear a uniform and/or carry some sort of “badge” that gives license to ignore the rules.

So we find ourselves at the crucial moment in history: the ancient Priesthood is fomenting chaos in order to insert themselves back into the throne;  secular power has been divorced from the “higher authority” that once kept it in check; the individual is without moral compass because the framework is constantly sliding around the scale of right and wrong.

Our civilization is coming to a mighty clash – a perfect storm of immovable objects and irrisistable forces – where the very old, the old, the new, and the very new will battle it out using the unique creation of the internet.  The result, in a century or so, will be the first truly Universal Moral Code, acceptable to all individuals. 

In the meantime, however, it will be nasty.  There will be many casualties as the various camps battle it out over who will ultimately control this new authority.  Some, such as the Religion, Illuminati and Capitalist camps, have suffered severe blows and are fighting back like cornered and wounded animals.  This epoch may end in a revolutionary conflagration that will leave nothing standing of our cultural past.

What emerges from this unique period in history will be the ruling paradigm for centuries to come, and we likely will not recognize the outcome.  Most of us reading these words will probably not be around to see the result.

However, we are obligated by our duty to future generations to begin talking about this battle and profoundly exploring the conceptual framework that will emerge from it.  In the quest to destroy something old, there must be a plan for replacing it.  This is the vital part of the current culture that is conspicuous in its absence.  We are at a unique point in history, with a unique tool called the internet.  Ultimately, we have two choices: destroy everything, or create something.

It is quite obvious that the old paradigms are doing a sufficient job of destroying things, so it is up to the rest of us to start creating

Culture's Not For Yogurt Anymore

Another looong day in the world of "high art".

It is not easy building a world-class art and performance center, especially on the 11th, 12th and 13th floors of a city as densely packed as Jakarta, but I'm determined to do it because, damn it, creating and promoting beauty and harmony is the only way to beat the bastards.

I've gone on at length in this column about art and how it is like garlic to vampires when it comes to the PowersThatNeedTheirToastButtered (PTNTTB).  Educating and elevating humanity is/will be the key to winning the Culture Wars.

Pick a random film from the 50s and another from this past year.  Doesn't matter the genre or plot, and listen to the words.  Runing them again and watch the pictures.  Notice anything?  The portrayal of humanity is ever coursening.  People talk course, act course, think course.  Dress has gone downhill.  Manners have all but vanished.  And this is how the PTNTTB expects us to act because animals are much easier to train when they are broken.

They don't want us to have high culture and art.  They don't want us to elevate our minds and spirits.  They just want unthinking animals that can push buttons and pull levers.

How do Warhol, Lichtenstein and Pollock compare to Rembrandt, Titian or Monet?  How do Pearl Jam, Tin Idiots and Sex Pistols compare with Chopin, Handel or Mendelssohn?  They are really trying to kill us spiritually by continually rubbing our souls in filth and denying us the ability to rise above baseness.  They want to save god-like status for themselves while the rest of us happily serve their every whim (see Star Trek TOS: Plato's Stepchildren).

Speaking of art and Star Trek, have you noticed that it's kind of like the Bible?  You can find an episode to illustrate just about any point you care to make.

Where was I?  Oh, right...

It stands to reason that if the PTNTTB are so desperate to reduce humanity to little more than lap dogs, then the best/only way to fight back is to create beauty and educate ourselves.  Right here in Indonesia, the PTNTTB are so paranoid and afraid of folks getting smart and out of hand that last year they cancelled all art and history classes in the public schools so they could stuff more religion down everyone's throats.  And next year, since the public schools are determined to turn out idiots, then by golly all the private schools need to get rid of their language and computer classes so everyone is equally squalid and subservient.

Sad but true.

It's a real good sign of fascism when society (such as it is) is geared specifically to create one-trick ponies who are just smart enough to punch buttons, but could never challenge the folks in the board rooms.

Only problem is that whatever the rest of the world is becoming, so are the breeding products of the slimy PTNTTB.  The...children for lack of a better term...of those useless blood-sucking would-be masters are just as slimy, dreary and vacuous as their "parents".  More so.  Look at Paris Hilton.

We're on our own.  We have to read, to listen to fine music, to ponder philosophy, to appreciate good art, and to control to the greatest extent possible the quality of information that enters our souls.

Not only are the PTNTTB in terminal decline and soon unable to rescue even themselves, we are certainly not on their list of priorities.

If you are one of the few with the self-awareness to not only determine whether you have a mind and soul, but able to define and develop them, then run...don't walk...to the nearest gutenberg.org terminal and start packing your head with real, uplifting information.

You owe it to the future of the human race.

Linguistic Hegemony

You know?  I don't believe there's such
a thing as TV.  I mean -
They just keep showing you
The same pictures over and over.
And when they talk they just make sounds
That more or less synch up
With their lips.
That's what I think!

Language!  It's a virus!
Language!  It's a virus!
Language!  It's a virus!
  --Laurie Anderson

I admit I am guilty of linguistic hegemony.  I have made a fair living off of teaching English.  To be fair, I have also taught Spanish and German, but I go where the market is.

I also point out that I am fluent in four languages, conversant in another five, and have at least elementary command of an additional eight.  So I claim a certain amount of expertise on the subject at hand.  I have formally studied English, Spanish, German and Latin, and I have learned the rest by osmosis.  I have even learned a foreign language using another foreign language, which is a fun thing should you have occasion to try.

That said, I will tell you that empires are built on little more than language.

I find very few commentators or writers pointing out this fact.  They speak of economic, religious or military domination, but rarely, if ever, highlight the role of language in the maintenance of empires.  All other forms of empire are founded on the power of language to project them across time and space.

The Roman empire could not have stood for 900 years had not Latin been forced on all conquered peoples and nations.  In order to conduct commerce or access information or receive public appointments, one had to be proficient in Latin.  It was that simple.

If the Teutans wanted to trade with the Gauls or the Angles, they had to do so using Latin.  It was the only common means of communication available, and most people with any amount of education had already been forced to learn Latin as subjects of the empire.

Even now, there are five primary Romance languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian).  Latin is still the official state language of the Vatican, which has no small amount of influence on global events, as evidenced by events of the past month.  And Latin suffuses dozens, if not hundreds, of languages worldwide.  The etymology of nearly every polysyllabic word I have written thus far is from Latin, with a smattering of Greek (another empire) and a grammatical base of Teutonic that is English.

Language is the mortar which binds many of our modern nation-states.  The United States could not exist without the use of American English as the common denominator.  Indonesia maintains its republic through the use of a Malayu dialect.  China's republic is held together with Mandarin, just as the vast nation of Russia is held together with a common language.  In fact, none of these monolithic political states could exist without a common language.

Most of the success of the Anglo-American empire has been founded on the international use of English as a sort of trading language.  Just as Arabic holds the Islamic world together, English creates the hegemony of the Anglo-American empire.  Those who wish to access the economic or intellectual benefits of the empire must perforce use English.  All the professional journals of any consequence, most of the translations of more obscure texts in other languages and the vast majority of international trade are available only to those who have a command of the English language.

But why is this important to empire?  The answer is both simple and complex.

All language is symbolic.  When we speak or write, we are converting images and symbols in our minds into a form of carrier wave and transmitting them to others who are capable of decoding and rebuilding the images and symbols in their heads.  Every form of human communication is nothing more than encoding and decoding information to transfer and recreate images between transmitters and receivers.

The key concept here is that the images and symbols we have in our minds are cultural and experiential.  For instance, the concept of elephant will have vastly different images and symbols connected with it for a US school kid and his Thai counterpart.  The former will envision zoos and circuses, while the latter will see a common work animal.  Thus it is true that no matter what we say or write, it carries specific cultural meanings and contexts.  So anyone learning a foreign language must necessarily become immersed in the culture of that language, because language and culture are one and the same thing.  Language simply encodes culture and transmits it to the receiver.

By the same token, culture is language.  We typically call this phenomenon slang.  Each generation develops its unique slang based on its unique experiences, and as a way of identifying itself as distinct from others.  Some slang catches on in the general culture and becomes a permanent part of the language, while other forms fade over time and are eventually lost in meaning.

We need look no further than Shakespeare himself for clear examples of this.  The terms fish monger, nunnery and fishwife are all contemporary slang for whorehouse, pimp and whore, though modern readers of Hamlet will hardly get the pun.

So what's the point of all this, you ask impatiently.  I'm getting there.

Language has been the single most effective tool for maintaining empires in the squalid history of Mankind.    The English language has been shoved down people's throats for hundreds of years, first by the British empire, then later by the American empire.

Enforcement is simple.  If you want to do business with the empire, you need to use the language of the empire.  Plain and simple.  In so doing, the empire ensures that its culture is infused into subject nations, thus ensuring a market for its products and services.  One of the largest global cottage industries is teaching the English language, and by extension suffusing other cultures and peoples with the Anglo-American way of life.

Learning English gives access to English-language books, movies and music.  It brings with it a very subtle and likely permanent invasion.  The ideals, concepts and contexts that are the 'Western way of life' are encoded in the language and infect all who tap into the transmission.

The English language itself is a study in conquest.  At its core, it is a Germanic language and many English speakers will find they recognize a lot of German vocabulary.  Over this base is laid Latin, French and Greek.  In addition, English has picked up words from dozens of other languages, especially those of conquered peoples.  American English contains dozens of American Indian words.  Australian English stole many Aboriginal words.  British English has picked up a significant Indian vocabulary.

Another phenomenon, noted by myself and others of my acquaintance, that becoming fluent in other languages usually means creating entirely new personae, as well.  When I speak Italian, I find myself gesticulating wildly, or Spanish makes me feel romantic, while French turns me into a snoot.  It is quite obvious that learning and using other languages carries with it cultural viruses that infect the user and subtly change the personality.

Language is a curious thing.  It not only encodes, but is encoded.  It creates a culture, but is also created by a culture.  It is at once the chicken and the egg.

Powerful economic, political or military cultures leave their impressions in other languages, as they have been left in English, and the study of a language is a study of its cultural history.  Indonesian is embedded with Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, Dutch and English...all empires that have squatted on this country.

English does have certain advantages over other languages.  It readily assimilates foreign grammar and vocabulary, and the syntax is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of dialectical forms.

Still, it is a tool of hegemony, like other languages of conquest.  It transfers and overrides other cultures and is the key to a number of 'thought viruses' that tend to infect minds.  Of course, this power behind the language is and has been dependent on the economic engine of the empire.  Without the financial might backing it, the linguistic hegemony may well collapse.

All of which should leave you with two distinct ideas:
1) You feel dirty now because I've infected you with thought viruses; and
2) You really should start learning Mandarin.

Please Stand By

Well, hello everyone out there in the Land of Byte.  Just thought we'd give everyone a head's up about some new things we're getting into here on the Far Side.

We've been hard at work developing a radio format to start bringing you more multimedia content with guests and information of special interest to folks who live on the Far Side, both literally and figuratively.  We've set up a Vimeo channel called Radio Far Side, where soon we will begin posting all-original content.  If a search doesn't bring it up, try 'luapjkt'.

We have some very exciting guests planned, and one or two already in the can, as they say.  We'll cover issues both timely and timeless.  These won't be podcasts, because frankly, who wants to hear me blabber?  Instead, the format is a fully-produced one-hour program with guests who have valuable things to offer our audience here.

We're used to winning awards for our efforts, and this one won't be an exception.  We are aiming for high-quality content and production value to make this a going concern.  After all, as George Ure says, everything's a business model.

Speaking of business models, we should point out the new 'donate' button on the right.  We're not asking for anything right now.  Wait till you hear and see what's coming.  But if you like it, then we're hoping you'll join in helping to grow the idea.  We've already sunk a couple of hundred bucks into hardware and software to do this thing right.  Ultimately, we want to set up a server and offer a whole range of information, entertainment and stuff to make it worth your while to hang out around the Far Side with us.

You'll notice we don't do advertising and just offer an Amazon gateway that hasn't earned a penny in over two years.  We envision this as being a completely user-supported effort.

To that end, we want to know what the audience wants.  We'd love it if you took a moment to send us a note at luap.jkt@gmail.com, and tell us what kinds of things would make this effort worth your while.  Suggest some guests.  Tell us what you like and don't like about other, similar sites.  We don't want to be another news amalgamator.  Rense and others do that quite well.  Instead, we want to offer more avant garde material that avoids the whole 'news' trap and goes to the heart of real issues, history and especially culture.

For a while now, we've been harping on the whole culture war, so now we're putting our efforts where our mouth is.  This will be our salvo into the fray of setting up a counter-culture of real content.

We genuinely hope this appeals to our audience here.  It's one thing to talk, it's another to make it count towards changing things.

We're serious about this, and we hope that our audience will find our efforts worth their while.  We will put all we have into making it a quality experience.

Please stand by...

Culture Ain't Just For Yougurt

Culture is a product of its constituent 'hearts' and 'minds.'  I use hearts and minds in their metaphorical senses, because despite the best efforts of science, they can not find organs or electro-chemical processes that produce those two things. 

There is a muscular pump called the heart, but it is not the literal seat of the emotions.  There is a mass of gelatinous circuits, but it is not the seat of reason.  These two things transcend the sum of the parts that we call human being.  And it is these two things that produce 'culture.'

Thus, culture is a product of the state of our collective hearts and minds.  It reflects the inner life of those who create and live within it.  What we together call 'beautiful' reflects directly on our most transcendent and metaphysical selves.

One of my favorite cities on Earth is Prague (Praha).  The name means 'threshold,' and is part of a longer name meaning 'threshold to the stars.'  The Old Town is a magnificent example of high architecture.  When one stands in the central plaza, one feels elevated and overwhelmed by the examples of stone, metal and wood transformed into practical, yet transcendent spaces.  The soaring cathedral, the Old Town Hall, the old city wall all elevate the senses, because everywhere you turn is a vista that evokes harmony, rhythm and mystique. 

By contrast, in the outlying areas are concrete gardens of grey boxes that were built during the Soviet occupation era.  These areas are lifeless and drab.  They depress the spirit and appear dirty and dilapidated, no matter how much cleaning and painting one applies to them.

Both parts of the city are basically practical areas for use by humans to contain and protect their daily lives.  Yet, one soars beyond the materials and uses for which they are intended, and the other is a dour and depressing utilitarian nightmare.

Language, too, is a central compenent of culture.  To see how our language has deteriorated, one need only compare Shakespeare with Judith Krantz.  The works of Shakespeare hammered the English language into something that transcended mere words.  Even if you have no clue what is being said, the meter and harmonics of the words being spoken are themselves a high art.  In contrast, Krantz' works are hardly elevated above street language, reflecting the basest emotions and desires of humans.

Choose any aspect of culture and compare today's twisted and dark shadows to the products of a century of two ago.  Compare Mozart with Lady GaGa.  Compare Michelangelo with Miro.  Compare Isaac Newton with Carl Sagan.  In every case, we can see the devolution and degradation of culture.

If we look for a cause, we can trace it directly to those in power and who control wealth.  In nearly every case, the great artists and thinkers of the past were supported in some way by kings and wealthy families.  Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo had the Medicis.  Mozart had the Austrian emperor.  Michalangelo had the Catholic Church. 

By the same token, modern artists and creators are sponsored by the wealthy and powerful, but now those supporters are not people, but corporations.  The result has been a hollowing out of culture.  A corporation is a creature or the state.  It has no soul or conscience.  It is literally a Frankenstein's Monster.  The corporation is a created lifeform without soul, heart or mind.  Therefore, whatever it supports and creates can never be elevated or sublime.  It will always be a reflection of the lifeless, soulless creature that sponsors it.

A corporation can not create anything more than copies of itself.  It is not endowed with those transcendent aspects of humanity called heart and mind.  It has no sense of beauty or harmony or rhythm.  It exists only to feed the baser desires of greed and power.  Therefore, whatever it sponsors will serve only the purpose of enriching itself in the near term.  It can never create something for the sake of beauty and to enrich the culture at large.  It is supremely self-centered and reflexive.

A Japanese corporation doesn't care about making films that elevate the heart and mind, and explore the human condition.  All it cares about is assembling the most elements that will pack the theater and make a profit before everyone figures out that it's just empty calories.  There's no spiritual nutrition in any single frame.

A music corporation doesn't care about lofty ideals and harmonic resonance with those who consume it.  Music is nothing more than a commodity of clap-trap that enough people will buy to turn a profit.

Because of corporate sponsorship, all art and culture have become nothing more than iron, grain and pork bellies.  There's no value added, no transcendence, no beauty.  It's just raw materials without creativity.  None of it will stand the test of time.  In less than a generation, it is all reduced to ugly eye-sores and atonal cacophony with no value past the bottom line of some anonymous, featureless organization.

Take any ancient European cathedral.  They are, at their basic level, nothing more than boxes designed to enclose a space.  In that sense, they are no different from any modern steel-and-glass monstrosity.  But when you enter a cathedral, you are confronted with a sensual metaphor for the human spirit.  We begin our journey in the nave next to the baptismal font.  Stretching out before us is a soaring cavern of pipe organs, incense and light that engage all the senses and provide a symbolic life's journey.

As you traverse the long, narrow central corridor, you are surrounded with vast windows of colored glass that cause the sunlight to sparkle and dance across the interior.  The windows contain symbols that remind us of higher ideals and goals, and provide reminders of lives we are meant to emulate.  As we walk, we draw closer to the altar, a symbolic heaven, surrounded in gold and richly adorned in paintings.  From a distance, it glows and beckons us forward.  Once we arrive, we are surrounded with beauty and harmony.  Looking back, the long cavern is dark and foreboding. 

Compare that experience to any modern architecture.  They are nothing more than ant hills designed to encapsulate the workers who produce wealth for the corporations.  There is no uplifting message or sensual engagement.  They are cold, lifeless spaces that are the direct manifestation of the entity that owns it.

Because we are surrounded with garbage, we see everything as garbage.  We create a disposable culture where we squeeze the pittance of juice from the dried up fruit of our labor and toss the lifeless husk away.  Our art and literature have been reduced to the lowest levels of passable consumption.  Our food and drink are just barely enough to sustain us.  Our manners and interactions with others are little more than masked disgust and disregard for other souls.  Our marriages, our families, our sex, our recreation, and every aspect of our lives are nothing more than wrappings for our ambitions and greed, to be thrown out when we have sucked the useful bits from inside.

We have, in fact, become our own creations.  We are nothing more than cold, lifeless, soulless corporations.  We care little for value and quality, seeking only to feed our immediate desires and base emotions.  That which we feed on becomes useless and outmoded once we have taken the small part that serves our greed.

Our culture is what we consume.  If we support the crass and low-brow, and ugly and inane, then that is what we become.  If we give our bodies bad food, then we become sick.  If we feed our hearts and souls with garbage, then our inner selves come to reflect it.

Try this experiment:  spend one month listening only to the great composers, looking at classical works of art, watching the highest quality films, and reading the best literature of our culture.  Go to the art museum or the live theater.  Eat fresh, unpackaged and raw or lightly cooked foods.  Just one month.  I'm willing to bet that at the end of that month, you will feel refreshed, renewed and rejuvenated.  Your outlook on life will change and your mind and heart will be elevated above the hustle and bustle of our modern lives.  You'll be amazed at what you can achieve with only a minor adjustment to your daily routhine.  Oh, and stay far away from TeeVee.  That is an evil and degrading medium...trust me on this one.

Take control of the culture you take into your soul.  It is the key to winning the war against the forces of darkness that are trying to destroy us.  Watch your language and guard your senses.  Focus on beauty and it will end the spell that has been cast over us.  Take back our culture and the elite powers will wither away and die.

Beauty, truth and love always win in the end.  When we take back our culture and create for the sake of creation again, we will have won without a fight.
=================================
For those who stuck it out to the end, it's time for the Sunday Funnies!