The Orthodox faith has not yet faced the full front of the crisis that is Postmodernity. This is because the Oikoumene—insulated from the subversive ideologies and trends that made inroads into the West after the end of the Second World War—was under the totalitarian boot of Communism which, in a very roundabout way, managed to shield most of the Orthodox world from what would eventually become an even greater threat.
We are either on the side that loves life or the one that hates it. Either we say yes to life and all its beauty and adversity, or we succumb to the allures of perpetual infantilization and, drunk on the nectar of our own self-absorption, say no life and slip further down the slope into depravity and nihilism. We cannot rebuild our civilization with other people’s children and, make no mistake, children are indeed the future. In this moment, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether our future is one worth securing, or one worth consigning to the medical wastebin of history.
The sweat of a man’s brow and the work of his hands, even at the basic level of agriculture, is violence: it is a violation upon Mother Earth, who is all too willing to give up a bounty to those willing to dominate her.
The thesis of this lecture-broadcast is that Christ was culturally a Greek. He abandoned the profoundly corrupt Jewish ruling class and broke with their legal provisions. He followed in the footsteps of the prophets in siding with those who would destroy this hegemony, the Romans.
This broadcast is the second part of the initial show two weeks ago and begins where that left off. It’s an analysis of the political ideas of Solzhenitsyn from the point of view of three works, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1963), The Cancer Ward and The First Circle, both published in English in 1968.
The American academic world has been hostile to Solzhenitsyn for his anti-communism and Russian nationalism. Most reviews of his political works have been hostile or seek to make a “liberal” out of him, a common tactic. His social and political theory revolves around the dialectic between freedom and the state. The state here isn’t just any coercive power, but a state that derives from the Enlightenment, the mind of science and the belief that man can dominate nature for “his” benefit.
It is my great wish that we collectively awaken as Europeans and take the spot of overman which was given to us through thousands of years of selective breeding and genetic enhancement. As Europeans, we form the vanguard of humanity, we are the pioneers of mankind, the maker of nations, the heroes of old, the spirit of our people is legendary and our task is daunting and intimidating, but it is our responsibility and duty to take up the mantle once more and charge into the unknown and take our place as this universe’s master. Not to slight the creator of all things but to follow his edict given to man as told by nature to live, survive and produce new broods of superior beings. This is our mission, this is our goal, this was the initial intention and it is time to fulfil it.
Michel Foucault is one of the best known anti-structuralists – sometimes known as postmodernists – in both history and philosophy. Poststructuralism is primarily concerned with power in that nothing, not science, not music, not medicine, is bereft of power relations. Every socially significant object exists because its fought a Darwinian war for primacy and won. Because of this, everything is the result of coercion of some type.
Their great weakness is their solipsism. They cannot turn their own method against themselves. The fact that the world’s most prestigious universities and old money foundations have spent billions on this movement suggests that they too are the creation and manifestation of power. Jean Baudrillard said as much about him, yet the pot and kettle are both black. It is difficult to consider a wealthy professor, driving around town in a jaguar, as an “outsider.” Yet, Freshmen are told to think just this every semester.
While incorrect on the nature of the Confederate secession, he was right on southern virtues and the results of the Civil War. His primary concern was natural law, not specific political agendas. While opposed to slavery with great vehemence, he loathed the notion of immediate slave emancipation without land or education.
Ivan Solonevich (1891-1953) is one of the least appreciated of the Russian emigre writers. This group is little known among Americans since they fought an empire that the American elite did not oppose. An inmate of the GULag, Solonevich wrote on camp life before Solzhenitsyn. He argued that the camp was just a mini-USSR. The camp was the utopia of the Soviet ruling class.
Dialectics is a profound understanding of reality that does way with the simplistic positivism of Occam, Locke and his successors. The purpose of the dialectical method is to discover the ground for science, but more specifically, propositions about objects and relations science deals with. Our pragmatic mind begins with the object, but our speculative – or scientific mind – does not. It begins with Being. A “fact” never exists by itself and is nonsensical in isolation.
Mill’s concept of the value of pleasure is much closer to Epicurus’ than it is to Nagel’s, and he continues to say “the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. If this supposition were true … the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other.”