Category Archives: Morality

UPDATED (2/21): Immigration And Freedom: South Asian Canadian Truckers DO NOT Support Truckers’ Cause of Freedom

Asia, Canada, Constitution, COVID-19, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Morality, Multiculturalism

Other than attaching the worst pejoratives to their cause, Justine “Trudeau has called the protesting truckers a ‘small fringe minority’ who “do not represent the views of Canadians.”

As is their wont, the folks at Fox News steer clear of the topic of trucker demographics, loudly proclaiming that the Canadian trucker freedom movement is multicultural, a class-based movement encompassing all truckers.

Conservatives just do not wish to touch the third rail of politics: Immigration (and not only the illegal kind) and its effects on the understanding of liberty in society.

Although South Asians make-up about 20 percent of Canadian truckers; they do not generally support the Truckers For Freedom movement, their representatives often expressing resentment and moral disdain at the idea of even countenancing vaccine freedom of choice. It’s as though individual rights and constitutional liberties are anathema.

“I don’t follow that convoy. I think what they are doing is morally wrong, and that they should get their vaccine shots.”

“I don’t believe in the issues they are raising,” Mr. Kang said. “I know there are some South Asian people who support this convoy, but I couldn’t see any of my people in the videos of the convoy.”

Freedom is framed here by representatives of the South-Asian trucker community as morally wrong.

UPDATED (2/21): Sikh truckers for freedom.

Then there are these outstanding people. Listen to members of the Sikh community speak with unparalleled clarity and beauty about restoring the “True North [once] strong and free” (More evidence that Canadians are better educated and polished.)

This is “articulate extemporaneous speech”. Just the words I was without provided by Musil Protege!

“They are the outliers.”

Must-Read AMERICAN Novel: Blood Meridian, Or The Evening Redness in the West, by Cormac McCarthy

America, Art, English, Juvenal Early's Archive, Literature, Morality

“This is prose that is akin to a neo-archaic channeling of the King James Old Testament by way of Herman Melville”

By Juvenal Early

Cormac McCarthy’s novel Blood Meridian is, in the estimation of many critics, among the finest half dozen American novels of the 20th Century. The late Harold Bloom thought it the greatest novel since As I Lay Dying. Unlike no other novel in contemporary letters, the book has been called an American Iliad, also compared to The Anabasis of Xenophon. Published in 1985, Blood Meridian is a revisionist, maybe even a nihilistic, Western. It’s also an epic. If you want a sense of how the West was won, you will find no finer fictional work.

The Plot: A character known only as the Kid, born in Tennessee with a predilection for “mindless violence, in 1833, runs away from home at 14, and by 1850 finds himself in Texas. He takes up with filibusters—mercenaries—hired to solve the new state’s Indian problem. The Comanches and Apache had dominated the plains for three centuries. Texans demanded eradication.

The fictional Kid eventually joins the historical Glanton Gang, and falls sway to the gang’s philosophical leader, Judge Holden. McCarthy learned from his sources that the Judge was an uncommonly tall man, a completely hairless albino. In Blood Meridian, he turns the bare facts into the mythical. The Judge is perhaps the most nightmarish monster in all of fiction. Not Ahab but Moby Dick himself.

The Glanton Gang murders its way across Texas, Northern Mexico, Arizona, eventually to the sea. They take many Indian scalps (proof for the money men). They take non-Indian scalps too. Who can tell the difference? It all pays the same. In time, these bounty hunters will have a bounty on their own heads. Few are left by the end of the narrative.

Blood Meridian may be the most appallingly violent great novel ever written. Be prepared for several particularly graphic scenes but do stick with it. As Shelby Foote said, the book’s hero is the American Language, and here it is presented in prose that is akin to a neo-archaic channeling of the King James Old Testament by way of Herman Melville.

There is movement, always movement, mixed with a sense of place in Blood Meridian. Few have ever combined the two better than McCarthy. To take a random sample:

On the day that followed they crossed a lake of gypsum so fine the ponies left no track upon it. The riders wore masks of boneblack smeared about their eyes and some had blacked the eyes of their horses. The sun reflected off the pan burned the undersides of their faces and shadow of horse and rider alike were painted upon the fine white powder in purest indigo. Far out on the desert to the north dustspouts rose wobbling and augered the earth and some said they’d heard of pilgrims borne aloft like dervishes in those mindless coils to be dropped broken and bleeding upon the desert again and there perhaps to watch the thing that had destroyed them lurch onward like some drunken djinn and resolve itself once more into the elements from which it sprang.

How do McCarthy’s mercenaries talk? Aside from the Judge, they are as terse as a John Ford Western. But, oh!, when the Judge does speak, you hang on every word. Here’s a short speech he delivers about halfway through the novel. He expounds on the nature of God’s cruel universe and man’s place in it. It explains the book’s cryptic title:

If God meant to interfere in the degeneracy of mankind would he not have done so by now? Wolves cull themselves, man. What other creature could? And is the race of man not more predacious yet? The way of the world is to bloom and to flower and die but in the affairs of men there is no waning and the noon of his expression signals the onset of night. His spirit is exhausted at the peak of its achievement. His meridian is at once his darkening and the evening of his day.

Notice that the passage quoted contains no punctuation, save for periods and question marks. Commas appear infrequently in McCarthy, but little else. There are no quotation marks. Even James Joyce set his dialogue off with dashes. McCarthy assumes you’ll figure it out. You will. McCarthy’s oeuvre is all this way. He used 42 semicolons in his first novel and only one in the nine that followed. Most writers need a more formalistic approach. But I wouldn’t try to enforce Strunk and White on Homer—and not the modern Homer either. Art has no rigid rules, and Blood Meridian is high art. But don’t be intimidated by art. Blood Meridian is not particularly arcane. After four readings, I think it’s lucid—and exhilarating.

Does McCarthy take sides, Cowboys or Indians? We never really get to know the Indians. From the viewpoint of the settlers who hired the filibusters, they’re a problem to be solved. As for the Glanton Gang, it takes a tough bunch to solve a tough problem. I doubt McCarthy was concerned with questions of right or wrong—only about getting the story right. In that, he succeeds triumphantly. The reader—grateful for such poetic prose—can make of the ethical lessons what he will.

Cowboys and Indians alike, they are forces of nature, compelled to do what they have always done. The novel’s 3rd epigraph is your first clue.[i] Scalping didn’t originate in the Wild West of the 19th Century. The culmination of Blood Meridian could not be otherwise than what it is.

We would do well to keep this in mind as we go about assigning blame among our own ancestors.

**********************
[i]
“Clark, who led last year’s exhibition to the Afar region of northern Ethiopia, and UC colleague Tim D. White, also said that a re-examination of a 300,000-year-old fossil skull found in the same region earlier showed evidence of having been scalped.
THE YUMA DAILY SUN
June 13, 1982”

******************************

“Juvenal Early” is a contributor to Barely A Blog. His first essay was “The Dissident Right Has An Idiocracy Problem.” It made waves! He has a BAB archive.

UPDATE II (6/19/022): On Being A Man. A Brave Man

Culture, Ethics, Gender, Ilana Mercer, Morality, Relationships, The State

It suddenly struck me, as I was compiling old column material for a recap of Julian Assange’s travails, that most men are cowards. (The “man” noun here is used in the traditional, generic sense, as in mankind. As a woman, I am part of mankind.)  Perhaps I ought to use the word menschit means “a person of integrity and honor”—and ask: How many men have the courage and character to step up and honor the highest principles or the best of humanity when they encounter these? Too few.

Most live defensively or ignorantly, betraying the good for the bad or the mediocre, and justifying their ennui. That’s why men like Assange are impressive and important and true. They show us the principled way, at least in the political realm.

While most men live in-thrall to miserable entities or manipulative people and the bonds these impose; Assange has shown us the right way to live within our own orbits; dangerously, if you must, never on your knees; bravely seeking that which is the best and the finest, in principles and people. The finest is not the most perfect. Thus patience and tolerance, even love, is required, not rigidity and rejection in search of perfection.

Julian Assange, no doubt, was just cocky and young when he launched WikiLeaks—so confident in the liberal, tolerant polities that gave rise to his libertarian sensibility. Suddenly he found himself being martyred in a cause he thought he would simply win. Was he not sired in the Free World, a son of freedom?

That “Free World,” alas, has placed Assange in a position of giving his life in the cause of exposing global state and corporate corruption and the collusion betwixt. He should be thanked for his service, for Assange did not enlist to do The State’s bidding in futile, wicked wars in faraway lands, or in the corridors of power. Rather, he went-up against the Administrative, Warfare, Surveillance Supra-State and for The People.

An honest man asked on Twitter how to become courageous. I am hardly an authority. I try my best, in writing and in person—having never betrayed my first principles for popularity or pelf.

I have, however, known people who never step up, who live mired in cowardice, wasting their considerable mentation and manhood in a state of fear, and in the quest for equilibrium. Or, gulling themselves into believing that when they slavishly serve the unworthy, at the expense of the worthy and to the exclusion of higher quests; they are being principled—and ever-so good. Ignominy is theirs, brought on by fear and cowardice.

My humble reply, then, to the honest man aforementioned: “Within our orbits we can all try to stand up for the principles and people that are true and need our energies most. (And if you think that these people live in think tanks and political parties; appear on Fox News, work for Prager U, or have the material wherewithal to hold a conference—you are a follower; there is no hope for you.)

Oh, and brave men can FIGHT. But a man who picks fights—and feuds—with friends is never brave.

UPDATE II (6/19/022): “Man” is generic in conventional grammar. These insights apply, naturally, to women as well.

* Image credit

UPDATED (12/24) On Being A Man*: NEW COLUMN: Extradited! Why Assange Fears Being ‘Epsteined’

Ethics, Free Speech, Globalism, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, libertarianism, Liberty, Morality, Political Philosophy, The Establishment, The State, War

NEW COLUMN: It suddenly struck me: Most men are cowards. How many men have the courage and character to step up and honor the highest principles or the best of humanity when they encounter these? Too few. Most live defensively or ignorantly, betraying the good for the bad. That’s why men like Assange are so impressive and important and true. They show us the way. While most men live in-thrall to miserable entities or people and the bonds they impose; Assange has shown us the right way to live within our own orbits; dangerously, if you must, never on your knees; bravely seeking that which is the best and the finest—be they principles or people.

Julian Assange has given his life in the cause of exposing global state and corporate corruption and the collusion betwixt. He should be thanked for his service, for Assange did not enlist to do The State’s bidding in futile, wicked wars in faraway lands. Rather, he went-up against the Administrative, Warfare, Surveillance State for The People.

Therefore, all state agents—media-military-congressional complex; local and global—want this, the greatest libertarian alive (if barely) to disappear. Never mind that First-Amendment jurisprudence is clear-cut with respect to the guerrilla journalism of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks operators have committed no crime in publishing what is undeniably true, newsworthy information, with probative value. Besides, why has America any jurisdiction over a foreign entity (WikiLeaks) and a foreign national (Julian Assange)?

Well, America has jurisdiction over Assange because it has simply asserted it based on trumped-up charges equating his journalism with espionage. Which is why Assange now fears being “Epsteined.”

THE NEW COLUMN is “Extradited! Why Assange Fears Being ‘Epsteined’”. Read it on WND.COM, Townhall.com and the Unz Review.

UPDATE (12/24): An honest man asks on Twitter how to become courageous. Am I an authority? No! I just try my best, in writing—having never betrayed my first principles for popularity or pelf—and in living, in charity and in loving and helping those who see me.

I have, however,  known people who never step up and are mired in cowardice, wasting their considerable mentation and manhood on being frightened in the quest for equilibrium (personally and politically); or  gulling themselves into believing that when they serve the wrong people and principles—they are ever-so good. Contempt is what they deserve. When encountering good people, fighting the good fight, doing good work—every person can honor that and help, rather than hinder.

My humble reply to Sean: “Within our orbits we can all try to stand up for the principles and people that matter and make a difference and need our energies most. So, I thank YOU for joining me here.”

* The “man” noun here is used in the traditional sense, as mankind. I include myself, a woman, as part of mankind. Your fucking sexual or gender orientation matters not. Quit the pronoun crap. That is another first principle: never dignify nonsense, including linguistic bafflegab. I write and think in English. So should you.