Posted by: Dr Churchill | May 7, 2014

No Title Politics

A blogpost by a new astute, persuasive, and artistic friend, Grego — guided me to examine my thoughts on these musings.

His post title is, Vox Populi, Vox stultorum? and his medium is the ubiquitous facebook and the perverse audience this white bread neighborhood of the internet gathers.

In short everybody…

He goes on to say:

“There are probably many people in Europe today for who it is business as usual and would agree with Charron’s depiction back in 1600 of the …”Peuple” as the biggest party pooper of humanity.

According to this friend of Montaigne – and many more before and after- the masses form a wild animal with unpredictable moods.

This silly creature chooses order by weakness and then refuses it once it’s served on a plate!

A creature that believes everything that sounds a little true, reacts to every news -especially the bad ones; and who’s only ability is to revolt, but never to fight.

It has opinions on every matter, but always chooses abruptly the wrong thing- by habits or by majority, and never with reason.

The people…Always against the state and those who govern, always against the riches! With no consistency and no sens of measure whatsoever: One day they serve as the most pitiful slaves, the next they insolently rule in tyranny. And instead of glorifying those who show concern, they rejects them with a proportionate hatred : Moises, Socrates, Demosthenes,Themistocles- those end up with insults, conspiracy, exile and death in return of their caring.

Machiavelli wrote that if you want to keep this animal quite, here and then, you may have to burn few houses. But oh! never houses that are too close to each other,

and never too far from each other. You may want people to stay aware of the punishment to the neighbor, but incapable to get together and resist.


…isn’t it what its all about?

Isn’t it what the “wild animal” is doing since the beginning of times?

Can’t we presume by now that it has a natural tendency to do so?

In any case… it’s always the people that lead the way, and the governing organs that always get reactionary.

So, what is changing?

The beginning of this century has already revealed the birth of a new human.

he is using new tools, interacts globaly, dismisses the old social, sexual, professional paradigm and his clamsyness is only due to his young age. In Occident this human will grow through a total re-evaluation of the individual’s relation to the group.

If our politics don’t adapt to this reality, understand the new needs, the new words and what democracy and capitalism has create, this new human will step on these obsolete institutions without a blink, leading us all into darker ages.

The neo-Cons tried to prevent this with the usual orthodox way: division, creation of an enemy to fight against, and all the rest that we’ve seen. And they would have succeed to put us back in track, and we would be even more miserable without even knowing it.

But something unpredictable happened again …

the people.

It is now the opportunity for Europe to realize once and for good that an economic union is nothing in itself, that the need for a Constitution based on the nature and the struggle of the Occident is far more important to its future.

And because no constitution has ever been conceived without a struggle for Independence, it is time for Europe and the Occident to give the right fight…not against a country, not against a system but a war of Independence and a clear victory against a concept that has done its time: that the ‘wild animal’ has to be tamed.

Now, this would be a real human breackthrough.

And a thought:

The end of a dialectic world -of two houses ruled by different laws – communism and capitalism – marked also the end of values.

There are no values in a house (oikos) that can’t relate to an other one (polis). Only laws.

We are now brought to rethink politics, not as the relation between a ruling organ and the people, but as the relation between every individual and the rest.

Whether we regard today’s economic, political and cultural crisis as symptoms- or perceive them as frequent anomalies leading necessarily to a paradigm shift, we assist (participate) to a new historical confrontation between the individual and the group.

The possible results of this confrontation are:

-either a new relation (symbiosis) between these entities

– the annihilation of one of these entities.

-the incarnation of one of the entities into the other.”

This above is a breakthrough blogpost from a new friend of mine Grego Psyopsis… who otherwise is a great artist and music & mood landscape composer with a mastery to be turning a dark room into a total Rave.

Bravo Grego — Well Done.


Here are my thoughts on this and other weighty matters:

My argument is that, as a result of spreading social liberalism, in the realm of public philosophy just as it spreads throughout Real Life — today’s divisions among liberals, conservatives, populists, and libertarians, will gradually be simplified into a binary division among liberaltarians and popular Liberals who share social liberalism but disagree on all other things.

Each of these worldviews, is likely to have a huge impact at home within the income-stratified communities of very densely populated and asphyxiating urban ghettos we call modern big cities in the case of liberaltarianism, and the less unequal communities of Post Suburbia, in the case of popular Liberalism…

So it’s time to wave Goodbye to both liberals and conservatives.

I thus argue that the rapid decline of socially conservative values is poised to dramatically reconfigure the Left / Right political axis as we understand it today.

It’s time to make way for two new groups – Liberaltarians and Populist Liberals…

What this blogpost seems to say is this: People can take the same situation, and argue the same principles – social roles, the importance of interpersonal relationships, the likelihood of punishment, and pure humanitarian principles – and come to exactly opposite moral conclusions.

And they do this for their whole lives.

Sure, it’s interesting to see that principles evolve over time, but it’s more interesting to see that principles – at least the ones confined solely to the human mind – are irrelevant. There is no method or guiding idea that could possibly allow any group of humanity to come to a consensus. Morality, then, is basically chaos. We can start from the same place, and follow the same principles, and end at diametrically opposite ends of a problem, and there’s no way to resolve that.

But as an intellectual pursuit of our Common Future it is quite rewarding because it makes for a very interesting discussion, a lively debate and it also brings up a satisfactory Moral quandary…

Interesting stuff to feed your Political and Economic, Social Curiosity.

May the Answers be with you 😉

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: